Great essay, Conni, putting human faces on the issue and making it relatable to all. Even me, a man. ;-) I agree with all of your points, which deeply resonated. Around the time Dobbs was being argued, I posted this essay. The title is a bit click-baity. https://medium.com/illumination-curated/abortion-is-murder-4d234daa2e71 The subtitle is "Yet I steadfastly believe the decision is a personal one that should not be criminalized before the point of fetal viability as there is no justification for human laws to ban it."

I looked at the issue wearing my legal brief writer hat, and determined that Roe had the correct outcome/holding but that the reasoning was deeply flawed, and thus suggested it be affirmed under the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment.

I concluded the essay with:

"Laws preventing or unreasonably regulating the availability of abortion do not serve the societal benefits of government or criminal laws. An abortionist is not going to walk down the street and harm unsuspecting citizens. We all agree, regardless of religious and philosophical affiliation, that armed robbery and murder of a living and breathing human is an abomination and that citizens and their property require protection from such wanton acts.

The abortionist need not be so deterred. Laws that allow abortion do not subject a mother or its unborn child to forced abortion. These laws do not serve any societal benefit.

Leave mothers alone to make this all so painful decision on their own and discuss the reasons therefor with the jury of their peers in heaven. ... The decision to abort may actually be decided to have been in the long-term benefit of the mother and the children she may bear later. That judgment is not within the limits of humans to make and there is no benefit to society to create nor determine this conflict."