First, I would say that the right to privacy is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution but was read into the Constitution for the sole and express purpose of providing a legal justification for precluding the state from regulating birth control in Griswold vs. Connecticut. This supposed right was then extended to abortion during Roe V. Wade. The strange thing about Griswold, is that the justices could actually have accomplished what they wanted by invoking the 9th and 10th Amendments, which actually are enumerated rights. But alas, we have not yet had a chance to overturn this flawed legal argument.
That being said, there are no rights guaranteed in the Constitution that are absolute. So for example, we have the freedom of speech; however, one may not invoke the freedom of speech in order to trample another person’s rights by calling for imminent violence upon them. We have the right to be secure in our person and property from unlawful search and seizure by the government, unless probable cause can be established. You get my point. What is interesting is that fundamental natural rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion are curtailed under our current views of the Constitution, as are our “privacy rights” with regard to search and seizure, but the one inalienable right that cannot be breached is the woman’s right to privacy rights in the case of medical care? This makes absolutely no sense, particularly where that right is being used as the nexus to deny the fundamental right of life for another individual, the child. We literally do not make this kind of argument for any other right, which shows you how absurdly illogical the pro-choice position is.
That being said, I think we are all on the same team in saying that society should discourage irresponsible practices which lead to unwanted pregnancy such as the denigration of traditional marriage, encouragement of sex outside of marriage, etc.
Where you go off the rails (other than in your premise that one must be pro-choice to value women) is in saying that curtailing the “right to privacy” so that it does not infringe on the right of a defenseless child is tantamount to removing their privacy rights or enslaving of women. That is absurd on its face. Saving the life of a child by drawing a clear distinction between where the woman’s freedom ends and where the freedom of the child begins is not enslavement anymore than it is not enslavement to say that men have no right to put their hands on a woman in the workplace. The state does have a legitimate role in preventing the murder of innocents and that trumps my personal convenience.
After the whole village talk about my pregnancy, finally somebody make police report about me going for illegal abotion. When police come at my door, I say “I have never been pregnant. It was only gossips”. Question, who do police should believe: my neighbours or I? How to prove it?