No, that wasn't your point - your point was that some people who are against abortion do not fit into the majority demographic - which isn't exactly a revelation. But the fact remains, that for a dynamic to be pervasive, it doesn't have to be universal, so you haven't actually said anything meaningful.

Overwhelmingly, the people (not all of whom are men) who want to restrict body autonomy for women want to do that in order to control women. There's already talk - coming from this same demographic - about how they are planning to go after contraception next. That's not what people who care about "life" do.

"Jacky Eubanks, a Trump-endorsed candidate vying for a Michigan state Senate seat, says she’ll come for your birth control if she can. In a new interview with the Church Militant, Eubanks says she’d absolutely vote to ban contraceptives if the issue ever came to a vote in the Michigan state legislature. “People believe that birth control — it’s better, like you said, oh, because then you won’t get pregnant and you won’t need to have an abortion,” she said. “But I think it gives people the false sense of security that they can have consequence-free sex, and that’s not true and that’s not correct. Sex ought to be between one man and one woman in the confines of marriage.” After a leak of a draft opinion suggested Roe v. Wade could be overturned this summer, some Republicans have moved to birth control as their next target" — Danika Fears

These people desperately want to go back to the 1950s (or in the case of Alito, the 1750s). Pretending that isn't so is just fooling yourself.

"Justice Alito’s leaked opinion cites Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century jurist who conceived the notion that husbands can’t be prosecuted for raping their wives, who sentenced women to death as “witches,” and whose misogyny stood out even in his time."

https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale