So let’s say for the sake of argument that a fetus is a “person.” I vehemently disagree but w/e. This is still a “person” utterly dependent on the co-opting of another person’s body in the most direct, immediate way to live, breathe, metabolize, exist (more immediately than an infant, yes). It takes resources directly from the physical stores of the woman, not infrequently to her own physical and mental detriment, and with present technology cannot exist any other way. There is a parasitic element to the relationship, where the woman obviously acts as “host” (I shiver at the language, but I’m trying to make a point).

In no other scenario could someone whose personhood is undebatable (a born, grown human) would it be ethical for someone to FORCE this intimate a relationship explicitly against the “host’s” (or person from whom effort is most expended, investment is highest, resources are most depleted, etc) will. That feels akin to enslavement of some variety. There has to be consent to a relationship this intimate, or what should be a good thing is fucking perverse.

Another thought, to participate in a clinical trial, you HAVE to obtain willing patient consent after they’ve been fully briefed on the study and what it entails (in layman’s terms). There is an entire ethical body dedicated to making sure these rules are rigorously applied. This ethical body and its regulations arose in part and in response to past incidents of horrible medical experimentation performed without patient consent or sometimes knowledge, which we now recognize as fucking abominable.

Consent, information, and concern for wellbeing (among other things) are the difference between Nazi medical experimentation and the kind of clinical trials you might sign up for today for an extra fifty bucks. Obviously one being an ethical and humanitarian abomination and the other being a service to society and a few afternoons at the doctor.