this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
516 points (97.4% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7186 readers
467 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

at which point the state steps in to provide care for the child.

Again a woefully underfunded current circumstance. But also:

Nobody is forcing the woman to keep the baby. If the woman wants to,

Ah, so we'll only force her to HAVE the baby, then endure the guilt, shame, and pain of having her newborn (who she has at that point carried for nine months and bonded with) taken from her for adoption.

Getting closer and closer to Gilead the further the conversation goes.

My suggestion would be that I'm going to drop out of this discussion right about here.

[โ€“] sugar_in_your_tea 0 points 7 months ago

Yes, if a woman choose not to get an abortion in the first half of her pregnancy, we then need to respect the rights of the fetus. That's about as fair if a balance (slanted toward the woman's rights) as possible. And she'd only be obligated to carry the baby until it can be safely delivered, not necessarily to full term.

In short, for the first half of the pregnancy, she has complete freedom to choose. For the second half, the fetus gets protection. That seems fair.