Is it selfish for a pregnant woman to kill her deceased husband and in laws by killing her posthumou

Marriage is a norm in the legal sense, not an inseparable family relationship. After her husband's death, she was left with a posthumous child, and from a legal point of view, she was not obliged to help the man's family give birth to the child.

Even if the husband is alive, the wife has the right to have the freedom to give birth, and it is a woman's right to have children, and it is also a woman's right not to have children.

When a husband dies, how can a wife not be sad, and how can she not have feelings for the child in her womb. But the dead are gone, and the living have to go on.

For the in-laws, or the child is the motivation for them to live, but for the wife, the child may not be everything. The in-laws can ignore the daughter-in-law's future life for the sake of their own motivation to live, and why can't the daughter-in-law ignore the child for the sake of the future life?

Chinese pay attention to the deceased, because the needs of the in-laws are the same as those of the deceased, so they can be praised, and the requirements can be said to be reasonable; If the wife's needs for a future life are not consistent with the needs of the deceased, it will be said to be selfish. If everyone is equal, can't the dead be equal to the living? Are the needs of the dead more important than the needs of the living?

Those who only care about their own needs and ignore the interests of others are selfish, everyone is selfish here, in-laws, wives including deceased husbands, but why is the selfishness of pregnant wives criticized! And others are praised!

Speaking of children, legally speaking, the child in the womb is not a human being, and there is no birthright to live, because the child has not yet been born! Emotionally speaking, whoever has the deepest feelings for this child will definitely not be someone else, but the mother of this child, the wife who has just lost her husband. No matter what this mother chooses, I believe it is the best place for this child.

If the mother has no way to ensure the child's physical and mental health and future development, then it is not a kind of protection not to bring him into this world! If the mother is confident that she can take care of the child and grow up healthy, then it is also a good choice to let him come out and see the world.

Don't tell me that your in-laws will take care of it, can your in-laws ensure that the child grows up with quality? In today's society, a child's growth, education, and marriage do not require the whole family's efforts, and parents need to pay all their efforts, which grandparents can't do. What is the use of a child's life if he can only ensure his food and clothing, but without educational progress.

Even the children themselves will think that if only I hadn't been born.

The question of who lives for in life, isn't it more cruel for a woman in a short marriage to ruin the happiness of her life because she is pregnant and asks to give birth to a child? Therefore, I don't think you should engage in moral kidnapping, let alone go online, and your future will be decided by yourself. Some of these statements may sound like a little bit of truth, but they're actually not that simple.

I don't think so. Raising a child is a very difficult thing, if the lack of a father in the process of growing up, it is also a great trauma for the child, for the future of the child and their own quality of life, it is wise to beat the posthumous child.

I don't think it's selfish, because it's still suitable for pregnant women and dead men, and she has the power to decide when the man is not there.

Count, because this is the only bloodline left by the husband in the world, for the in-laws, just losing their son and losing their grandson, this kind of damage is very great.

It is fair, because the child is husband and wife, and has nothing to do with the in-laws, and there is no child yet, only with the pregnant woman.

It's not fair, this in-law has already lost his own son, and he has lost his only relative, and it is especially unfair for him to do such a thing.

It depends on which person's point of view, if it is fair from the perspective of a pregnant woman, after all, she is still young and has to have her own life in the future, so she does this.

Of course, it's not fair, because the in-laws have already lost their son, and if they lose their grandson again, it will undoubtedly be another blow. Therefore, I hope that pregnant women can communicate well with their in-laws and come up with the best solution.

It's unfair to the in-laws, but it's also very unfair for the pregnant woman to keep the baby, so these things are very difficult to do.

It's unfair, because the in-laws' son is no longer there, this child is their only bloodline, and this pregnant woman was killed without consulting the old man, which is a bit selfish.

It's not fair, because for the parents-in-law, the child in the pregnant woman's womb is also related to them, and they should be communicated with before being beaten.

It is fairer, because after the pregnant woman gives birth to the child, she needs to raise him alone, so she has the right to decide.

Of course, it is fair, because the child belongs to the pregnant woman, so the pregnant woman can make this decision herself, and no one else can interfere.

Personally, I think it's very unfair, because the child conceived by a pregnant woman has a lot to do with the two families, and before making your own decision, you must discuss it with your in-laws before making a decision.

Marriage is a norm in the legal sense, not a blood, inseparable love relationship. After her husband's death, she was left with a posthumous child, and legally speaking, she was not obliged to help the man's family have children. Is it selfish for a pregnant woman to secretly knock out her posthumous child for her dead husband and in-laws?

To be born or not to be born is the freedom of the daughter-in-law.

Even if the husband is alive, the wife has the right to have the freedom to procreate, and it is a woman's right to have children, and it is also a woman's right not to have children. When the husband died, how could he not be sad as a wife, and how could he not have feelings for the child in his womb. But the dead are dead, and the living have to go on.

For the in-laws, or the child is the driving force of their life, but for the wife, the child may not be everything.

For the sake of their own life motivation, the in-laws can ignore the daughter-in-law's future life, why can't the person who becomes the daughter-in-law ignore the child for the sake of the future life? Chinese can be praised because the demands of the deceased are the same as those of the deceased, and the demands made can be said to be reasonable. The demands of the wife who pursues a future life are not at odds with the needs of the deceased and can be said to be selfish.

O all men are equal, but are not the dead and the living equal? Are the needs of the dead more important than the needs of the living! It is selfish to only care about one's own needs and not care about the interests of others.

Everyone here is very selfish in-laws, wives, including dead husbands, why are they blamed for the selfishness of pregnant wives! There are others who are praised!

In addition, legally, the child in the womb is not yet a person and does not have the right to be born. Because the child has not yet been born. The person who has the deepest feelings for this child emotionally is definitely none other than others.

It's just the mother of this child, the wife who has just lost her husband. No matter what the mother chooses, I believe this is the best place for her child.

The question of who to live for all her life, a woman who lives a short marriage, is pregnant and asks to have a child, so isn't it more cruel to ruin the happiness of her life? Therefore, I don't think you should get involved in moral kidnapping, don't go online, and decide your own future. Some rhetoric sounds reasonable, but it's actually not that simple.

Yes. Because the in-laws have always wanted to hold their grandchildren, and it is unfair to the in-laws for the pregnant women to beat off the posthumous child without permission.

It won't be unfair to the in-laws, as it's just a personal decision for the pregnant woman herself. You don't need to think about other people's opinions, and if you really don't need this child, you should still consider it as appropriate.

Of course, it's unfair, because if you beat the posthumous child, it will make the in-laws die, so don't do it.

It must be particularly unfair to the in-laws, because this is their last hope and the last root of their family, and it is really too much if they go to kill it privately.

It's not unfair, because it's her and her husband's child, and she can decide for herself when he's gone.

Yes, then the father-in-law and mother-in-law will lose their only hope, and they will feel that their lives are dark and there is no reason for them to live.

If you stand in the position of your in-laws, it will definitely be unfair, you have lost your son and grandson, and you will definitely not be able to accept it. If you stand in the position of a pregnant woman, you can't give the child a complete family, and you can't afford to raise it, you can't blame her if you beat it privately.

Emotionally speaking, it may be a harm to the in-laws, but in a legal sense, there is nothing unfair, and from the long-term perspective of the healthy development of the child, the child is born without the love of the father, and it is also unfair treatment.

No, it is your freedom to have children, and your in-laws have no right to manage it, so it will be a pity to kill the child, after all, it is a small life.

Isn't this an unfair issue to the in-laws? The main thing is to see if you want the child to decide to give birth or to kill it? Because some people have the ability to raise the child well, if they don't have the ability to raise the child, it is better to beat it, because it is not fair to the child to be born.

If a pregnant woman does this, it will be unfair to her in-laws, because most of them want grandchildren.

It will not be unfair to the in-laws, because the child needs to be raised by a pregnant woman after birth, but the child has no father, does not have a complete family, and it is not good for the child.

I think that if a pregnant woman kills the child in her belly, it will not be unfair to her in-laws, and giving birth to a child is a matter for parents, and it has nothing to do with her parents-in-law.

If a pregnant woman kills her posthumous child without permission, she will definitely be condemned by her mother-in-law's family, after all, she has lost her son. When you know that your daughter-in-law is pregnant, you will definitely ask your daughter-in-law to give birth to the child and want to leave the child behind. It is understandable for the elderly to think like this, if they lose their son, they don't want to lose their grandchildren, and the old people in the family will definitely discourage pregnant women from giving birth to their children.

But the old man did not take into account that the pregnant woman was very young and could not have been widowed because of her husband. <>

If a pregnant woman wants to remove her abdomen without permission, it must be a long-term plan for pregnant women. Thinking of her husband's departure is also very sad for pregnant women, and it is understandable that pregnant women will choose to kill the child out of consideration for the child after having a child. After all, the ability to raise a child is still handed over to the pregnant woman, and if the pregnant woman wants to remarry, it will also cause great harm to the child.

Rather than waiting for the damage caused by the birth of the child, it is better to directly knock the child out. <>

will be condemned by the in-laws, if you can meet a good source and sensible in-laws in life, it is understandable to know that the daughter-in-law will beat the child off. After all, when facing the choice between the living and the dead, the living must be the greatest, and it is impossible to choose not to marry again because of the departure of the husband. Everyone has the right to choose happiness, and even if her husband dies, as a pregnant woman, she has the right to choose whether to give birth to a child.

The condemnation is only temporary, and when the in-laws are old, they have no ability to raise their children. <>

The elderly are not able to raise the child, and if the elderly strongly ask the pregnant woman to give birth to the child, they only think of leaving the child. Unexpectedly, if the two old men were gone, the responsibility of taking care of the child's cracked stool would be left to the daughter-in-law. If the daughter-in-law remarries, the child will become more pitiful, and it is better to let the child not come to the world than to hurt the child at that time.

All these choices are in the hands of the pregnant woman, and as a father-in-law, mother-in-law has no right to ask her daughter-in-law what to do.

If a pregnant woman does something like this, she will definitely be condemned. Because this is a very small life, if you beat it, you will definitely be abused by many people.

It will definitely be condemned, because it is very bad to talk about such a business, and it will also have a very serious impact, and it will also make people feel very cold.

It will definitely be condemned, but I think it is a very normal thing because pregnant women have the right to choose.

Is it selfish for a pregnant woman to beat off her posthumous child without permission? I don't think so.

The child belongs to the pregnant woman and the dead man, and she has the right to decide while the man is away.

So whether to kill the child or not is a matter for pregnant women. Because as a single parent, she has the most say in the future to consider the raising and education of her children.

It is impossible for a child's grandparents to take care of and raise the child like a mother.

I'm going to tell you a real thing, I have a brother who hid his pregnant wife from his family when he was diagnosed with cancer.

After his wife found out, she also knew that this brother's cancer was not good, and their family kept making promises to their pregnant sister-in-law.

Their family will raise children together in the future, and my sister-in-law is kinder and gave birth to a child, and later my brother died shortly after the child was born.

Now the family is working together to fight with my sister-in-law over the children's living expenses, tuition fees and other expenses.

The sister-in-law was only 23 years old at the time, after the birth of the child. The mother-in-law and father-in-law defend their sister-in-law like thieves.

Saying all day long that he is not in good health and can't watch his children, and his sister-in-law still has to go to work alone? Who will give the money to support her and the children when she resigns?

When the child is sick, the money for the milk powder has to be paid by the sister-in-law alone, and the elderly still have pensions.

At that time, they said that they raised their children together, but now what has become of it? I have seen a lot of people who say one thing and do another, and they speak very well, but they can do things differently, and what they do when there are many people is different from what they do when there are fewer people.

I've eaten bad checks so many times that I won't believe them anymore.

Therefore, whether the child goes or stays, the opinion of the mother should be respected.