Beleth choosing to help would seem to be a nessisary first step in your justification of forcing women to continue the pregnancy.Right, she never decided. So can't be held to continue it.
She didn't decide to have the embryo attach to her uterine wall because that's an event that happens automatically. No decision required.
What she most likely did choose to do is allow the events that would lead to an embryo attaching to her uterine wall to happen.
There are numerous ways to keep that from happening.
I realize that only one of them (abstinence) is 100% foolproof, so other variables need to be considered.
The key point in all this, though, is that in no case is it the embryo's fault, so it is unreasonable on its face to hold the embryo accountable.
In the analogy of the violinist (because I know it's going to come up), the party who is at fault is the party who made the decision to connect the violinist to the unwilling donor. It is that party who should be held accountable, not only for the violinist's life, but for the pain and suffering caused to the donor. And it is that party who should bear all due restitution and punishment.
You think we should punish the woman the egg implants on? Up to and including potentially her death while delivering?
I have to back him up here. He pointed out in reply to this comment the driving analogy: there is no reason to withhold medical treatment for someone in a car accident because that is a natural risk of being on the road.
You can take percautions to prevent pregnancy. For some people abortion is a last step, a back up plan, if the several plans before that fail. You can't arbitrarily withhold that medical procedure.
What you seem to be arguing is that the embryo should have some right. A right that from the moment of implantation superseeds the rights of a another person. I think it's dangerous to make up rights. But more, I think it's dangerous to say that the rights of others trump your own rights to your own body.
Some say "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." But this is not true for unwanted advances. If a woman being sexually assaulted (eg. raped) punches out her assailant I doubt she would be found guilty of a crime. Because she has the right to use force.
You argument is like saying if she agreed to kiss him she can't reject having sex. Actually, I take that back. I don't think your egg analogy would let it progress like that. But the point is because she did one thing it doesn't mean she wants the next.
And sex is like this as well. Your egg analogy falls apart because if you drop an egg you will get a smashed egg. But if you have sex you will not get a child. For one, conception doesn't always occur. Timing, fertility (man & woman), the pill and other factors take account. Half of all implantations result in spontaneous, natural abortion. I find it hard to get upset about an abortion at 4 weeks any more than a natural, spontaneous abortion.
She you can't say she's on the hook for something OTHER THAN SEX when she decides to engage in sex. In the same way that she is not on the hook for anything other than cuddling when she decides to cuddle. In the same sense that someone crossing the road isn't on the hook for the consequences of his actions. We don't say "you choose to step out on to the road, so we will withhold this medical treatment for you." The ER room is simply a last line of defence. Like abortion.Summary
If you want to argue against abortion don't say that women should be punished or they don't have a right. Try to come up with a non-arbitrary right that a clump of undifferentiated cells have.
If you want to say "so it's okay to abort a minute before both" calm down, look at the statistics, and notice that this doesn't happen and isn't worth talking about. If you want to say that there should be legal limits on abortions then see above and come up with a sound, non-arbitrary law about person hood or something.