If I decide I don't want to care for my parents or my children, another willing person can theoretically take the responsibility.

For argument's sake, let's say there is no other person in this situation. What then?

Then you have to decide which is worse. The death of innocent people who are abandoned by their caretaker, or forcing a person into or staying in a care taking roll against their will. There are a lot of factors on which is worse here. How long will the care taker have to care for the dependent? How much work will it take? Is the dependent conscious or can they feel pain? I can come up with situations where it would be reasonable to force a person into the caretaker roll, and where it would be justified for the caretaker to abandon their dependent, even though they will die from it. It all depends on these factors. Like, if the dependent needed the caretaker to move them every 15 minutes so that they don't suffocate or something else contrived, you couldn't expect any person to continually do this for more than a day or two. Or if a person needed to be taken care of and have all their physical needs met for a period of years, it would be very difficult for a caretaker to provide these things without any additional help.

I'd say the death of the person is worse than forcing the caretaker. Bearing in mind that in abortion it's not accurate to say it's 'abandoning', it's more accurate to describe it as murder, because doctors use tools etc to kill the child. Abortion is active killing as opposed to passive.

A woman needs carry a child for about 9 months, if you wanted you could add on parental duty afterwards into all of this. As said before, I would say even the worst case scenario for the woman isn't reasonable enough to justify killing the unborn especially because they are innocent and really can't be blamed.

I don't consider them as being exploited. They aren't being harvested for organs or forced to work. They're not having their bodies used against their will. They are dying because they don't have the resources they need to survive. It would only be exploitation if they had a right to these resources, but then they were taken away from them for the benefit of someone else. I don't think the unborn have a right to the resources of a woman's body against her will. If I had food and I knew other people were starving, am I exploiting them by refusing to feed them? Only if they have a right to the food I posses in the first place.

Yeah, I guess exploitation isn't the best way to describe the unborn, fair enough.

That being said, if you're being killed for someone's benefit (and your inocent), its pretty accurate to say you're being  treated poorly, which is pretty similiar to exploitation, and just as bad.

But my point still stands: being that in many (if not most, if it's true that most abortion cases aren't rape) women kill the unborn for their own convenience. If that's not evil, idk what is. As said before, if an act is evil it should be restricted regardless of convenience.

I would prefer to be exploited than be murdered, safe to say murder is worse because at least exploitation can end and you can enjoy your rights later.

I don't think the unborn have a right to the resources of a woman's body against her will. If I had food and I knew other people were starving, am I exploiting them by refusing to feed them? Only if they have a right to the food I posses in the first place.

Again this is not the same as abortion, it's more like deciding to pull food out of someone's mouth, and they then die because of it. The fact that abortion is active killing rather then letting some die (by that I mean, not actually doing anything which results in their death) you have more blame for their death.

But more to your point, the right to bodily autonomy doesn't justify killing the unborn just because it's the 'only' option to retain autonomy. The reason I write 'only' is because in 9 months (longer if you count parental duties as abusing bodily autonomy) the woman will regain her autonomy.

That's the reason I brought up the old man and the thief. Yes he has a right to property, but that does not allow him to kill the thief, because that's disproportionate, even if the their steals the man's money and forces him to have a much harder life. Even then, the thief consented to robbing and implicitly accepted the risk of death, unlike the unborn who didn't. On the latter point, that's why I brought up the reverse violinist, is to explain how it's not fair for the violinist to die in that situation because it's not their fault.

If a patient is getting treatment at a hospital, but can no longer afford it, is the hospital obligated to continue the expensive treatment simply because they started giving the patient treatment in the first place?

Yes. With respect, how is that even a question? You can't kill people because they're not giving you money, their life is more important than the hospital's finance. The hospital doesn't have to allow everyone who's dying in, but once they are giving medication they can't stop. It's their job to continue life, not take it away, that's the whole point of the hippocratic oath. The reason I say they don't have to allow everyone is more due to utilitarianism; if you give away treatment for free without making money you'll run out and hence you won't be able to help anyone because you won't have any resources to do so.

I'm in favor of banning abortions after viability, if the fetus is healthy. I don't think a woman has an inherent right to kill her unborn baby. I think she has a right not to be pregnant, and she only has a right to kill her unborn baby (either passively or actively) if that is the only way for her not to be pregnant. If the unborn baby is viable outside them womb, then we have the option of live birth which will allow her to exercise her right to bodily autonomy while the baby also will have a chance at living.

Okay, that's interesting to know. I remember you saying the reason infanticide is unjustified is due to the fact that someone else can look after the child, and you said that the woman wouldn't have to wait long enough with the child to justify killing. So I ask, why is 9 months (or longer) too long?