Just because something is legal does not make it moral

Nor SCOTUS justices.

It should not come as a shock that those who vehemently demand a a woman be able to kill the life inside of her would also call for the killing of anyone.

*cough*

Need some medicine for that cough? I'm not for the killing of any human beings. In the womb or in prison.

The darned Second Amendment obssesed.

Actually the two fake 'opposing' sides both like killing, only for their respective favorite targets of choice:
Abortion,
Capital Punishment,
War,
Hunting,
Farming,
The fuel industry,
Highways,
Buildings,
Breathing,
etc.
No need to break that down to 'side' faves.

Me? As everyone here knows, I have a general disdain for killing except for what goes into my stomach and clothing and whatnot, plus weeding of invasives as well as the killing of vermin in a "me vs them" situ at my former apt, a major moral dilema/conflict/crisis (I was torn by this, for real, still am, but...) when I first moved there....

How are highways equated with abortions?

Not abortions, killing in general for our selfish interests and convenience.
Destroying miles and miles of living creatures because we're too good to walk,,,

Clarence Thomas is my favorite :(

Whenever a conservative gets death threats from unhinged leftists, you know they are kind, moral, good hearted and intelligent.

Interesting Satan hates all those traits within humans.

as a general rule yeah

Hitler got death threats from the left

Well, he IS the wrong kind of Black after all.
Pretty sure that lynching law they were so proud they abolished, has exceptions for Democratic whims.

idk, seems to be alot of lynching in democrat run cities every weekend.

The unlawful killing of people happens every weekend in the ghetto.

So the lives of people in the burbs have no value to you as well?

imgflip.com/i/2ekh9v

So you don't care about people living in caves???

You're right, I forgot

If they genuinely think we that it should be a constitutional right, they should draft an amendment and attempt to get it ratified.

I would hope that America has morals enough that killing off those smaller or more helpless than you would never become part of the Bill of Rights

Almost certainly the case, which is why Democrats insist on using activist judges to do an end run around the Constitution, and around the majority of voters. There is a reason that they have never allowed issues like this to be put before the electorate.

If they didn't take an all or nothing approach, I'm pretty sure they could get most people to agree to early/first trimester and exceptions for medical need.
No, they want up until it's born. Most people recognize that if you have to actively kill it before removing it for it to "not be murder" then it must already be a baby.

There is never a medical need for an abortion. If a woman has a medical concern, the procedures needed to deal with them never involve using abortion methods.

Where did you hear that bs?
The methods used may differ from the methods used for elective abortions, but they are still often abortions.
One obvious example is ectopic pregnancy. The only way to treat an ectopic pregnancy is to remove it. It cannot, contrary to popular belief, be reimplanted into the proper portion of the womb. If it goes untreated, both the mother and embryo WILL die. It is not viable and the only way to save the mother is to terminate the pregnancy.

Fun fact planned Parenthood doesn't consider removing an ectopic pregnancy an abortion because the embryo is not in the womb. Even prominent pro life organizations and doctors agree that removing an ectopic pregnancy is a moral and necessary action at times. Because you're not intentionally killing a fetus who might otherwise develop normally. The fetus dying is the undesirable outcome of saving the mother.

What Kate_the_Grate M said.

In the instance of an ectopic pregnancy, *surgery* is used to deal with the condition. This is not a method of abortion. In this instance, the new life will certainly die, if it is still alive by the time they discover this. And I have never heard anyone, Left or Right, state that the child could be implanted in the womb after being removed during the surgery, so that strawman died a quick and fiery death.

Another situation, which may come up more often than ectopic pregnancy, is when the mother has cancer. Treating the mother with chemotherapy will likely kill the child, and may well not save the mother, but this is not the intent, nor if it does result in the death of the child is it an abortion.

p.s. I may be 100% against murdering children in the womb and after being born, but I have no problem with doing away with strawmen . . .

One person? This another 0.01% argument?

Abstain. Use a condom. Use birth control pills. If all fails, use Plan B pills. Women have ample time to prevent a pregnancy with all these real choices. But aborting a baby because you changed your mind after the fact isn't a choice, it's murder

Most pro life organizations would consider plan b an abortifacent. FYI

99% of the time the woman can make the choice to not have sex to avoid the pregnancy, no one is forcing her to have sex, not like it happens because of the drinking water, lol.

She's probably not fond of those that advocate for murdering little innocent defenseless babies.

Neanderthals had to deal with this because they didn't have or maybe know how to use contraceptives. I guess some survived to the modern age

"NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T USE BIRTH CONTROL YOU MUST BE IRRESPONSIBLE AND MURDER YOUR OFFSPRING"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsibility

"Yes it is a choice. Someone who's pregnant doesn't have to stay pregnant by having her baby murdered by a professional"