AFAIK wrote:I don't understand what consent has to do with pregnancy in regards to the embryo or fetus. Biology doesn't work that way and neither do many social interactions.
The relationship between the fetus and the mother is thus: the fetus is inside the woman, using her body as a life support system. If we assume that the woman has the right to decide what happens with her own body, then we must logically assume that the fetus can only use her body as a life support system with her consent.
As you can see, it depends on the idea that the woman has the right to control what her body is used for. It is not about biology or other social interactions, except as those interactions deal with a person's right to control their own body.
I brought up the helicopter because the life threatening consequences of eviction closely resemble the consequences of abortion. I don't think contracts or consent should be considerations when making decisions about fetuses but since you introduced consent as a justification for abortion I pointed out that it doesn't apply to fetuses.
As long as we are clear that contracts are not a necessary condition for consent.
Now, let us look at your helicopter analogy. Like my dinner analogy, it fails in one important regard: it completely dismisses the concept of the integrity of the body and turns it into a discusssion about trespassing. I do not think trespassing and abortion are comparable, much the same way that I do not think rape and trespassing are comparable.
Having said that, it is obvious that consenting to have you in my helicopter, and then taking away that consent and forcing you out at a high altitude would normally be considered murder. In fact, it would take some very extenuating circumstances to keep me out of jail, such as self-defense or you had ebola and were about to infect the other people on the helicopter or some other unlikely scenario.
Now, in Canada, a woman can get an abortion at any time. If we go back to the helicopter analogy, this would be the equivalent of letting me push you out at 10 000 feet. This seems illogical. It would only makes sense if we assume that every instance of late term abortion is equivalent to one of the unlikely scenarios that would exonerate me as a hypothetical helicopter killer.
This is because the judges who came to this decision assumed that any woman who was getting an abortion would either get an abortion when the fetus was just a bunch of cells, or if was later in the pregnancy, they would only get an abortion if there was a danger to the mother. Experience has shown this to be a valid assumption.