[mikema63]

Why not, for surely it is a violation of my self-ownership, however this may be defined, to be forced into a position where, as a landlord, after signing lease to my tenants for four months, it is not permissable by law that I may not remove said tenants from my property, even if they violate my customs and notions of decency, or for any other reason.

not unless they violated the contract, if the landlord forced the tenants to live in the building and did not allow them to leave, then this would be a violation of self ownership. the landlord having to lease the room for the full 4 months is not a violation of his self-ownership, the building and its use are not a part of himself, ownership or use of property is tradeable, you are not.

the use of the ship till reaching the destination is not the sale of the captain himself so he does not have the right to throw people off the boat.

[Sceptic]

not unless they violated the contract, if the landlord forced the tenants to live in the building and did not allow them to leave, then this would be a violation of self ownership. the landlord having to lease the room for the full 4 months is not a violation of his self-ownership, the building and its use are not a part of himself, ownership or use of property is tradeable, you are not.

What about unwritten laws of common courtesy, such as maintaining proper hygiene, helping with chores and being polite. If these were not explicitly stated in the contract would the landlord still be unable to remove such persons from his house, and if they were, at which point would you draw the line?

[mikema63]

no if the contract didn't have a stipulation about cleanliness he would not be able to.

[Eran]

It is difficult to come up with a suitable thought experiment for abortion because there is a critical difference between the abortion situation and any others.

Specifically, all thought experiments relate to adult humans who existed prior to the special relation being analogized to the one between pregnant mother and foetus. A person who was drugged and carried to a ship or a plane, for example, has a legitimate grievance against the person who brought them to a confined place. One can imagine a counter-factual in which they are not in this situation, and plausibly argue they have been made worse off by being put in such a situation.

In contrast, the foetus didn't exist prior to being a foetus, and there are no counter-factual alternative to pregnancy. It is thus impossible to argue that the foetus is in any material way worse off for having been conceived and then aborted vs. the relevant alternative of not having been conceived at all.