system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: If you believe abortion should be illegal on the grounds that a life is being ended, then that fetus should get FULL protection under the law, including being an American citizen and all the perks that come with it

If we are going to consider those fetus' human beings which need protection from "murder" or whatever form of child abuse you want to call it, then that fetus should be legally treated exactly as a child. This means it is a citizen and it's parents are protected from deportation.

It means child support should start at 6 weeks, or whenever we consider it "life".

It means mothers who need it should be getting additional welfare benefits once determined to be pregnant.

From a tax standpoint, yes a fetus should be treated just the same as a child. Let them be claimed as a dependent because they are. If they could earn income then it would be reported all the same, too.

If the parents are forced into a legal obligation to care for the child then they absolutely need to also be given the same benefits that parents of "birthed" children can enjoy.

This post is about logical consistency more than it is moral superiority. I'm not making a claim on what is morally right, only following a line of logic where if A is true, then B must also be true to maintain consistency.

>EDITS AND ADDITIONS

-Okay here are some other ideas I've seen that should also be included here
- Pregnant women in the carpool lane
- compulsory kidney donations? Hey it's an interesting convo even though it's not exactly the same thing
- Criminal punishment for pregnant drug use
- Fetus life insurance
-Pregnant muder=double homicide

Edit: I am going to reinforce that this post operates under the assumption that an abortion is the end of a human beings' life. If you don't believe that is true then any arguments would fall outside the scope of this post.

-Additionally, to all the people calling this a "gotcha" post, I don't personally believe that a fetus is deserving of the right to have it's existence legally protected. That being said, if we were to decide as a society that fetus existence is worth protecting, then I believe that we would also need a host of other protections in concert with an abortion ban in order to maintain logical consistency.

But again I'm trying to deal in logic here and not moral superiority.

For the people who say children already have exemptions from the law, I would argue that they actually are the benefits of additional laws to protect a vulnerable population and not a sub class of human who's rights are being taken away, in MOST cases

Leaving this line here for informational purposes but my mind has already been changed : "Also, if a job provides paid maternity leave benefits then those should be allowed to start as early as 6 weeks into pregnancy."
gpt
Child support and extra welfare money stop when the child reaches adulthood. This is because at that point the parent is assumed to no longer have additional expenses due to the child.It is logical, then, that they would start at the point when the extra expenses increase, which for the most part is at the birth of the child. (I realize pregnancy has additional costs as well) The citizenship part would also be very difficult to carry out because it is far easier to prove where a child is born than proving where it was conceived.