[JediWing]

This is a tremendous ask for someone to put their health and body on the line (not only of death but lasting health issues, minor or major) for an unwanted pregnancy.

Would you be in favor of compulsory kidney donations? If not, what is the moral distinction between that and forcing someone to carry a child to term?

[artificialLimbs]

Kidney donations are optional.

As is reproducing.

If we as a society can't teach our young to deal with the consequences of their actions, what good are we doing them?

*edit: grammar

[JediWing]

> Kidney donations are optional. > As is reproducing.

Which is exactly my point. If you aren't required to give away your 2nd kidney for the life of another, why draw the distinction that a pregnant woman must rent her uterus for what many don't even consider a life?

> If we as a society can't teach our young

Not all who abort a fetus are young. Nor is "teach"ing about "consequences of their action" a valid reason to outlaw a medical procedure. We don't refuse to set and cast the broken bones of children because we want to "teach them the consequences of their actions". To the contrary, that would be cruel!

This is a paternalistic and condescending attitude that infantilizes every single person who has received, sought to receive, or explored the option of abortion.

We teach women the "consequences of their actions", believe me! They know because the "consequences" you want to "teach" about fall disproportionately on women, despite the fact that the act you're implicitly moralizing about is the consequence of both a man and a woman.

> what good are we doing them?

We are mitigating the harm (a lifetime commitment, and medical risks) that comes from a mistake. That is the good we are doing them.