But does this apply generally? We don't force people to donate life-saving organs or tissue - or even blood - and we don't force people to put themselves in peril to save others, so it seems it's not true in a general that we demand that others give up their autonomy or bodily security to save another life.
Yes, and my principle can equally explain these above example. In fact the organ donation example supports my first premise, namely that cannot one disrupt another's intact rights as a means to restore an already violated right. I cannot be forced to give my organs to save another's life (right of life) because then my intact autonomy would be a mere means to restore the already partially violated right of life of another person (the person needing the organ). This principle explains why we have a strong duty to
not harm the rights of other, but not a strong duty
to help restore, or be forced to restore the rights of others. In the case of abortion, the mother's autonomy as already been violated (either by her own consent to a sexual act or due to rape, in which case the rapist is guilty), however she cannot end use the fetus' life (namely end it) as a means to restore even her own autonomy,. Therefore the very act of abortion is unethical and inconsistent with our concept of rights. When people bring up the organ donation example (usually after reading Thompson's abortion paper) they fail to understand that the very example is ambiguous in that it can be used to support both sides of the debate. As the philosopher Kant said, moral rights as
categorical imperative, they are 'ought not principles'(negative duties) rather than "ought to principles' (positive duties).
When a women is pregnant, no-one is 'forcing her' to be pregnant in the way that someone forces one to give up organs or blood. You can only force singular acts, but pregnancy is a natural ongoing process. Its like saying that someone is forcing me to breath, or my cells to respire. Yes there may be a moral imperative to force a women
not to abort (because that involved violating another's namely the fetus' right of life), because like I mentioned before
ought not duties are far stronger duties.
but regardless... you think that a fetus - something that depends on a form of literal life support to live - is more akin to a healthy person than someone who's close to death? Why?
I never said that. I said a Fetus has a right to life. Comatose patients alto require literal life support to live, but they are regarded as persons warranting moral protections.
Are you talking about legal or moral rights here?
Legally, it's clear that yoir interpretation is wrong: if my property is stolen and then sold to an unwitting third party, I can get my property back, even if the unwitting third party can't recover the loss from the thief.
This is about whether abortion is unethical (a moral question) hence moral rights.
As for the legal issue, the interpretation is certainly not 'clear', and the example you give is not analogous to the point I was making. If a property of mine is stolen, (by a thief) I cannot go up to a random person and take there money as a means to restore my property. A fetus, is unlike the thief in that they are not culpable in any way for the violation of the women's autonomy. If the thief did give it to unknowing person, then yes I can take my property back from then provided that the thief is then also responsible for paying that person back for selling stolen property (i.e the unknowing person loses nothing in this scenario).
Lets say I am a parent with children. My children are a burden to me (economically, socially) and to feed them I must give up some of my autonomy (whether that be bodily autonomy, when a mother gives breast milk to a child) or my right of property (when I must give some of my money and resources to provide for them). These constraints of my rights however is not an excuse to kill my children (because not only is that immoral but also murder). Again the point is shown that I cannot restore my rights if it involves violating the rights of another. Nor can I claim that the government is forcing me to raise children. Perhaps the children must stay with me for some time until child protection services can take them away.
"Arguable" is an understatement... but it seems like you would agree that a fetus has no more rights than a person does; correct?
A fetus has less rights than a rational person (for example a fetus does not have right to vote), but a fetus does have a right to life and to their body
Except you haven't established that the fetus's "right of life" supersedes the right of the pregnant person to autonomy and bodily security. All you did was decree this without justifying it.
Actually I gave several examples to support my premise (1) that you cannot violate an already intact right as a means to restore a violated one. What I have shown is that any right cannot be violated as a means to restore another right.
"So why not rape her again"... that's your position?
No
... but you are allowed to kick a squatter off your land.
Not if it involves killing them. Countries are generally autonomous (they are sovereign) but any country that kills an unwanted refugee as a means to remove them for their land would be condemned as immoral.
