comment: >
  
  
  It does address the premise.
  
  no it doesn't. here's why:
  
  you take up unwanted residence
  
  "you" (as in the fetus) did not take up residence. You were forced to reside without consent.
  
  It doesn't delve into impossible things
  
  well it has to in order to engage with the thought experiment.... why are you here if not to discuss the philosophical thought experiment?
context: /u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  The analogy that was most convincing to me was this:
  There are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.
  Now, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?
  If you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception. >
  
  
  Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?
  
  I think this would be a wonderful thing. I realize it would never happen, and won't push for it, beacuse I realize it will upset a lot of people and be too unpopular due to how many people view death/the dead. But I wish we could do this. Dead people don't need their organs, they're dead. They don't need anything and they also have no feelings. Dead bodies are intimate objects like chairs or stuffed animals. Dead bodies are not capable of experiencing any sort of harm. 
  The only reason "respecting" dead bodies matters is beacuse it hurts the feelings of living people when they find out a dead body was "mistreated". I say this as someone who is an organ donor and would be 100% cool with leaving my body to science. (It's something I've thought about recently but I haven't gotten around to researching where as my odds of dying soon are low so it's not high on my to-do list.) I genuinely don't care what happens to my flesh after I'm gone. It's really a shame to waste it when we could help actual living people who can still be helped. Assuming you consider saving lives a good thing, I suppose. >
  
  
  The only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?
  
  This analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves "magical" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.
  But regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove. >
  
  
  or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.
  
  ok sure, say the living baby is strapped to your back by a tube for 9 months.
  
  yes, of course.
  
  but why?
  For instance, we decided that we are going to make sure people who don't get a COVID vaccine are basically shunned from many aspects of society. That is violating bodily autonomy in order to prevent them from hurting others. How is this any different? >
  
  
  we decided that we are going to make sure people who don't get a COVID vaccine are basically shunned from many aspects of society.
  
  We do? I think it's important to specify what aspects and what culture you're talking about here. Because, as someone from California, the most liberal state in the country, there isn't anything I can think of that requires a COVID vaccine.
  What, exactly, are the unvaccinated being shunned from where they are required to reveal their vaccination status and then ridiculed? >
  
  well, just going to school requires a whole host of vaccines. and some government jobs too.
  but !delta for ig showing me that vaccine mandates aren't that stringent.
  But the thing is, I personally believe vaccine mandates SHOULD be more stringent. You haven't changed my view. I still believe that in cases like vaccines, prioritizing people's lives matters more than bodily autonomy. and hence for my analogy as well. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Moldy_But_Whole (4∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Do you believe the government should have the right to force someone to donate a kidney if it will save the life of another? >
  
  did you even read the post? >
  
  I think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood? >
  
  If a fetus were actually a fully-fledged person, the woman it's assaulting could legally remove it in self-defense. >
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman... the woman is the one who literally made the fetus and put the bullet inside herself, even if she did it unintentionally.
  and pregnancy is really not as dangerous as some guy trying to shoot u. that's also why I made an exception for when the mother's life is in danger (as determined by a doctor) >
  
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman
  
  "Yes or no" question: Does this person currently have any of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes? >
  
  Yes or no question: If a siam twin is really annoyed at the other and really doesn't want to live with him/her, does he/she have the right to cut the other's head off? >
  
  No
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman
  
  2nd time, "yes or no" question: Does this person currently have any of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes? >
  
  The question you are posing is irrelevant, and is probably no at least for the first x weeks (first time I hear about digit and have a hard time translating it, but I'm guessing at limbs). Do you then by the same token believe that it is immoral to remove embryo?
  Did fetus have the agency to insert itself inside a woman's body?
  Edit: I'm retarded. Ignore the no to your question. >
  
  
  Do you then by the same token believe that it is immoral to remove embryo?
  
  No
  
  Did fetus have the agency to insert itself inside a woman's body?
  
  No
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman
  
  3rd time, "yes or no" question: Does this person currently have any of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes?
  (please reply with either a yes or a no) >
  
  It's a yes, but this yes does not mean anything... If you are at the gynecologist and he puts fingers in your vagina, do you have the right to shoot him if you withdraw consent mid examination?
  Ok, so fetus did not have the agency, which is very important when you are talking about killing another person. Actually it was your actions, that caused the fetus to end up where it is. >
  
  
  If you are at the gynecologist and he puts fingers in your vagina, do you have the right to shoot him if you withdraw consent mid examination?
  
  No
  
  Actually it was your actions, that caused the fetus to end up where it is.
  
  I deny your accusation. Provide proof that I impregnated someone.
  
  It's a yes, but this yes does not mean anything...
  
  Then it's a yes to somebody else's question.  A yes to my question means something: it means that this person currently has one or more of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes.
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman
  
  4th time, "yes or no" question: Does this person currently have any of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes?
  (please reply with either a yes or a no) >
  
  If my Auntie had wheels she’d be a bicycle. >
  
  and that is a true statement. same as the post. >
  
  If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...
  Also, NO, it wouldn't, because if you take up unwanted residence in someone else's abdomen, pretty sure it's not "immoral" to get rid of you. >
  
  you did not address the post. >
  
  I said -- 
  
  NO, it wouldn't, because if you take up unwanted residence in someone else's abdomen, pretty sure it's not "immoral" to get rid of you. >
  
  I know you said that. That does not address the premise, nor the analogical argument I made, in any capacity. >
  
  
  I know you said that. That does not address the premise, nor the analogical argument I made, in any capacity.
  
  It does address the premise. 
  It doesn't delve into impossible things, no.