..... justify the personal irresponsibility of women.
Of course you meant, once again, to say the irresponsibility of men. Either that or you're simply a sexist who thoroughly enjoys the patriarchy that the U.S. has always been and seems to be heading even further to being.
Men are already responsible. If a woman decides to have the baby, the man is responsible to support it by law and can't walk away. The man is sentenced to 18 years of labor to support the child. When a man complains the societal response is "Your fault, pay up!"
If the woman decides not to have the baby, she can do so without repercussion. She is not held to the same standards to be compelled to support her baby and can choose to kill it and escape responsibility.
If 1% is so inconsequential to you, why not just leave that exemption from the ban in the law?
I have no idea why you are asking me to change a law. If it's illegal then it's illegal. If it's not, it's not. That edge case doesn't really matter to me. But Tennessee may value the individuality of life, even if its by rape, and would expect those women to pursue adoption or other options, expecting women to give up 9 months for the sake of their baby. In California it is illegal to clear out bird eggs from a tree in your back yard, so making abortion illegal in cases of rape because the people in your state value life isn't totally absurd.
Yes, because no woman has ever, in the history of humanity, told her suiters that she was waiting until marriage.
Hmm, well are you arguing that all women should act like brain-washed, controlled, prudes or that we should have higher standards? You can only pick one because having higher standards does not equal being the virgin Mary. Or admit that you're a sexist troll and move on.
At some points in history parents taught young women to have very high standards. Parental approval used to be expected for a woman to take a suitor, taking care of the 'inexperienced' issue.
If someone did get pregnant outside of marriage family pressure would be applied by both the man's family and the woman's family, if they had respectable morals, to get married and have the baby. Abortion was not an option and was something generally relegated to prostitutes and riff raff. The young adults going into the relationship knew that they would need to get married if a pregnancy occurred, so they would pick the best partner to pursue a relationship with from the start.
Of course women can wait until marriage. They very often do. What about the following cases though:
1) A married woman gets pregnant by her husband but then finds out that she has a condition that puts both her and her child at a very high risk of death if she goes full term.
2) A woman get's raped and becomes pregnant but is in no position to be pregnant or support and care for a child. An example here would be a woman on active duty in the armed forces or otherwise occupied in a life where being pregnant and giving birth are not possible.
3) The child will be born horribly disfigured to the extent they will have no quality of life whatsoever and will not survive, or will require constant medical support to 'live' that is far beyond the woman's ability to pay for. For example born without a functioning major organ.
We could go on and on but perhaps you could respond to those 3.
Number 1 and 3 are extreme edge cases and the vast majority of abortions do not occur for that reason.
For number 2 the woman is typically discharged from active duty and is given maternity leave and possibly a desk job somewhere.