[Eisenstein]

What would be the point of doing that? Let's go for something more relevant: would it be acceptable to you for me to force you to give a pint of blood every day to keep alive someone in a coma who could not live but for your blood?

[causi]

would it be acceptable to you for me to force you to give a pint of blood every day to keep alive someone in a coma who could not live but for your blood?

Apt if the creation of the fetus wasn't your choice, but inaccurate if it was. If someone loses their balance and you grab their hand to stop them falling off a cliff, is it murder to deliberately let go before they regain their balance? Why can a person be legally compelled to sustain the life of a child after birth but not before?

[Eisenstein]

None of this has anything to do with the difference between a unviable birth and an infant.

[ChainOfFools]

What point do you need, isn't it a private matter to be decided only by the person who is housing the fetus?

But let's say there was a medical reason to do so for the sake of a child who was already born perhaps extremely premature and lost an arm in the process of extraction. By the standards given above, the already born child outranks the one still in the womb, and should be entitled to the arm if the owner of the womb agrees to donate it.

Your example is so far from relevance as to be really just an attempt to change the subject. The existence of some random person in a coma, unless they are my own child, or perhaps a clone, is not contingent upon actions undertaken with the participation (willing or not) of my reproductive system.

[Eisenstein]

I mean, you have your mind made up, what is the point of you arguing with me?