A baby outside the womb can't survive without support either. Why is it OK to kill the child in the womb but not outside the womb based on that position?

Because other people are willing to give the baby support once it's born. If the options are force the mother to take care of the embryo or allow the mother to decide whether to take care of it then I think we shouldn't force people to take care of those they don't want to. But once the child is born the options change. Now the choices are between letting the mother kill something that other can care for or letting those others provide the care.

So, because the mother doesn't care they are allowed to take a life?

Yes, it's immoral to force someone to support a parasite. Once the child is born(even a bit before that as they can survive outside the womb with modern medicine at some point before birth) the child is longer a parasite since it doesn't need the mothers support to survive.

> it's immoral to force someone to support a parasite

Just stop digging this hole deeper, please. You are misusing the term "parasite" and I imagine you may, later in your own life, come back to these remarks with a distinct feeling of shame.

I stopped reading there. I just don't know how to engage morally with a position so disconnected from common societal values.

> I don't see how it matters whether the fetus is alive or not. If it can't survive outside the mother then the mother has the right to kill it.

I shuddered a bit reading this. By this logic, at any point where I am dependent on someone else for my survival in passage (say an airplane) the principle in the relationship (the pilot or airline) has a right to kill me?

If that’s the logic, then we can squarely see that we have chosen to punish those who have any responsibility in that situation. Re: wrongful death

Having sex is not agreeing to carry around another person for 9 months. Consent is important. I don't think society has agreed that we punish people who kill others in car accidents, but I'd love examples of when we have and the person at fault wasn't drunk.

Consent isn't a question in the Texan law. Get raped by your dad? Have the baby or get sued.

If you could be determined to be solely at fault, and if you're a match, and if there aren't other kidneys available, then I suppose that would make sense. The issue is that the mother (usually) made a choice to help create the fetus, or with the possibility of doing so (note that I am okay with abortions in case of rape for this reason).

I think it's useful to consider that many women may not be comfortable naming or formally accusing her rapist (for reasons that include, way more often than you'd think, that a family member is her rapist and she still lives at home). For this reason, anti-choice laws that have exceptions for rape often mean only a tiny minority of women can actually use the exception.

What if you weren't solely at fault and the accident was because of you and another driver? However that driver wasn't a match. That is a better analogy.

I do think abortion is a complicated ethical issue and us discussing it here in a few paragraphs won't do it justice, but if the mother can choose to create it, why can't the mother choose to un-create it? I'm not sure why assigning responsibility to the mother for creating it doesn't come with the benefit of destroying it too. And this is not even getting into well ok fine you make a mother go through with it, now you pay taxes for it when the mother walks away and says "well I didn't want a baby in the first place, you deal with it".

You might say, well but then that means the mother could "abort" a baby that's 2 years old or was just born or something. Well I'd say sure in a state of nature. But since we have a society we don't have to kill the child and someone else can just take care of it.

I think there are some reasonable parameters. Conception? Not reasonable to call that murder. A week before birth? Yea that looks a whole lot like murder to me. I don't think most reasonable people who are ok with abortion would see the argument that the mother has an ultimate right to destruction when so close to birth. But where they give, anti-abortion proponents take and get to the point where you start banning contraceptives and don't allow someone who maybe is safely having sex and a condom breaking to get an abortion.

And this is saying nothing about the stupid website like it's some sort of intellectual purge under Maoist China or Stalinist Russia. This is exactly the kind of thing that authoritarian regimes love or would love to implement and it's easy to see the slipper slope toward, well, why don't we start reporting people who are suspected of being "white nationalists" or Christians?

> I don't see how it matters whether the fetus is alive or not. If it can't survive outside the mother then the mother has the right to kill it.

This is a valid position to hold, but hardly a non-controversial one. We have, as a society, agreed that the state’s role is to step in to defend the defenseless in cases of large power asymmetry, as would be the case here. Indeed this general principle is usually a leftist position.

> Either way you made a risky choice that you knew could cause someone's life to be dependent on you. That doesn't mean you're forced to save the person.

Actually it does (speaking generally, not to your specific example). Criminal or civil negligence is a thing.