system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
A few questions on Abortion (Thomson and Mary Anne Warren)

1. Does Thomson agree, for the sake of argument, that the foetus is a person that has a right to life?
2. Does Thomson’s view distinguish morally between cases of abortion depending upon the hardship to the mother required to bear the child?
3. Is Thomson’s Henry Fonda case supposed to illustrate that Fonda would infringe Thomson’s right to life if he does not save her?
4. Does Mary Anne Warren think that infants should be afforded moral protection solely on the basis of being sentient?
5. Does Mary Anne Warren maintain that relational properties are irrelevant to the ascription of rights?
gpt
In response to the questions about JJT:

1. Thomson wants to show that, even if the fetus is a person with the right to life, that doesn't entail the right to use the mother's organs.
2. If she's right, then even given the fetus's rights, the mom doesn't have to endure significant hardship to bring the fetus to term. Saving the violinist involves hardship. But the Henry Fonda cases don't. To save Judy (in the second version of the case, where he's on the East Coast rather than the West), he just has to walk over and wipe the sweat from her "fevered brow" (lol), but -- controversially -- Judy thinks he still isn't morally obligated to do it. 
3. Judy thinks Fonda \*wouldn't\* infringe her rights by not saving her. Again, super controversial, but there are some views that kind of follow up. Taurek's "Should the Numbers Count?" and Anscombe's "Who is Wronged?" are both interesting examples.

Hope that's helpful!