No. A fetus that is past the pint of viability can be extracted from the pregnant person and kept alive through artificial means while looking for an adoptive parent.
We have the technology!
There is no need to take away the right of body autonomy for anyone who is carrying a viable fetus. They should all be able to have the unborn child removed whenever the pregnant person wishes. And the child will be kept alive.
I have not seen so many waffles since I was in Belgium.
So you ARE saying that it is a baby/person with rights not merely a fetus once it reaches viability. OK. Glad we got there.
So these state laws prohibiting abortion once viability is reached agree with your position. You do not object to them. Good. We agree. So your position is that once a baby/person/citizen reaches viability, and its mother contrives to have it killed, the state can step in, extract it from her and keep it as a ward of the state.
Now that procedure is dangerous to this baby/person/citizen as preemies suffer danger and sometimes lifelong medical problems. You would not want a mother to be allowed to harm their child, would you? So the only place we differ is that I would require said mother to carry the child to term, or nearly to term in the interest of the child. Yes it inconveniences the mother for a few months but it ensures a much better survival rate for the other citizen and often a healthier life. Not to mention saving the government, whole lot of money.
And while we are on the subject. You were fine with only allowing parents/children from well off families to exert their body autonomy and not have to be vaccinated (since this was the example you used) so am I not being completely reasonable to hold the mother and father of the preemie responsible for the bills the state will incur because of the early termination of the pregnancy? That runs half a million dollars or more in some cases. Or maybe, instead, we simply allow them to get off the hook for this and the costs associated with housing the child from birth until adoption if she agrees to carry the child to term. (The father could get off entirely if he agrees to take custody of and raise his child, in the case where he is known and capable of doing it.)
I fail to see why you would intrude on my rights as a taxpayer along with my fellow taxpayers, to be stuck with the bill when, in many cases, we have perfectly capable people who can pay for their own, shall we say, misadventure.