What struck me about this report was the sentence that Suleman "has been trailed by the paparazzi and endured much public scorn in the weeks since the octuplets were born prematurely on Jan. 26."
Why should Suleman be scorned at all, let alone publicly? For years, advocates of abortion have proclaimed a "woman's right to choose".
Didn't Suleman exercise that choice? Of course, she did. The problem from the pro-"choice" side is that Suleman didn't make the right choice. She chose a large family. She chose life.
Did she make the right choice? If a woman truly has the right to choose; a real right of choice then the answer is Yes, period.
If a woman has the constitutional right of choice to terminate that which resides in her womb for any reason then she MUST also have the choice to fulfill her gestational perogative for any reason.
Anyone who criticizes Suleman should have to declare whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. Those who are pro-choice need to sit down in silence lest their condemnations betray their true philosophy: A woman's right to choose means choosing what the pro-choice advocate would choose.
Which, of course, is no choice at all.
i think that a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants.
ReplyDeletei also think nadya is entitled to have as many kids as she wants. until such time as she proves she is incapable of looking after them they should not be taken away from her.
her mother was her harshest critic even said she was a good mother.
nadya certainly has used her parents and it can be argued she is a bad daughter. no one ever had their kids taken away from them because they were a bad daughter. cps only steps in when you are a bad parent.
i have read so many blogs about this issue and more than 80% have some incorrect fact in their statements about why nadya should have the kids taken away from her. this is even true of the newspaper articles, albeit a lower %.
i would really like to get more of the truth of this matter, not just someone's opinion.
since she has signed this deal for a reality show then perhaps we can see what she is really about.
sushsaf,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. I’m somewhat confused by your response, though.
You believe “a woman should have an abortion if she wants” but then say she can have as many kids as she wants (“entitled” is the word you used which is a right) UNTIL “such time as she proves she is incapable of looking after them.”
It seems you are saying the right can be circumvented if OTHERS deem she is a bad parent presumably because she is not capable of caring for the children in a manner that does not bring them some type of harm.
Yet, abortion is the termination of that which resides within the woman’s womb. Scientifically, this is a human being. Termination (i.e. abortion) kills a human being.
Isn’t killing your kid bringing harm to them? Isn’t harming your kid evidence that you are a bad parent?
Larry Rambousek