The exception existed with Savita, but she died anyway because the " construed sufficiently broadly" doesn't work that well.

And then you have the "but she only got blind", "she only got diabetes", "she only has a fistula".

The fact is that if a woman wants an abortion and it is freely allowed until 4 months, the woman who doesn't want to be pregnant and give birth, would do it as soon as posible (first semester) and later abortion would only remain for medical reasons. Like the cancer situation.

On the other hand, when you ban it, you have Savitas and other death women because needed abortions are denied as well. And raped girls won't be allowed to abort in the first semester, since the permision would be delayed in the hopes abortion is no longer an option and the raped girl is forced to give birth. That is what happens and what Ololade is pushing for. Whatever the intention he has in his mind, that is what we are seeing.

By the way, if he is concerned about babies, he might want to push for mandatory blood donation. After all, premature babies need blood tranfusion to survive.

The core point is already addressed. Women have a right over their bodies. Body integrity is considered more important than life in every situation where a man might be involved: blood donation, marrow donation, organ donation... So women should be granted the same right to decide over their bodies and lives.

Right now, foetuses are ofered more rights than babies. Even if they aren't people. But while they want to force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will and force to give birth, they won't offer the same women free healthcare or ask for a similar sacrifice for men (men won't be forced to donate to their offspring, to put an example). Since the same people who would force a painful birth on an unwilling woman is not willing to pay more taxes to make sure the pregnancy is healthy and that there is no miscarriage, what I see is that they don't even value foetuses. They just value forcing women to give birth.