4 ms·
> they just need someone to take care of them, it doesn't have to be their mother. Wouldn't it then make more sense to require the mother to take care for the
by tomp 4y ago
> they just need someone to take care of them, it doesn't have to be their mother.
Wouldn't it then make more sense to require the mother to take care for the fetus/baby before the age of viability (as she's the only one who can), not after that (and/or after birth) when anyone can? Right now, it's the reverse.
- tsimionescu 4y agoThere are safe heaven laws in all US states, which allow the parents to abandon their newly born child in designated places (typically hospitals) without facing any charges. Children can also be legally given up for adoption. So, in fact, the right to abandon a viable child is less controversial. Now, the viability standard is important because it is very hard to consider a non-viable entity "a person" in any serious sense. If it can't even perform the basic functions of its organism, how can it be considered to have rights, and has never been able to do so, how can it be considered a person?