deciding what others can or cannot do is a whole other moral discussion.

Cause then it is no longer connected to your body? Why would the same logic apply here? I am confused what argument you are trying to make

I disagree on that. It is a example of the emergency room variation of the trolley problem, as can be read further on here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem?wprov=sfti1#Variations

Yup in practice it is probably less risky and less invasive to do it early for the host. But that is a separate question. I thought you meant to question the classic “when would it be considered murder” so that is what I responded to.

To answer your question. They consider the argument of “where do you draw the line” to be a red herring.

Consider the following: if a person is in need for a kidney transplant, or else he would die, would it be ethical to force someone to donate their kidney against their will? I think not.

Same applies to abortions. You are being forced to feed a parasitic being in your body, a being that destroys your body in the process. And not having an option to abort would be to take away your bodily autonomy.

As for the line, I think that the person making that choice is the one that draws that line. It is not for us to decide.

It just means that they called their browser “the internet” right? Or am I missing something here?

Ain’t that just welfare? I thought UBI means that you will get the money, even if you work.

TBH my perspective might be skewed cause I am qualified for disability income, but I choose to work anyway. So I naturally tend to assume that others would do the same.