It's just not that hard, folks. Unless we're dealing with the context of a justified war, there's simply no moral defense for killing innocent humans if there are any other options, let alone for the convenience of the living. And while both sides may exaggerate to make a point, only one side of the argument does insane logical backflips to hide the true and morally repugnant nature of the acts, their numbers, their consequences, and the assumptions underlying their "justifications". Ever since the leaked Alito draft hinting that Roe v. Wade was about to be overturned, pro-abortion activists have had their day. I suppose I can understand a certain need to defend against what they perceive as a threat on their liberties and rights. So now that they've had their time to externalize their fears and put out ad campaigns, and fake being handcuffed at protests in unlawful locations, let's stand back from the emotions and just examine the core moral argument
Candid evaluation of assumptions as well as musings on consequences of political, religious, moral, scientific, linguistic and literary truths and pretensions thereto. Dissecting representations, critiquing arguments, discussing liberty, equality, justice, faith, values, facts, and the principles and institutions that make them all possible.