Sanctimonious? Not at all - I have principles and don't practice moral relativism.


>>
>>>1) What if the child has no chance at a normal life, or even surviving much past birth? Here, I'm thinking of really severe impairments, like ancephaly.
>>
>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being.
>>
>>>2) What if the child will survive birth, but not beyond early childhood? Something like Tay-Sachs, where victims die by age 5.
>>
>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being.
>>
>>>3) What if the mother will survive pregnancy, but only at great damage to her health. For example, a mother with a disease that needs to be treated, but can't be treated while she's pregnant.
>>
>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The mother takes her chances because she became pregnant through personal choice or surfeit of birth control.
>>
>>>4) What if carrying the pregnancy to term means the mother will lose the ability to bear future children?
>>
>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The mother takes her chances because she became pregnant through personal choice or surfeit of birth control.
>>
>>>You mentioned rape, so let's go down that path:
>>>
>>>5) What if the mother is a child impregnated by her father, so you have not only the issue of rape and child abuse, but increased genetic risks?
>>
>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The child is put up for adoption.
>>
>>>6) What if the mother is child, 10 or 11 or 12?
>>
>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The child is put up for adoption.
>>
>>>That's enough to start.
>>
>>The choices are simple when you believe in the sanctity of human life.
>
>What a revoltingly sanctimonious message!