Why Abortion is Immoral

[Tree of Life]

Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:

First premises:

1. One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
2. Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
3. Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).

This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:

1. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.
2. Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.
3. Therefore abortion is immoral.

It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments). Some people try to challenge it in the following ways but I think all of these are unsuccessful:

"According to Marquis' principle birth control, masturbation, and menstruation would also be immoral because human sperm and eggs have a VHF just like a fetus does."

This objection fails for scientific reasons. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, genetically speaking the sperm and egg cease to exist and a brand new human zygote is formed. The zygote is genetically unique from both the sperm and the egg. There is great reason to consider a zygote a potential human being whereas there is very little reason to consider an independent sperm or egg a potential human being. Therefore, the zygote has a VHF in a way that a sperm or egg alone does not.

Furthermore it is possible to assign harm in cases of abortion whereas it is not possible to assign harm in cases of contraception. In cases of abortion a fetus or zygote is harmed because it is deprived of future, human experiences. But what is harmed in cases of contraception? It cannot be a singular sperm because there's no reason to assign harm to a sperm and not an ovum. It cannot be assigned to a singular ovum because there is no reason to assign harm to an ovum and not a sperm. It cannot be assigned to a sperm and ovum together because the possibilities during conception are so large that we can never know which sperm will fertilize which ovum. There is no actual agent to assign harm to that is not arbitrary in cases of contraception.

"According to this argument God would be the greatest mass murdered of all time. A good amount of fertilized eggs don't make it to full gestation. Many are naturally aborted by the body even before the woman knows she is pregnant."

This objection is something of a red herring. Whether or not God chooses to end a human life is not relevant to the discussion. It may be that God has rights over life that human beings do not. The question at hand is whether or not human beings have the right to abort a fetus. This objection is a smoke screen that fails to really deal with the argument.

"Marquis' argument doesn't explain why it's wrong to kill old people. Killing an old man deprives him of relatively little VHF. Yet we still feel that it is very wrong to kill him."

Killing a NAHB may be wrong for multiple reasons. It may be wrong to kill an old man for other reasons than depriving him of a VHF. This does no damage to the original principle. Taking away a VHF is still a great harm and great wrong whether it's suffered by a NAHB or by a fetus. The harm is the same.

Those are the best objections I'm aware of. Perhaps you can find others. Anyway... did Marquis have the last word?

 

[brinny]

*subscribing*

 

[Davian]

Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:

First premises:

1. One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
2. Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
3. Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).

This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:

1. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.
2. Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.
3. Therefore abortion is immoral.

It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments). Some people try to challenge it in the following ways but I think all of these are unsuccessful:

"According to Marquis' principle birth control, masturbation, and menstruation would also be immoral because human sperm and eggs have a VHF just like a fetus does."

This objection fails for scientific reasons. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, genetically speaking the sperm and egg cease to exist and a brand new human zygote is formed. The zygote is genetically unique from both the sperm and the egg. There is great reason to consider a zygote a potential human being whereas there is very little reason to consider an independent sperm or egg a potential human being. Therefore, the zygote has a VHF in a way that a sperm or egg alone does not.

"According to this argument God would be the greatest mass murdered of all time. A good amount of fertilized eggs don't make it to full gestation. Many are naturally aborted by the body even before the woman knows she is pregnant."

This objection is something of a red herring. Whether or not God chooses to end a human life is not relevant to the discussion. It may be that God has rights over life that human beings do not. The question at hand is whether or not human beings have the right to abort a fetus. This objection is a smoke screen that fails to really deal with the argument.

Those are the best objections I'm aware of. Perhaps you can find others. Anyway... did Marquis have the last word?

Do women have any rights? Are you a woman?

 

[Tree of Life]

Do women have any rights? Are you a woman?

Let me first answer these questions before I critique this kind of response.

1. Yes, of course women have all kinds of rights.
2. No I am not a woman.

These are two other kinds of objections that are mounted against Marquis' argument and they're both very silly, I think. They go like this:

"Women have rights over their own body. They are not morally obligated to support a fetus. The fetus may have a right to life, but it does not trump the right the woman has over her body."

This argument was made popular by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson under her "famous violinist" scenario. It fails for two reasons:

1. It does not address Marquis' argument at all. So his argument still stands.
2. It fails to explain why we believe that a mother is ethically obliged to care for a newborn child. A newborn is just as dependent on the mother's body as a fetus is. Yet we think that it's wrong for a mother to neglect a child that has already been born.

"If you're not a woman then you're not allowed to challenge the ethics of abortion."

I'm not sure that this even needs a response. It's like saying "if you're not a father then you're not allowed to challenge my decision to be a dead-beat dad." After all, just because a guy gets a woman pregnant doesn't mean he's ethically obliged to care for that child, right? Oh wait...

Or: "if you're not a politician then you're not allowed to challenge governmental corruption." It just doesn't follow.

 

[Chriliman]

Let me first answer these questions before I critique this kind of response.

1. Yes, of course women have all kinds of rights.
2. No I am not a woman.

These are two other kinds of objections that are mounted against Marquis' argument and they're both very silly, I think. They go like this:

"Women have rights over their own body. They are not morally obligated to support a fetus. The fetus may have a right to life, but it does not trump the right the woman has over her body."

This argument was made popular by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson under her "famous violinist" scenario. It fails for two reasons:

1. It does not address Marquis' argument at all. So his argument still stands.
2. It fails to explain why we believe that a mother is ethically obliged to care for a newborn child. A newborn is just as dependent on the mother's body as a fetus is. Yet we think that it's wrong for a mother to neglect a child that has already been born.

"If you're not a woman then you're not allowed to challenge the ethics of abortion."

I'm not sure that this even needs a response. It's like saying "if you're not a father then you're not allowed to challenge my decision to be a dead-beat dad." After all, just because a guy gets a woman pregnant doesn't mean he's ethically obliged to care for that child, right? Oh wait...

Or: "if you're not a politician then you're not allowed to challenge governmental corruption." It just doesn't follow.

God bless you sir, keep up the good work! Some need help thinking about what's right and wrong and you do a fine job of clearly explaining how abortion is in fact immoral.

Let's promote good choices before conception from both men and women to help solve the abortion problem.

Im pro good choices before conception!

 

[SteveB28]

Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:

First premises:

1. One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
2. Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
3. Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).

This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:

No. That does not become true as a consequence of the other situation. You/he have to show it on its own merits.

1. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.

1. No. It deprives it of the opportunity of becoming A HUMAN BEING, which may subsequently have a valuable future.

2. [*]Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.

3. Totally incorrect. A foetus is not a human being - it is a POTENTIAL human being. Your/his argument falls apart with this faulty conclusion.

4. [*]Therefore abortion is immoral.

Wrong - see above. (Apologies for the strange numbering - you seem to have embedded a 'bullet point' function)

It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments).

Then I would advise that you "see" a heck of a lot more - this wasn't a good one.

Some people try to challenge it in the following ways but I think all of these are unsuccessful:

Now irrelevant.

 

[SteveB28]

This argument was made popular by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson under her "famous violinist" scenario. It fails for two reasons:

1. It does not address Marquis' argument at all. So his argument still stands.
2. It fails to explain why we believe that a mother is ethically obliged to care for a newborn child. A newborn is just as dependent on the mother's body as a fetus is. Yet we think that it's wrong for a mother to neglect a child that has already been born.

.

You have a degree in philosophy? Who taught you to structure an argument, may I inquire?

Point 1 I will ignore, as it has been dealt with in my comments above and can be discarded.

Point 2 is just terrible! For one, a newborn baby does NOT have the same dependency on a woman's body as does a developing foetus. Disconnect the woman's body from the foetus and it perishes in the vast majority of cases. Not so with a newborn. The baby can survive quite well without any direct connection to the body of its mother. Nutrition can be supplied EITHER from the breast OR through other milk substitutes.

You weren't wrong, obviously, when you stated that you aren't a woman!

Moreover, we make no ethical judgement of the woman who is unable/prefers not to 'give' her body to the newborn for its nourishment. Bottle fed babies are quite generally ethically accepted.

So, in ethical terms, we quite happily accept a woman's right NOT to have her body 'used' by the newborn child, if she so wishes. We give primacy to the woman's rights in this case.

Why not so if she wishes NOT to have her body much more greatly 'used' by the foetus?

 

[Armoured]

Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:

First premises:

1. One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
2. Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
3. Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).

This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:

1. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.
2. Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.
3. Therefore abortion is immoral.

It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments). Some people try to challenge it in the following ways but I think all of these are unsuccessful:

"According to Marquis' principle birth control, masturbation, and menstruation would also be immoral because human sperm and eggs have a VHF just like a fetus does."

This objection fails for scientific reasons. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, genetically speaking the sperm and egg cease to exist and a brand new human zygote is formed. The zygote is genetically unique from both the sperm and the egg. There is great reason to consider a zygote a potential human being whereas there is very little reason to consider an independent sperm or egg a potential human being. Therefore, the zygote has a VHF in a way that a sperm or egg alone does not.

"According to this argument God would be the greatest mass murdered of all time. A good amount of fertilized eggs don't make it to full gestation. Many are naturally aborted by the body even before the woman knows she is pregnant."

This objection is something of a red herring. Whether or not God chooses to end a human life is not relevant to the discussion. It may be that God has rights over life that human beings do not. The question at hand is whether or not human beings have the right to abort a fetus. This objection is a smoke screen that fails to really deal with the argument.

"Marquis' argument doesn't explain why it's wrong to kill old people. Killing an old man deprives him of relatively little VHF. Yet we still feel that it is very wrong to kill him."

Killing a NAHB may be wrong for multiple reasons. It may be wrong to kill an old man for other reasons than depriving him of a VHF. This does no damage to the original principle. Taking away a VHF is still a great harm and great wrong whether it's suffered by a NAHB or by a fetus. The harm is the same.

Those are the best objections I'm aware of. Perhaps you can find others. Anyway... did Marquis have the last word?

Flawed premise at 2. Killing a NAHB is "wrong" at least partly because a NAHB is a sentient being who can appreciate and fear the concept of death. A VHF is not. Potential is not actuality. Acorns aren't oak trees.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:

First premises:

1. One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
2. Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
3. Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).

This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:

1. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.
2. Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.
3. Therefore abortion is immoral.

[...]

Wow! That is excellent! I had never thought of that argument!

[...] Im pro good choices before conception!

LOL — Love it!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:

First premises:

1. One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
2. Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
3. Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).

This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:

1. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.
2. Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.
3. Therefore abortion is immoral.

It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments). Some people try to challenge it in the following ways but I think all of these are unsuccessful:

"According to Marquis' principle birth control, masturbation, and menstruation would also be immoral because human sperm and eggs have a VHF just like a fetus does."

This objection fails for scientific reasons. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, genetically speaking the sperm and egg cease to exist and a brand new human zygote is formed. The zygote is genetically unique from both the sperm and the egg. There is great reason to consider a zygote a potential human being whereas there is very little reason to consider an independent sperm or egg a potential human being. Therefore, the zygote has a VHF in a way that a sperm or egg alone does not.

"According to this argument God would be the greatest mass murdered of all time. A good amount of fertilized eggs don't make it to full gestation. Many are naturally aborted by the body even before the woman knows she is pregnant."

This objection is something of a red herring. Whether or not God chooses to end a human life is not relevant to the discussion. It may be that God has rights over life that human beings do not. The question at hand is whether or not human beings have the right to abort a fetus. This objection is a smoke screen that fails to really deal with the argument.

"Marquis' argument doesn't explain why it's wrong to kill old people. Killing an old man deprives him of relatively little VHF. Yet we still feel that it is very wrong to kill him."

Killing a NAHB may be wrong for multiple reasons. It may be wrong to kill an old man for other reasons than depriving him of a VHF. This does no damage to the original principle. Taking away a VHF is still a great harm and great wrong whether it's suffered by a NAHB or by a fetus. The harm is the same.

Those are the best objections I'm aware of. Perhaps you can find others. Anyway... did Marquis have the last word?

I'll add another premise:

- forcing a human to use his/her body as a host to another, is wrong as it is an infraction to that human's bodily autonomy. It is the same principle that states that you can't force someone to donate organs, blood, bone marrow, etc.

With that premise added, it seems to me that the argument no longer works.

If you require bone marrow and I am a match, but I refuse to donate bone marrow, then that is my right - even if it means that you'll die.

Your rights do not have priority over my rights.
Just like a fetus' rights do not have priority over the woman's rights.

 

[SkyWriting]

He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus.

Given homicide rates, then no.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

This is the best video I have watched so far to explain why abortion is immoral — an excellent five-minute summary of a handful of arguments:

.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It does not address Marquis' argument at all. So his argument still stands.

I agree that the argument itself is not addressed. But it IS rendered invalid. Because it adds a premise. And with that premise, the conclusion no longer follows.

It fails to explain why we believe that a mother is ethically obliged to care for a newborn child.

First of all, we aren't talking about babies that are actually born.
Secondly, plenty of people put their kids up for adoption for a variety of reasons, and it is easy to imagine scenario's where it is in the best interest of the child to do exactly that.

But again, we aren't talking about newborns. We are talking about pregnancies.

A newborn is just as dependent on the mother's body as a fetus is.

No, it isn't.
Anyone can care for and raise a newborn.

When a child is born, you could take it away instantly and give it to just about anybody who's capable of giving it a bottle and caring for it.

It is NOT dependent on the mother at all. It's not even dependend on having a mother (biological or otherwise).

If my other half would have died during labor 2 months ago, I would have been perfectly capable of taking care of my newborn son all by myself.

Never heared about the "single dad"? They exist, you know.

Yet we think that it's wrong for a mother to neglect a child that has already been born.

It's wrong for anybody who takes up the responsability of raising a child, to neglect it. And when it happens, social services comes to your home and takes the child away to give it to people that do NOT neglect it.

Which is just another piece of evidence that newborns are NOT dependend on their biological mother.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

I'll add another premise:

- forcing a human to use his/her body as a host to another, is wrong as it is an infraction to that human's bodily autonomy. It is the same principle that states that you can't force someone to donate organs, blood, bone marrow, etc.

With that premise added, it seems to me that the argument no longer works.

If you require bone marrow and I am a match, but I refuse to donate bone marrow, then that is my right - even if it means that you'll die.

Your rights do not have priority over my rights.
Just like a fetus' rights do not have priority over the woman's rights.

The argument still works, because (with the exception for situations of rape), whenever a foetus is created within a woman's womb, it only happens with the woman's consent.

So, yes, you cannot force a woman to have a foetus — but (unless she was raped), when she agrees to have sex with someone, she agrees to take the risk of having a foetus inside her body; and, when the woman agrees to have a foetus inside her body, she is morally obligated to respect his/her/its rights (Hmm... Which pronoun should we use for a foetus?), which means that she is not allowed to deliberately kill him/her/it.

A woman cannot refuse to have a foetus in her body after she has already, consciously and not subjected to coercion, committed an act which could potentially, with her knowledge and awareness, allow for a foetus to be created inside her body: sex. In order words, when she accepts to have sex, has not been coerced to do so, and is aware that doing so may cause her to get pregnant, she is automatically accepting to have a foetus in her body, which binds her to the moral obligation of allowing him/her/it to live, and she cannot change her mind afterwards.

To use the analogy you have made, killing a foetus after a woman has accepted to harbour him/her/it in her body is like requiring that the bone marrow you have donated for the other guy be given back to you because you have changed your mind.

 

[SteveB28]

The argument still works, because (with the exception for situations of rape), whenever a foetus is created within a woman's womb, it only happens with the woman's consent.

So, yes, you cannot force a woman to have a foetus — but (unless she was raped), when she agrees to have sex with someone, she agrees to take the risk of having a foetus inside her body; and, when the woman agrees to have a foetus inside her body, she is morally obligated to respect his/her/its rights (Hmm... Which pronoun should we use for a foetus?), which means that she is not allowed to deliberately kill him/her/it.

A woman cannot refuse to have a foetus in her body after she has already, consciously and not subjected to coercion, committed an act which could potentially, with her knowledge and awareness, allow for a foetus to be created inside her body: sex. In order words, when she accepts to have sex, has not been coerced to do so, and is aware that doing so may cause her to get pregnant, she is automatically accepting to have a foetus in her body, which binds her to the moral obligation of allowing him/her/it to live, and she cannot change her mind afterwards.

To use the analogy you have made, killing a foetus after a woman has accepted to harbour him/her/it in her body is like requiring that the bone marrow you have donated for the other guy be given back to you because you have changed your mind.

Oh dear - did you go to the same school as our philosopher friend, by chance? You frame similar inane arguments.

Consent, in the case of pregnancy, is not a single act, but must be continued throughout the term of gestation. People do gave the facility to change their minds, you know.

But this presupposes that a woman enters into a 'contract' to maintain that consent, simply by taking part in sexual intercourse. No such connection can be logically or ethically drawn. It is not even a reasonable prospect that a woman should expect to fall pregnant each time she has sexual intercourse - humans are not particularly efficient in that regard.

 

[KCfromNC]

Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:

First premises:

1. One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
2. Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
3. Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).

This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:

1. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.
2. Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.
3. Therefore abortion is immoral.

Seems to be a much more effective argument against self-defense and against even just wars. If this were the actual reason people opposed abortion, they would be fighting against those things first since you're certainly hitting premise #2 when dealing with born adult humans and only maybe dealing with it when talking about first trimester fetuses. Is there any evidence this argument is used to oppose just wars? If not, it is hard to believe that this is a real reason for opposing other types of killing.

 

[Tree of Life]

No. It deprives it of the opportunity of becoming A HUMAN BEING, which may subsequently have a valuable future.

Genetically speaking, a fetus is certainly a human being. What's in question is whether or not a fetus is a person. But either way, a fetus in most cases will certainly become a person. Therefore a fetus has a VHF. Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.

 

[Tree of Life]

Point 2 is just terrible! For one, a newborn baby does NOT have the same dependency on a woman's body as does a developing foetus. Disconnect the woman's body from the foetus and it perishes in the vast majority of cases. Not so with a newborn. The baby can survive quite well without any direct connection to the body of its mother. Nutrition can be supplied EITHER from the breast OR through other milk substitutes.

The newborn may not be dependent on the body of the mother but a newborn is certainly dependent on someone's body. If no one uses their body to hold, feed, bathe, clothe, and protect the infant then the infant will die within 12-24 hours. I think the mother is probably the best candidate for this responsibility.

 

[Tree of Life]

Flawed premise at 2. Killing a NAHB is "wrong" at least partly because a NAHB is a sentient being who can appreciate and fear the concept of death. A VHF is not. Potential is not actuality. Acorns aren't oak trees.

Yet a fetus still suffers a great loss by being deprived of a VHF, whether or not they're aware of it. If you kill a NAHB unawares it's a similar situation. They are not aware of their death, yet you're still harming them because of the loss you've inflicted. Likewise a newborn child is not terribly sentient or aware - especially of its own mortality. You could kill an infant without the knowledge of their own death. Yet we still feel it's terribly wrong to kill an infant.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Oh dear - did you go to the same school as our philosopher friend, by chance? You frame similar inane arguments.

Who? Tree of Life? Er, no, probably not — but we seem to agree, like most Christians I know, that abortion is immoral.

Consent, in the case of pregnancy, is not a single act, but must be continued throughout the term of gestation. People do gave the facility to change their minds, you know.

No, consent is a single act, like anything else, and you cannot change your mind unless there is a specific clause for that. Here are a few examples:

• If you purchase a product at a shop, you must pay for it and you receive the product. You are not allowed to give back the product and get the money back, unless the shop specifically allows for it (and, if they do allow for it, it is generally only upon certain conditions: that the product is undamaged, that you keep the receipt, and that it is returned within a specified number of weeks). Unless the country's law requires it, no shop is obligated to allow you to return the product after you have purchased.
• If you sell your house, after you have signed the contract, you are not allowed to claim the house back, unless the contract has a specific clause that allows for it under certain conditions, similarly to the previous example.
• If I promise that I will pick you up at the airport, I am obligated to do so, by word of honour. I cannot simply just change my mind and say, ‘As it turns out, I don't want to pick you up right now.’ When I promised I would, I bound myself to this commitment that I would pick you up, regardless of what I wanted or how my mind would change meanwhile. It is implicit that, unless something very bad happens which physically prevents me from going (like excessive traffic or an accident) or something else more necessary or more urgent appears unpredictably (like a relative suffering a heart attack or a very important work-related meeting) — in which cases you would surely understand —, I am forced to go and pick you up, regardless of anything else, even if I change my mind.

Similarly, upon the moment the woman has sex, the understands that, as a result, a foetus may or may not be formed within her body — and she is obligated to respect the foetus's rights if this happens, because she has agreed to take the risk.

But this presupposes that a woman enters into a 'contract' to maintain that consent, simply by taking part in sexual intercourse. No such connection can be logically or ethically drawn.

Yes, it can. When you allow something to happen, you become responsible for it. If you put a product for sale for a specified price, you are accepting the possibility that someone will buy it; if someone does request to buy it, you cannot cancel and say, ‘Ah! Sorry! As it turns out, I don't want to sell it any more.’ You can only do that before anyone approaches to purchase your product: before the first customer comes in to buy it, you can still cancel; but, after someone has seen it and is going into your shop to buy it and offers you the money in exchange for the product, you cannot cancel it any more, since, when you put up the announcement, you were expecting precisely that.

Similarly, when the woman has sex, she accepts the possibility of the formation of the foetus. She can still attempt to cancel the formation of the foetus before conception (that is why there are emergency pills) — but, after conception has taken place, it is too late and she must stay true to the contract she made by allowing that to happen, even if she has changed her mind afterwards.

It is not even a reasonable prospect that a woman should expect to fall pregnant each time she has sexual intercourse - humans are not particularly efficient in that regard.

But, nevertheless, that possibility exists; and, upon sexual intercourse, the woman agrees that, if a foetus is formed, she will let it live. Of course it may not happen! But the agreement only has its effect in the case scenario that it does happen. Take my previous example: when you put up the announcement that you are selling that product, you do not know whether any interested buyers will show up; if they do not, you are free from your bond and you may remove the announcement at any time; but, after someone has shown up, you are not allowed to remove the announcement.

Think of another example: suppose you are driving a car and, upon approaching a curve, you do not slow down below the maximum safe speed, but instead you keep driving faster than you should. As you know, there is the risk that the wheels will lose adherence to the road and that your car will slide and crash. Of course it may not happen! If you are lucky enough and it does not happen, you are free from any criminal charges. But, if it happens and someone is injured, you will be prosecuted for injuring a person, and you may go to jail or be forced to pay for the person's expenses; if it happens and someone is killed, you will be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter, and you may go to jail. Maybe you did not directly want to kill anyone; however, since you have committed, consciously and not subjected to coercion, an act which, with your knowledge, might lead to that person's death (even if there was also the possibility that it would not), if that person is killed as a result of your act, you will be held responsible for it.