Three plaintiffs testified about the trauma they experienced carrying nonviable pregnancies.

  • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If that child, really fetus, is inside your body, no, I don’t think you have to continue letting the fetus use your body. Because that’s what it is. No one would force a woman to breastfeed. No one would say you legally have to use your boobs no matter what to feed this child. That’s what being pregnant is.

    You’re talking about me avoiding questions, which I answered already, but you ignored mine: If I have a 1 day old child, is it my responsibility to make sure my baby is fed and doesn’t die of starvation?

    And no, you are continually side stepping and not telling me how you’d feel. How would you feel?

    I answered that above, if you want me to expand on it I can, but I did answer it. I said:

    If that’s the only information about the situation that I have, I wouldn’t like it. If you instead word the same exact situation like ‘do you have a responsibility to your child to keep them alive’ I would say yes.

    • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not one of your sentences began with “I would feel”, contained the word “feeling”, or mentioned any emotion. I asked how would you feel.

      Yes, you do have a responsibility to feed and care for a child. Do you have a responsibility to use your body to do so? No. Do we have laws requiring women to breastfeed? No. Are people arguing for such laws? No. That’s the equivalency of pregnancy. Not are you required to keep your kid alive. But are you required to use your body to do so. Everyone would think it’s a violation of bodily autonomy to require breastfeeding. Requiring continuation of pregnancy is no difference.