Summations Only

If the question only implicated how we deal with the fetus, I would agree with your analysis. However, your analogy ignores the indisputable fact, a fact with which all intelligent people agree, that there is also another person involved; the woman carrying the fetus.Childbirth is dangerous. According to Wiki, there are 10-30 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the U.S. This is certainly very low, but it is not an insignificant number. Anytime the law requires a woman to carry a child, the law is requiring a woman to risk her life. On top of that, during pregnancy a woman's body undergoes tremendous change, creating numerous inconveniences for her and threats to her health short of death.It is the height of arrogance for anyone to analyze this issues solely from the perspective of the fetus.

So you value the possible life of the fetus over the actual, extant life of the woman?

As I demonstrated, pregnancy does pose an immediate threat to the mother's life.You state that a person has the right to live. Does that right include the right to demand potentially life threatening support from someone else? If your answer is yes, does that mean that if someone needs your blood, and you are the only available match, that they have the right to take it from you against your will? What about a skin graft? What about a kidney? What about part of your liver, or a lung?

A typical nonanswer from someone trying to avoid the issue. Not that I expected anything less from you.

Those questions were not off topic. They were legitimate questions exploring the depth of his apparent position that the right to life includes the right to biological support from another person. I seriously doubt his nonanswer had anything to do with off topic issues. Instead, he saw that the logical conclusions from the position that he was trying to defend were indefensible and wasn't willing to face the consequences.Of course, since he simply punted, we'll never know for sure.

And what would you consider "social reasons?" How do you determine whether the mother's reasons are "social reasons" or something else? Who are you to say whether a woman's reasons are a sufficient basis for her to have control over what happens in and to her body?

I could. But based on what I've seen in this thread, I suspect that if he participated at all, he'd dodge difficult questions while pretending that he wasn't basing his entire position on his religion. Since he's already doing that here, I see no reason to open another thread for the same thing.