Ama-Gi

It should be pointed out, that ALL mothers, in america at least, are mothers by choice. Women are permitted, after conception, to take a 'plan b' or another emergency contraceptive. they are permitted to abort. They are permitted to give up for adoption. They are permitted to abandon their kids to the state at any hospital, police station, fire station etc. So then it follows, that all single mothers are mothers by choice. And save for widowers, who's kids often don't see a lot of the negative effects of single motherhood, I believe that all single mothers are essentially single by choice as well. Either they choose a man they didn't know well enough, in which case they are partially responsible. Or they choose a man they knew would not be willing or able to be a competent father, in which case they are responsible.

Okay so suppose there is no hospital that will take him, am I obligated to him for the rest of my life or the rest of his life, which ever is shorter? That doesn't make sense to me. Also there is a point in the pregnancy called viability, and after that point the woman can evict the fetus from her womb and the fetus can survive if given proper care. The point of viability has slowly been creeping earlier and earlier in the pregnancy, and there doesn't seem to be good reasons to suspect that with the advancement of medicine in the future that it will stop. So suppose it's 100 years in the future and a woman can evict a fetus after 2 months and it can survive, if someone wants to pay for the medical costs associated with saving the life of this baby, they can save it and adopt it if they so choose. But I don't see how the moral content of abortion changes based on the medical technology involved. It seems to me that a mother owns her womb, can evict the fetus at any time she wants.

Surely it can be said that because a woman owns her body, she owns her womb. And because she owns her womb she has the right to determine who gets to use her womb and for what purposes. It would then follow that she has the right to 'evict' a fetus that is trespassing in her womb. but you say "Oh she agreed to take the fetus on!" Well thats not always the case, there are often cases of unintended pregnancy, due to rape, due to failure of birth control or due to other accidents. Additionally, it is also true that if I invite you over to watch the game, and half way through I decide I no longer enjoy your company, surely I have the right to change my mind and evict you. Lets imagine that we took in a man in a coma, decided to care for him, he lays on my couch and I feed him using a feeding tube and monitor his vital signs and what not. After about 2 months lets say that I am fed up, am I permitted to evict him? Am I permitted to drive him down to the local hospital and drop him off? Is this not analogous to abortion? Surely I am not morally obligated to care for the man in a coma, and it then follows I am not morally obligated to care for the fetus in my womb.

Maybe they should have taken a hint from the DEA. Destroying some supply doesn't change anything. The demand for ivory goes unchanged, the price will rise, which will incentivize more poaching. Perhaps they should have slowly sold their 100 million pounds of ivory undercutting the poachers.