Should her aborted kid have been shunted off to adoptive parents, only to take up a stable household that an already born kid needed? Should she have kept the kid and raised it in an unstable household?
Once 100% of children on this planet are well-cared for, your argument might make sense, but we are far, far away from that. Until then, we should prioritize kids over fetuses.
There's also a flaw in your logic. Should we kill unwanted people that are dependant on the state, for example?
I also think using the word "fetus" is dishonest. There's not much of a difference between a fetus a day ago and a kid who was born next day. Yet somehow many people think killing one is perfectly fine, but killing the other is one of the worst crimes.
Nobody knows the future.
Depression, regret and suicide can be outcomes of abortions.
Did you hear the story about the girl who kept her baby and it saved her life?
Being a mother gave her meaning that a career never could. That's to say nothing of the beautiful new life that was brought into the world.
...and they could never be the outcome of forcing someone to carry a baby to term? You're hypothetical-cherry-picking pretty hard here.
From my viewpoint, it's a fetus until it can survive outside the womb, which seems to be around 22-24 weeks with current tech. Prior to that point the mother's rights must be paramount. After that, it's a more difficult problem that really needs to be answered by society (and it isn't now.)
1) first heartbeat
2) first brain activity
3) first ability to feel pain
4) first ability to move
I suspect not but you will happily force others to do just that.
As an adopted child born prior to Roe v. Wade (and likely would not have been born post Roe v. Wade), I can assure you there are people who will gladly pay for the right to bring up and love a child.
Also as an adoptive parent, post Roe v. Wade, I can assure you there are people who will gladly pay for the right to bring up and love a child.
Also as a person who knows many people who cannot conceive children, including same sex couples, I can assure you that there are people who will gladly pay for the right to bring up and love a child.
I’m pro-choice, but no offense, you need to drop that argument. It makes an assumption that other people share your attitude about raising children who are not biologically your own. Many of us out there who realize that simply having shared biology may be the least important thing between a parent and a child.
No, it makes the argument that the people forcing women to give birth are not also willing to care for them.
And you didnt say that you personally would adopt all of these forced births so you made my point.
Interesting…So your point is now that a single person who is both pro-adoption and pro-choice should be willing to literally adopt the 600k children that may now become available every year due to possible abortion restrictions? So you are saying that your ridiculous standard was not actually hyperbole? You actually meant it? Wow.
Well I guess I am going to have to get a second job.
Your question about raising them doesn't affect me much. We have families who want to adopt, we have state facilities. It's clearly a better way to spend tax dollars than some overpriced military crap.
Wanna see how far this goes?