Such weird thinking and soooooooooo self centred. it would be the most compelling arguement against abortion. Why do you think that the feminists have gone overboard to try and convince us that the baby in the womb is not a baby. It is just a clump of cells or flesh. Immediately you admit it is a real living baby your argument is dead in the water.
No, you failed to pay any attention to the argument. You're arguing that a right to life trumps all other rights and I'm saying you're wrong. Even if I were to agree that a fetus has the exact same right to life as you and me and anyone rlse, that right to life fails to trump the mother's rights to bodily autonomy.
Try this on for size. You wake up one day to find yourself hooked up to a machine that is also hooked up to me, and this machine is keeping me alive using your body. Turns out your blood and mine are compatible but I have a blood disorder that your body can filter out. If you disconnect yourself from this machine, I will die.... guaranteed. You decide you don't appreciate this violation of your bodily autonomy and ask the doctors to disconnect you, but I assert my right to live as trumping your right to leave. Under your thinking, where the right to life trumps all, you cant leave. I would die, and you'd have killed me.
Now of course, you would say the situations aren't analogous. Why? Because you didn't take an actuon, like sex, that resulted in this condition? That's pretty much your view - pregnancy is a consequence of sex, as you say below...
The mother's right to kill ends when she decides to have sex because every act of sex has the potential to produce a baby. To say I want sex but not the consequences of it but no worries I can have it killed is totally shallow and selfish.
It's telling, of course, that you use the word "consequence" as this reflects the very tiresome view that a baby is a punishment for engaging in sex. That you think this way is all the more evident by your eroneous belief that a WOMAN gives up rights by engaging in sex, with no view of what rights a man gives up.... if any. If you're going to advocate for carrying every pregnancy to term as a woman's punishment for having sex, then you'd have to advocate for every father to be legallt and equitably responsible for those children in every case.... or else be nothing more than a hypocrite. Good luck getting any men to line up behind that proposition.
But it doesn't matter because you're simply wrong. Your view of sex appears to be narrowly confiNed to PIV sexual activity. It should be obvious to any sexually active adults, even fundamentalists who can't bring themselves to think of it, that there's a vast array of sexual activity that has 0 chance of leading to pregnancy. Since not one of those has a "consequence" attached to it, it makes no logical sense to argue that one particular act must be allowed to have consequential punishment attached. Granted, there could be other consequences like spread of an STD. But would you argue that people who engage in sex give up the right to cure themselves of such consequences? If a man contracts herpes because he has sex, does he give up the right to get rid of the infection because that's the consequence of having sex?
That doesn't even account for the number of ways humans have figured out for decoupling sex from pregnancy. Condoms have been around for millenia. Natrual, herbal abortifacients have been known of and used for probably longer. We know that sex at certain times of the month have a nearly 0 chance of resulting in pregnancy. The past five or six decades didn't suddenly introduce recreational sex without possibility of pregnancy. We just have become a lot better and more sophisticated about it. We have done a LOT to disconnect sex from pregnancy, for thousands of years.