I just finished reading this: When One is Enough.
My older sister recently attempted for the second time to have a baby. She got pregnant, but she miscarried. Nothing that they can really put a finger on; she’s just not well suited to have children. My sister is almost 40; I don’t think that she’ll ever be able to bring a baby to term.
Past that, words have literally failed me.
Moe
(Via Poliblog)
UPDATE: A good deal of commentary on this one: fortunately, I’ve had a day to get back my command of the English language, so I’ll take a stab at explaining the above.
As might have been guessed, I was floored by the tone of the original article; to me, it felt… cold, uncaring, not quite nihilistic and not quite solipistic, but you could see both states from there. I was repulsed by it’s tone; I still am, in fact. And when I compared it to events in my own life, it was even worse. Are there any comparisons to my sister’s situation and that of Amy Richards’? People in comments have said no, and by the rules of logic they are correct. Fine. It’s still not fair. Not that the universe cares about ‘fair’, of course.
But that’s not what made me angry. Figuring out what made me angry took most of the day, probably because of the target.
I was truly angry at myself. You see, I support – I would like to type ‘acquiesce’, but that is really the same thing as ‘support’ in this context – the status quo in current abortion policy. That means that I have effectively endorsed a society where young women may choose to abort children because they don’t want to move to Staten Island, and for long and complicated reasons I will have to continue to endorse a society where young women may choose to abort children because they don’t want to move to Staten Island, and I don’t like myself very much for that right now. A person who will remain nameless offered his contempt for my position earlier today. I care not a fig for his approval or disapproval; never have, never will.
But I cringe slightly from my self-examination.
Sorry to hear about your sister.
Re the interview, Ms. Richards seems to have made a considered decision, and so I eventually felt comfortable with her choice. I’m sure that every day wealthy women in stable marriages decide to have abortions because a pregnancy would interfere with the trip to Tahiti they’ve been planning, or their tennis lessons with the cute instructor, or their dress size.
But it’s not a considered or selfish decision I’ll ever have to make, and anyway what are the odds when my girlfriend and I are able to support a small family that we’ll have quintuplets?
Sorry to hear about your sister.
I don’t see what relevance her story has to the story you linked to, though: one of these things is not like the other.
Sorry to hear about your sister.
I don’t see what relevance her story has to the story you linked to, though: one of these things is not like the other.
“I don’t see what relevance her story has to the story you linked to, though: one of these things is not like the other.”
That would be probably be one of those disconnect things, Jes. Call it as a way to show disapproval without half a page of monotonous curses.
Moe
I assume it’s one of those “Such wanton waste in the face of so much want” kind of things. A heartbreaking story, made even more so by the moral opprobrium sure to be dished out for the next several weeks by the anti-abortion echo chamber. No decision, after all, is too easy for the one who neither has to make it nor live by its consequences.
And I’m sure that the entirety of this woman’s emotional experience before, during and after is tied up in four or five neatly-wrapped grafs in the NYT — so much easier to elevate her to the status of Paradigm Case, Of Which All Other Abortion Decisions Are Exactly Like This One.
You can sure feel that legendary Christian love and compassion from all the folks who have linked to it so far, though. I especially like Malkin’s outrage — the idea of someone who’s actually, you know, had an abortion giving abortion advice is just wrong. I guess if she had had the good taste to become a PTSD-suffering wreck, followed by becoming a born-again clinick-blocker afterwards, it would have been OK. And the commenters! Whoo-boy.
Sorry, I’m feeling unduly peevish and snarky this morning. I’ve been up since 4:30 because I couldn’t sleep.
Phil,
I can’t speak to Ms. Malkin’s situation, as I am unfamiliar with it. However, even if you accurately describe her situation, and the hypocrisy you infer from it, it has little to do with the rightness or wrongness of “selectively reducing” a multi-baby pregnancy.
And while this case has unique elements, it is a fairly typical case the sense that the abortions in question were for nothing more than the convenience of the mother and it is therefore paradigmatic in many ways. According to the pro-choice Alan Gutmacher Institute: “On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.” (http://www.poliblogger.com/poliblog/archives/001632.html).
So while the pro-choice lobby tends to speak widely and loudly about the health of women, this really isn’t the main motivator for abortions in the United States.
No, the idea of deleting two children because the woman’s career would have been disrupted is quite paradigmatic.
And I would note, there are ways to avoid pregnancy–and I don’t just mean not having sex. If one doesn’t want kids, then have the appropriate procedure and be done with it.
S
A question or two to stir the waters:
Would guaranteed access to prenatal care in spite of her employment status have changed this woman’s mind?
What about short-term disability insurance?
My guess is no, but the questions linger.
According to the pro-choice Alan Gutmacher Institute: “On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner”
And you have a problem with this because? I recommend an excellent book to you, Sarah Hrdy’s Mother Nature. Covers the complex nature of the realities behind this quotation very well.
This woman did want a child — so your “procedure” (which I guess is sterilization?) won’t apply. She just didn’t want three children. I admit I would not have made her choice. I admit I personally find her choice a little shocking. No one is making me make her choice. No one’s making you make it either. That’s why we call it freedom to choose.
I understand if your ethical system doesn’t support her choice, but you need to understand that her ethical system does.
I think the woman lays out quite well why she decided to have this procedure. Although the phrasing is a bit flip, I think her reasons are sound and solid.
Actually, delagar, the woman went off the pill because it made her “moody” and ended up getting pregnant and then decided to keep it–it was not a conscience decision to get pregnant. Not that if it was it would justify the reduction.
And not all ethical systems are equivalent or equally sound.
And Chuchundra (and delagar)–what if she had had the triplets, and then a month into taking care of them decided she couldn’t handle it–that it was interferring with her lifestyle, so she decided to drown two of them. And she did this after laying out her reasons and doing it in a “considered” fashion. Would that justify the actions? I mean, it would be her choice, correct? She wouldn’t be making it for, and no one would make me make that choice, so why isn’t that “freedom of choice”?
The woman was within her rights. But let’s not confuse acting within one’s rights and doing the right thing. What she did was wrong and repellent.
But she was within her rights.
As mentioned earlier, I have been through IVF to become pregnant from my first. In the Netherlands they only put 2 embryo’s back and they would rather put only one embryo back. Not for the parents sake, since it is much harder to have more treatments, but for the sake of the babies. Singletons are better of in the womb than multiplets and if you care about the baby-to-be you want the best environment possible.
I had many friends who had multiples and lost one or more (or all) later in the pregnancy. I have one friend who had triplets after a two-embryo transfer in IVF. They were born after 31 weeks – 700, 800 and 1300 grams (my boys were 4300, 4900 and 5030 grams). Months of hospital, for the mother at the end of the pregnancy and for the kids after birth.
She was very fortunate, all three survived and they seem to have only minor problems (asthma, bad eyes) though they had bloodvessels erupt in the brain (common with early births) so we all hope they will not have learning disabilities – or at least no major ones.
She could not have coped without the help of all of her family and without additional government funding: just feeding the babies the first months was 3 * 7 * 20min (7 hours)and that is without taking some time to cuddle them. Ask people who recently had a baby how much time and energy that takes and multiply that by 3.
Oh – and Moe: I was 36, 38 and 40 with my boys and compared to my friends pregnancies I was more or less average – some were older, some were younger and about half of them had one or two miscarriages. We have old mums here, if you have your first before 25 you are a young mother. It is harder, but definately not impossible.
I have never been more confused on the abortion issue than I am at this point in my life. Having gone from a staunch anti-abortion stance (believing strongly in the Individualist argument for why it’s wrong), I was convinced that my Individualist beliefs should not be used to force others to comply with them (i.e., other’s are entitled to their beliefs).
In the end, it does seem safest/soundest/sanest to argue that the social situations that lead to abortion should be highlighted in education efforts and addressed through legislation where appropriate, but as long as abortion is legal (and I think we’ve learned it must be), it should be available on demand and in a safe professional environment.
Steven,
If you believe an 8 week old fetus is the equivalent of a live baby, then your analogy is apropos. I don’t think it is, in fact I don’t consider an 8 week old fetus to be much more than a collection of cells with human DNA.
Look, if you think first trimester abortions are repellent, then you think what this woman did is repellent. If you don’t, then you don’t. This case is no different than any number of first trimester abortions.
Women have abortions, more often than not, because they don’t want to have a baby. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
What I find most repellent, and what makes Obsidian Wings sister’s situation significant, is that she wasn’t opposed to going to term with the one. So why wasn’t adopting the twins out NOT an option? She wouldn’t be able to fly for several months? Several months stuck in New York is cause to kill off two babies?
I’m barely pro-choice, so admittedly, I have a problem with abortion for the mere sake of convenience. The extent of this woman’s inconvenience would have been mere months. Is it really too much to expect a woman to make the sacrifice of a few months convenience over the sacrifice of two lives?
You’ll note she never mentions any detriment to her health, the health of the babies or ANYthing beyond her fear that her lifestyle will be hampered in a number of ways.
It is repulsively selfish, no matter when you think a fetus magically becomes a human being.
CBK
Did you miss the part about being on bed rest from the 20th week onward? That’s about four months of being confined in her apartment, pretty much lying in bed except fort bathroom breaks, which is a bit more than inconvenient.
If she can’t fly fom the 15th week onward, that’s over five months (plus recovery) that she can’t work. Are you willing to chip in to make up that financial loss?
Not to mention that carrying triplets to term is much more difficult than a regular pregnancy and can have serious complications, both for the woman and the children. She’d be risking the health of her future child so that two 8 week fetuses she doesn’t want can be brought to term.
Again, if you consider the 8 week fetuses “babies”, it changes the equation. I don’t.
And I still don’t see the relevance to Moe’s sister. My heart goes out to her, but if she wants to adopt a child, there are plenty of options that don’t rely on women carrying triplets to term that they don’t want.
I do not understand the problem for pro-choice people, here. This is the logical extension of legal abortion. If you support legal abortion, then you at least accept this sort of thing as a consequence.
For pro-lifers, well, this is nothing new.
I do not understand the problem for pro-choice people, here. This is the logical extension of legal abortion. If you support legal abortion, then you at least accept this sort of thing as a consequence.
Binary Bill to the rescue!
OR…you reserve the right to be appalled at selfish behavior regardless of whether you’re pro-choice or not.
sorry…for got the smiley face after the Binary Bill bit…
Sorry, Edward. This case was most definitely selfish, but so are the majority of abortions. If you support abortion as it stands now, then you must accept these types of situations as necessary.
As for the Binary Bill thing… ummm… (insert humorous retort here). I’ve got nothing.
That would be probably be one of those disconnect things, Jes. Call it as a way to show disapproval without half a page of monotonous curses.
I’m still sorry about your sister. A friend of mine tried for 10 years to have children, and couldn’t, and in the end her partner broke up with her because he wanted to have children, and she was (understandably) just wanting to get used to the fact that she couldn’t, and deal with it, and figure out what she was going to do with the rest of her life which was now not going to include having children – and is not going to include her partner, who is off boffing a younger woman. All of this is perfectly s****y, and however it is for your sister, I have nothing but sympathy for her.
But that has nothing whatsoever to do with my continued support for a woman’s right to choose: for my sympathy for a woman making the decision that she could not deal with being pregnant with triplets: and for my contempt for you, linking your sister’s genuinely bad situation with another woman’s genuinely bad situation, in order to condemn a woman you don’t know who made a tough choice in a bad situation.
Moe, I don’t understand the comparison of one situation to the other. It seems to imply that children are fungible commodities and it’s silly to ‘waste’ 2 when someone needs 1. But obviously you and no one else actually believes that. Children are unique and not commodities and you can’t just swap them around, adoption notwithstanding.
That said, the article is revealing. Her motiviation is really the motivation for nearly all abortions in America. So if it is repellant or makes you uncomfortable, that is how abortion ought make you feel. This fact is usually masked by the veil of extreme anguish that is placed over the mothers. But whether you’re sobbing or writing a flip editorial, the motivation is the same.
We tried and failed for years to have kids; after a few years we decided to go ahead and adopt. We got the referral for the second baby just about three weeks after my wife’s hysterectomy. It turned out that not only did I have problems, my wife had worse problems.
I highly recommend adoption, Moe. If your sister really wants to be a parent, I can’t think of a better thing to do than to be a parent for a child who’s a living need for one.
If you support abortion as it stands now, then you must accept these types of situations as necessary.
Customary or usual, perhaps, yes. Necessary, no.
Among the options Amy Richards did not explore is adopting the twins out. The adopting parents could have made contributions (financial and otherwise…e.g., visiting and helping her while bedridden) to make the burden less daunting.
In the end, however, I think sidereal nails it: Her motiviation is really the motivation for nearly all abortions in America. So if it is repellant or makes you uncomfortable, that is how abortion ought make you feel.
Again, however, until you’ve walked a mile in someone’s shoes, you really shouldn’t judge.
Among the options Amy Richards did not explore is adopting the twins out.
True. I’d have taken them in a heartbeat. Or two.
I can’t think of a better thing to do than to be a parent for a child who’s a living need for one.
Hear! Hear!
And a little something more about abortion.
We are a society addicted to fairness. Our whole capitalistic/liberal democratic system is predicated on ideas of equal representation, equal opportunity, equivalent rewards for value, punishment proportional to crime, and so on. Pregnancy is fundamentally unfair. For a tiny unintentioned oversight, a little bad luck, no ill will whatsoever, a woman’s life (and just a woman’s life. . we don’t hold fathers responsible enough, ever) is fundamentally transformed, permanently. Her career is most probably over. Possibly forever. Her social life as she knows it is over. There’s no messing around. . having children isn’t a hobby. Your old life is done.
This is, I think, the center of the abortion debate. The toleration for abortion is based in our inability to stomach such a gross inequity, and that intolerance for inequity is the fuel that drives the pro-choice movement.
At some point we will either find a better solution (more reliable family planning) or come to grips with the fact that life isn’t fair. The current solution of abortion is an attempt to re-introduce fairness with a memory hole and a coffin.
Just out of curiosity, how many of those clamoring that all these babies be carried to full term and put up for adoption have experience with the foster care system?
I find the implication that it is universally more humane and unselfish to hand a newborn baby off to someone else to raise, as opposed to terminating fetal development early on, to be a bit pat. These are not black and white choices for the mother. While it is all well and good to highlight the positives of adoption, it is still an imperfect solution with very real, lifelong emotional consequences for mother and child, even if all goes well. I experience enough regret for adopting out a couple of kittens I once found on the street to the wrong family. I can’t imagine what it must be like to give up your own flesh and blood.
And how, precisely, would you propose a new mother go about deciding which of the three infants she just delivered she is going to keep, and which she is going to make wards of strangers or of the state?
Finally, I think what folks are reading in the editorial as a flip tone could just as well be emotional guardedness on a very sensitive subject.
Her career is most probably over. Possibly forever.
Counterpoint: my wife just went back into full-time employment, nearly doubling our gross income.
Her social life as she knows it is over. There’s no messing around. . having children isn’t a hobby. Your old life is done.
Some of this is true, some less so. Your old life is done, but that doesn’t mean life is over. It’s just changed, fundamentally. Such is the case with one child, or three. Life is also changed, forever, when you end a (at least potential for) life. A decade from now, I can just about guarantee that this woman is going to be plagued by the idea of how the twins would have turned out.
Just out of curiosity, how many of those clamoring that all these babies be carried to full term and put up for adoption have experience with the foster care system?
And the relevancy is?
Just to short-circuit the back-and-forth (unusually busy today) the issue of foster care and the issue of adoption are separate. If this woman elected to carry the twins to term, foster care wouldn’t be an issue unless she abandoned them at birth with no notice, or they were taken from her care for cause.
As dutchmarbel suggested, I think people who paint this a purely a matter of convenience are way off-base. There are very serious medical issues– for the babies even more than for the mother– with trying to take triplets to term. Even twins are at significant more risk than singleton pregnancies.
Now you may feel that it’s the right thing to do to try, and it’s up to Fate/Nature/God to sort out the consequences, but I think many doctors would support– as a medical decision and a means of improving the chances for the other fetuses (or fetus)– her decision not to attempt to carry all three to term.
IIRC, the concept of triage for casualties was at one point fairly controversial, because it may involve a conscious decision to let someone die in order to try and save someone else’s life, but it is now, properly done, considered medically and ethically appropriate.
I raise this only to say that these decisions are hard either way, and I think it’s at least an over-simplification to suggest they are not. In some cases, “selfish” could be used to describe someone who insists on trying to carry six fetuses, but it wouldn’t advance the debate very much.
I probably do it as much as anybody, if not more, but I think anybody who judges another person’s decisions based solely on news reports is acting foolishly.
Counterpoint: my wife just went back into full-time employment, nearly doubling our gross income.
The breakdown of the traditional family! I kid.
I was actually using sloppy terminology. I meant definitely temporarily over (which is a weird way of using ‘over’), and as I said possibly permanently.
Your old life is done, but that doesn’t mean life is over. It’s just changed, fundamentally.
This was my point. I’m not trying to talk down family life. We’re quite happy with ours. It’s an enormous sacrifice of the old for everyone except possibly the fantastically wealthy who can hire a full-time nanny. The question is whether the new lifestyle is an improvement for you. Many people look forward to family life and it therefore is an improvement. Many people have no interest in it, and every sacrifice, every sleepless night, every welfare check, every fever is a nightmare because it isn’t the life they want, and people will start wondering what it is they did that was so wrong (nee fairness) to deserve such an unwelcome transformation.
So as a society, we ought make sure this is as rare as possible, by making sure that people only conceive who want to have children, as much as possible. If abstinence education actually worked, that’d be great, but since it is usually taught to the exclusion of things that actually work (like sex education and easy access to contraceptives) it needs to be given short shrift.
And we also ought make sure that when it happens anyway, we make some things clear. One is that the father is every bit as responsible as the mother and we won’t tolerate him skipping out of the responsibility. Another is that killing the baby isn’t an option. It won’t just go away. Another is that once the baby is born, we will make sure the adoption system is as humane and efficient as possible, or if they don’t want to give the baby up for adoption, we have effective systems in place to support the parents.
If you argue against abortion without first laying the groundwork to avoid the misery and indignation that would follow, you are doomed to failure, no matter how right you may be.
If you argue against abortion without first laying the groundwork to avoid the misery and indignation that would follow, you are doomed to failure, no matter how right you may be.
This places a rather larger burden on those who argue for abortion, don’t you think? If equal standards are applied, that is.
No one argues for abortion, Slarti.
No one argues for abortion, Slarti.
Case closed, then?
Yes. Mandatory abortions are off the table.
We weren’t discussing arguing for/against mandatory abortions. Or, rather, I wasn’t. If you were, we’re talking past each other, and I bow out. I don’t know of anyone who’s currently engaged in the pros and cons of mandatory abortion.
*In the context of the U.S., anyway. No fair bringing PRC into the discussion.
“Did you miss the part about being on bed rest from the 20th week onward? That’s about four months of being confined in her apartment, pretty much lying in bed except fort bathroom breaks, which is a bit more than inconvenient.”
I didn’t miss that part. Did YOU miss the part about her choosing to go off the pill but refusing to accept the consequences of her choices?
Four months versus two lives. Yeah, that seems fair.
Four months is a freaking drop in the bucket of her 34 years thus far on earth.
CBK
We weren’t discussing arguing for/against mandatory abortions.
You brought up “those who argue for abortion”, Slarti. That would be mandatory abortions, to which I am as strongly opposed as you are. I’ve never argued for abortion in my life. What I’ve always argued for is a woman’s right to choose: I’m against forced abortions, forced pregnancies, and forced adoption.
You brought up “those who argue for abortion”, Slarti.
True. Sorry, I mistakenly thought that anyone who hadn’t slept through the last few decades would recognize that I was using a little rhetorical shorthand. So, please s/”for abortion”/”for the right to have an abortion”/. I hope that removes most of the confusion.
“A decade from now, I can just about guarantee that this woman is going to be plagued by the idea of how the twins would have turned out.”
I’d be very hesitant about such suggestions. I’ve known several women who had abortions that are now decades in the past; a couple are what I would loosely characterize as slightly bothered, in the sense that, if asked, they’d rather they’d not have to have made the choice, but aren’t grossly troubled by the choice; the others seem about as untroubled as any person who is not them, but close to them, can tell, without being a mindreader.
Of course some women will, years later, be grossly traumatized; others moderately so, and so on up and down the spectrum.
But I would never be so bold as to predict where an individual would land, most particularly a stranger. Regardless of what one, perhaps, thinks they should feel.
I have to weigh in here as a woman who has had two miscarriages in the past year and is currently 4.5 months pregnant. I desperately wanted to have a baby, especially after the miscarriages, but you cannot imagine the effect pregnancy has on the body. I am reminded of this literally every moment of the day. I was terrified that I would be carrying twins because I knew that I could not handle taking care of two newborns, much less the complications a multiple pregnancy would entail (my sister had pre-ecclampsia and I am at risk for it as well). People seem to take bedrest lightly, but it is not just lying around in bed. Being put on bedrest means there is a real threat of danger to the woman or the baby she is carrying and is usually accompanied by all sorts of drugs which make one groggy and unable to even read in some cases.
When everything goes well in a pregnancy it is still a huge physical drain and risk. Even though my miscarriages made me horribly unhappy, and I am thrilled that I am pregnant (when I am not being sick, that is), if I were in this woman’s shoes, I would have probably made the same decision. Remember, she is also haunted by her childhood with a single mother. Part of her complaint may seem selfish to some, but I saw some her concerns more about being unable to be a good mother to triplets. It would be great if she could have these children without the huge physical threat to herself and to _all_ the children, but we don’t live in a perfect world. I see a woman who made a horribly tough decision that would allow her to become a good mother to one child.
the others seem about as untroubled as any person who is not them, but close to them, can tell, without being a mindreader.
Not saying I’d bet the farm, Gary.
I’ve got some counter-anecdotes for you, but seeing how much anecdotal evidence counts, I’ll reserve them. I just can’t imagine looking at the one child that was allowed to live, and not wonder how the others might have turned out. This is projection, sure; I don’t have much else. It’s not as if I’m using it as an argument for legislation or anything.
This places a rather larger burden on those who argue for [the right to have an] abortion, don’t you think? If equal standards are applied, that is.
Well, if you are applying equal standards, how does misery and indignation follow the right to have an abortion, should you choose?
As Gary Farber points out, though reactions to having had an abortion clearly vary widely, most women who have chosen to abort an unwanted pregnancy do not appear to be terribly traumatized by having been able to make that choice.
Whereas we know – because there are decades of experience to point at – that misery and indignation, and (rarely, but a risk) involuntary sterilization, and death, follow when the right to choose a legal safe abortion is removed.
So it seems to me the burden of proof is decidedly on those who claim to be able to avert the horrors we know have occurred in the past, and occur now in other countries, when women are denied the right of choice.
Well, if you are applying equal standards, how does misery and indignation follow the right to have an abortion, should you choose?
You tell me. It’s not my argument, it’s yours.
Just to forestall further misunderstanding: none of this is part of an argument against the-right-to-have-an-abortion. So get that thought right out of your head, ok?
Well, if you are applying equal standards, how does misery and indignation follow the right to have an abortion, should you choose?
Good question. One that, as an advocate for the-right-to-have-an-abortion, you ought to show that you’ve considered. All things being equal, that is.
Again, to short-circuit the back-and-forth: if you’re somehow under the impression that this line of conversation is an attempt to make an argument counter to abortion rights, you’ve erred. This was just sidereal and I, talking.
I didn’t miss that part. Did YOU miss the part about her choosing to go off the pill but refusing to accept the consequences of her choices?
But she did accept them, and then she made another decision, and she’ll live with and accept those consequences, too. You won’t, because neither decision was yours to make.
Just because her going off the pill resulted in a multiple pregnancy does not require her to accept one and only one path. Do you immediately give up and suffer the worst consequences of every crappy hand life deals you?
Four months is a freaking drop in the bucket of her 34 years thus far on earth.
And when you get the opportunity to make the same decision under the same circumstances, we’ll all be sure to shower you with praise and moral good cheer for making the one you consider correct.
For the record, I have experienced pregnancy first hand and understand that it alters you physically, can be hugely draining and result in health threats.
I understand first hand that raising children is difficult, requires sacrifice, can be onerous at times.
Regardless, all this BS about choice for the benefit of this mother’s health overlooks the choice she made that put her in that situation. She made choices that resulted in her pregnancy. No one raped her. No one forced that pregnancy on her. She didn’t get pregnant because her birth control method failed. She deliberately ceased any birth control, one supposes because she wanted a child. One child. So fate handed her a dilemma. Rather than rise to the occassion she bends to her own selfish interests. I mean really, why should any woman sacrifice anything if they have a choice? Much better that others are sacrificed than this woman should suffer any inconvenience or stress. Now she can chew any flavored gum she chooses!
What makes it okay for innocent children to pay for the consequences of the choices one or two adults make?
Cordelia sees this mother’s concern for the ability to rear three. I didn’t read any of that concern in the piece. I read a concern for how she may have to change her geography and shop at Costco. The HORROR! I didn’t even detect a great concern for her health or the health of the infants. What I read was me, me, me, I, I, I, inconvenience to MY lifestyle.
Although, no doubt triplets could be extremely difficult. But there was another option that I mentioned above that she didn’t voice at all. Adoption.
Again, I say 4 months is a miniscule period of time when one may not be able to read in comparison to two lives she chose to discard. Is the value of human life, a human life this woman deliberately created, so small that 4 months is too long? In this case two lives for 4 months. What a bargain!
Life is risky. We make choices. We should be expected to deal with our choices without making other pay for them.
CBK
1) Comments are hosed.
2) Which required me to rewrite my comment to Jesurgislac, since my first attempt got sucked into a wormhole.
3) Only to reappear later, mysteriously.
4) In any event, it ought to be crystal clear that Jesurgislac‘s arguing with me over something I said in conversation with sidereal. I’m not sure what my point in saying that was, but it’s not…that. That being, whatever you’re imagining it was.
Okay, to unroll the pre-emption and suspicion back to your original question, which I will now take in good faith.
This places a rather larger burden on those who argue for abortion, don’t you think? If equal standards are applied, that is.
I’m not sure what you mean by equal standards. You mean equal justification for misery? The victims in abortion have no capacity to feel misery and indignation, certainly not after and probably not before the act, so it may seem that abortion creates a net decrease in misery. Therefore, the burden probably seems light and there’s no groundwork to lay. So no, those who argue against the right to abortion have the larger burden, because those who suffer for that decision live on in suffering and are remembered. They’re still right in the end, mind you. But it’s a limited victory if you don’t eliminate the desire for abortion alongside the legal availability of it.
cbk,
She went off her birth control and decided that, if she became pregnant, she’d have the baby. That sounds to me like a decision to accept the consequences of her actions.
Unfortunately, instead of singleton pregnancy she became pregnant with triplets. How irresponsible of her to not consider this 1 in 8100 possibility.
She didn’t want to have three babies and she didn’t want to spend four months confined to a bed and risk the health of the baby she did want so she could give birth to two that she didn’t, so she aborted them at eight weeks.
Look, if you feel abortion is morally wrong, then that’s your position. I’m certainly not going to change it. However, I fail to see how this specific case is morally any different than if this 34 year old woman became pregant due to the failure of her birth control and decided to have an abortion because she didn’t want to have the child right then, for whatever reason.
That sort of thing happens not infrequently. Why is this specific case morally more suspect?
But Chuchundra she did not say that she was making this decision because of the health risks to herself or to her child; she didn’t even really stop to think about it. Three heartbeats and she worries about having to buy
mayo in big jars; three heartbeats and her immediate reaction is “can we get rid of one or two?” Not; “what are the health risks to me and the chidlren?” Just, “can we get rid of”
A woman who wrote about her fears that the pregnancy could cause her great physical harm, had she written about reading about cases where the mother died, or was left sevrely disabled, or the children were born with severe health problems, or never having made it to term, had she made this decision because she felt it was healthiest, that would be one thing. I don’t know then if I would have felt the same revulsion.
But her concern wasn’t with her health, it was with her lifestyle.
Four months, if she lasted that long, and many women don’t, on bedrest.
This has really made me rethink my stance on abortion.
But Chuchundra she did not say that she was making this decision because of the health risks to herself or to her child; she didn’t even really stop to think about it. Three heartbeats and she worries about having to buy
mayo in big jars; three heartbeats and her immediate reaction is “can we get rid of one or two?” Not; “what are the health risks to me and the chidlren?” Just, “can we get rid of”
A woman who wrote about her fears that the pregnancy could cause her great physical harm, had she written about reading about cases where the mother died, or was left sevrely disabled, or the children were born with severe health problems, or never having made it to term, had she made this decision because she felt it was healthiest, that would be one thing. I don’t know then if I would have felt the same revulsion.
But her concern wasn’t with her health, it was with her lifestyle.
Four months, if she lasted that long, and many women don’t, on bedrest.
This has really made me rethink my stance on abortion.
The problem with arguing anecdotes is that, bluntly, they’re a dime a dozen.
And far more than a dozen can be found to provide emotional evidence for anything.
Irresponsible mothers making revolting decisions to abort fetuses for trivial grounds? We got ‘um!
Irresponsible mothers “choosing life” and then torturing the kid until it’s battered to death? We got ‘um!
There are innumerable cases to be found, if one goes looking, to illustrate the simple fact that people will make bad, irresponsible, decisions. Period. Flat stop.
That choice might be to abort, and come from repulsive motivations or reasoning.
That choice might be to give birth, and result in horrific, repulsive, results for the child (and others).
The bottom line is, if we don’t want to leave the choice (within the first six and three months) to the mother, who do we give it to?
And, if you’re a mother, and pass judgment on another’s choice, you’re accepting the same judgment of others upon yourself.
The world is a place of unpleasant compromises, and there’s no hint on the horizon this will be changing anytime soon.
I care not a fig for his approval or disapproval; never have, never will.
Of course not, Moe. You’ve said so often enough.
Completely unrelated to what’s come before, but…
My older sister recently attempted for the second time to have a baby. She got pregnant, but she miscarried. Nothing that they can really put a finger on; she’s just not well suited to have children. My sister is almost 40; I don’t think that she’ll ever be able to bring a baby to term.
My mom was 43 when she had me; I am, in some sense, the fifth child because I was preceded by three miscarriages. So while the odds aren’t great, there’s still hope.
Completely unrelated to what’s come before, but…
Not completely: just choosing to focus on Moe’s A story (about his sister) rather than his B story (about Amy Richards). Given that the two stories are completely unrelated, it’s anyone’s choice which one to focus on.
I came back to post a link to a good livejournal post on abortion.
cam download free software web free amateur mature pic adult sex webcam free milf whore mature sexy black women mature amateur nude mature women thumb las vegas webcam swinger amateur housewife mature pussy pic free milf video cam chat nude room web mature sex com free big boob mature porn webcam security free live nude webcam mature women video big tit mature women horny mature sluts live sex webcam free milf porn free mature sex movie free live webcam show mature cum busty milf large mature women free amateur mature women free adult webcam chat free gay webcam webcam pic teen nude free webcam chat site mature porn tv xxx milf watch free webcam mature women nude pic webcam mature porn pic old mature sex free live webcam chat
A. Moe, while it’s sad that your sister wants to bear a child and can’t, what does that have to do with anything? Women are not obligated to breed for other people just because they can.
B. If she’s a selfish, horrible person, than she shouldn’t be having children.