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.
Goldwaterist Planned Barrenhoodism is no longer (assuming that it ever was) acceptable as "conservatism." You apparently missed the struggle between the Reagan forces and the Goldwater forces in the late 1970s. Reagan's won and the Ford/Goldwater/Rockefeller cult of baby slaughter was routed in the GOP.
Maybe so-called libertarianism will uphold eugenics and Sangerism but conservatism will not. Genuine libertarianism won't either but that is largely irrelevant given the impotence of libertarianism.
Weighing in the balance of justice a temporary nine-month inconvenience OTOH against each and every earthly right of an innocent unborn child OTO, including most importantly its very right to live, the child's rights ought to prevail. That would seem yet more obvious to anyone possessed of even a shred of basic morality.
When you claim to have no problem with the overturn of Roe vs. Wade so long as the overturn is accomplished by a mechanism not found in our law (national plebiscite), you are being dishonest, disingenuous or willfully refusing to recognize legal reality. That does not wash any more than the endless bleating by pro-aborts of how terribly troubled they are by abortion, how "personally opposed but" we are to consider them to be (according to their self-serving self-definition) as they mount their barricades in defense of continued mass murder by SCOTUS decree.
Also, when the practice of baby-killing is even allowed much less enshrined as a pseudo-constitutional "right" by our SCOTUS run temporarily amok, the babies killed must remain dead in the earthly sense. Perhaps you missed that or chose to ignore it for obvious reasons pertaining to any drama purporting to morally justify the slaughter of the innocent because of their parent(s)' wish and that of a willing abortionist to murder them. At least paid mob hit men, unlike abortionists and their clientele, seem to confine their attentions to those who are of age. They pick on people their own size. By way of contrast to the likes of PP, NARAL, NOW, and the abortionists, mob hit men are moral giants. Relatively speaking, don't you know?
Perhaps you will take some time from regurgitating the Planned Barrenhood talking points and tell us just where in the US Constitution one may find an explicit "right" to kill innocent unborn chldren. The claim in Roe that there is or even could be such a "right" is stolen pseudoconstitutional goods. You know it and so does everyone else with three brain cells to rub together. The reason for the upcoming leftist fury in favor of babykilling and, according to one of your leading allies, Chuckie Schumer, "gay" "marriage", is the very fact that such personally self-indulgent perversions as abortion and homosexuality are not "rights' at all but stolen goods imposed on society by unelected lifetime judges. So please spare us the hypocrisy of: Oh, I could accept the overturn of Roe if only we the people could vote on it. SCOTUS has stood in the way of any democratically enacted restrictions whatsoever for over three decades, as you well know. You are defending SCOTUS edicts as though they were actual law. If your position lives by SCOTUS, then it will die by SCOTUS. That will empower states and elected representatives for the first time in over three decades to put the babykillers out of business.
The constitution is what the framers said it was, including the framers of each subsequent amendment. It is not "what the judges say it is" in the infamous formulation of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. As a practical matter, we may have to utilize Holmes formulation by naming judges with copies of the constitution, reading lessons and a commitment to do what the constitution tells them to do. That will protect innocent human life in utero under the real standard of what the constitution says AND the phony standard of what the judges themselves say. Don't whine when it happens. Think of it as a dose of your own medicine.
When, not if, civilized human beings have legally prohibited abortion and anything amounting to "gay" "marriage", by whatever means necessary, you can learn to live with the restoration of our laws or find a new country to grouse in as you see fit. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to care a whit about the "feelings" or dishonest and/or disingenuous arguments of those determined to continue the slaughter.