Posted on 07/18/2004 11:39:14 AM PDT by dennisw
Hopefully a brazen miscalculation by the NYT. We'll see.
That's true. He's certainly a more sympathetic figure than her...
Well, I assume he had to sign off on having this article published. So where's the shame?
And think about it, what kind of boyfriend is a bigtime feminist going to have, a strapping macho he-man?
My guess is you assume incorrectly, but we'll never know.
For certain, a brazen miscalculation by her!
Assume incorrectly regarding?
Dear dennisw,
I checked the link, just to make sure the article was real. It is difficult to believe that this was actually written and published in the New York Times.
It reads like a parody, an awful, sick caricature of pro-aborts. Blind they are. They obviously don't see what is apparent to those who have not lost their reason, their souls, their consciences, their hearts.
How terribly sad. Shameful and sad.
sitetest
If this is the kind of woman you meet on an everyday basis, maybe you ought to consider changing your location or some other "environmental" factor. There are plenty of women who don't agree with this type of thinking. I would hurry to be out of the world you're in just so I wouldn't lose my sanity.
Sorry, thought you knew I was referring to your 183, that he signed off or even knew about the article before it was published. Since you're relatively new (welcome, welcome), look at the linkback number to see what a person is responding to (sorry if this sounds naggy).
I think I have good reason to doubt that she cares what he thinks about publishing an article when he allowed himself to acquiesce in the killing of 2 of his 3 children without too much of a fight.
what a idiot boyfriend for his choice of women.
He was NOTHING in this story, not even a good boyfriend. He did not do the right thing.
She will feel the impact of this wrong choice every time she realizes her son had siblings that should be there.
The only good of this, two less democrats.
I guess I don't know why he would have to "sign off".
Maybe I'm not making my position clear. He doesn't sound like a strong man to me, because if he was, he probably wouldn't be with such a cold, butchy, leftist female to begin with. He is probably a liberal himself. He probably believes in a "woman's right to choose".
I'm not calling him a hero or a saint.
But at least he was willing to try, and of all the characters in this story, he is the one I can be at least somewhat sympathetic to - because the guy had to stand there, wanting those children, knowing that two heartbeats were going to "disappear" and there was not a thing he could do about it.
But he had been willing to be a father. (A lot of guys in situation just wouldn't be.)
And thinking about that is painful for me. I wouldn't assume it isn't still painful for him.
Who knows. Maybe he'll turn into a pro-lifer as a result of this experience. Not much of a consolation, but...
definitly a kerry or algore beta man.
Look at it this way: an evil pro-abort liberal is using the shibboleth of choice to reduce her family size as well as here chances of future pregnancy. The liberals, therefore, are exterminating themselves. The antidote is for pro-life folks to go out there and make lots of babies and replenish the earth.
The only good news in this story is that according to the Wall Street Journal, chances are this woman just eliminated 2 liberal votes starting 18 years from now. I'm so glad the NY Times published this letter to show the typical reasons why women abort their children: Selfishness.
Definitely not. I'm picturing the "Run, Liberal, Run!" Saturday Night Live character...or an Alan Colmes.
No one I would ever, in a million years, be attracted to.
Maybe that's why I see his suggestion that they have the babies as at least SOMETHING. That seems like a big leap for a guy like that.
Now it's my turn to guess that you are assuming incorrectly that he did not have to give his permission to have this article published. I can't fathom that. These pro-choice people are always talking about privacy, and for this to be published in the Gray Lady, of all places, for a worldwide audience, I'm sure she and the Times made very sure it was okay with Peter.
That's a really good point. I hope her own mother is looking over her shoulder as she gets on in years, because if her daughter has this little regard for her own children, it will be just as horrific for her mom when she needs care. Amy will be muttering about how inconvenient her own mother is...and she'll probably off her as well.
...
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.
How many more children would she be willing to kill to get a nice rent controlled apartment with a doorman and an elevator? Maybe she could even move into a slightly more fashionable neighborhood than the East Village?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.