Consent to an action normally includes consent to the effects that ordinarily follow from that action, even when those effects are unintended or unwanted. People are generally free to try to mitigate negative outcomes—like exercising to undo weight gain—but not all forms of mitigation are morally permissible.
The key limitation is this: you may not escape the consequences of your own voluntary actions by using violence against another human being. There is a moral difference between managing an outcome through acceptable means and attempting to erase that outcome by harming someone else.
Under this framework, abortion is not simply consequence-management. It is an act of violence directed at an unborn human being in order to eliminate an undesired effect of an action that was willingly consented to. While reducing or managing burdens is often acceptable, doing so by killing another human being crosses a moral boundary. The problem is not that someone wants to avoid hardship, but how that avoidance is achieved.
Abortion is therefore wrong, because it treats violence against another human as a legitimate way to escape consequences, rather than choosing nonviolent forms of mitigation.
Key Takeaways
Consent to an action includes responsibility for its ordinary consequences, even when those consequences are unwanted.
Mitigating negative outcomes is morally limited; violence against another human is never an acceptable method.
Abortion is not neutral consequence-management but a violent act aimed at eliminating an existing human being.
Escaping hardship does not justify killing; moral responsibility requires nonviolent responses to undesired outcomes.
Abortion is wrong because mitigation is not justified when it involves killing people.