[flagged]
Either you have the right to your body, or you don't. We could have a nuanced discussion on how far your obligations go to be made to use your body to support the life of another person (You could probably be cut up into enough organs to save the lives of four or five people, after all), but the central question is not "nuanced" at all.
- The mother made the conscious decision to have sex, while fully aware, in advance, that her action could result in a child being dependent on her for survival. To kill the child, would be to punish an innocent human so that the mother can escape the consequences of her decisions.
- The mother is a victim of rape. In this case, the rapist should face severe punishment for his heinous crime (life in prison and castration at minimum). In addition, the society and state should do everything possible to support the victim and her child. But killing the child for the sins of the father would simply add more evil to an already tragic situation. The child does not deserve to die for his father's sins; one human life violated is more than enough!
And I'm an innocent person who could use a kidney transplant, or a blood transfusion, or whatnot, from you.
Your life story up to this point doesn't matter - by what right can you assert that your body autonomy is more important than my life?
When you do an action, you are responsible for the consequence of the action you performed. The innocent bystander who had no role in performing the action, should not have to suffer the consequences.
That's a much weaker argument than the one you were making a few hours ago. Here, I thought that you were making the argument that murder is an unconditional wrong, and putting your body autonomy above providing life-saving aid for me is murder.
Now it seems like it's a very conditional wrong.
More generally, while it's true that you can't murder purely through inaction, all abortion requires performing an action.
It's not murder to not support you, just like it's not murder when the grocery store refuses to feed me for free, or when you refuse to open your house to me as a place I can live in, or when a doctor refuses to treat me, or when a prospective organ donor doesn't want to give up a kidney.
There are a few situations where this support can be compelled in our society, but we place an incredibly high bar on doing so, and an even higher one when it comes to questions of body autonomy.
I support your choice to abstain from sex. I do not support your choice to end the life of your child just so that you don't have to provide for them. To deliberately cause death of an innocent human being is not a right. Unless the child acts with an intention to kill the parent, the parent may not use deadly means against them (Disclaimer: Even in self defense, one must not act with the intention to kill - see the principle of double effect)