• MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a much less bold assumption than to make the claim that she merely didn’t want the baby in her third trimester just because.

    She took the abortion pill and held on to the babies remains. It’s not a bold assumption that she’s just a nut case, it’s a more bold assumption that she’s 100% innocent.

    As for your question, that further implies it’s the second scenario that I listed.

    So you would keep the babies remains instead of…disposing of it in some way?

    • Silverseren@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If she wanted the baby in the first place, but was then in a situation where the baby was going to be stillborn and would be harmful for her to birth normally? Then yeah, she would be incredibly sad about having to have an abortion and would want to keep the remains of the baby she had wanted.

        • Silverseren@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          And you making the assumption that she’s a “nut case” is less bold than logical options such as wanting the baby, but there were complications?

          • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And you making the assumption that she’s a “nut case”

            My opinion, based on the facts of the story, is that she’s a nut case. I’m not assuming anything, the article plainly lays it out, she illegally obtained an abortion pill to kill her 28 Week baby, and held onto the remains.

            If you don’t think that’s what a nutcase would do, that’s fine, but I’m not making any assumptions, I’m basing my opinion off the facts presented in the article.