Pro-choice and pro-life, unite

Jewish World Review ^ | August 2, 2004 | Julia Gorin

[SJackson]

Over the past two weeks, decent people who consider themselves pro-choice became intimately acquainted with those heading the movement. To be sure, they didn't know this was whom they were meeting as they read what was to become the most talked-about New York Times Magazine article in years. Neither did the Times, claim editors, who last week admitted to the New York Sun that the protagonist of the recent "Lives" column was a New York Planned Parenthood advocate and consultant to Gloria Steinem--and not the Everyman for whom the space is normally reserved.

But let's go back to our ignorance of a few days ago, when we thought we were just reading about how one woman arrived at the decision to "get rid of" two of her three triplets. Titled "When One is Enough," the essay was about Amy Richards, who had recently gone off the birth control pill. Unsure of how easily or not she would conceive, 34 year-old Amy and her boyfriend of three years, Peter, agreed to "keep the child" if she became pregnant. When the couple found out she was carrying triplets, Amy decided to undergo "selective reduction" and "reduce" the identical pair among the three.

"Shouldn't we consider having triplets?" Peter ventured.

Amy reproached him: "This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life."

It was lost on Amy, a feminist activist who lectures on anti-violence, that it's the woman's choice because Nature thought it had entrusted the delicate task of safeguarding new life with the gentler sex. Nature was wrong.

[rhema]

So why did they kill their twins?

Author Gorin -- and everyone whose conscience hasn't been irreparably seared -- knows the answer:

Because they could. Knowing what we know about Amy today, the woman's detached calculation has a different significance. On one hand, it makes the situation less disturbing, giving us some reassurance that the pro-choice movement hasn't quite damaged women beyond repair, as one might suspect from reading such an account. On the other hand, now that we know the breed of woman setting the movement's paradigm, there is cause for alarm. With her less than contrite confession, Amy Richards exposed, indeed flaunted, the callousness of her movement and lent credence to the assertion that its position is in fact more pro-abortion than pro-choice.

[Search4Truth]

"And yet Amy and Peter made no pretense about knowing in their heart of hearts that the reverse was true. A reader gets the sense that Amy, and Peter especially, knew they were deleting nothing short of their own children. So why did they kill their twins?"

"heart of hearts"?! These are sociopaths. They know nothing but what they want. The world revolves around them and everything in the world is there to serve those desires. They are without conscience.

"A reader gets the sense that Amy, and Peter especially, knew they were deleting nothing short of their own children."

Amy made it clear that it was her decision to make (to kill her twins), not Peters. And that is also the law. So why did Peter have a special knowledge of what they were doing? Is this indicative of the author's agenda?

And what of the misleading title. "Pro-choice and pro-life, unite". Should we expect now to be hearing NOW and Feminists Majority rebuke this woman for what she did? The same organizations who have been fighting tooth-and-nail for the hedious procedure of partial birth abortion?

An honest title of this article would have been, "The Utter Shamelessness of Feminists".

[chs68]

God forgive me for saying what I am about to say.

What I am about to say, I say to make a point.

Amy Richard aborted two of her unborn children because she felt that they would severely restrict her options in terms of the way she wanted to lead her life.

And yet, she will, I hope, continue to let one child develop and eventually leave her womb to take its first gasp of air.

And that child will eventually grow up.

Can you imagine what that child will think of its mother when he or she disvoers that his or her mother killed two of his or her wombmates.

For convenience.

Eventually, Amy Richards will grow old. It is possible that Amy Richards will one day need to be hospitalized.

It would be too bad (but not unexpected) if the son or daugther that Amy Richards now carries in her womb might find Amy's possible hospitalization a real drag on the family's resources.

Having grown up being imbued will all the pro-abortion talking points, the grown-up child of Amy Richards may find caring for her or his own mother to be too difficult -- bacause doing so would mean that Amy's daughter or son would have to change certain things in his or her life.