I'll use your text and respond in italics...

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination. "
~Andrew Lang (1844-1912)~

The stats on rape don't actually matter to the morality of this issue, so we need not have a battle of competing statistics. That is a distraction.

Those "Stats" matter to every woman in this country...they represent a threat to their physical and mental well-being...not sure how you rationalize such callousness and disregard to the Immorality inflicted on them

The problem with allowing an exception for rape is, of course, that every woman can just allege a rape to get an abortion. It is a huge loophole, through which you intend to justify every abortion, because that is your true goal. Even if I trusted your statistics, that doesn't undermine my previous post in the least. It is morally wrong to kill a bystander to a crime in an attempt to make the victim feel better. Query: If there was some magical way to determine if a pregnancy was caused by rape (or an actual legal process for doing so), would you accept not allowing abortion in non-rape cases? I've asked this before, and I never got an answer.

So ALL Women are Liars?...is that what I'm hearing? Let's not worry about the millions of women who over their reproductive lifetimes have suffered pregnancies due to rape and/or coercion?...you're one sick dude.

Your misrepresentation of Pope Francis' statement has been addressed on this board many times. I need not address it again.

Translation:..."I can't deny what he said, or its implication, so I'll just ignore it."...Sorry, Ned, but Francis has not recanted that statement, in spite of numerous challenges...and it means "Personhood" of a fetus is not established RCC teaching...meaning that the only Person in this debate is the woman with an un-wanted pregnancy, and the only choice of what to do about it is Hers...not government, which then must assure and not impede the availability of safe means to terminate the pregnancy

You raise the point of just wars. I acknowledge that some homicides can be justified on the basis that they fall short of aggression in some way. A just war is one such example. Defense of home and family is another example. Abortion cannot be justified under this principle. Abortion is pure aggression against an innocent human.

"Just Wars" involve the killing of other Persons, including innocent pregnant women with fetuses, for the purpose of preserving the freedom of people to live their own lives as they so choose...which brings us back to Personhood...the RCC has never taught that a fetus is a person, so forced or coerced pregnancies represent biological attacks on innocent women...i.e. un-debated Persons... who should not have to give up their future lives as a result...they can if they so choose, but it is not the role of government to control that decision

You raise the point of personhood. Any society that attempts to define an acknowledged human being as not a person, to be allowed equal protected under the law, is not a just and moral society. History is full of examples of this, and injustice against entire groups of people result. You go down a dangerous path, and set a dangerous precedent, to start defining certain humans as full persons, and others as not. Recall that slaves were not full persons; you use the logic of slave holders for your argument. You raise this point in the context of Judaism...and of course, the Jews were victims of this legal theory of personhood in Nazi Germany. I do not accept that argument as morally licit.

Again, Pope Francis has shown that the RCC has not determined the Personhood of a fetus...nor have other religions representing billions of people, among them are the Jews, and your deflection to the Holocaust is irrelevant to the issue of abortion...many within that faith continue to believe that Personhood does not begin until birth...fact.

The "quickening" is old law and old morality based on old biological science, which did not know about DNA, etc., and had no ability to determine if impregnation had occurred. It is not a theory which is applicable today, where we know that there is an innocent bystander with their own set of DNA, a unique human being.

Speaking of biological science, upwards of 10-15% of conceptions either never implant or end up as miscarriages...even the RCC has no 'Rites' or recognition of them as Deceased Persons...in fact an untold number never even get noticed. What's the theology on all of those instances?

Regarding Roe v. Wade: There is no reason that abortion homicides should be a national right, but self-defense, or defense of home homicides should not also be a national right. Do you support both at the national level? Moreover, there is no basis in the Constitution to establish such a right by judicial fiat. Homicides have always been defined by the state legislatures when they don't involve interstate activity. There is no reason to make an exception for abortion.

Due to a) the lack of solidarity in ascribing Personhood to a fetus, and b) the numerous forced or coerced pregnancies representing biological attacks on women...not to mention problematic miscarriages the blanket charge of homicide is unwarranted. On the other hand, as we're seeing recently, extreme anti-abortion laws are resulting in totally preventable deaths to women having miscarriages. We've been through all this before Roe v Wade was decided...So long as women are subjected to Un-Wanted pregnancies without the option of legalized abortion wherever women live, there will be deaths from 'Back Alley' abortions and rampant chaos in our society...the solution is "Prudential Judgement"...the same sort of discernment as applied to "Just Wars"

In essence you disregard and give no credence to the rights of the only true Person involved...the Woman...denying her own innocence...and even accusing her of lying...that's not objective reasoning

Your turn...

Link: https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/post-roe-contraceptive-failures-carry-bigger-stakes/