As a practical matter, we do permit women to give up their children to orphanages or adoption, in an orderly manner, but until such time as the paperwork goes through and the transaction can be affected, we hold them responsible for the child's care.
Well, how kind. Why not allow them the chance not to bear the child in the first place??
We would be asking little more in requiring them to carry to term before ridding themselves of the child........
Bizarre. This is just... weird is too kind.
Do you like the concept of brood mares? Keep a nice little stable of pregnant women? Because of course we have such a shortage of children in orphanages, don't we. It's important to keep up the supply of unloved infants. Oh, and who cares if the mother's forced to bear them. She'll glow with health the whole way through, and it won't cost her anything. Yeah, of course.
Clearly, that was spoken without thought, by someone who's never been pregnant...
BTW, I've never been pregnant either. BUt I can at least empathise.
I'm not a father, either. I'd like children. But I don't think I have the right to force anyone to bear them. |
