This is what passes for logic in the poor-choice movement
A woman with a born child is under no obligation to donate a kidney or blood to save her child's life, so how can a fetus have even more rights over the woman than her born child? It can’t. Even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman cannot be required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will. Once a woman is pregnant, she must give her consent for the pregnancy to continue.
There are more twists here than a bag of pretzels.
The law assumes a mother has an obligation to act in the welfare of the child.
Let us suppose for a minute a child was dying in front of the mother's eyes,and the only immediate way to save the child's life would be for the mother to give blood.
And she refused.
Don't you think Child Welfare would step in?
Most mothers would offer their kidneys to save their children.
What kind of mother would refuse to save her own child by offering a kidney?
Unless she would die herself, most people would consider her very selfish.
But let's suppose there was a rash of mothers refusing to give blood or a kidney to save a child's life.
Don't you think people would want a law to save the innocent child's life?
In the twisted minds of the pro-abortion movement, the relationship between the mother and the child is like some kind of stranger relationship that only entails obligations if the mother consents.
Never mind the welfare of the child. Only the woman matters.
Once again: feminist supremacy rears its ugly head.