Oh this is rich.
The proaborts sympathizing with the mother who needs assistance to raise her children. Apparently this woman didn't hear all the doom and gloom talk about the life of misery each of her kids would face if she bore them in the face of need. You'll champion this woman's cause, but the woman who becomes pregnant without planning it is another case, isn't she?
Social security for one......abortion for the other. What it boils down to is that since this woman had to take specific actions to bear these children that indicate a plan to have them before she was pregnant, she's deomonstrated satisfactoriliy TO YOU that she wanted these kids. The woman who has an unplanned pregnancy has some sort of psychic connection to you, wherein you just know she's being held hostage by her unborn child and the people who think he should live
Again, that liberal ideology about reproductive rights caves in on itself.
HUH?
The apparent ideology of many who claim to be "pro-life" seems to be that people who do NOT plan or otherwise want a pregancy, even it is the result of failed birth control, SHOULD be forced to have a resulting child, yet the state should NOT be forced to help support the resulting child because it is TOO expensive for them to do so, yet for some reason it is NEVER too expensive for parents to do so or at least to the point they can do like the state and refuse to support children they deem to be too expensive to support, the difference being some suggesting the state reserve the right not have to support even children that are desired.
For some reason your statement seems to suggest that only UNWANTED pregnancies be forced to be supported financially, but by the parents only, not the state, because even though those that want the parents to carry the pregnancy to term to "protect" the unborn and unnamed, they want to opt out when the hat is passed their way to pitch in for the support that the parents cannot come up with.
This case is different in that as far as I can tell, the only public involvement is SS and at that, it is in part the SS that the deceased husband paid into the system, that were he alive when the pregnancy occurred would have made the children eligible to receive dependent death benefits if he died shortly thereafter.
Perhaps this demonstrates to misunderstanding or mischaracterization of both sides. People who are pro-choice are not anti-children. At the same time, based on your statements, it would appear there are times you do not support supporting children under certain circumstances, especially if it affects your pocket book. This is again the argument used by those who wish to terminate pregnancies based on the cost of having and raising a child.
Those you seem to have disdain for seem to hold the idea that for those that wish to have children, whether they can afford them or not, there should be support all around, both private, state and any other type. The same people also think that those that would carry a pregnancy to term should have the same option as the taxpayers to opt out of having to support a child they don't feel they can support, much less do not want to support as some taxpayer "pro-lifers" seem to indicate, even as they seem to suggest every pregnancy must be carried through to term at the same time.
You and some others based on your statements seem to think only parents should provide the support for their children regardless of whether they desire to have children or not or can afford to or not. I'm not sure you recognize the difference, although you may recognize how this does not match up with the desire of some to portray pro-choice people as pro-abortion or anti-children.
In your very first sentence, you call pro-choice people "proabort" people, even as you go on to complain about their apparent support for this widow who chose to have children by her husband, past his death as it was made possible by modern science. If pro-choice people were truly "proabort" why on earth would they be expressing some empathy for this woman's twins having the same access her other children have to support from the same father? In addition, the fact that it as a dilemma and conundrum was discussed suggesting the decision was not an easy one and that no answer seems to be the best one or that as a result, couples should not be able to engage in artificial means of becoming or aiding pregnancy without clear wished being articulated and expressed about support and beneficiaries and use of store sperm, eggs or embryos beyond the death of one or both.
In part, it would seem the state bears some portion of the responsibility by allowing such conundrums to arise while writing laws which state that life begins at ovulation, yet neglecting to consider and bring other laws into the equation of artificial fertility aid and things like frozen sperm, embryos and to a lesser degree frozen eggs (based on less success of their use over the use of cryopreserved sperm or embryos). One may argue that the state should have considered the use of a couple's banked eggs, sperm or embryos after the death of a one of the donors and in that consideration required an alignment of SS law and wills, trusts and estate law to minimize like conundrums, especially in light of creating a law that grants "personhood" to the unborn, unnamed and unviable (as a separate person) at the point the defintion starts. If there is no more definition than "ovulation" there is no distinguishing between an egg that is not fertilized and one that is not even though both may have ovulated.
Thus without that distinction, based on the defintion of the beginning of a pregnancy being at the time of ovulation, all women still menstuating are "pregnant", I suppose until their body disposes of and discharges the unused un fertilized eggs, but then one might argue that if ovulation equated with pregnancy and pregnancy equates with personhood, then the natural process of disposing and discharging of unfertilized eggs could technically be deemed abortion.
This may be the result of creating some laws based on irrational emotion sans rational, practical and thoughtful wider reaching and longer term considerations of their effect on other things and whether those effects might be positive, neutral or negative to any intended effect of doing no harm.
