I think the morality of abortion needs to be separated from legality. Morally, absent a sufficient justification, the destruction of sentient life is wrong. But I think the more complex the moral issue, the more legal flexibility we need. Abortion is complex enough to deserve flexibility.
The fact of life is different than the right to life.
A criminal pointing a gun at you loses the right to life by presenting a reasonable threat of life endangerment. What is the probability that the criminal will pull the gun? We don't know, but by virtue of posing a threat to life, the criminal loses his right to life.
Similarly, the fetus is always posing a threat to the mother. We don't always know what percentage of risk is involved. It's not always easy to measure. Abortion in this sense is a type of self-defense. As the sentience of the fetus grows, its danger to the mother also grows. We shouldn't be telling mothers that they have no right to defend themselves, especially when it isn't easy to prove the danger.
Once the fetus is birthed, it no longer poses a threat to the mother's life, and hence it seems reasonable to grant the fetus the right to life at this point.
Laws are too rigid to accurately manage risk to the mother. Since when is government red tape useful for making something efficient? Laws are not smart enough to validate all of the complexities of health care. How are mother's supposed to produce evidence of a health problem during an emergency? Doctors can't see the future. Every pregnancy has an inherent risk that is unpredictable. Every pregnancy is just like a criminal with a gun in his hand, pointing it at the mother with a X% chance of pulling the trigger. How dare law makers tell mothers they have no right to defend themselves unless their criteria for evidence is met?
Lots of things are horrible in life. Many women would commit suicide rather than have an unwanted child destroy their future. Many women will perform dangerous illegal surgeries to avoid an unplanned pregnancy that will destroy their career, education, dating opportunities, economic situation, etc. All of these women who end up dead because of pro-life policy - their blood is on the hands of those who support these regressive policies.
This is the postmodern quandary - how the hell do you think the law knows when "health is in danger"? The law doesn't know shit. Neither do doctors. Reality is infinitely more complex that the law can manage and there are an infinite number of interpretations for medical symptoms and how to calculate risk for predicting the future. Who the hell has the audacity to say "I know when abortion is allowed because I know when the risk calculation for the mother is high enough." It should be the MOTHER's decision how much risk she can accept, not the state.
SUPREME COURT DECISION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1fhAdhKqvziCRyK6dgeDXC1H4agnPm99CUP7nii-hk42_8LImMn-cfKqk
Dissenting Opinion -
"This Court will surely face critical questions about how that test applies. Must a state law allow abortions when necessary to protect a woman’s life and health? And if so, exactly when? How much risk to a woman’s life can a State force her to incur, before the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of life kicks in? Suppose a patient with pulmonary hypertension has a 30-to-50 percent risk of dying with ongoing pregnancy; is that enough? And short of death, how much illness or injury can the State require her to accept, consistent with the Amendment’s protection of liberty and equality?" (page 182)
Per the "right to life", there is no science of the right to life. Science occupies the philosophic territory of what "is" and morality occupies the philosophic territory of what "ought" to be. David Hume brought to light the is-ought problem in showing how it seems impossible to go from an "is" to an "ought".
What this means is that morality arises as subjective opinions within us based on our evolutionary drives and our cultural programming. As a culture we have to debate the complex nature of "rights" - when they are activated and when they are deactivated. There is no obvious right answer to any of these questions.
When does someone get the right to drive? Is 16 the right answer? Is 18 the right answer? As a culture we are debating which rule is best for society. The reason 14 is the wrong answer is because the harm caused by 14 year old drivers is greater than the benefit caused by 14 year old drivers. Because 16 year old's are old enough to work and more developed, the benefits could be argued to outweigh the costs at this point.
Similarly, granting the right to life at a certain point in development needs to be based on the pros and cons to society. A right to life that is activated before birth causes a lot of harm to society. The benefit of a pre-birth right to life does not outweigh the cost. Granting the right to life at birth seems like the way to optimize the pros and cons for society.