I don't think you understand.
There are a number of ways to go about this topic, but I'll say this.
To have women always carry a baby to term is unfair to women.
They are the ones that have to become pregnant, and there are a number of reasons why abortions are done.
Besides, there were times the "abortion equals murder" argument doesn't quite hold up, with cases such as:
A cuckoo Texas law proposal assigning the death penalty to women that have had abortions.
A woman charged with manslaughter when she was shot because supposedly she did this to destroy the fetus.
I leave you with this. You don't have to like abortion to think it is sometimes necessary for women to have them.
I don't think women who have abortions necessarily like having them.
If you want to prevent more abortions, then you should be for birth control, as having more birth control means less abortions.
The issue is best focused on starting from the beginning, ironically enough. Pro-choice advocates always jump straight to the woman (who herself was not aborted, as a side point; everyone pro-choice was allowed to live but refuse to extend that same right). The subject is about the baby though and if it should be legal to kill it. "It's not a baby" is where the first and most important disagreement often begins and typically why the two sides disagree imo. I'm sure we'll just have to agree to disagree on this because it's not just a clump of cells, but at least I think we have already found common ground on several aspects; death penalty for women who have abortions is not appropriate since the women who have them sadly buy into the notion that they're just having the moral equivalent of a tumor or parasite removed, and thus cannot be charged with any intent to commit a crime. Also what we agree in is birth control, it may not be ideal but it's the most realistic solution.
However, you say "women have to get pregnant" and that's not true. Birth control and abstinence are both very successful preventative measures. You also say women don't like abortions. That's seems to be true often enough and a commonly expressed sentiment. I'm inclined to agree. But that actually supports why abortion is not good. Women can have lifelong regrets and be saddled with lingering doubt. This raises another concern in the logic of supporting abortion; why have regret, doubt, and/or dislike of having the moral equivalent of a tumor or parasite removal? Because of the inherent knowledge that it may not actually be true. Nobody who truly and completely believes that stuff would such a regret or doubts. Vegans who choose the lifestyle out of ethical concerns are people who have find a great deal of intrinsic value in animal life, but us meat eaters value them less. I have no regret, doubt, nor dislike of eating animals because their value is not high enough to me, I do not at all believe it's wrong. With the scale of human life weighing in the balance though, isn't it better to err on the side of caution and not support abortion outside of extreme cases? Humans are valued much higher to most normal and healthy people than animals, if vegans can champion animal rights so vehemently then I think we should reconsider whether that growing life deserves a fair chance.
Of course, there's a minority who openly agree that it's human life and don't care. Some people are vegans and pro-choice. I wouldn't even know where to begin a fruitful or meaningful discussion of the topic them them, honestly. It'd be a learning experience at least.
What’s “SJW” about education and guns? The SRA and John Brown Gun Club exist for a reason.
Also the main reason to be anti-abortion is to be anti-woman. It ain’t a coincidence it only happened when divorce was made more legal and women entered the workforce in bigger numbers.
Plus I believe people should have control over their bodies, and what they do with it is 100% up to them.
To me, there's nothing SJW about free education, it's a net gain for society. As for guns, both sides like to complicate it, but the Constitution was clear so there honestly shouldn't be any debate about that imo.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "anti-woman". It's not a term I'm familiar with and seems like the statement containing it is very generalized, would you elaborate? I don't know how divorce factors into this either, if you could explain that.
I agree about people having full control of their bodies but surely you know the opposing argument is that the baby is a distinct entity, it is not the mother; being located within her does not constitute being her.
My biggest worry about this election will be if the electoral college screws over the candidate who won the popular vote... again! Seriously the electoral college needs to be abolished.
I honestly don't know how that even functions, but it certainly doesn't seem fair to override the popular vote. I assume it's a method of attempting to solve the issue of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch, but I'm just guessing really.