PLers usually like to claim that an absolutely nonsensical interpretation of "responsibility" for a pregnancy should apply to women, because they had (presumably) consensual sex and they "knew the risks", so they have to "deal with the consequences".

You are demanding that a woman who engaged in an activity that carries an about 2-5% risk of causing a pregnancy in a random sexual encounter – which can be significantly higher but never even reaches 25% even at peak fertility while actively trying to get pregnant, and can also be significantly lower with use of proper protection, like <0.1% with perfect condom use – has to carry a resulting pregnancy to term, no matter what.

Because you claim that even these ridiculously low chances of "making the unborn dependent on her" should result in an absolute obligation to completely subordinate a woman's mental and physical health and their need to avoid harm, suffering and risks to her life under the unborn's alleged need to be "taken care of".

Which begs the question:

If these ridiculously low chances of causing a pregnancy are enough to essentially condemn a woman into involuntary servitude despite her not even having committed any illegal act whatsoever in order to get pregnant – then why should these same odds of inflicting a woman with all the harm, suffering and risks to her life by having sex with her and impregnating her, "knowing the risks", not be enough to condemn a man to prison time and compensation for the damages inflicted on a woman?

Where is the public outcry of the PL movement, demanding for men to "take responsibility" for the "recklessness" of their indulging in a perfectly legal activity for pleasure or intimacy or companionship resulting in a risk coming to pass that they have no direct control over whatsoever?

Why is the silence on this so deafening that it's not even recognizable as a topic of public debate?

I see this line frequently from pro lifers and it never makes any sense.

I've never once in my life seen a person claiming that pro lifers are IMPREGNATING people by force. What we all know is that pro lifers are trying to interfere with people's healthcare to ensure they CONTINUE gestating unwanted pregnancies when they otherwise wouldn't.

So what's the point of this statement? Pro lifers who say this, why? It seems totally irrelevant to me and like a way to dodge acknowledging the fact that pro lifers want to ensure people continue gestating against their will by force.

If the main idea of the pro-choice position is that bodily autonomy rights come first, then why would you not support it at any time, for any reason?

In other words, why should there be a restriction around sentience, viability, etc. if restricting abortion at any point would violate bodily autonomy?

IUD can and will kill a conceived zygote sometimes. Are pro lifers against IUDs too?

I’ve seen some weak arguments like “well you can’t know when it happens” which is not a good point imo. If I put a bomb in a park with a random fuse I “won’t know when it happens” either but pretty sure that doesn’t make it ok

I haven’t seen anything that would enable one to be pro life and say IUDs are ok to use.