How conspicuously absurd!
Human history has countless examples of humans making the ultimate sacrifice for unknown others.
But the ostensible moral religionists assume an embryo would not do so for a family member. A younger sib.
Logic has won out (for now). That's a comfort.
But religious forces continue to threaten these women's rights even into this third Millennium; shocking.
Religionists have every right to not have abortions if they so choose.
They have no right to impose their religious preference on others.
If the roles were reversed, the religionists could claim the refuge of the 1st Amendment; their rights under the free exercise clause.
And though it's the same issue, do those that have taken the other side in that debate share the same degree of protection from 1A?