Posted on 07/23/2004 2:02:07 AM PDT by beaversmom
New York Times unwittingly gives the pro-life movement new life.
So now we know the lowest level of feminist hell, and there, in the white-hot center, stands the Costco.
This was a surprise to everyone who believed Wal-Mart to be the apex of retail evil, but villains are easily replaced and we have a new one in Costco, thanks to the musings of Amy Richards in the New York Times Magazine. Richards, of course, is the freelance writer who unwittingly deflated the "pro-choice" movement Sunday with her cheerful account of how she decided, upon hearing she was pregnant with triplets, to dispose of one or two of them.
Unmarried, and possessed of a "five-story walk-up in East Village," Richards considered the trauma of triplets for, oh, possibly 30 or 40 seconds, before asking her doctor what could be done about the problem at hand. This was, she said, her "immediate reaction."
Unfortunately for two of the babies she was carrying, it was Richards's delayed reaction, as well, and it intensified as she spent a day contemplating a life of "shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise."
Upon reading this line, I immediately e-mailed the essay to a friend who shops at Costco and who can occasionally be prevailed upon to buy me a big bag of teriyaki chicken breasts for only $12. I'd love a Costco membership, but I am fundamentally opposed to stores that make me pay for the privilege of shopping there, and I don't want to spend the money. (That $45 membership fee can buy a lot of under-the-table chicken breasts.) Richards would shudder to learn that there's an even lower level of domestic hell — women who want to shop at Costco but can't afford it. If she'd known of us, she would have aborted all three, I suppose, and immediately gotten back on the pill.
So I send the story to Laura with the note, "Just so you know.... There are people who find our lives repulsive." She's a conservative, a Mormon, and I knew she'd be offended. But as the day wore on, and the essay made its way across the Internet and approached "most e-mailed" status, a curious thing happened: No one I knew, conservative or liberal, came down on Richards's side.
The pro-lifers, of course, turned purple and required emergency-room care. This was to be expected. But the fence-sitters — the squishy middle that see nothing wrong with lifestyle abortions up until 12 weeks or so, but get more uncomfortable the bigger the baby gets — reported feeling "sick" after reading Richards's story. Even strident pro-choicers were uncomfortable with the decision she'd made. A pro-abortion friend who works in the newsroom of a major metropolitan daily sent the piece to a handful of her liberal co-workers and, to a woman, they were "appalled" by it.
The essay reads like a parody published by The Onion or the Christian equivalent, The Door. It's what I would have written in college had someone assigned me an 800-word parody that exposes the shallow and the callow of the thirty-something population today.
"I'd have to give up my life!" Richards exclaims to her boyfriend and father of the triplets, who, to his credit, appeared a bit uneasy about the swiftness and ease of her decision. (Presumably, they never married, even after their son was born; Richards never refers to him as anything other than a boyfriend.) "I'll never leave my house because I have to care for these children!" she laments. "I'm going to have to move to Staten Island!"
Yeah, Amy, and honey? I would have told you — although you have probably figured it out by now — you're also going to have to — horrors! — wake up...unwillingly...during the night! And — brace yourself — you're going to have to remove anything breakable and/or poisonous within a toddler's reach! You will have to install child-safety locks! Put a car seat in the Corvette! Pretend to be interested in water Pokemon! You will be sneezed on, and bled on, and thrown-up on...the indignities know no bounds.
Worst of all, you will occasionally — maybe even frequently — catch a cold or even strep throat from that ungrateful little monster in your care. Children are parasites, really, from the moment they attach to your uterus and suck your nutrients away, and if you're lucky, this will continue for only 18 years and nine months, but usually it's much longer than this.
Some years ago, The New Yorker published a satirical piece entitled "Shiftless Little Loafers," in which the writer complained about how children do nothing but take and contribute nothing to better the world. One wonders if Richards read it and took it seriously.
You read her litany of complaints about How Motherhood Will Ruin My Life, and you want to shake her, and say, "But why? Why? Why are you getting yourself pregnant when it's clear that you are not prepared to make any sacrifices for them?" Richards seems typical of the woman who is determined to Have It All, even when she doesn't really want it all. She wants the Hallmark moments...the "experience" of having a child, which, in this Costco-is-the-enemy worldview, is just one more thing on the Cosmo checklist of things to do before you're 40. (Have a one-night stand with someone you met on an airplane! Buy a canoe! Learn another language! Have a child! But just one! Any more will ruin your figure!)
Richards doesn't say how old her son is, but assuming this account is recent, I'm figuring he's either a newborn, or about a year old. As the sole caregiver for an almost-two-year-old (and her three older siblings), I'd love to think that she's already regretting her decision, but I know the opposite is true. Each night she is awakened by a cry, every interruption in her workday, every dollar drained from her checking account for diapers or formula, she is telling herself, "What if it had been three? I couldn't have done it. I did the right thing."
But she didn't, of course. She did the easy thing. And she can tell herself for the rest of her life, that it was the right decision for her...after all, abortion is all about choice, isn't it? And you know, it probably was the right decision...for her.
But 20 or 30 years from now, when her adult son comes to her and asks — as he surely will one day — why she aborted his siblings, I wish I could be a fly on the wall. Because it may have been her children, her "choice," but in making it, she aborted her son's brothers or sisters. And some day, he, too, may believe in "fetal reduction"; after all, children tend to assume the morality, or lack thereof, of their parents. But, it also could be that, given a choice, he would have preferred to have had a couple of brothers or a sister, than the smallest jar of mayonnaise on the block, purchased at D'Agostino. Even if his mother was stressed.
— Jennifer Nicholson Graham, an NRO contributor, is a writer in Virginia. Here website is www.jennifergraham.com
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/apr/july173.html
Amy Richards Is The Poster Child For The Democratic Party
By Sher Zieve
July 19, 2004
Amy Richards may be the new poster child for the Democrat party. How proud the democrats must be, today, knowing that Roe v. Wade has been taken to the next step in its inevitable (dare I say it?) “evolution”. Liberals love that word. For those who haven’t read the story, the following is a synopsis.
Amy Richards (Ms. Richards) lives with her boyfriend Peter. Ms. Peters said that she was “tired of being on the pill” and, after discussing it with Peter (how wonderfully responsible of her), came to the decision that, should she become pregnant, they would keep the child. Wait! They would actually keep the child? Although this doesn’t sound terribly liberal…just wait…there’s more. She and Peter joyfully became pregnant. But, it was only after Amy visited her obstetrician that her joy began to fade. Ms. Richards was going to have triplets.
Ms Richards said (in an interview with Amy Barrett): “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.”
So, with just a shot of potassium chloride, the heartbeats of two of the babies would be stopped forever. No problem for Ms. Richards and, when she found out that two of the babies were twins and one was “stand-alone”, she was relieved. That made her decision easier. She would just kill the twins! Besides, the “doctors” even have a term for it. It’s called “Selective Reduction”. As long as there’s a medical term, that makes it all right! Besides, after the “procedure” was completed, she didn’t feel sick anymore. That’s the most important thing. So, she knew everything was okay and, subsequently, did give birth to a baby boy. Ms. Richards, again, commented: “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.” Poor thing. She “doesn’t know”. But. Then, that’s the liberal mindset…they really don’t know.
Yes. Amy Richards is, indeed, the poster child of the liberals and leftists. But, now that this story has gotten so much play, there will surely be others. Life no longer means much to them; particularly if its inconvenient or makes you feel sick. Having morning sickness isn’t even close to the “pursuit of happiness” is it? I wonder if Ms. Richards will be one of the speakers at the upcoming Democrat Convention. If so, John Kerry could proudly introduce her as one of his own.
My son and his wife have triplets, Noah, Hunter & Brooke, I can't even imagine one of them not being around, and I thank God that my daughter in law did not have a warped mind like this person, I just love my grandchildren, all three of them at the same time.
The NRO piece was the first that I'd heard of the specifics of the story, and as I was reading this part, I was nodding in agreement.
After looking it up on FR, I looked for reaction elsewhere. I soon came upon a discussion on an unfamiliar site. I naturally read the first entry (extremely angry and sad) and then went to the comments.
And I thought I was appalled when I read about the story.
I found scattered in the replies a gallery of the usual "defenses": "maybe it's sad, but I Can't Judge Her because I Don't Know What It's Like To Walk in Her Shoes" (IOW, "I don't know how it feels to do so, so maybe it wasn't so bad to kill them"), "You Sad People Are All Hypocrites! because You Don't Fully Fund Families!" (IOW, "so maybe we should kill them"), and even (BARF!) "Children Use X Amount of Commodities, so in the long run, this is a Good Thing because we're saving The Environment!" (IOW, so now it's a moral obligation or something).
Add to that "Maybe we should look more at what's going on in our streets!" (well, I say why not--but don't you dare use barbarity on the streets to try to distract from the barbarity here) and the typical "You're a Man! so you don't know what a woman should do!" crap (well, you don't know how, um, offensive this story is to me, so maybe you shouldn't tell me what to say).
So even though there was quite a bit from the other side too, I still felt as if I had to go wash my soul out.
Added to all this was someone's reaction that maybe this is a good thing because here's a woman Bravely Standing Up and saying that she had an abortion (well, two, but who's counting?). Well, if Amy Richards wants to make this an example of standing up for what's wrong, well, be my guest, if Jennifer Graham's acquaintances are any guide.
Perhaps there are some out there who think that we shouldn't identify every one of the millions of "choices" with this particularly egregious example. But really, I must agree with some of the other commenters there: when we get past the reprehensible picking part, I don't see why this is that much worse than any other two of your typical "choice"-based abortions. I don't see how someone can approve of "choice" in the abstract and even individual "lifestyle" abortions in the particular but retches on reading this story, except in the process of awakening to exactly what such "choice" entails. If you approve of one convenience-based abortion, what's two, or two out of three, but just so much extra tissue to get out of the way? Similarly, I don't see how you can be outraged at aborting two out of three if you can't get riled up at all by aborting one out of one. After all, if it's just a "woman's choice," why can't she just choose this as well?
My hope is that at least some people realize that and instead choose life, that they and their children may actually live.
The article has had the opposite reaction as it was intended. The NY Times must be kicking themselves for running it.
This tells us why it is so easy for socialists to justify the murder of tens of millions of people in Europe, Russia, China, Cambodia....
Did you see the original thread?? post 5 links to it I think,
Posted here also http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1174241/posts
Yes, they don't even care about the littliest most vulnerable amongst us. If it's inconvenient, destroy it. If it's not perfect, destroy it. If it's too old, destroy it. If it's too sick, destroy it. But remember, the leftists are the ones that care. We conservatives are the mean ones.
Check out the One woman, One vote article I just posted that was co-authored by the lovely, kind liberal named Mizz Amy Richards.
I already did =o)
"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!"
It's not any worse. I don't have any stats but most abortions are about convenience and selfishness. It's called pro-choice but it's really pro-me. Amy Richards just had the guts or foolhardiness to spell it out for all the world to read. Maybe we should thank her. Not for the horrible act she did to her children including the damage she did to the one she let live, but for letting many see how cavalier and selfish the reasons are.
"The NY Times must be kicking themselves for running it."
And that is the one truly enjoyable part of this whole sorry tale. First Jayson Blair lies, now Amy Richardson tells the truth, and the Times looks bad no matter what. Gee, it couldn't happen to a more deserving group.
Just remember...this woman will have her judgement day and she won't think it was such a good idea to murder two of her babies then.
Congratulations to your son, daughter-in-law and their love of family...all three of them! :) God bless them and you...their loving grandma. :)
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.