@DogandMog
If you read my post closely, you’ll see I include abuse and coertion in the spectrum of unwanted sex, as well as rape that meets the full legal criteria of that crime.
I’m not anti-abortion. I’m pro mindful sex. Pro men respecting women’s bodies by not carelessly shagging us then discarding us, leaving us up shit creek in terms of a broken heart (women produce more oxytocin during sex, leading to deeper feelings of bonding early on), much higher risks of STDs than vice versa and of course the risk of unwanted pregnancy and the emotionally tumultuous decision to make either way. Pro men contributing for 18 + years child support and college fees for the children they create, accruing a debt with the state and requisition of assets if they hide their incomes.
Casual sex is far more harmful to women’s bodies and their future opportunities... it’s not anti feminist or misogynist to point that out and expect a “two to tango” moral share of responsibility for sexual behaviour and its consequences to fall as much on men.
And if you think more closely, you'll understand that the implementation of that would be impossible.
You can't police women as to whether they managed to be raped properly. Some fight back and get battered, some freeze and get battered, some freeze and aren't battered. Some are conscious when raped, some are not, whether it's due to being battered, being asleep (because it is perfectly possible to be raped whilst sleeping), unwell, drugged, intoxicated or being in a fucking coma in a hospital bed. Some are raped by strangers. Some are raped by their husbands, boyfriends, friends, brothers, father, uncles, grandfathers, priests, employers, colleagues, doctors, carers or any other man that is known to them. 'Ah, but did you really fight back as hard as you have done? he could have killed you if he was choking you. But you're not dead. So did you really fight it?'
You can't police whether they were properly coerced and raped. Is the only coercion acceptable a knife to the throat? Or a subsequently denied threat, whine, claim that he might as well kill himself, an 'I thought she consented' or 'she led me on so far I couldn't stop'?
Do you police rapes by stealthing 'I didn't take it off, she said bareback was fine', 'we were trying for a baby', 'it fell off', 'it was in the heat of the moment and she only freaked out afterwards'?
Abuse is hidden. It's covered up, it's disguised and explained and denied. If somebody has been gaslighted into thinking their abuser loves them but then has a moment of clarity when they realise they've been abused and coerced or raped and they do not want to be pregnant, how do you police that? 'There's no evidence of abuse, you were still living with him, you didn't tell the police, you didn't seek treatment for any injuries, you're a married woman, he's already said that you like it rough, those injuries you got treatment for were consensual, you've already had four children by him, you clearly consent to having sex and babies with him, is it the case as he says that you just weren't sure who the father is this time?'
You are proposing something almost identical to a court insisting that women are punished for sex outside marriage unless the rape is witnessed by a male relative who gives evidence that this was not consented to by him or her official male next of kin and it was completed forced, she fought but was beaten until she was unable to resist any further.
By its very nature, rape, coercion and abuse is difficult to police or evidence. By refusing terminations to women and children unless they can meet your definition of those terms, you're abusing those women and children further. For the rest of their lives. All on the behalf of their rapist, who didn't care if they got pregnant or wanted them to get pregnant as part of their abuse and violence.
You are therefore not 'pro-life other in terms of cases of coercion, abuse and rape'. You are pro-rapist, pro-abuser, pro-hebephile, pro-narcophile, pro-domestic violence where it's perpetrated by men, pro-rapists' sperm.