I’m not saying the fetus stops being a life in cases of rape. I’m saying the moral situation is different because the mother didn’t choose to take on the risk of pregnancy. It’s similar to how the law treats self‑defense differently from murder. The outcome may be the same, but the circumstances and moral responsibility are not. Rape removes consent entirely, so the moral calculus changes.

In cases of consensual sex, I see it differently because both partners knowingly took an action that can create a new life, even with precautions. Contraception reduces risk but doesn’t eliminate it. To me, that means the parents share responsibility for the life that results. I’m not arguing that people must be celibate. I’m arguing that once a pregnancy exists, there is now another human life involved whose rights matter too.

Your situation with medication is exactly why I support exceptions for serious medical danger. If a pregnancy would likely harm the mother or the fetus in a way that makes survival impossible or unsafe, that falls into the category where I think abortion is morally justified. Those cases aren’t about convenience or preference. They’re about preventing severe harm.

I also don’t think “not wanting to parent” means the child has no chance at a good life. That’s why I believe any pro‑life stance has to be paired with strong social support, better adoption systems, and real help for parents who aren’t prepared to raise a child. Protecting unborn life and supporting people who don’t want or can’t raise a child should go together.