>I think hardly anyone would say that On the contrary, I think it would be very popular to say that someone who directly caused the crash out of negligence sho

>I think hardly anyone would say that On the contrary, I think it would be very popular to say that someone who directly caused the crash out of negligence should be required to give blood to save the victim. You're referring to a version of the violinist argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#The_violinist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#The_viol... Your version is actually pretty similar to a normal pregnancy (the woman brought about the pregnancy through her actions and now has to decide whether its morally okay to stop the babies' use of her body). I think it's very hard to justify abortion along these lines and might be easier just to try to show that the fetus is non-human and doesn't have rights.