> The part you are missing is that the time frame doesn't matter. My original point is that, by 24 weeks, any abortion would be because it is medically necessary. That medical necessity is the point, whether it happens at 24 weeks or at 17 weeks.

It absolutely does matter. A 17 week fetus is not viable. A 24 or 25 week one is. If the law says "elective abortions are legal until 24 weeks, and only medically necessary after that" how does that "medical necessity" affect a 17 week pregnancy?

>If there is a law in place that an abortion isn't allowed after a given time (whatever that time is) unless medically necessary, then any such abortion must be legally defended. Otherwise, what would be the point of the law? If all that is necessary is for a doctor to say it's necessary, then the law would be unenforceable.

So again, there wouldn't be a problem with it? What you're arguing for is a law where elective abortions would be available until birth with no questions asked. If those never happen, why is it so critically important that they're legal?

>So if abortions that late are medically necessary, and such a law is unenforceable, why have it? At that point it just causes more harm.

Because you and I both know that elective abortions can and do happen after that point. Simple as that. You can try and dance around it all you want, but at the end of the day, if it was really that uncommon for them to happen, you wouldn't have a problem with restricting them.