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?
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.
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.
That’s a bold assumption given the lack of evidence we have supporting either of those situations.
What do you think the reason is for her keeping the baby remains?
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.
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.
So you would keep the babies remains instead of…disposing of it in some way?
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.
Once again, you have to make a series of bold assumptions to believe that she’s in the right here.
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?
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.