The comparison breaks down once we look at what consent actually applies to and what medical treatment is allowed to do. Consent is given to actions (like sex), not to every effect that might follow from them. Pregnancy, like a sexually transmitted infection, is an effect that can arise from a voluntary act that carries known risks. Acknowledging those risks does not mean someone should be abandoned afterward—medicine routinely steps in to help people manage difficult or unwanted physical outcomes.
But there is a clear moral boundary on what counts as legitimate medical “treatment.” Treating an STD aims to restore the patient’s health without intentionally killing anyone else. If curing an infection required deliberately pressing a button that would instantly kill an innocent third party, that treatment would be morally prohibited, no matter how burdensome the disease was.
Abortion crosses precisely that boundary. Ending a pregnancy is not merely alleviating a condition in the woman’s body; it requires deliberate lethal actions against another human being. Whether through pills that intentionally suffocate the unborn, surgical procedures that dismember them, or injections that cause a fatal heart attack, abortion does not simply address a medical complication—it directly causes death. Because pregnancy is an outcome tied to a risk that was knowingly accepted, responding to that outcome by intentionally killing another human is not morally comparable to treating an STD.
Key Takeaways
Consent to sex includes acceptance of known risks; pregnancy is an effect of that risk, not an unjust intrusion that can be eliminated by lethal force.
Medical treatment is limited by the rule against intentionally killing innocent people, even when the patient’s situation is serious or unwanted.
STD treatment heals without harming others; abortion necessarily involves direct, intentional killing, making the analogy false.
Acceptable care may mitigate hardship, but it cannot cross the moral line of ending an innocent human life.