SilverNRed Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Here is a heartwarming story about a woman who got a pair of abortions. And why. Link My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to? I looked at Peter and asked the doctor: ''Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?'' The obstetrician wasn't an expert in selective reduction, but she knew that with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more. Having felt physically fine up to this point, I got on the subway afterward, and all of a sudden, I felt ill. I didn't want to eat anything. What I was going through seemed like a very unnatural experience. On the subway, Peter asked, ''Shouldn't we consider having triplets?'' And I had this adverse reaction: ''This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life.'' Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn't be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It's not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I'm going to have to move to Staten Island. I'll never leave my house because I'll have to care for these children. I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise. Even in my moments of thinking about having three, I don't think that deep down I was ever considering it. The title of the article is a cheerful "When One is Enough." Let's all hope the kid who did make it never inconveniences his mom or he'll run the risk of being "selectively reduced."
UConn James Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 So basically, they'd cramp her style. Probably a much better situation than her actually having the kids and raising them, from the sounds of it. It was her choice. No one ever said that people have to make sensical decisions. But to be honest, I don't want to be in a place where my decisions are based on other people's ethos; let me make my own mistakes and live with the consequences. People in this country really have to stop worrying about and delving into other people's personal problems and start dealing with the ones that actually matter in the macrocosm.
Thurman's Helmet Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 God forbid she actually realize the consequences to her actions and treat HUMAN LIFE more than just an inconvenience.
Alaska Darin Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 God forbid she actually realize the consequences to her actions and treat HUMAN LIFE more than just an inconvenience. 345839[/snapback] Why would you actually want that? Someone like her is just going to raise 3 more idiots who won't hold the door for you, cut you off in traffic, etc. Try using a little pragmatism, for crying out loud.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Why would you actually want that? Someone like her is just going to raise 3 more idiots who won't hold the door for you, cut you off in traffic, etc. Try using a little pragmatism, for crying out loud. 345843[/snapback] That's what makes this issue so mind-boggling and difficult and impossible to get any semblance of consensus. That woman is not fit to be a mother. She doesn't deserve to be, with that kind of thinking. Your line of people are only alive because it's illegal to kill them comes to mind here.
Alaska Darin Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 That's what makes this issue so mind-boggling and difficult and impossible to get any semblance of consensus. That woman is not fit to be a mother. She doesn't deserve to be, with that kind of thinking. Your line of people are only alive because it's illegal to kill them comes to mind here. 345848[/snapback] It just kills me how ridiculous people are about something that has little to no effect on their daily lives. Don't like abortion? Fine. Don't have one. You can't save your own damn kids, much less raise those being aborted. You sure as hell ain't going to legislate morality (see "Drug War"). Abortion will be around as long as there is sex drive. Find something else to crusade about that may actually have a chance of success.
Tux of Borg Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 KurtGodell77 will be here shortly to deliver the gospel.
Ghost of BiB Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 KurtGodell77 will be here shortly to deliver the gospel. 345874[/snapback] I'm not reading 23 pages.
Alaska Darin Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 I'm not reading 23 pages. 345877[/snapback] That you Petrino?
Ghost of BiB Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 That you Petrino? 345881[/snapback] No, I can reach above the lawn sprinkler.
GoodBye Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Why would you actually want that? Someone like her is just going to raise 3 more idiots who won't hold the door for you, cut you off in traffic, etc. Try using a little pragmatism, for crying out loud. 345843[/snapback] She doesn't have to raise them. Why not give them up for adoption? And why is she even getting herself in this situation (being pregnant) in the first place? Take some responsibility woman for gosh sakes!
Ghost of BiB Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 She doesn't have to raise them. Why not give them up for adoption? And why is she even getting herself in this situation (being pregnant) in the first place? Take some responsibility woman for gosh sakes!345893[/snapback] SSShhh...this is not a good place to state the obvious. Show some thoughtless opinion.
Alaska Darin Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 She doesn't have to raise them. Why not give them up for adoption? Perhaps she doesn't want to. Perhaps her religious beliefs are different than yours. How many unwanted children have you personally adopted? Or are you pretending that there aren't thousands of children out there living off the government dime already, as so many others do? And why is she even getting herself in this situation (being pregnant) in the first place? 345893[/snapback] Uh, sometimes babies happen - even with birth control. But we can all pretend we've never gotten lucky in this regard. Take some responsibility woman for gosh sakes! She did. Simply used a different method than you would have. Welcome to freedom. Sometimes that involves things that are abhorrent. You don't have the right not to be offended. Anti-abortion folks would have alot more credibility on this issue if they did more to make the lives of living children better - a subject our society is failing miserably at everyday.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 I'm torn...on the one hand, the idea of aborting a pregnancy because it's "inconvenient" is horrible to me. On the other hand...I can't help thinking that these kids were most likely spared a life of pure and utter hell being raised by such a shallow unfeeling mother. It's just too bad that, when doctors abort "inconvenient" pregnancies, they can't also sterilize the parents. People who think that way have NO business having children to begin with.
Alaska Darin Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 It's just too bad that, when doctors abort "inconvenient" pregnancies, they can't also sterilize the parents. People who think that way have NO business having children to begin with. 345916[/snapback] Life ain't fair.
Campy Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Simply used a different method than you would have. Welcome to freedom. A-fricken-men!
SilverNRed Posted May 26, 2005 Author Posted May 26, 2005 She doesn't have to raise them. Why not give them up for adoption? 345893[/snapback] Actually, we have the answer to that one. If you read the article, she says that even carrying triplets would have her "on her back at 20 weeks and she was already at 8 weeks when she found out." So even carrying those two extra kids for another few weeks was too much of an inconvenience. BTW, I don't think outlawing abortion is a viable solution, but this woman's logic is so beyond awful that I had to comment.
Alaska Darin Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 This woman's logic is so beyond awful that I had to comment. 345927[/snapback] She'd be fairly "normal" around here.
GG Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 What's more mindboggling is this little follow-up, which obviously ran after the print edition of the NYT Magazine had gone out: Editors' Note: July 28, 2004, Wednesday The Lives column in The Times Magazine on July 18 gave a firstperson account of the experience of Amy Richards, who had been pregnant with triplets and decided to abort two of the fetuses. Ms. Richards, who told her story to a freelance Times Magazine contributor, Amy Barrett, discussed her anxiety about having triplets, the procedure to terminate two of the pregnancies and the healthy baby she eventually delivered; she expressed no regret about her decision. The column identified Ms. Richards as a freelancer at the time of her pregnancy but should have also disclosed that she is an abortion rights advocate who has worked with Planned Parenthood, as well as a co-founder of a feminist organization, the Third Wave Foundation, which has financed abortions. That background, which would have shed light on her mind-set, was incorporated in an early draft, but it was omitted when an editor condensed the article. Another critical nugget of information that is missing from the article is whether the woman comes from a family with a history of twins/triplets. My hunch is that given her age, she was likely on chlomyd(sp?) which causes much higher instances of multiple eggs being fertilized - meaning she likely knew ahead of time that there was a good chance she'd have twins+ if she conceived.
Recommended Posts