|
Its as you said, parents are obligated to do what is best for the child.
If they couldn't provide for the child they shouldn't have had it in the first place.
What differs is when and what they do.
|
Yes, but you can't expect every kid to have a perfect life. Simply not having material money to provide for the baby isn't a valid reason to end its life. First of all, that starts another issue - government support. There is adoption for parents who don't want the child. Don't get me wrong, I know how completely flawed the entire process is, and how many problems there are with adoption and the process, but it still is an option.
|
Its an alternative but I see where you're getting at. All of it could of been prevented if they follow the resources available that prevent pregnancy and there's also sexual abstinence.
|
The resources don't always work, which leads to the option of abstinence... That's what I said, but no one on graalians liked that statement :p.
Honestly, though, not everything in life is about you and only you (you means everyone individually). This is one of those times. You can't argue that abortion is a personal decision and that's why it should be allowed. I know I'm taking it to the absurd route, but it's used as an example. It's a personal decision to decide whether to kill someone, but it's not legal just because it's a personal decision. It affects others, and therefore, you have little say in it, legally speaking.