That does not follow, for many reasons. The most consequential being that I never argued that a woman should go and have sex. That's how one gets pregnant. If you don't have sex, then regulations on abortions do not affect you in any sense.
Overturning RvW does NOT ban abortion. All that does is return the decision to the states, where, I believe, it belongs. How does that FORCE pregnancy? Even some pro-choicers have argued overturning, or at least rewritting, the Roe decision; one of those people being Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I'm sure you've heard of her? is she forcing women to be pregnant to do so?
And who is arguing to ban abortion outright? The most strictest evangelist I've ever seen, the kind to raise fire and brimstone in speeches, Jerry Falwell, has argued that even in abortion, there are understandable exceptions. Abortion, like any other regulation, has exceptions for extreme cases. I do not think it's necessary, for example, to FORCE pregnancy on a woman who is bound to die from it. Even in the western world, birthing mortality rates are still a thing. So while you COULD argue that, by banning abortion, I want to force pregnancy(which is still wrong for other reasons), I'm not arguing to ban abortion. I want it regulated, in the same way the UK, or Poland, regulates it, and who will call them pro-life countries?
The main question for you, then, is why haven't you answered my question and why propose such an inane argument? Abortions, like nearly every controversial topic, includes a lot of gray. It's not entirely black and white, and yet, it's a I, a self-proclaimed pro-lifer, who has to remind you of this. It is you, and not I, who takes the position that just because someone disagrees with Roe, that doesn't mean they want to "force a pregnancy", as if they're some rapist, nor does that mean much for their actual position on abortion, for which there is a wide range of opinion.
