A woman has the right to tolerate or get rid of ANY organism that is feeding on her body.
To me there is an ugliness to that. Aa fetus equated to a virus or bacteria or cancer.
Tough shit. That's biological reality.
You're basically being religious about your fee fees here.
Let's imagine I grew a tumor with eyes, ears, a mouth, a brain, just a disgusting face and CNS suddenly attached to my body. Let's imagine for a moment that this thing is somehow, absurdly, a faithful reproduction of TomC.
Am I under an obligation to let this thing grow until it metastasizes and kills me?
NO!
I am not under an obligation to allow this thinking and feeling
cancer tumor to kill me, even if it would take 4 years for it to kill me otherwise, even as it begs me "not to kill it".
I'm just under no obligation to share my body with anyone ever.
I have been pretty clear insofar as usually there is a "banana peel of evil" somewhere on the cliff.
Usually it's pretty clear where it is. Here, it is a precedent that exactly allows an unwilling human to be coopted into the donation of their body, blood, organs, time, health to another.
It is exactly precedent that the ethical taboo has
already been broken against forced organ use "to save a life".
There is the misstep against good ethics. That is the step too far,
beyond which the evil is already starting.
Invalid slippery slopes say "this ethical step leads to that unethical one". This is not the case here.
This is already an unethical step, in and of itself.
@TomC: yes, we know where that leads: fewer dead previously living, wanted, cared-for children.