1. Says you. There are certain fundamental rights enjoyed by the mother that are given equal importance in law (if the law recognizes fetal personhood at all). In this case, we are dealing with the rights of an actual, living, biologically independent person versus the rights of a biologically-dependent being who could still end up miscarried or stillborn anyway. The mother can make her own decisions about her own body--including who or what it will support biologically--without your or my or anyone else's input, you meddling fuck. She is not a biological slave to anyone or anything, for any reason.
2. Rape, once it's happened, is over, at least so far as the acute physical violation is concerned. There are devastating mental effects, to be sure, but (though I admit some ignorance on this matter) I do not know what there is in terms of lingering physical effects (beyond the possibilities of pregnancy and STIs). But in all this the fetus is faultless nonetheless, and if you're going to argue that the mental effects justify it, then fine, I'll say that the mental effects of wanting an abortion but being denied it because of self-righteous, moralizing fucktards like you are just as bad (the woman has gone from consenting to nonconsenting--if she was ever the former), and being forced to seek an unsafe method also risks devastating physical effects.
3. The Talmud might have been written down only after the events written about in the New Testament were purported to have taken place, but the traditions on which it was based stretch back for millennia prior to that, and it is those traditions which are reflected in the Mosaic law. References to "thighs" for pregnant women in the Old Testament are references to the fetus and such are just another body part.
4. Sure it can. If a person absolutely needs a liver right now, and the only readily available matching donor is a recently-dead person, but that latter did not consent to be an organ donor, I guess it really, really, really, really sucks to be the person who needs a liver transplant.
6. And if they're taught how to use things like condoms (which they're not in abstinence-only programs--though some teachers are at least willing to show their students
how to put on a sock) that will reduce STI transmission rates drastically. If you want to reduce STI rates, teach comprehensive sex education. Telling libidinous teenagers, "Sex is bad, m'kay? Don't have sex, m'kay?" will not dissuade many of them from fucking. Comprehensive sex education works. Abstinence-only sex education might be one of the few things that fails even harder than you do at being a half-decent human being.
7. And women will still seek abortions for any number of reasons anyway. If you want to cut down on those, implement all the policies I mentioned. Just restricting or banning abortion, while it may result in a dip in abortion rates, also results in a substantial shift toward those abortions that are done anyway being done by unsafe methods, which poses a gigantic risk to the health of the mother. Other than the idea of single-payer health insurance and a bit about sex education, you haven't said diddly-squat about what I proposed.
8. You're talking about the
AHCA? That died nearly a year ago and it ain't coming back. Republicans don't give two flying fucks about anything other than making sure rich people don't have to pay taxes and corporations can pollute as much as they want (oh, which also harms mothers and fetuses--especially the latter, quite dramatically), except when they need to rile up their retarded, ignorant base like you. The GOP tries to have its cake and eat it too (restrict abortion when they need to appease the evangelicals and Catholics who can't stand the thought of women having a smidgen of control over their own lives and meanwhile cut social supports because that costs money that could be going to rich people in tax cuts) and that's why they fail and always will and deserve absolutely no influence in any government anywhere whatsoever.
As for abstinence, I agree--abstaining from sexual contact with others, or masturbating, is the most reliable method of preventing pregnancy and the transmission of STIs. However, we know that only teaching abstinence simply does not work, and so it behooves anyone who is intellectually honest and wants to reduce the rates of STI transmission or unintended or unwanted pregnancy rates (and hence abortion rates) must support comprehensive sex education and oppose any attempts by any person or group, such as the Roman Catholic Church, to restrict sex education to teaching
only abstinence, since that method has always failed and always will.
In short, butt out of other people's lives and stop dictating decisions that are not yours to make. Your so-called "morality" is a relic of a barbarous time from an evil source that deserves absolutely no respect in the modern world. If you get pregnant, you can go and not get an abortion. Don't make that choice for anyone else--you have no right to do so.
And if you can't be intellectually honest, you have no ground to demand to be taken seriously in any discussion on anything whatsoever.
EDIT: Progressives see systemic inequities, recognize that that's shitty for the people with the short end of the stick, and work to ameliorate said inequities.
Conservatives see systemic inequities, see that those inequities favour them, and fight all attempts to remedy the problem, often by claiming that the evident inequities don't actually exist.
Fucking dishonest hacks.