“Even if we put aside the question of fetal personhood and assume that a fetus should have the same rights as a born human being, giving that fetus the right to use another person's body for its survival would give it privileges that born people do not have. In no other case is a person legally compelled to use their body and their internal organs to sustain another's life. We do not require parents to donate kidneys or even blood to their children, and we do not require anyone to be a good Samaritan and risk their life or health for another. It is difficult to imagine a case in which we would legally require a father to keep his child physically attached to his body, using his organs for survival, physically impairing him, and requiring him to miss work and possibly undergo surgery, for nearly ten months. It would be difficult to make the case that the child (or full-grown adult) has a right to use their father's body for survival. Yet this is exactly what opponents of abortion rights argue-- except the body in question is female.”