You’re oversimplifying it and creating a strawman argument to feed to people.
First off, there’s a distinction between one’s view on the morality of abortion and one’s political view on whether abortion should be illegal or not. The first is about whether people should have abortions. The second is what role should government play in abortion.
The term Pro Life refers to those who feel out of a sense of moral justice that government policies should work to prevent abortions. The primary view is that this should be done by blocking access to abortion. The current Republican approach is to over-regulate abortions to create great inconveniences and to make it economically unfeasible for clinics to stay open. Overturning Roe is about being able to restrict access more directly.
The Pro Choice view sees government regulations on as doing greater harm than good. Indeed, one can be morally Pro Life, believing abortion is immoral, and still hold a Pro Choice position on the role of government regulation and restriction.
There’s a lot of detail that goes into people’s views. In arguing with people about abortion, or any subject, you need to listen to their own views, asking them questions whether than assuming their views perfectly match your every presumption.
Arguments fought like this look like two people yelling past each other. They don’t respond to each other’s words. Some arguments are aimed at baiting the opponent and then attacking. They get frustrated when the individual doesn’t take the bait. “You didn’t answer my question!” Rhetorical and logical fallacies exist all over till the individuals realize they’re not being listened to. Then they start insulting each other’s character, because certainly a sincere person would be hit so hard with my truth, it’d be a glorious victory.
The reality is, good honest debate involves two people coming at each other recognizing that they do NOT understand each other yet. They are mutually openminded. As Chesterton said, the purpose of an open mind is to close it on something solid. I’d add, and then it is to chew on it. Being openminded is simply a willness to listen, to seek understanding more than to seek to be understood. When I open my mind to chew on their perspective, this allows me to find our common ground and our points of departure. And as such, I can say “Here’s where we agree. But more specifically, I believe X, Y, Z.”
