[simonh]

The US courts have already ruled that you cannot coerce someone to donate bone marrow in order to save a life, on the basis of bodily autonomy. The contention is that pregnancy is a similar case and the pregnant woman is withdrawing her consent to allow the foetus to depend on her body.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp

[betwixthewires]

Like the parent said, this is a tricky topic.

I wouldn't call these two scenarios equatable though because in one instance a person is compelled to do something they have nothing to do with, whereas on the other hand they're performing a (very interesting) biological function. I've also heard an argument about implied contract, when you perform the function to create the dependency voluntarily and create it, you're committing to the dependency. It's somewhat compelling, but my point only is that these two situations don't match up fundamentally.

[simonh]

I agree, also I think that argument justifies the mother somehow withdrawing the supply of life support to the foetus but not forcible eviction. We don't allow a property owner to open the door, shoot a squatter and drag out the body. I was only providing the argument as made by pro-lifers.

Personally I'm a Brit and I'm satisfied with the consensus here. I'm simply not willing to support coercing women to forcibly carry babies to term against their will, even if the foetus does have a right to life. Even accepting the pro-life argument, the resulting savage life ruining oppression of vulnerable women necessary to actively enforce that view is utterly abhorrent to me. It's a hypothetical, but even if I was vehemently pro-life I still like to think I wouldn't support such policies.