Bodily autonomy and integrity is not merely an inconvenience. It's a major principle in human rights. Otherwise you could demand I give you my healthy kidney to save your life, and if I don't I'd be "killing you".
> You aren't required to save their life, but you also can't kill them.
You're not killing the violinist, you merely withdraw life support you're not obligated to give it in any way, they die on their own.
Body autonomy is great and all, but it doesn't excuse murder.
Like I said: I'm not required to save you, but I also can't kill you.
But it's not murder if I wake up in the middle of the procedure, walk away, and you die on the operating table.
To me the lines are clear: You don't have to take action to save his life, but you also can not kill him by your actions. i.e. if everyone froze at this moment and did nothing - would he live, or die?
You aren't required to save their life, but you also can't kill them.
Is this seriously an abortion argument, or are you just trolling? Are you seriously telling me people are OK with killing someone just because it's not convenient?
I always thought that the abortion argument was because they did not consider their unborn child a person. If you do consider that child a person then obviously you can't kill it.