The "pro-life" position must necessarily reject sexual reproduction

Fenrir: this response seems to be the dominant one in the comments section of this page and elsewhere so I am excited by the chance to discuss it! Your first argument is a bit confusing to me, but as I understand it, if the fetus dies "on its own" it's OK because there is "in essence no potential baby being killed" and because the death was "the effect of nature". Your defense of this point seems to be that the "fetus simple did not have potential to become a baby". Let's take this response and apply it to a child because, as I argue, the pro-life movement equates a fertilized egg with a fully-significant life. If I have a kid and then leave him alone without any parental supervision and the child dies, an appropriate response is not to say that in essence no potential adult was being killed, because the child simply did not have potential to become an adult. Allowing a child to die is awful and the child's lack of survival ability is just not a relevant defense. What I think you're doing with this argument is conflating inevitable deaths with natural deaths. If a death is inevitable, then there is nothing we can do about it and we are wiped clean of moral responsibility. However, just because a death is natural does not mean that it is inevitable and it does not mean that we should, as morally decent people, allow it to occur. Imagine, for example, that you are a doctor and you happen upon a child who has a disease that is easily treatable, but if untreated the child will die. You simply do not say "oh well, the disease is natural, so I don't have to do anything". Instead you friggin save the kid. A death through natural causes it still a death and is still horrible. Your second point is to draw a passive-active distinction for morality. I'm not sure how much I agree that such a distinction is useful from a moral standpoint, but I'll go along with it. In the example you raise, I would respond that man 3 is, of course, not responsible for man 2's death, but that he should still treat man 2 as a morally decent person. In the same way, even if it's true that those who conceive the fetus are not the moral cause of its death, they should still try and prevent the death of the fetus, just as I might stop someone else from killing a small child even though the death would not be my fault. Additionally, let's remember that sex is an ACTIVE process and without sex there can be no conception. So, you are actively putting the fetus in a situation with an absurdly high chance of death. Finally, you argue that a consequence of my argument is that females will have to remain in a state of perpetual pregnancy to prevent the killing of future children. I'm not entirely sure that you can reductio a reducto because I am not advocating the consequences of my position, instead, I am advocating that the consequences are so absurd that you should reject the pro-life position. But, assuming that this flies, my response is simple: you cannot harm a non-existent entity. The potential child does not exist yet, so the mother cannot have any obligation to it. You also cannot kill someone that doesn't exist. But, from this argument, we do get an interesting claim: "thus, conceiving a child is not something that risks its life so much as it is the only way it can have a chance at one". My response here is this: you are given two choices you can (a) conceive normally and place a child at a 50% risk of death or (b) save up money and purchase technology to help reduce the chance of a child dieing in the mother's womb (test tube babies for example). Why on Earth would anyone not take option B? If you think that a fertilized egg is important in any sense then its destruction should be extremely troublesome to you and you must then be against its death in any form for any preventable reason since death via normal reproduction is preventable you must be against it. It's as simple as that