Skip to comments.When One (baby) Is Enough (ultimate in cold selfishness)
Posted on 07/18/2004 11:39:14 AM PDT by dennisw
July 18, 2004 LIVES When One Is Enough By AMY RICHARDS as told to AMY BARRETT
I grew up in a working-class family in Pennsylvania not knowing my father. I have never missed not having him. I firmly believe that, but for much of my life I felt that what I probably would have gained was economic security and with that societal security. Growing up with a single mother, I was always buying into the myth that I was going to be seduced in the back of a pickup truck and become pregnant when I was 16. I had friends when I was in school who were helping to rear nieces and nephews, because their siblings, who were not much older, were having babies. I had friends from all over the class spectrum: I saw the nieces and nephews on the one hand and country-club memberships and station wagons on the other. I felt I was in the middle. I had this fear: What would it take for me to just slip?
Now I'm 34. My boyfriend, Peter, and I have been together three years. I'm old enough to presume that I wasn't going to have an easy time becoming pregnant. I was tired of being on the pill, because it made me moody. Before I went off it, Peter and I talked about what would happen if I became pregnant, and we both agreed that we would have the child.
I found out I was having triplets when I went to my obstetrician. The doctor had just finished telling me I was going to have a low-risk pregnancy. She turned on the sonogram machine. There was a long pause, then she said, ''Are you sure you didn't take fertility drugs?'' I said, ''I'm positive.'' Peter and I were very shocked when she said there were three. ''You know, this changes everything,'' she said. ''You'll have to see a specialist.''
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 specialist called me back at 10 p.m. I had just finished watching a Boston Pops concert at Symphony Hall. As everybody burst into applause, I watched my cellphone vibrating, grabbed it and ran into the lobby. He told me that he does a detailed sonogram before doing a selective reduction to see if one fetus appears to be struggling. The procedure involves a shot of potassium chloride to the heart of the fetus. There are a lot more complications when a woman carries multiples. And so, from the doctor's perspective, it's a matter of trying to save the woman this trauma. After I talked to the specialist, I told Peter, ''That's what I'm going to do.'' He replied, ''What we're going to do.'' He respected what I was going through, but at a certain point, he felt that this was a decision we were making. I agreed.
When we saw the specialist, we found out that I was carrying identical twins and a stand alone. My doctors thought the stand alone was three days older. There was something psychologically comforting about that, since I wanted to have just one. Before the procedure, I was focused on relaxing. But Peter was staring at the sonogram screen thinking: Oh, my gosh, there are three heartbeats. I can't believe we're about to make two disappear. The doctor came in, and then Peter was asked to leave. I said, ''Can Peter stay?'' The doctor said no. I know Peter was offended by that.
Two days after the procedure, smells no longer set me off and I no longer wanted to eat nothing but sour-apple gum. I went on to have a pretty seamless pregnancy. But I had a recurring feeling that this was going to come back and haunt me. Was I going to have a stillbirth or miscarry late in my pregnancy?
I had a boy, and everything is fine. But thinking about becoming pregnant again is terrifying. Am I going to have quintuplets? I would do the same thing if I had triplets again, but if I had twins, I would probably have twins. Then again, I don't know.
Didn't notice that--I wondered about the time frame. Like you, I suspect he would not be added unless it is a picture of him as a billboard for her death movement.
Yes that is what I believe and probably what she believes as well but I can't be totally sure about that.
Excellent point about lack of disclosure.
Lemme guess, the Times would say this was all about her private life and decisions and not about her political positions or involvements. Baloney.
Yes that is what I believe and probably what she believes as well but I can't be totally sure about that.
So you're saying that it's okay with you to "remove" these "merely potential human beings" for any reason at any time up until they are actually born...oops...I mean turn into real, true, living, breathing actual human babies?
I would even venture to guess he felt guilty for his "selfishness."
It's all conditioning.
I hope her boyfriend will soon leave her and find somebody who was worth being a mother. What a truly cold and worthless individual.
Just sent her an e-mail suggesting a topic on her web site titled: Violence against babies! Don't suppose the heartless bitch will respond. I even offered her a case of mayo to ease her mind.
Freep the crud out of her.
Most the most part, lberalism is simply rationalized misbehavior. There is no idealism, contrary to what they claim.
Are the DUhers making this woman a hero yet?
More civilized times.
Now there is zero shame in announcing to the the world, via the New York Times, that you legally killed (OK, she hired an MD hit man) two of your babies and let the third one live so you could love it and raise it.
Dennis, I wonder if she really "loves" the one she spared. It's so common nowadays amongst modern-minded types that they see their children not as children, but merely as objects of gratification with no more intrinsic value that a Monopoly board game. They see their children as pets, playmates, playthings, possessions, status symbols, accessories, everything but children. Eventually, "parents" who think this way lose whatever interest they ever had in their children and completely ignore them, leaving the children to fend for themselves or fobbed off on relatives, nannies, teachers, coaches, anyone but the parents.
well most abortions are done when they're embryos. I think this woman had a reduction at 8 weeks. After that most are done because the fetus very defective or whatever. To me embryos are morally equivalent to sperm and egg. They're both primitive cellular life. Once the fetus attains all human being characteristics it qualifies as a human being to me.
Here's my e-mail to her. Think she'll respond?
Subject: Is it okay to have a baby and still be a feminist?
I just read the fabulous article in the NY Times about how you sacrificed your womb for one lucky little boy! How does that jive with being a feminist? Webber is one blessed little boy to have such a wonderful mother as yourself to have offered him the warm environment of your uterus to protect him for nine months. Hopefully, he will have nothing ever go wrong in his little life that you won't be able to control or fix, because, gosh darn it, what if something happens to him when you are earning your big paycheck? Will you possibly have time to take care of him?
Thank the Lord, too, that you won't ever have to live on Staten Island, because you did the practical thing by having two of your babies removed from your womb! I mean, God forbid, your life would be a living hell were you to ever have to stoop so low as to have to live on Staten Island, or ever shop at Costco!! You are so smart, and I am so impressed by your composure to have undergone such a procedure, with nary a quiver about how you will one day explain to your son that it was his good fortune to be the "stand-alone". I'm sure he will be forever grateful that he was such a lucky son-of-a-bitch to have been the one who didn't get offed with death serum injected into his precious little heart!
I recommend Amy Richards. No doubt she will get the base really fired up!
Thanks for the ping... I actually really like S.I., though I can't imagine ever leaving the city for it
She was too upset about not being able to fly with triplets in utero.
A few years ago I covertly attended a speech by this man-hating ho's mentor, Ms. Gloria Steinem. In her speech she actually said, very calmly and deliberately, that heterosexual marriage was the basis for all violence and that monotheism was the the root of all evil. It was then I realized that demonic possession took unconventional forms. Although I pray that these people might reform their sinister ways, until that time they remain the enemy of all that is good.
Thanks for answering my question so thoughtfully. Now here's something I think you might be interested in knowing, though perhaps not. From the VERY MOMENT the sperm fertilizes the egg, the genetic makeup will tell you that this is a human being...EVERY characteristic that makes it human vs. any other living organism is attained. It's really simple. Before fertilization, they're just a sperm and an egg with 23 chromosomes each (most of the time). After fertilization - 46 chromosomes - it's a human being. ALL the characteristics are there, all of them, whether or not we have scientifically learned how to "see" them or not. Ask any geneticist if you don't believe me.
At one time, there was a common folk belief (not a Christian one) that the baby wasn't alive until quickening (at about 5 months) so abortion wasn't really murder. In the 19th century, doctors discovered that the baby moves and is alive even before it can be felt by the mother.
If members of a society honestly believe that the baby is not alive, then abortion can be legal without it corrupting society. But if they know its alive, but don't care ... what's next and who's next? Every good reason for abortion is an equally good reason for infanticide and euthanasia. Societies that permit infanticide invariably see their children as mere possessions who can be abused or sold into slavery at the parents' whim.