03-05-2013, 02:50 PM
(03-05-2013, 02:41 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:(03-05-2013, 02:02 PM)username Wrote: IMO she violated the contract she had with the parents. There was a clause in there about them having the right to require a pregnancy termination in the event of significant genetic problems.
By fostering the child, the contracting parents essentially experienced the same outcome as a pregnancy termination . . . NO KID UNDER THEIR ROOF.
What were the other terms of the contract?
IDK, they just referenced the one point. It's still different though. If their concern really was that the baby would suffer and it was more humane that the child not be born, they didn't get that. The baby is out there facing multiple surgeries and may not survive regardless (or may never walk or talk).
I have mixed feelings. I'm not advocating for abortions but in the case of severe health issues with a fetus...it makes it more complicated.
Commando Cunt Queen