It's not that I can't fathom the general case you describe.

A specific example: A rape victim is obviously traumatized by being raped and does not want to carry her aggressors child to term. In that case the enemy is inside her.

It's the same in war. The single most important thing I learned from my grandfather and his time in WWII was that the individual combatants are not evil, or bad, they're following orders of bad, evil leaders. In war the poor foot soldier in front of your rifle is not the enemy, they are the same as you.

I'm not comparing enemies in war to babies. I'm pointing out the nuanced humanity of it all and highlighting synergies or disconnects in our thinking around these complex, human subjects.

I'm not saying that I hold these views myself, I think that these are straightforward generous readings that you can take of common conservative positions.

Killing in war is bad, even evil, but there is no other way. It's a lesser evil than the alternative. Killing Germans in WW2 was bad, but the alternative was worse.

Forcing a woman to carry a child to term is bad, even evil. It produces a great deal of suffering. The alternative is to kill an unborn child, which is worse. Therefore select the lesser of the two evils.

Again, I don't subscribe to these views, but it seems like a pretty coherent position to me.

Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for.