Nuanced? Not really. Unintelligible is a much better descriptor.
It is illustrative of the hypocrisy of those who hold your position when you cherry pick the Constitution
There is no inconsistency in a position that holds that life begins at conception, and thus deserves protection by force of state after that point. Nor is there anything in the Constitution that supports your position, your assertion notwithstanding. While many folks like yourself have a difficult time wrapping your addled minds around that concept, it's actually quite straightforward.
Let's get right to the heart of the matter. Since you refused to answer this the first time I asked, I'll give it another try. When do you think life begins?
much as those who hold your position cherry pick the bible
I know - it really takes a lot of tortuous logic to ignore the 12th Commandment: "Thou shalt always remember that the right to privacy is found in the Constitution - encourage abortions accordingly". Somehow I manage it, but it surely isn't easy.
The truth of the matter is that I wouldn't consider myself an extremely religious person, although I suspect someone so obviously afraid of it as you are would certainly have a different view of me. My opposition to the practice is grounded as much in the protection of individual rights as it is in my religion.
Sorry, I missed that but the flip answer you deserve is:
Now, I'm really done with you. I am exhausted having to deal with hardheads who wake up cranky. Is that too nuanced for you? No reply required and if provided will reach a dead letter box.