4 ms·
> Being forced to care for the person would be akin to being forced to raise him. Until the baby is born, it does depend entirely on the mother's resources. It
by morgante 12y ago
> Being forced to care for the person would be akin to being forced to raise him.
Until the baby is born, it does depend entirely on the mother's resources. It literally pulls energy out of her blood stream.
Now, I don't think fetuses are people, but if you believe they are then you have to admit that for the duration of the pregnancy the mother is compelled to feed and provide for that "person."
- crazy1van 12y agoYeah, it gets tricky to pick the policy that maximizes individual liberty when one person is biologically dependent on another to live. One way to analyze it is to look at which person sacrifices the greater freedom. If the mother terminates the pregnancy, the baby loses its life. If the baby is allowed to live off the mother's resources until birth, the mother sacrifices 9 months of her body's resources. Again, this all assumes the fetus is a person, which I believe is Rand Paul's position.