If abortion were banned on the state or national level, would "pro-lifers" support...

Pssst, A Fetus cannot make a choice, it has no functioning brain to make one with, hence the only Person is the woman when the vast majority of abortions are performed.

 

Gestation and delivery is much more dangerous for the woman than legal first trimester abortion:

RESULTS:The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.

CONCLUSION:Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

Please learn what an analogy is.

Bahahahahahahahaha! You believe what you want to believe.

Not if it's illegal.

 

Always glad to dispel your rubbish

 

Really? I hear fetus brains catch a hefty price if you can extract them in one piece.

#PPSellBabyParts

 

Also ignores the fact that it is fatal to the fetus.

 

It is irrelevant to the actual injuries being caused, whether the fertilized ovum is coerced into the womb or not does not change the fact that it is the fertilized ovum that instigates the invasion of the uterine wall, if it did not then no harm is caused and it will eventually be expelled from the females body. The only coercion during and after implantation is that caused by the fertilized ovum. If you attest that this is a natural biological function then you cannot forbid a person from stopping that function .. just as you cannot be stopped from ceasing any natural biological function that occurs in your body, neither can you claim that the fertilized ovum is a person, something cannot be a natural function and a person at the same time.

The portraying of the fetus as any type of actor, even an incompetent one, may offend those who see pregnancy as merely a set of biological processes more akin to other kinds of Physiological processes, such as focusing the eye, yet this is exactly how the court has defined pregnancy. Rather than a set of biological processes involving only one individual, a woman, the court in Roe established that pregnancy is a condition in which there are two recognizable entities, the woman and the fertilized ovum throughout its developmental stages. The state protects both of them. For this reason it is insufficient to think that pregnancy is merely a set of physiological processes void of human agency, to the extent that there are two human entities in pregnancy, the state protects two human interests and therefore two human actors, even if one of them, the fetus, is an incompetent actor.

The terminology is quite straight forward, it basically says that the lack of action or verbal agreement can imply that consent is given .. however once a person, by action or words, explicitly says no then it can no longer be assumed or implied that consent is given.

The idea that the fertilized ovum is coerced into the womb has no bearing on the action of invading the uterine wall, if I coerce you into a room but do nothing to injure you or stop you leaving then no harm is done, if however you attach yourself to the wall of that room and start to damage it and refuse to leave despite my refusal to give to consent for you to damage the wall then I have the right to remove you, if during that removal you injure me I have the right to defend myself.

Why can disapproval not be expressed towards the unborn life?

You assertion of the pregnancy not being able to be terminated by the unborn life relies on that unborn life being the victim when it is not.

The action of someone grabbing your arm and breaking it after you jostled them is not comparable, for one it is a single action that does not result in further action(s) that further incur injuries to you over a protracted time period. If the person were to grab you arm, breaking it and then hang onto it for 9 months inflicting further harm unrelated to the initial action it would be comparable. For your analogy to be comparable the fertilized ovum would have to cease inflicting further injuries onto the woman after its invasion of the uterine wall.

I will also mention the fact that even IF a person consents to allow another person to use their body in order to sustain that persons life it does not mean they are 'contracted' to do so until that person is well again, the person who gave the consent to be attached can at any point, and with no reason, withdraw that consent even if it means the other person dying.

What is the factual cause of the body requiring to defend itself, what is the sequence of events, or chains, that explain how or why an event occurred. A factual cause can be thought of as necessary but not sufficient cause of an event, there are two types of factual cause - 1. casual links, 2. "but for" causes, the former increases the chances that another event will occur but do not cause the actual event itself. Source : Calabresi - Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts - Page 71 and the latter are acts or activities "without which a particular injury would not have occurred", yet not sufficient in itself for its occurrence.
Among the virtually infinite number of necessary factual causes the task of the law is to locate the one necessary and sufficient cause of the event, that is, the legal cause. The legal cause is "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation .. the primary or moving cause ... the last negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted. The dominant, moving or producing cause" - Source : Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed Page 1225, the legal cause is, therefore, both a necessary and sufficient condition to explain why an event occurred.

In your scenario, the body defending itself would be traced back to "the last negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted." and that act would be the initial infection of HIV, without that initial infection the body would not be required to defend itself and as such cause fever.

As far as the fertilized ovum is concerned "the last negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted." is it's implantation into the uterine wall, without that there would be no pregnancy and no injuries incurred by the woman.

See above, the law must find "the last negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted." in the analogy you are using that last act is the injection of the virus, in the case of the fertilized ovum it is the invasion of the uterine wall.

Again see above

The law recognizes that both involuntary and voluntary acts can cause harm and injury to other people and that involuntary characteristic of an action does not give its perpetrator any right to inflict harm or injury. As the Model Penal Code notes, "People whose involuntary movements threaten harm to others may present a public health or safety problem." - Source : Model Penal Code - Page 197 - In criminal cases the state itself initiates proceedings against perpetrators to protect the public interest, a person who causes harm through involuntary movement lack the mens rea to be held legally responsible for their behaviour, furthermore an act cannot be deemed voluntary when the person is underage.
The fetus's behavior nonetheless falls into that category of action in which the law assigns objective fault even without the presence of conscious intention. In this sense, people can be objectively at fault whether or not they have the mental capacity or requisite knowledge to know that their behavior is criminal - Source : LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law Page 212-213 - In the same way the fetus's behaviour is objectively at fault for causing pregnancy, even though it has no knowledge, consciousness, or intention of doing so.

Recognition of the fertilized ovum as an incompetent actor who makes a woman pregnant opens the door to a new way of evaluation the legal significance of what the fetus does when it imposes even a medically normal pregnancy on a woman, to the degree that the fetus shares the attributes of a person, its imposition of normal pregnancy against a woman's will is an invasion of her right to be let alone from other private entities. The fetus acquires no entitlement to intrude on a woman simply because it lacks the mens rea to make it criminally responsible for what it does. - Note: We must remember the condition of pregnancy serves the immediate survival needs of the fetus, not the woman. It is the fetus whose development and continued existence depends on keeping the woman pregnant. While born people may wish to exercise the option to continue their presence in the form of offspring genetically and socially connected to them, the very fact they are born signifies that their own immediate lives do not require the condition of pregnancy to sustain them. By contrast, the fetus does not merely intrude upon a woman's body as an incompetent actor but as one who directly and specifically benefits from taking her body. As Philosopher Frances M. Kamn notes, this gives the woman more rather than less justification for terminating pregnancy with an abortion. - Source : Kamn. Creation and Abortion : A Study in Moral and Legal Philosophy

The imminent threat of physical harm (or death) are not the only reasons deadly force can be justified. Currently states recognize three contexts of when deadly force in self defence is justified;

1. when one is threatened with death
2. when one is threatened with a serious bodily injury (defined as damage or loss of use of an organ or limb for a protracted period of time, such as six weeks)
3. the invasion of one's liberty, such as in kidnaping, rape, or slavery

The invasion of property is seen as an invasion of one's liberty and as such justifies deadly force.