Embed Notice

@admitsWrongIfProven

The most important part here is that infringing on peoples reproductive freedom is the core problem.

A very valid concern. If thise wasnt a valid concern then I would have just sided withthe bodily autonomy and right to life of the child and said abortions should be banned outright. but since there is a conflicting right of the mother at play any solution could not completely outlaw abortion. But by the same logic since the bodily autonomy and right to life of the child is also a consideration I cant in good conscious also allow abortion to be unrestricted.

My solution minimizes the overall infringement on both parties by 1) ensuring women always know about their pregnancy early with plenty of time to decide and 2) have an adequate window of 2 months to execute on their decision and 3) since both abortions and pregnancy tests are free there is no excuse for delaying

I merely meant to add to that that a natural market value determined by decisions of few people makes this the problem of the poor majority.

Societies are big, the decisions arent on a “few people” especially when everyone int he very complex network of society who makes decisions themselves are under pressures from the consequences of those decisions. Which means their choices are not at their own whim, since people generally look after their best interest and thus decisions are made by the forces present in society that shape that self interest.

Improved social services would negate this, making the strategy i strongly suspect the perpetrators have impossible.

providing the right sorts of social services would fix most problems… too few or the wrong kind causes problems, and too much also causes problems. But yes the right sort of social services is critical.

@Hyolobrika