What is there to understand? A fucking idiot, is a fucking idiot. To perform the very action, you claim to stand against. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. Let's make one thing very clear, Roe v Wade is the law of the land. There are plenty of laws that I personally don't agree with, but does that give me license to kill someone just because I don't agree with their particular way of thinking? Don't like Roe v Wade, then work to change it; all this did was to show the anti-abortionist for the zealots they really are. Want to bring Christianity into it? Who among you has the audacity to believe that they know the mind of God? Don't give me that bullshit about greater sin. I think that the bible makes it particularly clear that judgment doesn't belong to us mere mortals.
Roe v. Wade isn't a "law", first of all - the judicial doesn't legislate.
Second, I'm not sure if that ruling can withstand a meaningful challenge by non-RWNJ's. If it were up to me, the court system would need to weigh in on the (frankly, appalling) inconsistencies in laws across the nation that seem to lay out when it is and is not acceptable to kill an unborn child.
I've made the argument before that drawing a line in the sand with respect to how many weeks of gestation = viability is a fruitless exercise. As medical science improves, that point will keep moving backwards.
One has to assume that with a remarkably low infant mortality rate, and with a less than 25% miscarriage rate (75% of which are first-trimester), betting against childbirth in America is a futile endeavor. Nature will make the ultimate decision regarding whether or not a child is carried to term based on things it knows that we cannot. A fetus should be considered alive and viable with one exception, and that is if nature weighs in and results in a natural miscarriage. When you take our meddling out of the mix, the odds are statistically, overwhelmingly in favor of the fetus.
This isn't a religious argument, or a moral argument (other than that in this light, killing a fetus is the same as killing any other human). If a woman can "choose" to kill her offspring just because it hasn't left her womb yet, but not once it leaves, something is amiss. She either needs to be able to kill her children any time she wants, or we need to get rid of this antiquated and obtuse notion that a child is like any other organ in her body with which she's free to butcher at will.