If X voluntarily commits an act that results in harm to Y, X may have an obligation toward Y---but only the obligation to restore Y to the status Y had before X's act. In the case of woman X's sex act leading to zygote/embryo/fetus Y's need for maternal bodily resources, Y's status before X's act was nonexistence; so at most the pregnant woman owes the z/e/f a return to nonexistence, which abortion provides.
First off the bat, let me say that I think that analogies are a poor way to justify an argument, primarily because an analogy can be made to fit the argument perfectly logically, depending on the view of the person making the analogy. Then you have a stalemate. However, since we are dealing in analogies in this case I will continue with the theme for the moment. My first reaction to the argument that you posted was that, to borrow a phrase from Donald Rumsfeld I think, the author has started with an illogical statement, then proceeded perfectly logically to an illogical conclusion, for many different reasons.
Firstly, in this case, the argument goes that if X does harm voluntarily to Y, X`s obligation to Y is to restore him to the status he had before. This is clearly flawed. If I am a Doctor of Medicine, and I stab you in the stomach, then I provide you with appropriate medical treatment so that you recover fully, can I walk away a free man? No, of course not. I may go to jail or have to pay you damages. However, clever as it may be, that analogy isn`t even close to being truly relevant to this argument.
Secondly, the argument contends that X has voluntarily committed harm to Y. If X voluntarily got pregnant, she would obviously want to have the baby, so the whole idea of the act being voluntary is nonsense. X, in this case obviously became pregnant involuntarily. Then the argument transforms into something else entirely. Namely, if something happens accidentally, does anyone bear responsibility for the accident, in this case, X getting pregnant? Our society is full of examples of people bearing responsibility for accidents that have occurred because of something they did. If I accidentally run you over with my car, with absolutely zero intent of causing you harm, I am still responsible for the act and I will probably have to take measures to see that you are compensated. To use a simple example, if I accidentally let go of a shopping trolley in the carpark at the supermarket and it hits your car, scratching it, I have a responsibility to see that your car is fixed. I didn`t let go of the trolley on purpose, but I wasn`t holding on to it tightly enough, so it is still my fault. There are a couple more clever analogies, but they still don`t really mean that much. So what does?
This is what I see as the crux of the argument. X voluntarily commits an act that results in harm to Y, is what the argument says. This is my question, and I think this is what you should ask the people who make the aforementioned argument to you. Where is the harm? There is none. Creating a life is not doing harm, it is a miracle (or biology, depending on your point of view)! The whole argument is completely illogical. X hasn`t harmed Y, X has given Y life! Two completely seperate things, of which there can be no comparison.
The argument is so flawed and full of holes it is not really even worth considering. In short, it is bullsh*t. I hope you find this helpful MrLeRoy. Watch out for the next pro-choice argument, which will probably go something liek this: If X accidentally commits an act that leads to Y being created, but Y needs supplements from X in order to live..........
Firstly, in this case, the argument goes that if X does harm voluntarily to Y, X`s obligation to Y is to restore him to the status he had before. This is clearly flawed. If I am a Doctor of Medicine, and I stab you in the stomach, then I provide you with appropriate medical treatment so that you recover fully, can I walk away a free man? No, of course not. I may go to jail or have to pay you damages.
The counter to that would be that the stabbing doctor acted with malice, whereas no woman's sex act can reasonably be called an act of malice toward the unborn-to-maybe-be (nor even an act of negligence, so long as contraception was used). In cases where neither malice nor negligence applies, I think it's reasonable to argue that nothing more than restoration can be required.
Secondly, the argument contends that X has voluntarily committed harm to Y. If X voluntarily got pregnant,
Apparently I wasn't clear; the act in question was the sex---which, as you say, can lead to accidental pregnancy, bring us to ...
if something happens accidentally, does anyone bear responsibility for the accident, in this case, X getting pregnant? Our society is full of examples of people bearing responsibility for accidents that have occurred because of something they did. If I accidentally run you over with my car, with absolutely zero intent of causing you harm, I am still responsible for the act and I will probably have to take measures to see that you are compensated.
But can the required compensation be anything beyond restoring the harmed party's status before the act---which in the case of sex-causing-pregnancy is nonexistence?
Where is the harm? There is none. Creating a life is not doing harm, it is a miracle (or biology, depending on your point of view)! The whole argument is completely illogical. X hasn`t harmed Y, X has given Y life!
My bad; I should have said "endangerment" rather than "harm." The zygote/embryo/fetus has been placed in danger of dying without his mother's bodily resources.