You literally changed a major position before our eyes.
just tired of people saying I want to control women having sex just because I dare want exceptions for rape victims.
You said you are only for laws against abortion if the pregnancy is the consequence of willful sex. The issue is, clearly and objectively, sex.
They already went through one trauma, why make them go through another?
The life of a fetus/embryo? I'm sorry, I mean "baby."
Are you just that heartless that you want consistency for all?
I think a woman should be able to end a pregnancy whenever she wants. Pointing out your inconsistencies, and the fact that you've all but admitted to your problem being with sex, are separate issues.
Also Roe v Wade never solved any precedent like that, it just said abortion was required federally.
If laws against abortion are upheld by the courts, then laws for compulsory organ donation would have to be upheld as well.
Both are issues of bodily autonomy and saving "lives."
Closest thing I can think of that it set a precedent for other than abortion is gay sex.
If we are talking about the legal precedent Roe set, then yes, the fall of Roe would necessarily mean the fall of Lawrence (which made laws against gay sex, oral sex, etc. unconstitutional) if brought before the courts.
As a separate issue, the fall of Roe being largely because "abortion isn't in the Constitution" means the fall of lots of other constitutional rights (gay marriage, interracial marriage, and many more) if brought before the courts.