Colonel,
For the rarity comparison I used the stats from 2013 simply because I don't keep up to date with yearly statistics. 2013 stats said approximately 33k gun deaths that year, two thirds suicide, one third homicide. The point here was not to prove if there were more or less late-term abortions, but what is considered rare. I do not consider 8,300 abortions after 21 weeks pregnancy a year to be rare, especially if you consider that the victim of a homicide doesn't lose his life based on a legal consensus between two or more people, unlike the victim of an abortion.
I disagree with your statement that I've given inaccuracies, and if so, definitely not deliberately. On the other hand, you have used many strawmen arguments and a lot of speculation. I never said women had late-term abortions because of convenience or because they had a change of heart. You however make the assumption that late-term abortions are not for those reasons. There's no possible way for us to know the exact motivations behind every abortion and give a general perspective. The only thing that interests me is principles based on philosophy.
You also assume that I don't approve of any abortions at all, which is also an unfounded assumption. I made no such claim, nor is it true. I'm not an Evangelical Christian, yet you lumped me in that group. I'm not even Protestant or American. I'm not aware of those adoption practices in the links you've shared, but at first glance I don't see any reason for any hysteria on your behalf. Speaking of which, you're confusing my criticism for hysteria. However, I disagree when you say "nothing about the NY law justifies the hysteria". I think hysteria is more than justified for the following reason:
What you perceive as hysteria is in reality contempt for the lawmakers of this bill, its legalities and the people cheering for its realisation as if a greater good has been achieved. Roe v Wade, although not a fan, at least balances the rights between woman and unborn child on the fetus' viability. The NY law and the Virginia bill both completely reduce the rights of the unborn child to zero and maximizes the rights of the mother. The unborn child has been taken out of the equation. It is a onesidedness rooted in selfishness, ego, as free2018 had already mentioned, and more a quest for female empowerment than achieving political reform that is morally right. The woman (and the father whose say in this is remarkably irrelevant apparently) should have the right not to be forced through the entirety of pregnancy and the consequences thereof if the pregnancy was unwanted, granted that both parents took enough responsibility to avoid the pregnancy in the first place. Else it's nothing more than a brutal form of damage repair after the irresponsible search for immediate gratification by two adults who in a true adult world should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. Abortion should not be treated as a contraceptive but a tragic intervention when contraceptives were not used correctly, successfully or not at all. If people could start from this perspective - and I do believe most pro-choice people do since even you and Jess argue that it is good and would be good if the abortion numbers came down - the opposing sides in this debate would be alot more agreeable.
If unwanted pregnancy does happen, women with a basic understanding of their own anatomy find that out long before the end of the first trimester. Any legislation that decriminalises and allows abortion beyond that, let alone the third trimester, unless it's to save the mother's life due to pregnancy-related complications, has no justification.
For this, whether you agree or not, I stand with my prediction that January of 2019, with the NY and Virginia monstrosities of a bill, will be designated in the future as the month that brought irreparable damage to the Democrat party, if the incessant Russian conspiracy delusion didn't already do the trick.