Premeditated, intentional, aggressive homicide warrants life in prison.
If you hurt yourself in the middle of that action, that's not really a problem that demands legalization as a solution.
Are you suggesting that armed robbery should be legal because convenience stores get held up and that commonly results in the owner's death (or the robber's in self-defense)? No, of course you aren't. You wouldn't suggest any other analogue of this either. Because you're making a hypocritical, emotional argument.
I would like you to understand that your simplistic argument in favor of the legality of abortion (more or less the classic "don't like it, don't have one!")could easily be used as an argument in favor of the legality of slavery ("don't like it, don't own one").
I would like you to understand that we are arguing about whether or not something should be legal, and saying that it is or is not legal currently, is not an argument, just a statement of binary fact. It adds nothing to the discussion.
The application of premeditated, intentional, aggressive force used to kill another human being is a human rights violation; governments are created to secure these rights, and they do so by preventing and punishing the action. The law should not be hypocritical in its approach, and as such, it should not permit aggressive homicide if and only if the perpetrator is a pregnant woman.
Entirely consistent with a defense of individual liberty.
Entirely free of accused misogyny.
Human liberty is secured by governments punishing / preventing aggressive violations of rights. "Classical Liberalism 101," so to speak.
So, you're just going to irrationally and emotionally lash out and repeat yourself ad infinitum without refuting anything, then?
K. I'll be back later to see if you've regained the ability to engage in discourse.