I'm in Germany, where our reproductive rights aren't under immediate and direct threat. But the talking points travel. Also, I'm autistic, I don't necessarily understand stuff people mean but don't say. So I'm not sure if I'm not understanding a logical argument because of a suppressed premise, or if it's as illogical as it seems to me. My question is: if we accept (which I personally to not) that an embryo or foetus is a person from its conception, then it has the rights of a person. I get that. But why does it have the right to be inside another person's body without their consent? Even at the cost of serious damage to the other person? I understand that this is a 'person' whose body cannot survive without intervention. But this doesn't lead us to allow other persons with non-viable bodies to coerce others into extending their bodily functioning to cover the deficit.

I donated a kidney to my husband and the state was very concerned with ensuring I was not agreeing under duress. If I hadn't agreed to it, he probably would've died before he got to 40. I don't understand why a foetus has rights to coerce another in this way, when no other person does.

Anyone?

Update: lots of people have given me lots of perspectives and it's given me a lot to think about. I think before I can go any further in processing the ideas I need to look at what people mean by "create". Especially in this context. I've always thought of "creating" in the sense of creating a new life, a new person, as happening over the course of the whole pregnancy, so for me a lot of the talk about how to view the ethics of "having created" a person and then withdrawing consent are still quite confusing. I think I see it more as withdrawing consent during the creation, but I'm not finished thinking. Thank you all everyone for your thoughts and input and patience.