A six-week old fetus would not grow into a life without a womb, and in my opinion the government should not get a right to force someone to provide one if they

A six-week old fetus would not grow into a life without a womb, and in my opinion the government should not get a right to force someone to provide one if they disagree. But while I accept that this argument may be contested and there may be a debate on "generic abortion" in "benign circumstances", a key issue here is a non-exceptions law (it's six weeks even in case of rape or incest), which to me seems absolutely indefensible. Let's look at a hypothetic but realistic example of a thirteen year old girl who is eight weeks pregnant after being raped by her mother's boyfriend. Would it be morally acceptable to prevent her from getting an abortion and force the victimized kid to carry it to term? If someone's answer is yes or maybe, then IMHO that does pass into the territory of just "a desire to cause misery" and their moral compass is so outrageously immoral that any of their arguments with respect to morality should be ignored without listening/reading. If the answer is no, then a law that implements a blanket ban without allowing for such circumstances (the example may seem outrageous but such cases, sadly, are not that rare) is not morally justifiable if it does not enable abortions at least in such cases. What I'm trying to say is that this particular law is so outrageous that I would expect that both sides of the ordinary "pro-choice" vs "pro-life" argument should be against this particular law, because it does go to essentially misogynic extremes that do not have a sufficient justification in all the reasonable "pro-life" arguments.