Unless there are severe health problems, why would there be an enormous bill?
Who pays the bills when a baby who has already been born needs extensive medical care? Are you ready to kill the already born if they become expensive?
Again, you're assuming that they have highly complex medical needs. Why would that be? Just because they are unwanted doesn't make them ill, does it?
There is a ready supply of willing adoptive parents, especially of newborns.
Same arguments, same answers.
The answers are there. Now, let's examine the argument against killing off young children who develop, say, leukemia or some other form of childhood cancer for example:
Who is going to pay the enormous medical bills?
Face the facts, the day to day expense of caring for a child who needs chemo, who might die anyway, is just not realistic.
And, as for children whose parents can't or won't raise them, let's kill them off too. Who's going to care for them, after all? They have been abused, and so are difficult to deal with. Are the right wing religious types going to care for them, or should we just line them up and shoot them? After all, let's face facts here, folks. No one wants them, they cost money, let's just off them while we can.
Same argument, isn't it?
