Pro-abortion philosopher Peter Singer doesn't have an issue with killing infants but he dislikes Roe v. Wade.
Singer further surprised me—and showed his meta-commitment to democracy and reason–when he said that he, like Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan, disliked Roe V. Wade. That 1973 Supreme Court decision, Singer felt, provides a flimsy rationale for abortion and has corrupted the process whereby Supreme Court Justices are chosen. Ideally, Singer said, voters rather than unelected judges should determine the legal status of abortion. Singer nonetheless acknowledged that if Roe V. Wade is overturned, some states might outlaw or severely restrict abortion. "I'm torn," he admitted.
I don't believe I've ever read a stupider argument for why abortion is moral than this:
What struck me most was the simple and direct statement made by Dr. Nozer Sheriar, an obstetrician-gynecologist from India, who explained why he supports women who have abortions: "anything 46 million women do every year can't be immoral."
So lying is moral? Surely, 46 million women a year lie. Ergo, it can't be immoral. Pro-abortion logic fail.