Please tell me exactly which facts did I distorted....
You wrote "Freedom to kill innocent humans"
Abortion isn't killing according to law, so your comment distorts the law.
Fetuses are not humans with rights, so your comment referring to 'innocent humans' is misleading and distorted from the law.
I understand you don't like it. Using misleading and inaccurate language is an emotional ploy and has no impact on the issue or legal aspects of the right. To the law a person isn't a legal citizen until born, with a birth certificate. That is a legal document where law begins to apply with certain rights. The Roe v Wade decision actually made reference to the third trimester as being a phase of development where a fetus can be viable with medical care, so there is some degree of personhood that can apply.
My religious view is irrelevant.
I simply disagree with pro abortion laws.
Freedom is often ugly to others.
If abortion is morally wrong, then nobody should be free to abort.
Many legal acts are morally wrong, like polluting air, land, and water, but are allowed because society as a whole compromises moral ambiguities for the sake of the whole, and for individuals. We end up managing these issues with "grey area" compromises. Someone will always be upset.
Your burden is to show that abortion is not morally wrong.......please provide your argument, your premises, your assumptions, etc.
I agree that it is morally problematic. But it is just one of many things we humans do that are morally problematic. We can't function well in a society with rigid black/white morals. We all have to compromise to various degrees.
What I find morally troubling is that anti-abortion people have no interest in promoting sex ed, or distributing contraception, or advocate for universal healthcare, or higher wages for people with families, etc. They tend to have a single moral view while many other related moral issues are opposed. Until anti-abortion people will fight as hard for healthcare and contraception then they are just full of ****, and can't shut the hell up.
Pro life people would say something like this
P1 it's wrong to kill an innocent human.
P2 abortion implies killing an innocent human.
Therefore abortion is wrong.
So why don't you formulate an analogous argument where you conclude "therefore abortion is not wrong"
You can make the same argument about it being immoral to kill cows, pigs, and chickens.
But P1 is not true, and deliberately misleading. That means these folks know they can't make a factual and credible argument so need to resort to emotional wording to exploit feelings. That crap doesn't work with thinkers who are too well educated to fall for these cheap tricks. We know what you are trying to do.