[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a foetus is a human being (I don't know) then it absolutely has the right live at the expense of it's mothers interests. Having sex without protection or with inadequate protection is signing a contract saying I will support any child that occurs as a result. You can give the child up for adoption but you have a positive moral obligation to make sure that it is well cared for. This is a chosen positive obligation when you initiated the action of having sex.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about rape victims? Does the foetus lose its right to live because the mother didn't implicitly sign a contract?
What if the mother used adequate protection but it didn't work?
I'm not saying that a mother has a right to have the foetus killed (drowning a born baby should be regarded as manslaughter in my book). But I do think that a mother has the right to have a foetus removed from her body (edit: whatever the consequences might be).

[/ QUOTE ]

Rape is a fringe case with no really satisfactory answer but that doesn't invalidate the proposition. The best I've got is that the rapist is fully responsible financially for the child and for the mother's emotional pain and physical suffering and if he can't afford it then it's morally justified for him to be forced to work for zero compensation until his debt is paid or for his entire life whichever is sooner.

As for your second point no. Having voluntary sex is always a choice, (by definition) so a condom splitting etc is a risk you know about before you make the choice and perform a positive actoin so there's no out there.