She is not being "forced" to DO anything, she is forbidden from murdering a child because she was a victim of a crime. You're conflating two different things in your head, which is understandable because all the messaging about this stuff is purposefully put into the muddy puddles.

taxpayers not only have to pay for the child’s care, but the woman’s trauma as well having to carry her rapists baby

Yes, lol, if the state forbids you from killing the child and you cannot work while carrying it then of course the state should foot the bill, as well as counselling, the state is de facto guardian of women's vaginas when out walking the streets so they and or the rapist are financially liable. There's nothing bizzare or surprising about this. You're aware that the state pays for prisoners in prisons and all manner of dumb shit like infinite aid to foreign countries right? Do you not see that you're now scrabbling at an economic argument over the principle argument which is - do not kill innocent children - ?

She is not being "forced" to DO anything, she is forbidden from murdering a child because she was a victim of a crime. You're conflating two different things in your head, which is understandable because all the messaging about this stuff is purposefully put into the muddy puddles.

taxpayers not only have to pay for the child’s care, but the woman’s trauma as well having to carry her rapists baby

Yes, lol, if the state forbids you from killing the child and you cannot work while carrying it then of course the state should foot the bill, as well as counselling, the state is de facto guardian of women's vaginas when out walking the streets so they and or the rapist are financially liable.