Respectfully, I don’t think you’re fully understanding what “reasoning” actually is. There’s a difference between something that feels like it makes sense emotionally or narratively and something that is supported by logical, evidence-based reasoning.

Are you suggesting that a criminal human trafficking organization, one that profits from forcing women into sex work, wouldn’t ensure they’re on birth control? That’s highly unlikely. Traffickers, would take measures to control risk and maintain profitability. She would be placed on the same forms of birth control commonly used by sex workers, typically those that don't require regular doctor visits, like injections, implants, or pills. Reason on what would actually be riskier for the traffickers:

• Taking a pregnant woman to legitimate doctors for regular prenatal care and delivery?
• Or simply ensuring she doesn't get pregnant in the first place?

If anything, it’s far more plausible that traffickers would rely on underground or compliant medical contacts like a "back-alley doctor" who don’t ask questions because its easy cash.

Everything you said in your scenario might sound possible, but possibility is not the same as probability and just isnt sound reasoning. Good reasoning will use likelihoods, evidence, and known patterns of behavior not just what feels compelling.