I worded it very specifically. This thread is about legal issues not moral. So I addressed it on those grounds. Legally, it is only a "child" after it is born. Thus, there is no contridiction. It is a mass in utero. It is a child after born..
While I disagree with your interpretation, for purposes of this thread I will move on.
What about this suggestion (and I did not come up with this, but it has me intrigued)?
A law is passed that requires that a woman notify all potential fathers of her pregnancy. DNA testing is done and the father is confronted with this reality. If the couple is unmarried, if he wants the child aborted, and is willing to pay for it, the mother has 2 choices:
1. Get the abortion funded by the father.
2. Waive rights to child support
If he does not want an abortion, then he has to tender an offer of marriage to the mother or sign an agreement to pay child support.
I don't know how to make it any more fair under Roe v. Wade
This post was edited on 11/8 at 1:05 pm