That's not how I would frame the moral question, actually. It's more like, "If someone is physically dependent upon you in order to remain alive, and separating them from you would kill them, directly result in their death, do you then have the right to separate from them and in the process by necessity kill them?"
I would say no, because you do not have the right to kill another human being.
I would say it depends entirely on whether you consented to the situation, which your question doesn't capture. So if we frame it like this:
"If someone is physically dependent upon you in order to remain alive, and separating them from you would kill them, directly result in their death,
and you didn't consent to this situation, do you then have the right to separate from them and in the process by necessity kill them?"
I would say yes. But to this:
"If someone is physically dependent upon you in order to remain alive, and separating them from you would kill them, directly result in their death,
and you did consent to this situation, do you then have the right to separate from them and in the process by necessity kill them?"
I would say no.
Since we agree on the second, what do you say to the first?
The baby isn't making a choice to occupy the womb, it's incapable of making any choice. The only person who has a choice, physically, is the mother. She doesn't have the right to make a choice that would directly kill the unborn child. Because no human has the arbitrary right to kill another human being; that is evil and wrong and should be illegal.
No, the baby didn't have a choice. But just because you weren't given a choice doesn't mean you have a right to be someplace.
So the life of the unborn child doesn't matter. Then why restrict abortion at all? Why does the life of the child not matter here, but suddenly matter if the sex was consensual? It's in her body either way.
Because if the mother consented to sex, she already made a choice. Basically, both the baby and the mother own themselves. In a world where that is all the baby owns, then abortion would be fine, as the babies bodily autonomy is not violated (it would be extracted whole, then an almost certainly failing attempt at keeping it alive would probably be made).
But in addition to the baby's ownership of itself, the baby also has a claim to the mother's womb until birth by virtue of the mother consenting to sex with the possibility of procreation that lead to the baby. This would be violated by the process in the above paragraph, hence why we should ban abortions from consensual sex
But in a rape case, the baby has no right to occupy the womb. So the mom's right to bodily autonomy doesn't come into conflict with anything the baby owns. And so it is morally permissible.
No one is "enslaving" women.
You are forcing them to do things they didn't consent to. It's close.
Again:
"If someone is physically dependent upon you in order to remain alive, and separating them from you would kill them, directly result in their death,
and you didn't consent to this situation, do you then have the right to separate from them and in the process by necessity kill them?"
I say yes. You?
