I just love the way the story starts off with a rare birth defect case, as if that is representative of all abortions.
To be complete, the article could have mentioned infant hospices, which serve women and babies who have fatal birth defects, allowing the woman to give birth without subjecting the infant to the agony of abortion. Then she can spend quality time with the infant before it dies.
But pro-aborts dont want women, even those who have dying infants, to have a choice.
For the majority of women who abort, those who use abortion as their primary form of birth control, I think these laws might make them consider other, less cruel and lethal, forms of birth control.
You make excellent points.
They couldn’t start out the story with someone who is having her second or third abortion because she won’t use birth control. The story has to be about a rare birth defect.
I thought about the hospice, too. Just because a woman gives birth to a baby with birth defects doesn’t mean that the baby has to be treated if the defects are incompatible with life.
Years ago, before I had children, I worked with someone whose wife was pregnant with their 3rd or 4th child. They found out during the pregnancy that the baby was anencephalic. She didn’t have an abortion but gave birth and they were able to spend the short time that the baby lived with him. I think that’s a very hard choice to make; I doubt anyone who has made that choice regrets it later.