And what if the person had no choice? If the person had no choice to engage in sexual activities, is it still their responsibility, and does that still make abortion wrong?
Well, no.
ACCIDENTAL PREGNATION WITH CONTRACEPTIVES
If contraceptives such as birth-control pills and condoms are used and a baby is still born (against all odds: both have around a 98% effectivity), then the mother (and father) knew they were taking a gamble and thus should have to accept the consequences if they arise.
ACCIDENTAL PREGNATION WITHOUT CONTRACEPTIVES
If contraceptives were misused or absent, then it was still a gamble like the situation listed before. Also, if you were stupid enough to engage in sexual activity without contraceptives, in my opinion you deserve to end up bearing the financial burden of a child.
CHANGING MIND ON INTENTIONALLY BECOMING IMPREGNATED
I'm sure this isn't
very common, but if a mother decided to become pregnated and then, during the pregnation, changed her mind and had an abortion, her first decision should be the one she has to deal with. There are consequences for actions.
FAULTILY-ADVERTISED CONTRACEPTIVES
If the contraceptive company advertised faulty contraceptives, the parents are still taking a gamble on what they
thought the odds of pregnation were. The company should be sue-able, though.
PREGNATION BY RAPE
In this case, the rape victim, if female, had no choice in becoming pregnated. A male rape victim had no choice in impregnating the female rapist.
However, I believe that the "parasite" as Hellstromm has labeled it (though scientifically accurate) still has a right to Life. Does the mention of that word, when capitalized, ring a bell?
A CHILD WITH MENTAL DEFECTS
If a child is born with mental defects preventing, or at least severely limiting, thought or is born with physical defects causing excruciating pain or massive health complications, it is okay to have an abortion as it would just be killing a "vegetable" or putting a child out of its misery thats life would otherwise be terrible.
BIRTHS THAT MAY KILL THE MOTHER
If birthing complications may kill the mother, then an abortion should be okay. This is because the mother need not die just for the sake of the baby.
A born infant requires milk, either human, animal, or synthetic. Now, here I'm going to give you a scenario.
A baby is born somewhere in an urban, rural, or uncivilized environment. Nobody bothers feeding the baby. The mother dies during the birth.
The baby has no source of synthetic milk, unless it, by some miracle, happens across a dropped bottle. It is entirely possible that an animal will let the baby suckle from it (like the legend of Romulus and Remus), but it is unlikely.
Fierce predators (in the urban environment, these "predators" could be vehicles or humans, in addition to rats and eagles) are looking for meals, and the baby would be an easy target.
How long is that baby going to live, without the mental capability to do much more than crawl, babble, cry, try suckling on things, clamber, and crap/piss itself?
As for the fetus, it could be fed chemicals from another source (though it would require a science laboratory). Thus, the fetus, while it stands less of a chance, isn't that far away from the infant.