Convenient kill: One baby, two baby, three baby, dead

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.

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.

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.

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.

My pleasure, literally.
You know, I never had much maternal feeling before having kids of my own, and found other people's kids pretty annoying. Grew up in a lib household with Planned Parenthood materials shoved in my hands before I was even dating and had Zero Population Growth member parents. But somehow, it all worked out. Thanks for your comments.

"Have you looked around lately? There ain't a lot of choice."

I know. That is why I choose to stay single and don't date.

Adoption - I was thinking the same thing. This is not about "terminating a pregnancy"; it is undeniably about terminating children's lives, since she did, after all, choose to remain pregnant. Why couldn't she give the "unwanteds" to one or two of the millions of infertile couples out there, who no doubt wanted them terribly? Better to be dead than raised by someone other than the birth mother, I suppose.

As for the lucky little one who escaped her tools of death, he too would have been much better off in a different home - one that wouldn't have to explain having torn apart his siblings while he lay only inches away. Poor kid.

I've talked often to the bride about the scenario of someone offering us a contract fifteen years ago describing the coming events and wanting a signature to proceed. Nobody would sign that deal but it doesn't come all at once. Our life has been a step at a time and so far it hasn't gone too far bad. I swear though that if you take your eye off the ball, bad things can happen.

Kids are still the best investment, IMHO. That 401k is nice, but will it come to your party when you're 80 with the grandkids?

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.