That's the thing, though. She didn't show the baby developing in that womb. She showed the hopes the mother had for it. Then she showed what actually happened. And she never argued that feti which would result in babies with disabilities SHOULD be killed - she argued for the CHOICE.
There is an enormous difference between murdering people with disabilities, who have lives and feelings and complex histories, and having the simple ability to DECIDE whether you want to carry a fetus to term when you know the life it WOULD have, if it lives, would be a disabled one. Some such lives are so short and agonizing that it strikes me as actively cruel to argue for their preservation - it is difficult to see why you would argue for a woman to carry a deformed fetus to term, watch the resulting baby struggle to breathe and cry in agony for a week, and then have to bury it. It is difficult to imagine that you would want to live such a life if you were the child in question.
These are not the imaginary excuses of "selfish women." They are realities, and the laws you are defending make avoiding such nightmare scenarios extremely difficult if not impossible.
These issues are complex. That is exactly why we have freedom of speech.
MookahMookah thank you for your comment. You presented very interesting thoughts. The problem is complicated as you mentioned. Many people do not even know how an infant can suffer bc of a specific disease and how it looks. DirtyCasual we do not try to tell you what you should think. We do not want to moralize you. The game is an invitation to start the discussion about what kind of choice in that hard situation (when a fetus is irreparably damaged) women have. Also, I would appreciate if you wouldn't call us Nazis. We are not Nazis. But there is one thing we have in common, we believe as well in freedom of speech. Perhaps we should create a FAQ section to avoid future misunderstandings.