> I think we do have a factual disagreement though, because this is really rare and is largely an access issue.

No, it’s a moral dispute because the factual issue is immaterial under the other side’s moral view. The fact that it’s hard or expensive to get an abortion doesn’t justify killing a fetus that has a face and can feel pain. Likewise, it doesn’t matter how rare it is. Infanticide in general is rare, that’s not a reason to legalize it at the discretion of the mother.

When it comes to ending human life, we just don’t entertain the kinds of arguments you’re making about “access.” It doesn’t matter. So the crux of the dispute is what you think about the act of killing a fetus at different stages of development. The weight of any reasons for doing so looks completely different depending on that starting point.

> Whenever I find myself in conversation with members of the pro-life community I'm just depressed by the amount of misinformation they labor under

I find myself in the same position when talking with pro-abortion people who think a fetus is a “clump of cells.” I was floored when my wife got pregnant with our first child and I realized how many weeks there were between when the fetus looks human and when Roe allowed states to stop doctors from killing it. Growing up in a pro-abortion area I had never been taught that information.

> in particular the prevailing belief that there are significant numbers of women having abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters "for no good reason".

No, the fundamental issue is that we disagree about what constitutes a “good reason” for a killing a fetus at an advanced stage of development.

> You're even trying to show here that it is the case by pointing out a discrepancy between Canada and Denmark and inferring, but we have clear evidence it isn't.

If you think that the only “good reason” to kill a fetus in the second or third trimester is that the mother’s health is in jeopardy, or that the baby will not live, then the comparison of Denmark and Canada is extremely illuminating. Both countries have widespread abortion access in the first trimester, and both countries allow abortions after 12 weeks for medical reasons. But Canada allows abortions after the first trimester because the woman no longer wishes to be pregnant, while Denmark does not. Canada this has 17% of abortions occurring after the first trimester, while in Denmark it’s just 4%. From the perspective of Danish law, most of the second and third trimester abortions in Canada are not happening for “good reasons” (assuming the probability of later stage medical issues is similar in both countries).

And the “compulsive demagoguery” comment is just bizarre. The scientific fact is that each human individual starts out as a cell that has a good chance of being spontaneously aborted, and develops into a baby that everyone agrees is entitled to all the protections of any other human. Drawing a line where it’s okay to kill an alive, biologically human organism is fraught and is the subject of disputes all over the world. Even countries that have legal abortion don’t agree on the reasons (individual rights in the west, population control in Asia). In my home country it’s illegal except to save the life of the mother. But it’s tacitly accepted as population control for poor people up to 10 weeks. An effort to legalize it for population control reasons failed in 1976. It’s not something the GOP ginned up to get votes FFS.