The fact of the matter is that other than rape, by definition, women are consenting to an activity that will put them at high risk for getting pregnant.

Your argument is effectively that people should be able to reneg on the consequences of actions if those consequences are not desirable.

> "Your argument is effectively that people should be able to reneg on the consequences of actions if those consequences are not desirable."

Well, yes.

Why did you say "other than rape (in which abortion should be allowed imo)"? Either you think the foetus has value and needs to be brought to term, or you don't. That makes it seem that you aren't deciding based on the value of the foetus or the importance of all life, but rather want to assert superiority and punish women for having sex. What difference does it make to the importance of the foetus if the pregnancy was rape or not? Why does that make more difference than whether the pregnancy is wanted or not?

You can eat meat from murdered animals every day, you can pierce or tattoo your body or kill brain cells with alcohol, you have the right to return a $5 plastic toy for a refund, but if your birth control fails you can't kill 10 cells. Has it any more soul or value at that stage than the hair or fingernails you cut off without a thought, or the dead skin you shed, or the spit you spit? Why does it have more value than the woman?

> people should be able to reneg on the consequences of actions if those consequences are not desirable

I think you've gone a little too broad with that principle. If I ask a taxi to take me somewhere, I can get out if I notice the driver is drunk. If I accidentally spill a glass of water, I can clean it up. And so on.

> people should be able to reneg on the consequences of actions if those consequences are not desirable.

That's literally the entire basis of modern medical intervention, yes.