And again

Right, I've calmed down a bit since this morning. I'm still pissed off over the Supreme Court's ruling, but am no longer frothing at the mouth.

I can't contest that having an abortion may be extremely traumatic for some women. I'd like to first point out that for some it may not be, but regardless, some people will find it so. That's a fact. And I have the utmost sympathy for a woman who finds herself making that choice.

But that's not the issue. People do things that might cause them grief and anguish. Marriage and divorce come to mind: it might work out great for some people, while for others it can lead to all sorts of emotional trauma. You can't legislate against things because someone might get their feelings hurt. That's absurd, far beyond the scope of the government's role, and absolutely impossible to do.

Then there's another teeny, tiny little issue: this intense emotional duress is not a recognized syndrome in the medical community and apparently quite rare. So say a whole bunch of professionals who actually, I assume, know what they're talking about, as opposed to us armchair justices.

"Yes, but it also effects the embryo, thus worsening the situation," you may argue. To which I have a few choice responses.
1. I don't give a flying crap. One of the huge problems with the current ruling is this: there is no exception for the woman's health. I don't care if there are other options available. If your health is being threatened, the state should not be taking away options. I support legalizing medical marijuana, I support legalizing euthanasia, I support stem-cell research, and I support freedom of choice in all reproductive matters. This, I think, is most aggravating to me: it is explicitly saying that women are second-class citizens to lumps of cells that aren't even people, let alone citizens.
2. An embryo is not a person. Most aborted fetuses could not survive outside the uterus at the time of abortion. They are not capable of conscious thought as such. Neither their body nor mind are functional. They are, quite literally, parasites. We all begin as parasites. Some of us make it out of that stage. Some don't. Such is life. If you adopt a very young puppy, would you refuse to de-worm the pup because you don't want to take a life?
2a. Do you use snap-traps to catch mice in your kitchen? Do you kill mosquitoes and spiders? Do you hunt or fish? Best of all, do you support the death penalty, in any situation whatsoever? The shut your mouth and your hypocritical ranting about the "sanctity of life". If we're going to bring that into the argument you don't get to pick and choose what's life and what's not.
3. Now, I'll say that this is only a half-point:

The one woman on the Supreme Court voted against upholding the ban.

Now, think about that for a moment.

The one Supreme Court justice with a uterus, the one Supreme Court justice for whom abortion was/could be a possible decision voted against the ban.

I can already hear your argument about how men are touched by the issue as well, as the sperm comes from somewhere etc, to which I say: sure. They are effected. But nowhere near as much. It's a remote thing, and if a man wants, he can deliver his sperm and book it out of there. A woman, not so much.

The only woman on the Supreme Court voted against upholding the ban.

I think that's pretty damn telling.