this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
604 points (92.3% liked)
childfree
2337 readers
925 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Plus, "where was the father? huh??" I understand they could've separated, but he still had responsibilities towards this baby. So, only if the journalists had confirmed he was deceased long ago it would make sense to make this omission... but they should said so.
This is going to sound harsh: If the woman can choose to abort or not, no he doesn't. If women want the sole responsibility on whether a fetus lives, they can get it. Fully. In that case: His wallet, his choice. His time, his choice. etc, etc.
Now, if there is an abortion ban, then it's a different story, and the man should have the legal responsibility for both mom and child, by default.
This of course presumes the father wasn't in the picture, which given all we know is that she was alone with the baby for a few days we can't say if he was just away for a week or something. Or perhaps the father is deployed in the military.
Lot of discussion in this thread asserting a certain narrative when we just don't know. We know that, tragically, a mother died and that by some mercy the infant was rescued. That's really all we know.
Seems like the authorities didn't release a lot of actionable details to the press. They only see the baby and have a short description of the scene. Not where the scene was or the identity of anyone or a hint as to how the mother died. The journalists are simply reporting the partial story without anything further to go on at the moment. The press likely will be bored of the incident well before the details would be available.