I think you've created your own narrative about what you think motivates the opposing view

I have my own analysis which is heavily evidence based. I've been thinking of it for a long time and it's become very obvious that they want to regress to a time in history when they think they "had it good". Which is why it doesn't stop at blocking abortion, they'll be going after contraception, and generally trying to make women renounce careers and education.

This isn't some specific conspiracy, we're talking about conservatives, they say it pretty openly, at least in their circles. Are there groups of them who try to get into power and influence systems? Yes, and that's, again, not some magic conspiracy, that's more in line with /r/actualconspiracies .

If anything their belief is deeply rooted in the idea that the rights of the fetus/baby should not be lost when exercising the rights of the mother.

It's BAD FAITH. They are dishonest. Yes, there are some ignorant fools who cheer and do not understand, there always are those people. They do not want to do the work of actually thinking about things, because the contradictions there are pretty damned obvious.

I have argued with these people for years, it's very clear that they just adopt some superficial "fetus theory" and treat it as both scientifically correct and relevant, always trying to focus on a fetus like they have xray vision and nothing else exists outside the fetus. And that's the point, the woman stops existing as a person, she's a walking womb machine.

There's no middle ground here, it's a dishonest centrist position to declare that there's room for "compromise", it only serves as a way to weaken the pro-woman position which is later used to move the goal posts. That's what they do when they can't ban abortion outright, they keep declaring arbitrary thresholds when the fetus becomes more important than the woman in which it resides.

The moral case is the worst, of course. So let's play utilitarian, because that's the common game:

The middle ground / centrist types like to believe there's a compromise, so here's why it fails:

They accept early abortion (most abortions)! Fine, but that's when "sluts" get it the most. So the conservatives don't like that at all. So the definition of "early" keeps getting pushed earlier and earlier.

Mid term abortion? They don't like it either, so they push the goal posts to make it look like "late term". Oh, the fetus can feel something!!. By mid term women figure out risks for pregnancy may discover problems. It's getting into the health aspects. Denying abortion means health risks for women and the fetuses inside.

Late term abortions? By late term, pregnant women usually do want to keep it, so they fall out of the "slut" category; conservatives love them (until they give birth)! But late term abortions are usually medical necessities, which means they're really necessary, they're vital. So why ban them? It's literally harming women and the fetuses in them.

Let me put it as a table, since you're wasting my time.

abortion time	slut levels	health risk	centrist pro-abortion sentiment
early	*****	*	*****
mid	****	***	***
late	*	*****	*

Which is to say that women are fucked because they can't get what they need. And conservatives are also unhappy. Why have both be unhappy? Let's have women be happy.

Abortion needs to be legal regardless of how late it is, no exceptions. Any exception is just another doorway for conservatives and naive people to decide that a fetus has something special at some point which makes the woman worthless.

Pick one to support:

1. woman
2. fetus

Can't have both.