Abortion survivor story

[Soleron]

ninetailschris said:

Soleron said:

ninetailschris said:

Jay520 said:
...

Just asking a question because I'm curious where this could logical imply. Here is my question.

Couldn't one use the same logic to justify kill there 1-5 year old. Hear me out. If the parent believe the child will have social behavior problems because the child father was a rapist and her feelings towards the child will always be in a negative fashion. Then would it not be ok to kill the child because of potential negative impact of society that child may have. It is not uncommon for this to happen so, would the mother be justified in killing the child for society protection and her own child? We have to also factor in that if the mother doesn't want the child around anymore it is her choice seen she had to care the child as that's her right.

Um, adoption?

Could say the same for a baby in womb.

Well, no. You'd still be making the mother carry it to viability and then give birth.

This doesn't change the fact that child could potentially become violent because he has no actual mother or father. Some never leave orphan homes and become violent which is actually not unheard.

"could" "potentially" "some" "not unheard of"

Plus we have to pay for that and why do that to our government?

OK so you can sidestep ethical concerns if it costs too much?

Why put the child in a place he could come out abused and mishandled like it happens many times at these orphan homes. Plus what if he rejects his new parents and becomes a threat to society?

"could" "like" "what if"

 I believe the woman should have the right to kill there son as she had to take care of the child and the man only gave the seed. The government didn't have care that child for 4-8 months, she did. Why are you invading in her life when it will not affect you?

Why are you trying to take those slaves off the plantation owner? He's been taking care of them all since birth. It's invading his life to say he can't keep them.