Why should the stowaway have the right to get to the place he want to go at all.

So you're saying that a foetus has a better claim to right of passage than a fully human stowaway?

For what does the women need the organs so importantly that it justifies to kill someone?

Why do you need your kidney so badly that it justifies killing a kidney patient?

And a birth is not necessarily a medical procedure at all. The medicine is used to prevent damage to both the mother and the baby.

But by that logic, healing a broken leg isn't a medical procedure either. The leg will heal on its own, after all, and putting the cast on it just helps avoid further injury. Childbirth, as you will recall, was one of the leading causes of non-violent death for women of fertile age until giving birth became a medical procedure.

None of which, of course, alters the basic fact that we're talking about an extremely invasive procedure, whether you want to call it medical or not.

The captain should do nothing which results in the killing of the stowaway and a pregnant woman shouldn't do anything what kills the embryo.

Ah, but first of all that's not the analogy I proposed. You claimed a moral equivalence between killing a foetus and denying it use of the uterus. The question was whether there was a similar moral equivalence between robbing the stowaway and throwing him off the ship.

Having noted that, however, your re-purposing of the analogy doesn't help you much. If our stowaway is dead broke and attempted to migrate because he couldn't find a job, he might very well die if he is simply tossed off at the harbour in a country where he doesn't necessarily speak the language, doesn't have a place to live, doesn't have a job, doesn't have any food...

Is the captain morally obliged to check that the stowaway has all those necessities before he kicks him off his ship? Is he obligated to make sure that the stowaway is immunised against any vicious local diseases like malaria? How long must the stowaway survive after he's kicked off the ship before the captain can wash his hands and say "well, it's not my fault that he died - after all, he was fine when I left him."

If you don't like to define it as doing nothing, well, that's your thing, but I'm asking her not to do anything to kill the embryo, so I'm really asking her to do something not.

No, you're asking her to grant use of her uterus to the embryo (actually, I don't have a problem with you asking her - what I have a problem with is the fact that you want the state to demand it of her). That is very much doing something.

Finally usually she has already done something which has produced the embryo, so even the stowaway example would have to be one, where the captain has invited the stowaway in the first place,

Well, he transshipped cargo at a harbour somewhere. That's normal for a ship to do. You can hardly blame him for the fact that he got a stowaway in the process.

Similarly, presumably the pregnant woman had sexual liaisons at some point, which I believe is what you are so tactfully alluding to. That, however, is normal for a human adult to do, and you don't get to blame her for any accidental pregnancy.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.