No, actually a hypothetical would be more like you choose to have unprotected sex, get an STD, the law places restrictions on your ability to select medical treatment (perhaps a requirement to name your 'contacts') that you don't like and THEN you decide no one should have sex because of some imagined fallacy about what 'your rights' are or you believe they should beLets say this, im a Jehovahs Witness and my believes are no more blood transfusions for me. And my believe is correct so no transfusions for anybody.
It is difficult to see how anyone can be unable to see where risk mitigation should take place in the chain of events leading to unwanted pregnancy, other than willfully