Welcome to Gaia! ::

Actually, since it's not directed towards a specific person, it's not really "reportable" it's considered to be an "opinion."

That said, no relevance what-so-ever, since this is not a b***h-fest thread (that I'm aware of) so to reiterate Waters, "Please attempt to refrain from such comments in the future."

Ya know, I was thinking earlier about how people aren't allowed to completely deny responsibility for caring for a child after birth. Men are required to offer child support whether they want the child or not. I also believe that married couples are often denied the option of putting their child up for adoption since it's assumed that they're capable of caring for the child. Further if they neglect the child they will receive legal action for neglect. As this applies to the debate, how is it legally consistant to give this protection to children, regardless of the desires of the parents, after birth, but not before? Additionally, if a woman claims her right to an abortion based on the right to refuse use of her body to the child, she is also refusing the life-giving food and water that the fetus needs. So she may be legally protected for refusing use, but could still in a sense be illegally denying life support to her own offspring.

Yes, but at the same time, a parent can't refuse their child entry into their home if they don't want them there, nor access to food if they don't want to. This would be neglect.

A medical emergency is an unforseen event. However, feeding and sheltering are always inherently required means of survival, and are thus legally required. Since being born is an inherently required means of survival... I would argue that the jurisdiction would fall under neglect, on the means that it is closer to sheltering and feeding.

That being said though, if a woman had to wait for whatever reason, to give her child up for adoption, she can't leave it outside to die and use the excuse "Well I was going to give it up for adoption, but I couldn't right away and I didn't want to wait, it was too much hassle."

That's, firstly assuming that it's a baby, and secondly would mean that they were able to get rid of the child right away. The point I was making was that they cannot simply be like "Sucks to be you" if for whatever reason they can't get rid of the child.

Not that it matters, because it's kind of a horrible analogy anyway, but that was the point I was trying to make. XD

That's true, but I feel that little detail of the unborn human needing the woman's uterus and nutrients makes this more than just a simple case of neglect. I feel that just like no parent can be forced to donate organs or blood to their born child, they should not be able to be forced to donate to their unborn child either.

Because this involves physical needs from the mother, and not just social needs, I feel that this falls more under the example of donating organs than just needed to feed and shelter one's child. Of course, neither example is really very close. Pregnancy is such a special case, after all.

I really have no idea if there are cases, I think I was just trying to help you understand what is meant by what is said, rather than what exactly is said. Basically it's that a parent couldn't do that, if there were no options available to them at that time.

Also I've seen the analogy of breast feeding used. If a woman cannot afford to buy formula, to feed her child, should she have a legal obligation to breast feed them, rather than let them starve? Once again, there may be other options, but assuming she doesn't have any for whatever reason.