In fact, and I'm going to go a bit radical on you here, the thing is that if the difference is due to the woman's choice in the matter of accepting the risk (as you have asserted), then it does sort of come off as punishing people for their choices rather than appreciating the inherent value of innocent life. You're juggling largely incompatible motives here, which sort of leads me to believe that one is a true motive, and the other is a red herring.
In this case, punishing women for having consensual sex, and graciously allowing them not to bear an unwanted child if they're the victim of rape. And now you know where Senethro is coming from here.
Oh I know where Senethro is coming from already. A pigheaded refusal to accept the stated opinion and the insistence that the opinion is what he wants it to be. Because he's very good at rubbishing that opinion, it's just a shame it's not the one being voiced.
You seem to be doing the same sort of thing. Rewording and re-emphasising the stated position and then insisting it doesn't make sense. I don't know why. It's not my position at all and yet I can comprehend it perfectly well. One last time and then I give up, here is how this stance makes sense:
1) Life is important, valuable and should be protected. A developing fetus may not be a fully sentient person, but it's heading that way and should be valued and protected. This isn't an insistence that the fetus is sacred and must be protected at any cost, simply recognising that it is valuable and society should wish to protect it to some reasonable degree. (This is the part that's open for debate, but without personally sharing the view my mind is able to grasp the concept).
2) A person who takes an action that then leads to a forseeable outcome, should then be held accountable and responsible for that action. (This one is pretty much a universal concept and applicable across most actions we ever take).
3) A person who finds themselves in an unwanted or difficult situation through no fault of their own, should be afforded help to get out of it, or leeway in escaping it, or at the very least should expect to be viewed sympathetically by society at large. (Again, are you going to argue with this one?)
The rest follows logically from these premises. A woman who choses to have consensual sex knowing she could get pregnant, and then finds herself pregnant, could decide she in an unwanted or difficult situation that she doesn't want to be in, but as she knowingly took the actions that led to it (as in point 2), then she isn't afforded the same sympathy that she would have if it she were entirely "blameless" (for want of a better word) in finding herself in that situation (as in point 3). In this circumstance, society at large may decide that the consideration of point 1 outweighs her desire to be rid of a "problem" that she, to some degree or other, brought upon herself.
Whereas if she WAS entirely blameless (point 3), society at large may decide that it is unjust to insist she faces the consequences of something she had no consenting part in, and decide that in this case helping her trumps point 1 (remember, this isn't held as something "sacred" in this argument). Ending the life, or the potential life, of the fetus is still a regrettable thing to do in this instance, but it could be argued that insisting she has the baby in such a case is a less moral or defensible act than ending that life.
Ultimately it boils down to what degree a person should be held accountable for, and forced to live with, things they essentially chose vs things that were forced upon them by outside parties. It's surely almost universally true that most people will have more sympathy for the person in the latter case over the former, regardless of who they are or what they did or what the "things" are. This difference can be the tipping point in this argument and ANY argument.
If you still don't get it by now then... abandon all logic ye who enter this tread.
