I’ll address your points by building up to them one at a time and building my argument from the ground up since clearly you don’t believe in any of it at the moment.

Its useless for me to spend time talking about the points you’ve raised until we’ve covered the bigger picture.

But fine you want it you get it.

“What if it takes longer to get the kid out of her live than dead? Is it OK to kill my friend’s 38-week son simply so she isn’t forced to let him keep using her kidneys through the process of labor?”

The child should be removed in such a way that the process of removal does no harm to the child in and of itself.

Your friend with the 38 week old son can if she desires insist that said “son” (who she would obviously not view as a son if she was asking for such a thing in the first place) be removed from her body and forced to fend for himself in the most humane manner, no one else can force her to do anything or harm the son inside her against her wishes.

“You’ve argued that her organs CANNOT be used against her will. But you offered a compromise in which they would be for a short period of time, which you retracted when you were unable to offer a principled reason not to extend the compromise further. I’m trying to probe that. Why would it be OK to compromise through labor, but not longer?”

I was offering you an emotional compromise that I couldn’t defend from a logical point of view. If you want to try and use that compromise to take an inch and get a mile, I withdraw it. The compromise is now off the table, and its all or nothing.

“If people were formed plant-style as in 573 (which I read but found unconvincing), what would you think of a person returning from vacation and finding a nearly-developed plant-person, hours from being able to leave, and killing them? Would that be a reasonable response? Or would it be more reasonable to say that once it’s grown that far, it should have the right to finish the process?”

I think that you would have the right to expel it from your house when you wish. However human emotion would also suggest that while this would be viable legal option, few people would embark upon it, the same way that people who find out they’re pregnant typically try to get an abortion as soon as possible.

“But the particular argument that “it has no right to use your stuff so you can kill it” is weaksauce. If someone uses my bike without permission (ie, steals it) I don’t have the right to kill him. If someone is in my house without permission, I might have the right to kill him IF I have reason to believe he constitutes a threat. If someone is using my organs without my permission… it’s not self-evident (as you seem to believe) that I should have the right to kill him in order to get them back. If a parasite is using my organs, sure, but if it’s a human being, the question isn’t so easy to answer.”

There is a difference between your organs and your bike.

You’re not “killing them” you’re taking what is yours, and their death is an regrettable side effect.

Now answer mine.

Would you accept having the violinist hooked up to you?

Would I be a murder if I didn’t?