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.
GenX, that woman is so self-absorbed I don't think it would even bother her. I do however agree with your premise but in her case I don't think she even qualifies for any benefit of a doubt.
That's the part of all of this I still can't figure out. What kind of weenie would put up with such a man-hating witch? There just isn't anything feminine about these whacko "feminists". He must be completely emasculated.
The same way that the SS would boast and joke about the Jews they were slaughtering. Hatred and resentment are easier emotions than remorse.
Unlike the other cells in the woman's body however this cell has its own unique chromosomal make-up. It is not part of the mother's body. The mother is just the incubator for the developing child. That is why even at the point of conception it is a child not a choice.
There is a big difference between the woman's body naturally flushing the fertilized cell out of the body, which is basically a miscarriage vs the woman actively having the cell removed.
I am a biologist by education and trade so I know a little about these things.
No doubt about that my friend. I can't fathom the type of man who would give such a woman the time of day.
So, let's see if I understand your logic. According to your definition, all those "fetuses" that are born pre-mature and need help with breathing, etc. don't qualify as "human beings" until they're developed enough to be weaned off the technology that helped support them, right? So those (oh, I'll use my term this time) BABIES aren't human beings until the doctor signs off on letting them be released from the hospital, huh? In other words, by your definition, a baby that has been born prematurely is still a fetus and not yet a human being, correct? Birth no longer is a defining point, now it's not being technologically-dependent on life-support? The fetus has to "graduate" from it's dependence on the womb in order to qualify as a human being? I am stunned!
Those babies weren't her body, and I call 'em as I see 'em.
They used to have a club at Yahoo called Abortion Celebration. I lurked around it on occasion just to get an idea of the mindset. Truly frightening. The name of the club should have told me enough. I posted some of the quotes on FR a few years back. It was horrific the way in which these people spoke.
"I agree a woman should have the right to abortion on demand at any time during her pregnancy."
"BEFORE my last abortion I was given a 9 page report on my options. . ."
"I have never been in that position, but considering how little thought it takes to f__k, you should put just about that much consideration into aborting, because childbirth ain't some magical thing. It's the result of f__king. If it was so f__king magical, sex would last longer than it does (for many people, heheheh)."
"I feel no regret for the two abortions I have had."
"We need to start enacting some Social Darwinism here. We are the only animals that do not have natural enemies, nor destroy derformed young. And yes, we ARE animals. We ARE primates."
"When I suffered a positive pregnancy test in the summer of 1991, I did not for one second even consider any option except the abortion of the cancerous mass from my body."
"When I refer to a child in that way, it's bratty little bastards with mothers who think they're entitled to some sort of special treatment just because they accomplished a task that I do several times weekly, which is F__K."
"I call children crotch fruit, snot goblins, f__k-trophies, sproglinas, vomit comets, etc., because most of them ARE!"
"This is why I want my uterus ripped out and deposited in the nearest trashcan."
"Yeah, I just LUVS when my body balloons up to Jabba the Hut size, only to s__t out something the size of a watermelon out of an opening the size of a lemon! WHERE DO I SIGN UP!?! There are reasons why I want a tubal ASAP."
"yeah, okay...I get jealous when people get all sorts of special treatment for a bodily function."
This person is comparing pregnancy to bodily functions as well
"Just start rubbing your tummy and loudly say, "Ulcer wants Pepto!!!" Or run potty saying happily, "Butt wants a dumpie!!"
"The baby does not really feel it and its fast! There are enough of us stupidcruel people anyway. We need to stop worrying about us and worry more about animals. I mean look at us taking away their life for cloths, food, beat'n fun and all. They have feelings and feel pain too! So abortion is so good! We dont need more people to come on earth to abuse our fellow earthlings! Its a cruel word out there! Jen. ABORTION RULES BABIES SUCK!"
So, it's okay to kill it when it is at its most vulnerable. Nice.
Monsters, all. That calls to mind another horrible article I read around the same time, from Jane magazine. It was about the abortion pill and how it induced a miscarriage in this woman. She flushed the fetus down the toilet and was "glad to be rid of the alien."
That's a decent definition of viability, but it doesn't have anything to do with personhood or the fact of being a human being. To "choose" viability as the beginning of personhood is a *personal choice,* one which has no validity in science and may be countered by the next person's personal choice. It is no standard.
On the other hand, we have science, which defines the beginning of life at fertilization. We know the species, we know whether or not the cell is alive, and if anyone has the right to protection by the rest of us to ensure that he or she is not to be killed, all members of the species have that right.
Otherwise, we're left with the whims and personal opinions of individuals who can sway the group according to their own prejudices, wants and immediate needs.
There's no justice in using personal or discriminatory definitions or opinions to define who will live and who will die.
Put a two-year-old out in the wild with no human intervention. According to the above statement, a two-year-old is not a human being because it can't keep it's own body alive for any significant length of time without human intervention, right? Conclusion: killing a two-year old is okay, correct? And don't give me the "artificial means" excuse. Either the child is capable of living without "human intervention" or it isn't. Don't impose a bunch of artificial conditions in order to find a loophole for infanticide.
Not only that, what about full term infants who need initial help breathing? I suppose they too don't get "human" status until the oxygen tent comes off--even if it is just moments that they need this. I wonder if people lose their human qualities as well? I mean, do you cease to be human when you go under for a surgery and they use a respirator for breathing while you are under? Hey, heck with just breathing as a qualification--if someone is disabled in some way and can not survive without the extensive assistance of others, perhaps they are not or less human too? IMO, this is a pretty poor way with which to judge if someone is human or not.
What does that mean?
I haven't read this thread...but did anyone else notice that the author didn't say if she looked at the sonogram?..
You know how liberals are always asking, "Do you really think women who "choose" abortion should be jailed and tired for murder?"
The answer is YES!
Innocent blood, wonder if/why she didn't keep the female baby? Those babies didn't have a choice. Can't read this again to see if I missed that.
Selfish is a very kind word to use in describing this female.
Or maybe she is gleefully enjoying that we are writhing in the agony of this horror, just as I'm sure her tiny babies writhed when the needle entered their tiny little beating hearts. I think this is just IN YOUR FACE.
'If I have triplets, I'll do it again. If I have twins, I may or may not keep them.' It's all up to HER. The almighty HER. Cavalier, callous, off-the-cuff--that's CHOICE. This article is simply an obscene gesture to the pro-life movement.
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.