Divorcing your husband instead of killing your husband has an analogue in giving a child up for adoption rather than murdering the child. I realize that such complex reasoning escapes the "moderate" baby killers but it is valid nonetheless. That is not just my opinion but objective reality.
Finally, I and most social conservatives have no interest whatsoever in making common political cause with those who believe in defending the "right" to perpetrate homicide against innocent unborn infants. I am also not interested in allying with gun grabbers, "conservative" Stalinists or Al Qaeda. Ten conservative Democrats will gladly step up to replace in the GOP each and every departing advocate of baby-killing. My opinions do not result in the death of innocent human beings by the tens of millions. Yours have and do, when translated into public policy by SCOTUS without so much as a by-your-leave to democratic decision-making. The tie breaker between and among opinions is objective reality or A is A. The unborn are human beings and entitled not to be killed.
If you think you are somehow conservative while advocating the killing of babies, think again and join with your leftist and nihilist soulmates. Do not defame the honorable name of "conservative" by suggesting that baby-killing is "conservative."
I can walk out on my husband tomorrow. If I become pregnant, I must remain pregnant until the child is born in order to give the child up for adoption. I thought that was an obvious point. Apparently, it was too complex for you. If a fetus could be removed from the woman and adopted within a week or two of learning about the pregnancy, I'd be all for it.
I stated in a post to another poster that I have no problem with Roe being overturned. I'd rather "we the people" vote on the issue. I'm not comfortable with 9 judges deciding the issue for us, whichever way they vote. You must have missed that.