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

If I may make a quick reference to the first time you argued this point, you said there that this was a reductio ad absurdum argument. For ease, then, I will break down the argument as such: P1-Assume Pro-life does not reject sexual reproduction P2-Pro-life is against actions that damage or risk damaging a fetus C1-Sexual reproduction does not present significant risk to a fetus P3-Sexual reproduction -does- present significant risk to a fetus C2-Pro-life does reject sexual reproduction Obviously, the key point in the argument is that there is the risk presented to the fetus, which should be morally reprehensible. However, there is significant difference in the nature of terminating a fetus and putting the fetus in danger. First, the idea of killing not a fetus, but a potential human, an argument often taken. If the fetus does not survive, on its own, this is the effect of nature. There is thus in essence no potential baby being killed, because the fetus simple did not have potential to become a baby. Conversely, while there is in fact the possibility of a terminated fetus that would not have survived anyway, this is something that could not be forseen, and you could just as easily be killing a fetus that in fact would live on. Therefore, as long as the fetus is alive on its own, it can be said to have potential--and when the fetus dies on its own, it is then, and only then, proven that it would not have become an actual person, and thus relinquishes moral responsibility. Second, the difference between and active and passive role in the death of the fetus. Imagine a situation with three men. Man 1 stabs Man 2, leaving him with a wound which will surely kill him unless treated. Man 3 can treat Man 2 and save his life, but decides not to. Now, who would you say has the most moral responsibility for Man 2 dying? Almost all would say that because Man 1 took an active role in killing Man 2, he has more moral responsibility than Man 3, who simply did nothing. Thus, there is an obvious difference in the moral sense of putting a fetus in the inevitable situation to risk its life, or to actively go and kill it. Or, we can look at the situation in a different light. You argue that if killing the fetus is wrong, then conceiving one and putting its life in danger should also be wrong. But let's consider it like this: if you decide not to try to sexually reproduce because it risks killing a fetus, you are in a way "killing" the children that will never conceived--killing in the sense that you deny them a chance at existance, in the same way abortion would. 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. Of course, one might then argue that a woman should be constantly pregnant, or else she is killing every child she has physical potential to have. The morally reprehensible action, then, must be specified to wanting to have children, but refusing to do so because of fear of the fetus' deaths. In this instance, we would say that the -desire- to have a child is what gives it it's initial potential, so as to absolve those who can but do not have children from any moral responsibility.