While I agree with what you are going for, I also struggle to figure out how to describe it, as the whole problem here is that people (and I am including everyone) can't obviously tell the difference between something that is simply falsifiable and something which is murky; like, the entire premise in some sense of these rigid framings is that "if you can't see how" [ "murdering a child that you might even be complicit in causing to exist" / "forcing a woman to carry to term a baby at great cost to her health and destruction of her livelihood that might literally have been forced upon her by rape or coercion"] (and I am sorry if I accidentally sound sided here in either direction as my goal is merely to provide two arguments people make strongly on the topic as it got mentioned in this thread: I am not trying to carefully balance an actual debate on this topic) "is wrong then you probably also believe the Earth is flat". We can't push for the premise that "you absolutely need to be able to convincingly argue the opposite side of of an issue to have a meaningful opinion on it" and then make exceptions for "the-Earth-is-flat type issues" (which I can like, provide an attempt to defend but it comes out sarcastic as it essentially involves knowingly working with limited data and constantly stating as such... it just sounds like "well without knowing I am stupid, I might think X").