If your concern is protection of life above all else (and not, say, trying to punish women for having sex that you disapprove of), why should "personal responsibility" matter?Well I cannot say? I would guess 'no.' I would not try to conflate the two because there are significant differences in personal responsibility here, IMO.
If a pint of your blood will save the life of a stranger, is the fact that you aren't "responsible" for that other life justification for letting him die?
... but for an apples-to-apples comparison, consider a child who needs a kidney and his father, who's the only match. The father doesn't want to give up his kidney even though his child will die (for argument's sake, let's say he knows he'd lose his job during the recovery and couldn't afford to support his other kids plus medical bills for himself and his sick child while recovering).
What should happen next? The father is most certainly responsible for his son - just as much as any pregnant woman is responsible for her fetus. Do you choose the father's bodily security and let the child die, or do you deny the father's bodily autonomy and steal his kidney to save the boy?
Right now, the law in every country I know of says that the father should keep his kidney even if it kills the child.
So... as I see it, you can choose between two options:
- hypocrisy: be against abortion while also allowing people to do what they want with their organs.
- consistency, but monstrosity: be in favour of denying all people the freedom to choose what happens to their bodies.
... or you can extend the same rights to pregnant women that you (presumably) grant to everyone else.