>>But she refused, saying: ‘I knew that I faced a higher risk of miscarriage but was determined to give all three of them an equal chance.’<<
Hey, she may be stupid and promiscuous and a drain on the economy, but she chose not to murder any of her children — such murder would have certainly been applauded in lefty Britain.
It is a quandary but we need to support her ultimate proper decision while certainly condemning the series of decisions that led to it.
The truism is more true than ever: if you want more of something (such as premarital sex and single moms), subsidize it.
yes we can support her decision to carry all three to term. I wish we could carry things a step farther, and encourage/compel people who can’t take care of these kids to give them up for adoption.
Young people nowadays can’t believe that there used to be homes for unwed mothers. They can’t believe that it was scandalous to be pregnant without a husband. All of that is beyond their comprehension. Yet, it was society’s solution to a difficult problem, to give those babies up for adoption to families who could provide for them. Can anyone honestly say that today’s solution, to just let these young girls go on welfare and live difficult lives is better for them or their children?