For the adults your argument holds up, but for the "defenseless, innocent" children it does not.
How so? I think it is stronger for
defenseless, innocent" children.
They "could live if given residence in the homes of citizens at the expense and against the wishes of said citizens."
But there is no connection between those citizens and the illegal. But in the case of the woman, she voluntarily engaged in sex that could result in pregnancy.
The embryo is at least 50% genetically the same as the mother. There is no such connection between the citizen and the illegal. Further, unlike the illegal and the citizens home, the baby has never been outside the mother. Your analogy is false on several levels.
I am only talking about unwanted pregnancies.
This is the weakest part of your argument. For what does "unwanted" mean? The woman wanted to dress provocatively, wanted to go out to a place where men seek hook-ups, wanted to accept a proposal to go home with some man, wanted to have sex with him, and suddenly now that she doesn't want a baby, all her previous other decisions showing she did want a baby should be ignored? At what point along the chain of voluntary decisions that lead to a baby can a woman say she doesn't want a baby?
In any case, you currently have zero obligations to any of the groups.
Untrue. I always have moral obligations to other people, but because I am limited, my obligations to people more closely related to me get met first.
I even pointed out what I thought any pro-lifer would take to be a major benefit: "and likely make less women want abortions"
But at what cost? Aborting female children will also have the "major benefit" of likely making fewer women want abortions. Is that acceptable to you? The ends do not always justify the means.
I don't think it would be completely fair but IMO it would be more fair than forcing her to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want,
Technically true, but conservatives know human nature better than liberals. We know that if you protect people from the consequences of stupid voluntary decisions, they continue voluntarily making stupid decisions.
The public paying for abortions on demand will only make couples more sexually reckless, and the end result will be an increase in abortions.
...only to slap her with crippling debt at the conclusion. I'm talking about making birth less unaffordable, thus disincentivizing abortion.
I don't think making the lady who was sensible and chaste pay for the floozy makes birth less unaffordable. It makes the floozy's giving birth less unaffordable to her, yes, because it makes all of us pay for her skanky behavior.
If you are healthy and don't want lung cancer, don't smoke.
I am not in favor of paying for the healthcare of smokers.
If you are drunk and don't want an accident, don't drive.
I am not in favor of paying for the damage caused by drunks.
If you are fertile and don't want a baby, don't have sex.
I am not in favor of paying for the abortions of sluts.
No one owes you anything if you smoke and get cancer, drive drunk and injure someone, or have sex and get pregnant. That kind of thinking is highly illogical.
I want everyone to be more responsible for their own behavior. I don't think its good for society to have it pay for the stupid, voluntary, reckless behavior of some, by charging the prudent and careful.