Posted on 06/28/2013 4:48:18 PM PDT by Morgana
Yup, it’s them again. America’s most charming couple is back in the news.
You remember, don’t you? We were introduced back in May when Albert Garland (a pseudonym), published a piece on Babble with the charming sub-headline: “My wife’s expecting twins — and I’m not happy about it.”
Things only went downhill from there.
Well, apparently the reaction to Albert’s piece was less than positive (who knew?), and now his wife has stepped forward to tell her side of the story in a follow-up piece on Babble.
“Mrs. Albert Garland” patiently explains, in their defense, that she and her husband only ordered one child (they got pregnant through IVF), and it’s really, really unfair that they got two. And just to be perfectly clear, they’re really (really) not happy about it!
“The twins are coming fast, and I don’t feel a sense of joy. Instead, I feel responsible. We only wanted one,” she writes. (Did I mention how charming this couple is?)
She goes on to wonder how much “strain” having two more children will place on her marriage and her older son, and explains that “like any family” they have dreams of “going to Disney, college, etc.” and are worried that now they will need a bigger car and a bigger house.
“Now, seven months into my pregnancy — and in therapy — I still feel remorse and am terrified of our future,” she writes. “When I chose to plant both embryos, I made a decision that forever impacted our lives, and not necessarily for the better.” (There’s that charm again.)
To be fair, Mrs. Garland does paint a picture of a very difficult pregnancy. Carrying twins is a very challenging thing for any mother, and it would take a very remarkable woman not to sometimes get down and a little discouraged during the process. Add onto that the fact that the couple’s first son had colic, and you can begin to understand why the couple may feel daunted at the prospect of twins.
But what this doesn't excuse is the choice to pen, and then publish in the public forum, a pair of such ridiculous articles. In the trials of their pregnancy, Mr. and Mrs. Garland may be excused for seeking pity and support - but it should be the pity and the support of each other, and of their close family and friends. What they hope to accomplish by airing their purile grievances for the world is unclear, except to re-affirm all of the most pernicious fallacies about parenthood that are currently so popular.
Indeed, what is so fascinating about this story is that it illustrates, in a nutshell, how just about everything that the modern world teaches us about parenthood, pregnancy and childbirth - all that stuff about “control” and “choice” and “responsible parenthood” and “self-realization” – is absolute rubbish, and, rather than making us free and happy (as promised), leads only to misery and a truly breathtaking narcissism.
The Garlands have clearly bought hook-line-and-sinker into these lies. They believed (because that’s what they were told) that they could have had absolute control over their reproduction. They thought they could put in an order for a baby, and have it delivered neatly wrapped with a bow on top. They thought they could have exactly what they envisioned as the "perfect" family.
But that's not how it works. When you get married, when you have sex, when you open yourself up to the possibility of children, you are opening up a Pandora's box. You are opening yourself up to life. And life is not within our control. It is way bigger and more mysterious than we are. Get all the scientists and screening technologies involved that you want. It doesn't matter. The only proper approach to parenthood is to simply open your heart and accept whatever comes as a gratuitious gift from God.
To become a parent is inherently to stretch ourselves. And if we sit back and allow ourselves to be stretched, we will find that our hearts are bigger than we ever knew. But if we hold on to our hearts, and say that they will stretch this much and no more, we only cause ourselves pain. And we will sink into self-pity.
The main difference between the Garlands and millions of other couples around the globe in similar circumstances, is that when the Garlands found out that they were getting something that they didn’t order, they found that they couldn’t stomach the notion of aborting their unwanted child. This is to their credit.
Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!
But this is exactly where all this talk of “control” has brought us – to more than 50 million aborted babies in the United States alone. To some 50 million heartbroken, spiritually scarred, empty-armed mothers and fathers, who believed that they could have their cake and eat it too, and who chose murder when that didn’t turn out to be true.
Love does not seek to control. Love opens its arms and embraces. Love finds a way. By treating our children as a commodity to be bought and sold, when, where, and however we wish, we have closed our hearts to the spontaneity of love.
If the Garlands would simply let go of that illusion of control, which has been hammered into them by the contraceptive, pro-abortion, “planned parenthood,” self-oriented culture, they would find the freedom to embrace their circumstances, to come out of themselves, and to find hope even in their most difficult moments.
They would see that going to Disneyland is not an important part of being a family; that you don’t need a large house to love three children; that while pregnancy is difficult, it is a difficulty with immense rewards; and that all of the hardships of parenthood oriented towards one of the greatest things any human being can ever do – bring new life into the world.
This doesn't mean that pregnancy won't be hard. That having twins won't be hard. But what it does mean is that even within the hardships, they will find their happiness and their joy.
The most hopeful part of the Mrs. Garland's article is the last line: "For anyone who is worried about me and my husband, our son brings us a ton of joy. We are always amazed by how much we love him, and I’m sure this indescribable love will extend to his brothers. But for now, I’m having trouble seeing the light at the end of the tunnel."
In the midst of challenges and uncertainty and suffering it can be hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel. But fortunately for the Garlands, because they a sufficient moral sense to rejected the possibliity of abortion, they will be given the opportunity to see that light - to welcome their two children, and to learn how to love them as the treasures that they undoubtedly are.
And hopefully whenever (if ever) they unintentionally become pregant again, they will have learned their lesson, and won't write any more such ridiculous articles for ridiculous publications.
I always hoped for twins when I got preg. Which was every year it seemed....6 children in 7 1/2 years....After my first one, the doctor told me I shouldn’t have any more. There was a blood incompability with blood types. Was told a second one might not survive....he’s in his 50’s now and had 3 more after than. My sixth child did die 10 hours after birth with multiple birth defects....My daughter, the last one keeps telling me thanks mom...5 children and 13 grandchilden. Wouldn’t change things for anything, but if there is such a thing as reincarnation, I will be coming back sterile...;o)
Wouldn’t you like to just tell this stupid spoiled witch to her face that she’s a stupid, spoiled witch? And then slap her to make sure she gets the point?
Very succinct! The version I heard was "If you want to hear G-d laugh, tell Him your plans for the future."
Implantation rate is perhaps 25%. So if they had 4 embryos introduced into the womb, then the expected number of implanted embryos would be 1, but the statistics would be
a 1x(1/4)^4 x (3/4)^0 =0.004 chance of 4 embryos implanting or
a 4 x(1/4)^3 x (3/4)^1 = 0.0469 chance of 3 embryos implanting or
a 6 x(1/4)^2 x (3/4)^2 = 0.422 chance of 2 embryos implanting or
a 4 x(1/4)^1 x (3/4)^3 = 0.422 chance of 1 implanting or
a 1 x(1/4)^0 x (3/4)^4 = 0.100 chance of zero embryos implanting
Rounded to three significant digits. This suggests they had an equal chance of one or two children, (both about 42%) with a 5% chance for 3 and less than 1% chance of 4.
I remember this story, hated it then and hate it even more now.
I prayed for twins because they run in my family but alas was only blessed with single babies!!
I seem to recall back in the 90’s reading articles about couples who I thought were “yuppies”. These couples celebrated the fact they were “childfree” instead of “childless”. Basically both worked at nice jobs, vacationed at nice spas, and spent all their money on themselves. Which from I read in the article is how they wanted it. The couples in that article were not as stuck up as the Garlands’ in that at least they pre-planned what they wanted and did not get pregnant then complain about it.
When having babies was the natural outcome of marriage, you just got on with it, did the work, loved your babies. Now everything is supposed to be under control.
One thing that’s interesting is that we have to assume these people believed that readers would sympathize with their “problem.” It appears that’s not the case, though, even at the site where they wrote.
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.