Your use of the passive voice here makes it seem like the woman wasn't involved in the decision. Choosing to rely on contraception, which has a low but nonzero failure rate, means accepting the low but nonzero possibility of conceiving a child. Having sex without the willingness to bear possible children is tacitly accepting a possibility of needing to kill that child.
The only acceptable choice is to only have sex when you're willing to keep the natural products of sex. This applies to men and women alike. It might be difficult or hard to imagine for some, but it's simple.
I would absolutely support the government easing the burden of women impregnated by rape, including free ultrasounds, pregnancy-related physician visits, a stipend to make it easier for them to order food when they're nauseated and don't want to cook, hell even massages by pregnancy-certified masseuses. Until the government provides those services, I do what I can by donating to life centers.
Let's try again, "For somebody who just had 1% of their lifespan re-assigned by Phil Snowberger here". Does that make it clear where the problem is now?
> it's not easy standing up for what you believe is the truth when it's inconvenient
From what I can tell, it sure doesn't seem like what you "believe is the truth" is inconvenient for you at all. For somebody who just had about 1% of their lifespan re-assigned as human incubator it seems pretty damn inconvenient.