I should start out by saying that I am not advocating the legalization of child neglect. I do not agree with it. However, I want to identify whether the flaw is with my argument in itself. If there is no flaw with my argument, then there are clearly flaws in my assumptions which is interesting as it may mean I have to consider being pro-life.
One major reason for being pro-choice is the belief that a woman should not be forced to keep something alive if she doesn’t want to. IE there is no duty of care to the foetus. So if for whatever reason she doesn’t want to keep supporting it, then she can get rid of it. No arguments from me there.
But why does this change when the baby is born? There is no real difference between a foetus a day before it was born to the resultanting baby a day after.
So morally, why does the mother now have a duty to the baby? Why can’t she neglect it (I differentiate that from intentional cruelty) by essentially ignoring it?
Of course you can make an ethical or legal argument that she should have to look after it because someone has to and she’s the obvious choice, it was her who decided to have it after all. But just relying on that makes me feel uncomfortable as you can easily extend that to the foetus and make abortion illegal.
Please tell me there’s something else.