ECSNorway, correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you against universal healthcare?
This means that the mother will have to pay for delivery, as well as the inconvenience of being pregnant. If she is living paycheck to paycheck as many people do that is going to be a significant chunk of change, plus very pregnant people usually can't work, especially if the job is one of the more physically demanding ones or if they need to walk to work. So a significant financial strain even before the kid is born.
Now once the kid is born it will usually require some care, but if the mother is unwilling or unable to care for it can just be left in a ditch as far as most pro-lifers seem to care. But lets say she does the proper thing and attempts to take care of the kid, if she hasn't been eating right, such as because she has trouble paying for food the kid will be at a significant disadvantage for the rest of their life, since during early development counts for a lot.
Now say the kid gets sick, can the mother visit the doctor? how is she going to pay for it without universal healthcare? Is it alright to let the kid die of natural causes now? No? Then who's going to pay for it?
I could continue spinning a story like this for several hours, but those are the consequences of forcing people to carry pregnancies to term. If you are going to use the power of government to force people to do that you should also use the power of government to help them with that. Also note in all of this it's just the mother, the father after-all does not have the same biological tie to the kid and so can get of consequence free. I don't really like your way of forcing people to take responsibility.
Lets make it a little more drastic and say that the father was a rapist, so he can't support the kid even if he wanted to because he is in jail. Is murdering the kid (in your words) acceptable in this case? If so why? And if not then why force the mother to take responsibility? Who pays the associated medical bills?
In my opinion during the first trimester it's fine to have an abortion, because the embryo is not yet a person but after that it needs a good reason for doing so, eg a medical one.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
This means that the mother will have to pay for delivery, as well as the inconvenience of being pregnant. If she is living paycheck to paycheck as many people do that is going to be a significant chunk of change, plus very pregnant people usually can't work, especially if the job is one of the more physically demanding ones or if they need to walk to work. So a significant financial strain even before the kid is born.
Now once the kid is born it will usually require some care, but if the mother is unwilling or unable to care for it can just be left in a ditch as far as most pro-lifers seem to care. But lets say she does the proper thing and attempts to take care of the kid, if she hasn't been eating right, such as because she has trouble paying for food the kid will be at a significant disadvantage for the rest of their life, since during early development counts for a lot.
Now say the kid gets sick, can the mother visit the doctor? how is she going to pay for it without universal healthcare? Is it alright to let the kid die of natural causes now? No? Then who's going to pay for it?
I could continue spinning a story like this for several hours, but those are the consequences of forcing people to carry pregnancies to term. If you are going to use the power of government to force people to do that you should also use the power of government to help them with that. Also note in all of this it's just the mother, the father after-all does not have the same biological tie to the kid and so can get of consequence free. I don't really like your way of forcing people to take responsibility.
Lets make it a little more drastic and say that the father was a rapist, so he can't support the kid even if he wanted to because he is in jail. Is murdering the kid (in your words) acceptable in this case? If so why? And if not then why force the mother to take responsibility? Who pays the associated medical bills?
In my opinion during the first trimester it's fine to have an abortion, because the embryo is not yet a person but after that it needs a good reason for doing so, eg a medical one.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."