Considering the article states that she didn’t have enough money to have a funeral for the fetus, I don’t think she had the means to raise a child. It’s impossible to “get around to” doing something that isn’t offered easily and affordably. I don’t think giving her child abortion pills when she was over 20 weeks pregnant was her first choice, I think it was a move of desperation.
It does, that’s five months, but it may well be because she didn’t have access before that point, which is obviously horrific.
That would be horrific but a lot of people here are assuming.
And that’s not much of an excuse. Should we allow her to do a 9 month abortion because she couldn’t get around to it earlier? No.
Considering the article states that she didn’t have enough money to have a funeral for the fetus, I don’t think she had the means to raise a child. It’s impossible to “get around to” doing something that isn’t offered easily and affordably. I don’t think giving her child abortion pills when she was over 20 weeks pregnant was her first choice, I think it was a move of desperation.
People can’t afford to care for newborns either, doesn’t give you the right to kill them.
It shouldn’t have come to that, of course, but the court heard her defense and rejected it.
With all due respect (which is none), that’s dingbattery.