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.
You asked, "Is she that greedy than she doesn't want to be "inconvenienced" ...?" Actually, she thinks she's god. She believes, as she has been taught, that SHE has the right to decide who lives and who dies for her convenience. THAT is the true legacy of the liberals and especially the democrat party which stands up to defend the abortion slaughter at every opportunity, and proud of it!
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.