Probably that you can't abort late into the pregnancy being the exception.
There's nothing really to be said. The only time that the morality of abortion is drawn into question is when you apply evangelism to it. Frankly there are enough people suffering from having shit parents, so if someone can and wishes to abort a pregnancy before it becomes a problem (read:a baby), then I'm all for it.
What I want to know is what they do with the aborted fetus et al. They're useful for stem cells and conspiracy theorists tell me it's for the lizards to have an anti-aging serum. Nevermind that crock, but certainly there must be something more than just chucking perfectly good tissue in the garbage.
Has anyone come up with an argument against abortion that is more than just muh feelings and muh Christ?
I thought that might be what she meant, but it seems a little odd to phrase it as an exception, not to mention vague. Ideally, I would want clarification from her.
In terms of using abortion before a baby develops, I'd imagine a decent number of pro-life people would be fine with it if they could prove that it wasn't actually a person. There is a bit of a problem though, since it seems pretty morally egregious to kill a baby during childbirth (for example partial-birth abortion), and while this might be rare, it still raises the question of when it becomes unacceptable to kill it, since it would be unacceptable during labor.
Many, pro-life individuals seem to default to personhood being endowed upon conception, which is essentially the reason why many people are also against embryonic stem cell research, which is also why it's asinine to assume that all pro-life individuals want to ban abortion to punish women.
This leaves us at an impasse, since at the moment, no one has scientifically proven when personhood begins. With that said, I suspect some people opposing the pro-life position simply want abortion to be legal to escape responsibility or ignore troublesome problems, since many cite bodily autonomy of the mother, while ignoring the fact that personhood should also endow the baby with a right to bodily autonomy. I know of at least one person is this thread who outright stated that proving personhood of the baby would not change their pro-choice stance.
