Well, didn't take long for one of the bible thumpers to show up.
Right now she's not "killing her unborn child" - she's legally terminating a pregnancy. And not that she would need a reason, but she does have a few rather important medical ones: a) if the child survives, it might have TB and/or a brain defect, b) she and the child might die.
I am a Christian but I'm not a Bible thumper. I can just see April's side in this. In April's mind, that is her unborn child, it isn't "just a fetus" to her. I was a little surprised that she wouldn't even discuss the options with her fiancee, even if it's just to explain to him why it's so important for her to take a chance on this pregnancy because as the doctor said, the child could be fine, it's not a foregone conclusion that the baby will have problems, etc. It is her body and if she chooses to take the risk & put her own life in danger to carry that pregnancy to term, that is her choice. All you pro-abortion (notice I didn't say pro choice) love to say "it's a woman's body so it's her right to choose," when they choose to get an abortion but when a woman chooses to have the baby despite the risk, then she's not supposed to have that choice. I could get into a discussion about how that baby could be born & if it's not well enough to sustain life on it's own due to a particular defect but it's other organs are healthy, etc, that baby could actually save the lives of other babies through organ donation but you wouldn't want to hear about any of that. You just want to push abortion onto women who don't feel like "terminating" their unborn babies.
reply
share