Posted on 07/21/2004 3:35:25 PM PDT by rhema
Ever since studying philosophy in college, very few ethical choices related to children shock me. How could they with Princeton University Prof. Peter Singer’s advocacy of post-birth infanticide gaining a stronghold in many university philosophy departments? Today, the previously unthinkable is humdrum.
But not always.
In Sunday’s New York Times, 34-year-old mother Amy Barrett published an article that truly is shocking, "When One is Enough." As she tells the story, when faced with an unexpected pregnancy, Barrett and her boyfriend were terrified to find out she had conceived triplets—identical twins and a stand-alone. The solution? Nuke the twins and keep the other.
Singer or not, I was shocked. Should I have been?
Barrett grew up without a father, therefore believing dads to be little more than “economic” and “societal” insurance. As she put it, “I have never missed not having him.” Always figuring she’d get knocked-up at 16 in the back of a pick-up, she apparently had a low view of fatherhood. More of a donor role, I’d say. So naturally, her boyfriend Peter got little say in the silly little matter of “choice.” When she shouted for “selective reduction” he asked if they should consider going ahead and having triplets. Her shrewd reply was, "This is why they say it’s the woman’s choice. … That’s easy for you to say, but I’d have to give up my life.” Peter even had to leave the abortion room during the procedure.
Barrett was pretty ticked about the inconveniences of a quiver of three. She loved her East Village home, her ability to travel, and her time to lecture and work freelance. Not to mention she’d have to go on bed rest during an inconvenient time in her life. The worst part for Barrett? She might have to move to Staten Island. Role-playing the triplet-worst she said, “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.” (I hate big jars of mayo, too.) After all, homemaking is so Leave it to Beaver and Talibanish. If she stayed at home, who would hear her roar?
Barrett asked the obstetrician, “Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?” According to Early Pregnancy.org, yes. They call it “multifetal pregnancy reduction,” which is a fairly simple procedure with several possible options for “elimination” during the pregnancy. EP says, “The most common method of reduction is the transabdominal injection of potassium chloride into the fetal cardiac region, usually performed at or after the ninth week of gestation.” In other words, stick a needle full of chemicals into the heart of an unborn child, pump it full of potassium, and watch that baby quit ticking.
I guess the bumper stickers aren’t all sloganeering: Abortions do stop a beating heart.
And that is exactly what Barrett did to her twins. Since it was “psychologically comforting” to have the stand-alone baby because she “wanted to have just one,” she simply eliminated the twins. There were three heartbeats, she said, and they made two disappear with the help of a needle and a little potassium chloride.
The end result? “I had a boy and everything is fine.”
One daily radio talk show host insightfully wondered if Barrett would someday tell her son that she killed his siblings. How could he respond to that? And what if he grows up to be a father someday? Will she tell him he’ll be little more than economic and societal “security”? An optional add-on to the family structure?
“I would do the same thing if I had triplets again,” Barrett boasts, “but if I had twins, I would probably have twins. Then again, I don’t know.”
Too bad gestating children can't pick their wombs—Barrett's isn't a very safe place.
Good reason not to sleep around before you know you can provide for whatever amount of children results, I'd think.
I read this article the other day and couldn't help but think that people like her are proof that the human species is de-evolving back to our slurging, cromagnon recesses of mental iniquity, barbartic yawping and beliving WWF wrestling isn't staged.
The boyfriend wasn't terrified. He didn't want the babies aborted and he had no say. This cold hearted bitch aborted them out of fear of living next to the little people.
Madatory abortion = sterilization
Tie the woman down, cut out her tubes. She doesn't deserve to have another baby.
By the way, the daily radio host he referred to was Dr. Laura.
I have a girlfriend who is and OB who told me in horror about a collegue of hers who aborted his own child when his wife was carrying triplets.
Obviously a husband is also an inconveniance. I suggest he ditch the child murderer. I guess it never occurred to her to put the kids up for adoption?
3000 Dead babies everyday.
But she would have had to have carried the three babies for a whole nine months. Why, a good portion of those could have had her on bed rest! And during the peak indoctrination season, too, so she'd have to take time off work. Not an exact quote, but she said something to the effect of while she could have made it work, financially, she just didn't want to. How can a rational person possibly argue with selfishness like that?
I got angrier and angrier as I read this, especially at the whole cavalier attitude of this "mother." The only thing keeping me from hitting the ceiling is my 4-year-old who is beside me on a music keyboard, playing a piece she calls, "The I love You song."
This 4-year-old is my 6th child, who came at a most inconvenient time, and though I was 41, I didn't even consider "getting rid of" her.
Nearly every reason people give to kill their unborns, I could give for one or another of my children, but they are all loved and wanted. Why do some people find it hard to believe that kids are a little more important than small jars of mayonnaise?
How can a rational person (i.e. a man) possibly stay with someone like that?
?? Say it ain't so!!
This witch needs a good freeping!!!!!
"This cold hearted bitch aborted them out of fear of living next to the little people."
Yes, she really was a "murderous bitch" as another freeper put it when the Times article was first posted.
I feel for the poor child she "chose" to let live and also the boyfriend whose children have been murdered. She's got to be some piece of work to have this piece printed in the NY Times, rather better reserved for a private diary I'd think.
If she'd keep twins, why not eliminate one of the twins (clones, probably, to her mind) and keep the single and one twin. Why not keep all three and post them for adoption. Is she that greedy than she doesn't want to be "inconvenienced" (or share) but *wait* she decided to have *ONE* child? I think she had that one only to use it as an economic weapon over the boyfriend. Besides, it's hip to have *A* child, only the "little people" have litters.
I pity him. He obviously didn't want to lose any of his children but the law offered him no power. And, sadly, WOMEN like this will decide this election and future elections.
I mentioned this article to another female physician in my clinic. She told me she read it and was bothered by it BUT, She is pro-choice. (which I knew). She felt that this lady probably felt guilty about something. Oh ho-hum.
When children, um, a child is involved and you didn't want any of them murdered you'll probably stick around to make sure it doesn't turn out 3 for 3. Wouldn't you say?
I don't know what I would do in his place ... but it might not be very pretty.
A man has no reproductive rights that a woman is bound to respect, in or out of marriage, for wanting the baby or not wanting the baby. (babies)
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.