"The fundamentalist extremists on this issue are all in the anti-abortion camp."

The parameter's for fundamental extremism that I make reference to are those set forth in the actual SCOTUS decision, which is what this thread is titled to be about, I do not venture into the realm of my beliefs nor anyone else's.

The Court asserted that the government had two competing interests (thus two sides to the issue)– protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life".

In the second rehearing of the case the court followed its earlier logic stated at the conclusion of the initial hearing of the case. The Court stated that during the first trimester (up to 12 weeks), when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. There are those on both sides of this issue that seek to by-pass the 1st trimester parameter set forth in the ruling.

Agree with it or not, or like it or not; there are those on the Civil Rights (Pro-Choice?)side of this issue who advocate for the abortive rights of women to extend through the full term of the pregnancy. While others (our current POTUS included)advocate for that right to be extended to include live births resulting from failed abortions. While there are some who are now ethically advocating for the rights of mothers to allow for the euthanizing of unwanted children up to the age of 3 years and beyond.

In an article recently written by Pro-Choice advocates and medical ethicists Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva published in the Journal of Medical Ethics by Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, and entitled "After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?", in which they argue: Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are "morally irrelevant" and ending their lives is no different to abortion

"The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual."..."Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life"..."We take 'person' to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her."

This was defended by the editor Prof Savulescu in a British Medical Journal blog, where he stated that arguments in favor of killing newborns were "largely not new".

Now I'm not sure where you draw the line concerning fundamental extremism, but my conscience could never extend it to include or excuse such limits.