Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Abortion is almost always a preferable alternative to having your baby ripped away from you at birth.
“Murdering my child is better than providing for it to have a good life through the beneficence of a generous couple.”
God help us.
“Preventing a cluster of cells from developing into a child is better than having it ripped away from you at birth and spending the rest of your life tormented by never knowing if the child is actually being well-cared for by the “beneficent” appearing couple.”
Better to ensure she doesn’t even have a chance?
Better to traumatize a woman over a clump of cells?
How exactly were you traumatized?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Abortion is almost always a preferable alternative to having your baby ripped away from you at birth.
“Murdering my child is better than providing for it to have a good life through the beneficence of a generous couple.”
God help us.
Yea, no. Having gone through a really difficult pregnancy I never ever want to be pregnant again. It’s not a baby.
That’s not what the poster, who clearly acknowledged the presence of human life said; they said better dead than adopted, which is outrageous.
As for you, try studying up on your biology and maybe some bioethics. Things are what they are. One can debate their relative value, but it is irrational, unscientific, and self deluding to convince oneself that some creature begins as one thing and ends as another.
Until it can survive without a host body, it’s a parasite. That’s biology.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Abortion is almost always a preferable alternative to having your baby ripped away from you at birth.
“Murdering my child is better than providing for it to have a good life through the beneficence of a generous couple.”
God help us.
“Preventing a cluster of cells from developing into a child is better than having it ripped away from you at birth and spending the rest of your life tormented by never knowing if the child is actually being well-cared for by the “beneficent” appearing couple.”
Better to ensure she doesn’t even have a chance?
Better to traumatize a woman over a clump of cells?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Abortion is almost always a preferable alternative to having your baby ripped away from you at birth.
“Murdering my child is better than providing for it to have a good life through the beneficence of a generous couple.”
God help us.
Yea, no. Having gone through a really difficult pregnancy I never ever want to be pregnant again. It’s not a baby.
That’s not what the poster, who clearly acknowledged the presence of human life said; they said better dead than adopted, which is outrageous.
As for you, try studying up on your biology and maybe some bioethics. Things are what they are. One can debate their relative value, but it is irrational, unscientific, and self deluding to convince oneself that some creature begins as one thing and ends as another.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Abortion is almost always a preferable alternative to having your baby ripped away from you at birth.
“Murdering my child is better than providing for it to have a good life through the beneficence of a generous couple.”
God help us.
Yea, no. Having gone through a really difficult pregnancy I never ever want to be pregnant again. It’s not a baby.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Abortion is almost always a preferable alternative to having your baby ripped away from you at birth.
“Murdering my child is better than providing for it to have a good life through the beneficence of a generous couple.”
God help us.
“Preventing a cluster of cells from developing into a child is better than having it ripped away from you at birth and spending the rest of your life tormented by never knowing if the child is actually being well-cared for by the “beneficent” appearing couple.”
Better to ensure she doesn’t even have a chance?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Abortion is almost always a preferable alternative to having your baby ripped away from you at birth.
“Murdering my child is better than providing for it to have a good life through the beneficence of a generous couple.”
God help us.
“Preventing a cluster of cells from developing into a child is better than having it ripped away from you at birth and spending the rest of your life tormented by never knowing if the child is actually being well-cared for by the “beneficent” appearing couple.”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Abortion is almost always a preferable alternative to having your baby ripped away from you at birth.
“Murdering my child is better than providing for it to have a good life through the beneficence of a generous couple.”
God help us.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Abortion is almost always a preferable alternative to having your baby ripped away from you at birth.
“Murdering my child is better than providing for it to have a good life through the beneficence of a generous couple.”
God help us.
Anonymous wrote:Abortion is almost always a preferable alternative to having your baby ripped away from you at birth.
Anonymous wrote:I think more women will be careful about birth control, hence fewer babies. So they can't afford condoms?
Anonymous wrote:Or is it still a process with insanely long waitlists?
Anonymous wrote:I think more women will be careful about birth control, hence fewer babies. So they can't afford condoms?
Anonymous wrote:I think more women will be careful about birth control, hence fewer babies. So they can't afford condoms?