• Silverseren
    link
    fedilink
    81 year ago

    It’s a much less bold assumption than to make the claim that she merely didn’t want the baby in her third trimester just because.

    As for your question, that further implies it’s the second scenario that I listed.

    • MasterOBee Master/King
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      It’s a much less bold assumption than to make the claim that she merely didn’t want the baby in her third trimester just because.

      She took the abortion pill and held on to the babies remains. It’s not a bold assumption that she’s just a nut case, it’s a more bold assumption that she’s 100% innocent.

      As for your question, that further implies it’s the second scenario that I listed.

      So you would keep the babies remains instead of…disposing of it in some way?

      • Silverseren
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        If she wanted the baby in the first place, but was then in a situation where the baby was going to be stillborn and would be harmful for her to birth normally? Then yeah, she would be incredibly sad about having to have an abortion and would want to keep the remains of the baby she had wanted.

          • Silverseren
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            And you making the assumption that she’s a “nut case” is less bold than logical options such as wanting the baby, but there were complications?

            • MasterOBee Master/King
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              And you making the assumption that she’s a “nut case”

              My opinion, based on the facts of the story, is that she’s a nut case. I’m not assuming anything, the article plainly lays it out, she illegally obtained an abortion pill to kill her 28 Week baby, and held onto the remains.

              If you don’t think that’s what a nutcase would do, that’s fine, but I’m not making any assumptions, I’m basing my opinion off the facts presented in the article.