I see then that you aren’t a believe in total autonomy.
You see the woman and her family having a pretty serious, expensive, time and emotion consuming obligation for a person that was not initiated by them by their own free will.
You see an extended community of church and/or community type group as having a certain obligation, at least to help them.
In the absence of the young woman’s or her family’s willingness or ability to care for the child, you see an obligation on the part of our government.
I do, too, but some hard core atheists and libertarians don’t seem to.
I see strict libertarian and strict atheist reasoning as becoming illogical on that point - the point, that is, of care for the defenseless and those unable to “help themselves.” Children, of course, particularly the very smallest. The seriously handicapped. Then you run into what if it’s their fault they are handicapped? Maybe they drove drunk, maybe they wandered in a bad part of town - who is obligated to care for them then? Those in comas. The frail and/or demented elderly - some of whom maybe didn’t really provide enough for their future? Or got ripped off because they got a little dingy? And so on.
It is interesting for me to think about and explore.
I am neither atheist or (L)ibertarian.
I am (l)ibertarian and much closer to agnostic/deist.
As for the concept of government helping those who cannot help themselves and who have nobody close enough or able to help them...yes, I believe the govt, via taxation, must do so.
That said, I prefer any government help that occurs on that front occur at no higher level than State Govt.
I am an UNYIELDING STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST on the Constitution.