To: KingofZion
Saw this a while back.. I gather it was abort the little one or give birth and let it die “of natural causes” and donate the organs.
rather selfless of the mother IMO
3 posted on
04/20/2017 1:30:28 PM PDT by
CGASMIA68
To: CGASMIA68
"rather selfless of the mother IMO" My prayers go up for this family.
13 posted on
04/20/2017 1:40:34 PM PDT by
outofsalt
( If history teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything)
To: CGASMIA68
I don't get the hate....they didn't purposely have a child with a terminal affliction.....they could have done the easy thing and just aborted the baby....
this woman is carrying a baby full term so someone out there who's baby needs a liver or kidney etc, can live....
28 posted on
04/20/2017 2:19:17 PM PDT by
cherry
To: CGASMIA68
rather selfless of the mother IMO I agree. This is a sad and grim situation, but the parents made the best possible choice given a bad set of options.
36 posted on
04/20/2017 3:12:17 PM PDT by
Pollster1
("Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed")
To: CGASMIA68
If the idea is to keep it alive as long as possible then donate when it dies, that’s one thing. But I fear we won’t see that.
37 posted on
04/20/2017 3:12:49 PM PDT by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: CGASMIA68
Exactly - the choice was abortion or natural death. It’s a no-brainer!
44 posted on
04/20/2017 4:42:52 PM PDT by
Patriotic1
(Dic mihi solum facta, domina - Just the facts, ma'am)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson