Actively supporting/helping vs not killing/preventing others from killing are pretty significantly different moral arguments. This always comes across as "If you're against abortion then why don't you support insert political position that involves drastically raising taxes and giving way more power to the state?"

You’re just describing a trolly problem. If you believe a foetus has more right to autonomy than the person carrying it, but you don’t believe in making sure that all children have what they need to survive, you’re avoiding “killing” by direct action in favor of killing by neglecting to act.

As for paying for it… no taxes need to be raised. Just divert 1/1000th of the money going to the military.

>You’re just describing a trolly problem.

Except the child's death isn't guaranteed if we fail to implement universal healthcare/free school lunches/insert welfare program here, so it's not really a normal trolley problem. And that's before you get into potential adverse second order effects of such programs.

>Just divert 1/1000th of the money going to the military.

GP mentioned universal healthcare as one of the ways in which to support children after birth, I don't think $800 million is going to be enough to cover it.

There are cases where it will literally be a trolly problem. E.g. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrea-prudente-incomplete-misc...

I'm not sure how one can call a woman carrying a child something other than "actively supporting/helping" that child. So this amounts to a hypocrisy where it's OK for the state to have power to force a person to keep another person[1] alive for ~9 months, but somehow wrong for the state to contribute resources to this effort.

I'm also not sure how giving the power to pry into people's reproductive decisions is somehow less state power than administrative power to distribute resources.

[1] That's accepting the argument that a fetus is technically a person, which can also be debated.

The next sentence in his post explains what he meant by support.

I know that's what the post says. But that's not the actual equivalent. If we had free healthcare just for pregnant women, then it would be fair to say we should give free healthcare to children too, but we don't.

The fact that there is no free healthcare for pregnant women demonstrates that noone actually cares about the child's life.

It demonstates that you are willing to force a woman to carry the child of a rapist against her will (so it's not her choice) and then have her give birth without medical assitance if she can't afford hospital stay, potentially resulting in the death of the child and the mother.

it shows what the game is really about - control over women