Perhaps. But that dynamic doesn't have much bearing on this particular case. Instead, we're examining the case of a seemingly infantilized thirty-three year old woman, still frightened of her parents. Regardless of whatever pressure she felt was brought to bear upon her, as a grown woman in the United States, that pressure was ultimately self-inflicted.

She should have owned up to her choice and dealt with it before this became an option for her.

Unfortunately, based upon the information in the two linked articles, this woman does not strike me as a human being capable of exercising her own individual agency. Instead, this thirty-three year old woman seems to have, for whatever reason, substituted outside judgement for her own, and in effect, abdicated her own personhood; and perhaps, through inaction, allowed a living human being to die.

••

So, once again we have a MAN who, by virtue of his native biology, will NEVER have to face an experience such as was suffered by this young woman. But that MAN still feels he has the right to pronounce judgement on that young woman.

The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

Anyone who does not see a gender bias in men casting aspersions upon this poor woman needs a headechtomy from their assholes.

••

Which, as is often forgotten, is why the Founding Fathers created a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, the idea being that the rich and (presumably) well educated would "take care" of the steaming masses. Same idea behind the electoral college.

Of course, being STATESMEN rather than merely politicians, the Founding Fathers could not conceive of an environment in which those rich and (presumably) well educated folk would pander to the lowest common denominator in order to assure re-election.

•••

I pity any daughters you may have.