An abortion analogy

[DoubleTwentyOne]

OK let's assume the following scenario:

A short time ago, a new, previously uncategorized terminal disease was discovered to exist in a significant portion of the population.
Shortly after that, an inventor has devised a machine, which, if used properly, can save the victim's life 100% of the time. The way the device works is, a healthy person who does not carry the disease is hooked up, through the machine, to a person with the disease, and a biological process which lasts a total of 9 months is started. Upon completion of this process, the disease shall be cured and the victim will live out the remainder of his/her life immune from this disease. The only catch is you have to be hooked up 24/7 to this person for 9 months and cannot remove the connection at any time for any reason. Removing the connection prematurely will result in instant death for the infected person.
A law has been passed by the government that sets up a random process of selection of potential host healers. The law states that if you are randomly selected to be a host healer, you must give up your life as you know it for 9 months, be hooked up to the infected person, and have your life be dictated by that person's needs.
You do not ever have a say in whether or not you'll have a choice in the matter, if you happen to get unlucky and are selected, you are basically SOL. Whatever adverse consequences that may occur as a result of being attached to another person for 9 months of your life (loss of job, breakdown of relationships, loss of money, emotional trauma, etc) are expected to be fully accepted by you without ANY guaranteed outside help or compensation.

The question is, is this type of law unconstitutional under the premise that it unduely punishes a person who has not done anything wrong except being unlucky enough to be to be chosen to sacrifice 9 months of his/her life. In addition to the loss of time, he/she is fully expected to absorb all of the potental emotional and material losses which undoubtedly will result from such an experience. Does the government have a right to create a law which will take away a person's freedom without first proving that person has committed any crime? Does such a person deserve such treatment under the law?

I feel this analogy is very appropriate in describing a rape victim's experience if she is banned by law from having an abortion.

The issue isn't whether B has a right to harm C. The issue is does the government have a right to restrict B's freedom DUE to C, in light of the fact that B has not done anything legally or morally wrong?