Consent

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, just as initial consent is not the same thing as continued consent. If two people begin having sex but during the act one asks the other to stop, and that other forces them to keep going, that's considered rape. It is important to remember that continued the initial consent of ones body being used for what ever reason does not guarantee the continued consent of her body being used. Just because sex has the possible consequence of pregnancy, that does not mean that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. This is the very point that many pro-lifers continue to attempt to make, but can not. One might personally feel that it does, and would act accordingly in their personal life but this is not a true logical rule that all others must follow.

The woman gives consent to the man to use her body, for the purpose of sex; not for any other purpose (unless that was her intent, of course). Now, the sperm is put into the body by the male via consent (hopefully) of the woman. Conception is the result of a natural process, and the combined spermeggcell moves into the uterus, where if conditions are idea it'll implant and will be the official beginning of a pregnancy. The basic biology lesson was just to emphasize how the fetus winds up there not directly placed by the woman, but by the blind mechanisms of the body. The intent is sex, and the consent is for that; anything beyond that point, is blind mechanics, which is not performed by any conscious intent of the woman. She doesn't have control over the mechanical process of pregnancy, and thus can not give consent to it. If it can occur without her consent, then she has the right to her bodily integrity, and to revert back to her state of normalcy: not being pregnant.

One situation pro-lifers bring up, is drinking and driving. So I shall address that issue. There's a difference between drinking one or two, or drinking a lot (possibly with intent to get drunk). If the person drinks in the latter manner, then their intent is certainly to get drunk. Consent to drinking is not consent to driving, and that would be reckless endangerment of other people. We do not punish people for being drunk if their actions do not endanger other people's lives or property.

There are differences between a cause having a one-time effect (ex: failing a test), a temporarily-irreversible physical effect (ex: drunkenness), and the permanent consequence of pregnancy. Weight gain is a potential consequence of food, but one is not obligated to remain fat. A low grade is a potential consequence of failing to study, but one is not obligated to live with low grades. As for drinking..well, that was the intent. In none of these situations is there an obligation to remain with those consequences if it is possible to avoid. One can acknowledge the risk, but not consent to the state of it. Just like you know you risk a cold if you go outside in the rain, but then if you get a cold do you take medicine or do you let it worsen? By that logic, people who get into car accidents wouldn't receive treatment because they knew the risks when they got into the car. Or people with unhealthy eating habits should be denied heart bypass surgery if they have health problems because they knew the risks when they kept eating red meat.

Consent to an act means acknowledging the possible consequences. Should pregnancy follow, you 'accept that' by not ignoring it, but by acknowledging that now any course of action you take must pertain to the causal framework of being pregnant. This opens the doors to any other possible path of causality. You could abort; you could carry it; you could adopt it out, or raise it. There is nothing inherent in the nature of causality that obligates any individual to adhere to one specific mode of action. Period. Anyone that insists otherwise is claiming so arbitrarily.