Abortion is morally wrong

[Esquilax]

---

Hello, new user here so I apologize if my arguement has been "beat to death" already. I read as much of the 95 pages of posts on the subject as I could, and saw no mention of it, so I thought I would put it out there and see what people thought.
I come at the question of abortion from a slightly different angle. I look at it more of a question of implicit responsibility and informed consent. Let me preface that this is my MORAL view, NOT my legal view on abortion - as you all well know the two are not interchangeable.
A simplistic analogy would be if I offerred you a trip to Paris(or Amersterdam or Denver ) and access to a great private party there where we would have lots of fun. The only catch is that there is a 1:1000 chance that my kidneys are going to fail and I would need 1 of yours. I don't expect it, but it could happen. You don't have to go, and you know the conditions before we leave. If you willingly accept the proposition and then my kidneys do fail then would you still be responsible to assist me and my health? Obviously if you didn't undestand the conditions (informed) or didn't agree (consent) then this issue is moot, but if you did then what are your moral obligations?
I contend that unless the condition have changed that would make the agreement unreasonable (eg you lost 1 of your kidneys and need your only remaining 1 to survive) you would be MORALLY responsible to assist me and it would be wrong not to.
What is the consensus on this and the obvious extension to abortion.

---

Except that in the case of abortion, nobody agreed to the pregnancy. Sex and pregnancy aren't the same thing; sex is sex, and pregnancy is pregnancy, and in the case of accidental conception nobody signed up for the latter. In your example the risks were not only known, but agreed to, so a more accurate version of that story is that you offer the trip with the caveat of potential organ donation, I refuse and pay my own way so that we can live it up, and you still expect me to donate my kidney when yours fails.

We don't stop people from mitigating consequences that they didn't consent to, in a neutral scenario. There's a possibility that a meteor will fall on me whenever I leave my house, but that doesn't mean I should be denied medical care because, in some abstract sense, I "accepted the risk" of meteor strike. Sometimes accidents happen, and we shouldn't hold them against people just because they accept that they exist in an unpredictable world.

Additionally, I don't think this arguement has anything to do with autonomy as people give up their personal autonomy willingly all of the time (eg joining the Armed Forced you can be required to do all kinds of things - within certain bounds) so I personally start at a position that a person can willingly give up a portion of their personal autonomy. Just wanted to clarify, thanks

Sure, but when you unwillingly give up your autonomy, that's where the problem is.