One more thing. I don't know if it's accurate to say "life begins at conception" is a political view. Even in a world without politics one could ask when a life begins.

Asking the question is fine. Stating we have a definitive answer that should drive policy is not. The case that a single cell is a full human being and has enough worth to prevent the development of stem cell technology... is a political (or religious) view.

Really? You really think that's what it's all about? That people who oppose abortion are just doing it to be mean to women?

No, I don't think that. I understand your mind set, and I understand you're trying to "do the right thing". The Pro-life movement is made up of good people trying to do what they view is a good thing.

But you have already admitted everyone isn't going to be magically converted to your way of thinking if abortion is outlawed. Assuming that's correct, mechanically what you're trying to do is use the power of the state to force women to bear children they don't want.

Yes, I know that's not how you would phrase it. But that is the result, no matter what your motivation. Unless you give the state this power the entire plan falls apart and you end up with the world as it currently exists.

You're one of the most civil and fairminded pro-choice advocates I've argued with...

Thank you. I try to be cold, rational, and polite about these sorts of things. It helps that I don't have any personal involvement.

I'm going to ignore the whole "trespassing" argument since we're talking about bodies and not houses... and since whatever the surrounding situation is, you always have the right to call the police and remove the guy as soon as they have access.

No one has a right to demand a kidney of me, but if it turns out that the status quo is that this person is already benefiting from my kidney due to no crime of their own, how can I justify denying it unless my life is in danger too?

People die in pregnancy. It's difficult, dangerous, and traumatic both emotionally and physically. It's also tremendously expensive and a life altering event. I've been through car accidents less traumatic or life altering and that includes the one I didn't walk away from.

There are permanent medical side effects like increased weight, wear and tear on the body, and decreased lifespan. This is why giving a "health" clause for allowing abortions is so problematic. Everyone could use it.

To answer your question, if someone is already benefiting from your kidney, far as I can tell, you *still* have the right to walk away. If someone has you hooked up to a dyalisis machine where your kidneys are processing their waste, I don't see anything that prevents you from pulling out the cords and walking away.

Similarly you can walk away from a kidney transplant up to the point where the organ is outside your body.

Say I'm a conjoined twin who does not need my brother or benefit from the arrangement and will suffer health consequences from the continued attachment, while my twin does depend on the attachment and will die without it. May I - perhaps citing the 13th Amendment - remove my twin?

My understanding of conjoined twins and their seperation is 'parasitic twins' are removed at birth or shortly afterwards. This isn't my field but I think that's the term for it.

But if such a situation did exist as adults... then I think the answer would *still* be yes. Far as I'm aware, You never have the *right* to damage someone else's health, or to insist they risk their health to save your life.