You're literally saying that you want the "reasonable person" standard to define when a woman meets the criteria for the life of the mother exemption your ideal law would allow for. If that's how you want the law to read, then it will be up to the judiciary to decide where the line is. Every time a woman gets an abortion to save her life, she'll be gambling that a judge agrees with her that she's being reasonable.

How do you expect that to play out without a judge deciding whether she's being reasonable?

>So you are also against the military, schooling, and police then? Those are careers that they don't get a say as to how much risk they put themselves under.

I'm against the draft, yes. And forcing people to be police officers. People can choose to take that risk.

>When you get pregnant, you have agreed to take this risk.

Unless she didn't want to get pregnant...

And you point out that a normal risk from pregnancy is way less than 1%. So when a woman gets a condition that increases that risk to 1%, that's more risk than she wanted to take.

At the end of the day you're position is to impose your risk tolerance on others.