The one and most crucial point that you are ignoring is that she chose to have sex. I know that is seems unreasonable... I'm not saying that it is fair, that is just simply how it is. Sex is not a need. Sex is a want. Again, sorry, that is just how it is. That is just a fact. Your argument would only be valid if we kidnapped a woman and impregnated her against her will, and that is obviously not happening so your argument is obviously.
I'm not ignoring anything. I am well aware of that particular subjective argument.
The bold part is debatable, given human nature. I think sexual repression leads to all kinds of emotional imbalances. The fact that women only ovulate 2 days out of the month but are capable of arousal any other day proves that sex has a social function, even though some may prefer to pretend it is taboo; likewise, men have nocturnal emissions even if they don't masturbate, which suggests that sex can be a physiological requirement.
What you are putting forth is a cultural value, not an observation of nature. Sex is as integral to our social nature as it is for the other apes we are related to, it is just our social norming processes that concern expression of said instincts.
But I digress... about the actual issue of women choosing to have sex, again I say so what? The idea of a fetus being a person (which is debatable) is mutually exclusive from a woman deciding to have sex and accidentally getting pregnant. In order to prove that the woman doesn't deserve sexual liberation you will first have to prove that the consequences of her actions result in the "murder" of a "person", and so far you and the others are doing a poor job of that.
Second, although you assert that sex is a want and not a need, that is
your cultural and moral value, not mine. Just like fetal personhood is a subjective, psychospiritual value that does not reside in the realm of absolutism, the meaning of sex and sexuality is in the same realm. You cannot state what sex is and then apply those values to everyone. Each person decides for themselves what their sexuality means to them.
Your, "does not make it entitled to live" argument works just fine for fetuses... they are developing humans and all that needs changing is their status just as same sex partners are being discriminated against simply due to the term marriage.
I'm also aware of the fallacious attempts to claim that fetal personhood is equivalent to all other modern civil rights movements. The thing about civil rights is that not only are they determined based on constitutionality (of which fetal personhood has failed to qualify to date), they are also weighed against the the functional and stable needs of society. Gay marriage is being allowed because there are studies and logical support for gays to structure their families as straight people do. Polygamy, for example, does not have the same support.
As it pertains to fetuses, there is plenty of evidence to suggest socioeconomic harm to society by banning abortion. During the era of banned abortion in the U.S., the most common cause of death in women of reproductive age was unsafe abortions. This is fact. Pro-life people often say now, "Well, it's their own fault for seeking abortion." Policy is not formed based on such moral relativism. Government concerns itself with the welfare of society, and women, who are already persons. Fetal personhood remains subjective.
If a fetus was accepted as a human by pro-choice people and people in general, then they would, in fact, be entitled with the right to live.
I actually do accept fetuses as humans since they possess human DNA, but it's the notion of personhood that overrides the rights of the landlord, the mother, that I object to. We abolished slavery partially because of industrialization and partially because blacks proved they were equally competent to whites in life, and fought for their rights. Their personhood was won. The pro-life movement is taking something innocuous and magnifying it to an absurd degree, then claiming moral absolutism, while simultaneously ignoring the psychospiritual questions of other individuals.
Pro-choicers are simply not acknowledging this since they would rather have the right to kill their baby than to be responsible. It is rather sad, really.
I view accepting a pregnancy until birth of a baby and abortion as equal options in taking responsibility. They are simply two different routes. You can spin the personhood argument all day, but there is nothing concrete to prove it. It's why Roe v Wade sided with privacy concerns... because these spiritual questions are of a private nature and have no concrete answers.
If we could answer this question for sure then the matter would have been settled a long time ago. As it stands, it's subjective and people have the right to decide for themselves, and so they should.
