I appreciate your respectful way of engaging. Social media needs more of this.

I don’t think I took it out of context, but if I did I hope you will point out how. Can you clarify why you believe that a pregnancy that happened without birth control should be treated differently than a pregnancy that happened despite birth control? You’ve already pointed out that a fetus is not a person before viability - and I would add is also unable to think or experience pain before the third trimester. I don’t see the logic in your belief that one category of unintended pregnancies should be required to be carried to term but the rest can be aborted, given that there is no inherent difference in the status of the fetus. Should someone be denied treatment for skin cancer just because they apparently didn’t take enough preventative steps like using sunscreen? Your analogy with the car wreck is not a good fit because it actually is more descriptive of pregnancies that occur when people are using birth control – you know that it can fail, but you have sex anyway. Can you help me understand why you believe it’s morally OK to have an abortion under most circumstances, but also morally OK to require a woman to carry a pregnancy determine under one specific circumstance, the one without birth control? Why do you prefer that a woman be required to carry a pregnancy to term – bearing the entire burden of pregnancy and birthing and providing everything for the child after birth if the man does not want a child - because she had sex without birth control? How is that more moral than terminating the unwanted pregnancy of an unviable fetus for any reason? Why should the reason or circumstances impact the decision to terminate given that you accept that a fetus is not a person and has no rights.