"I didn't consent to pregnancy!"
On Abortion
Some on the anti-abortion side of the debate will argue that women should take responsibility for the pregnancy. If a woman gets pregnant from consensual sex, even if she was using contraception, it’s still her fault and should accept the consequences – she knew the risks.
A pro-abortion response may be this: “Suppose I get hit by a car while crossing the street at a crosswalk. Cars are meant to stop, but they don’t, and I get hit. Is it my fault? If I cross a road, there’s always a chance that I could get hit by a car. But just because I know there’s a risk, does not mean I consented or should be blamed for that risk being realised!” The message this this: "I consented to sex, but I didn't consent to pregnancy!"
Now, as you might be able to tell, there is a false equivalence here. When crossing a road, you have a justified belief in the ability and autonomy of the drivers on that same road – they are intelligent beings with a moral responsibility not to hit you. It’s perfectly reasonable to suppose that nobody’s going to hit you when you legally cross a road. There are moral agents (i.e., drivers) who are motivated to ensure this. Suppose you are hit by accident – the responsibility falls upon the driver.
Now, when having sex, you cannot expect the same of pregnancy. The fertilisation of an egg is a biological process. There is no agent with a moral responsibility to make sure you are not impregnated – no agent, that is, other than the couple participating in sex. You cannot hold the biological process accountable. You are the “driver” here.
If there is a risk in an act, that is not dependent upon (or influenced by) any other autonomous being, then you are the one to blame if that risk becomes realised. This is especially true if the risk is the natural and normal result of an action. If you overeat and gain weight as a result, you are the one to blame. Overeating can directly cause weight gain, just as sex can directly cause pregnancy. Suppose you hit a baseball ball through your neighbour’s window. Surely you cannot then say to them, “I consented to baseball, but I didn’t consent to smashing your window, so I’m not paying for it!” Your neighbour can rightfully argue that by entering the game, you embraced the risks associated with it.[1] Perhaps the consequences are unintended, you did not formally consent or desire it - but the blame can only be attributed to you.
The idea that somehow the responsibility does not lie with the mother is born from the dishonest and dangerous view that sex and procreation are unrelated phenomenons. There is no such thing as "casual sex." Sex is not casual - it is serious! Quite frankly, it's foolish to believe that sex can exist solely for pleasure, for by its very nature, sex is for procreation.
[1] Similar logic can be applied for child support. A man may have consented to sex, but not a child – should he then have to pay child support? Yes! By virtue of engaging in sex, he must accept the consequences.
[-] It has also been argued that because the organs of a dead person cannot be used without prior consent, so too that the organs of a woman cannot be used without prior consent. However, as we have just established, through sex, a woman does consent to the possibility of her organs being used by her offspring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQKZsfy_YdM&ab_channel=PintsWithAquinas Special thanks to this source featuring Stephanie Gray: Highly recommend!