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.