If you have consensual heterosexual sex you are thereby entering the baby lottery. There are a lot of reasons to enter that lottery besides having a baby. You may enjoy the thrill of playing the lottery. You may be doing a favor for a friend. You may enter it out of pity, or guilt, or stupidity. You may just be experimenting as you are a first time gambler. But all of that can be set aside for a moment because it was still you who entered the lottery.
Since you freely, knowingly, and without coercion entered that lottery you cannot say anyone robbed you of your choice, or infringed on your freedom. You have full freedom to choose your consequences but not to renege on those consequences especially when they are biological, traditional, or otherwise naturally binding consequences. And sex is a highly consequential ethically charged action already–hence we have many different laws addressing it for we conventionally presume it to have great ethical import.
Permitting another illustration, I cannot drive recklessly on the highway and then fault other people for being in my way, even if I had no intention of killing pedestrians. I have made my choice to drive dangerously, the consequences therefore are outside of my rightful ability to choose. I should not get to choose whether to go to jail or not, whether to get caught driving dangerously, or whether I get to feel guilty for that dangerous behavior. I have some ability to choose in those areas, but I have no RIGHTFUL ability to separate my reckless (but fun!) driving from the punishment for the lost lives that I caused.
The same works for positive examples. Suppose I give my lover a card with the writing on it, “I don’t have much money, nor do I know the future, but I’m preparing for both and if fate lets us be together this time 1 year from now, I promise to marry you.” If I make that promise I have an “escape” route; we may not be together a year from now. But if we are together, it would be broadly unethical to refrain from marrying her. Now I may have written that card with no sincerity behind it, expecting that our relationship would not last that long, but it might still be fun and meaningful in the mean time. My aim need not be malicious to be convenient for me (supposing I were wanting to be a bachelor for 12+ months). My aim of amusement is retained and I have not broken a promise if we are no longer together after a year. But, if we are still together, I am ethically responsible–all else being equal–to keep my promise. If she breaks it off, or turns me down, or something like that then I can be ethical without marrying her since she freely excused me from my promise. If circumstances override the situation and I am physically unable to follow through on that promise then I might be excused then too, for example, if she has deceased or I have gone senile. But so long as I am physically able and knowingly aware, I am ethically responsible to follow through on that promise.
Likewise, sex is the Baby Lottery such that your choice to enter the baby lottery naturally, normally, and rightfully (i.e., ethically) obligates you to assume the consequences you knew were a live possibility should you enter that lottery.
Now one might object that a person can “win” the lottery and simply opt out of the prize, choosing not to receive it. In that case, the “baby lottery” should allow a person to refuse the baby which, in this case, would mean to end the pregnancy. But here might do well to add a further dimension to our analogy.
What if that Baby Lottery were an adoption lottery. Again, someone may enter that lottery for the wrong reasons, for selfish reasons, or for silly reasons and so they aren’t “in it to win it.” Nevertheless, we can assume they knew what they were getting into, and for the sake of keeping to the analogy, the person might have played the lottery for some secondary effect such as the joy of playing or giving to a good cause, or something like that. They may hope that they don’t “win” and become the chosen few to be able to adopt a child from the harsh and selective “Jeremiah Island.” Many many people would love to have such an adoption but not all of them, even the vast majority of them, do not win. You’ve won. A child’s life now hangs in the balance, as you either adopt or the child starves under the terrible and oppressive conditions of Jeremiah Island their child mortality rate is so high that only the adopted children survive even 9 months. Sure, you may decline, but you are complicit in a child’s death if you do, since only lottery winners get to adopt.
In this modified form of the Baby Lottery it becomes clear why “opting out” of the prize is morally unacceptable. It’s not a neutral choice like declining a vacation (that might have hidden fees and taxes you don’t want to pay), or turning down a cash prize that you didn’t need anyway. Instead, “opting out” is a morally egregious problem where if you do not claim the prize another human being dies.
Even with the modification, there remains a relevant difference. Namely, the “Baby Lottery,” when applied to abortion, deals with preborn/unborn fetuses while the “Baby Adoption Lottery” deals with born children. That difference is a biggie since the “personhood” status of infants is legally established while there is no “personhood” status for preborns that is yet legally established.
Still, there remains a “separability” problem whenever pregnancy is treated not simply as a distinct act from sex but as an ethically separable act from sex. It should not be a surprise to people of the mental age of informed consent that pregnancy results from sex, that is the risk one takes with sex. We would not consider it ethical to “opt out” of any other lottery if that choice meant the death of a human being, so it is not ethical to opt out of the baby lottery by killing one’s preborn living genetically distinct human organism.
Lastly, to bring it all together, our legislation should align with ethical goodness where at all possible. Hence, since it is ethical to treat pregnancy as a natural consequential responsibility of sex our legislation should align with that ethical duty and revoke abortion-on-demand.