Josie Cunningham made news a while back for publicizing her intention to have an abortion in order to appear on reality shows in hopes of becoming famous. Well, she decided against having that abortion, but isn’t making things much better. She had believed she was having a baby girl, but much to her dismay her baby is a boy. Ordinarily mothers are joyed to know they’ll give birth to a health baby regardless of the sex. But not Cunningham. She wanted a girl, and so she still smokes a pack of cigarettes a day and regularly drinks alcohol because of her disappointment that she’ll birth another son.
(Mirror.co.uk) — Pregnant Josie Cunningham has blamed her refusal to quit smoking on her unborn child – because instead of the girl she wanted, it’s a boy.
She says if she had known she was not having a daughter she would “most probably” have gone ahead with the abortion she’d planned so she could appear on TV.
Josie, 23, admits she has been smoking 20 a day and boozing at weekends when she has the girls over since learning she was expecting a third son – having quit weeks earlier after a psychic told her it was a girl.
She says: “The evening I found out the sex of the baby was when I lit up my first cigarette. I’m not proud of it – but I couldn’t stop myself. It changed everything.
“Once I’d finished the cigarette I found it difficult to focus on anything positive, so I had a small glass of wine. My intention was to have one, but before I knew it I was on my second and I’d smoked a whole packet of fags. Now I’m smoking 20 a day.
“I knew it could harm my child but it didn’t stop me. Deep down I know I wouldn’t be smoking or drinking if I knew I was having a girl.”
I don’t have any problem saying her behavior is wrong and immoral. But can abortion supporters do the same? Let me rephrase that. Can they do the same and be consistent? I don’t think so. The often used slogan by the pro-choice movement, ‘my body, my choice’ would suggest that a pregnant mother can do anything to her (pregnant) body.
It’s OK to abort, they say, because it’s not a person now, it doesn’t matter that it would inevitably become a person. As a commenter her once asked, if it’s OK to kill because it’s not a person now, and it doesn’t matter that it will become a person, wouldn’t it be morally permissible to, say, clip off the non-person’s fingers, hands or legs while it’s still in the womb? Prochoicers exclaimed “NO! it will eventually be born mutilated and that’s not right!”. In their eyes it was OK to kill the developing embryo because it wasn’t a person, but not OK to mutilate it.
Well, ‘her body, her choice’ right? Is Cunningham doing anything wrong? If it’s her body, does it matter if she is doing harm to her pre-born baby boy? If you support a mother’s right to abort her child, can you consistently argue against her behavior?