I can appreciate the reasoning, but in my eyes it is pitting one moral imperative ("Just think of the children!") against another in the form of a person's bodily autonomy being limited by the state. If you deny, through legislative means, a woman the right to an abortion that she wants, you have made it illegal for her to exercise fundamental bodily autonomy without the state's consent. It's sneakily framed as a "Just think of the children!" issue when, in reality, it's a "Can your body be made a slave to the state's dictates" issue.
At the point where, under threat of force from the state, a human being is either forced to undergo surgery or continue to maintain an unwanted pregnancy (see: risk to personal health), the state is all but declaring ownership of that body. Where a bunch of biological men talking about it becomes sketchy is that they know they will never have to be subjected to this - and let's not mince words - legislative slavery, so the stakes for them declaring their righteous position are personally low. While I put some effort into respecting others' faith based positions, when that faith based position dictates that a human being be forced, by the state, to engage in types of labour they don't consent to at notable personal risk, that's something I can't get behind.