Abortion isn't a religious issue, and your example is a poorly constructed false equivalence.

The failure with the violinist argument, and others like it (such as your "blood donation" example), is that it not only fails to account for the false equivalence it presents (e.g., a right to life is not the same as a right not to die, the relationship between parents and child differs from the relationship between stranger and stranger, the womb does not represent extraordinary means but is designed to support gestation), the consequentialist thinking necessary to employ it where if 'the ends are the same all means are equivalent' is refused in virtually all other cases except abortion to justify abortion, which truly is a case of an individual building an argument from which logically follows X, Y, and Z, but refusing Y and Z for no other reason than they don't like them. If a person needed a blood transfusion, their cause of death would not be "failure to receive blood transfusion," but "injury." If a person is aborted, their cause of death would not be "failure to adapt to their environment," but "<dismemberment, chemical scalding, or any of the other absolutely barbaric means by which children are killed>."

This is beside whether comparing sex to cars colliding is appropriate (it is not; use of the sexual faculties between man and woman has, as a primary purpose, pregnancy. This isn't a case of an otherwise difficult to forecast or easily avoidable "accident" of the type "car collision" might represent).

If you think it is acceptable, im going to start treating your lot alot more differently. If you force me to live be your religious doctrine, you are my enemy.

This is hilarious, because whenever you decide to vote, you attempt to force others to live by whatever doctrine you embrace. It's you against the world, pal!