Killing Two of Your Three Triplets to Keep Your Lifestyle

American Digest ^ | July 18, 2004 | Gerard Van der Leun

[cyborg]

She lives in NYC. I know of at least five wonderful women who would make excellent nannies, myself included. This act is the pinnacle of selfishness.

[snowstorm12]

Well if she is selfish so are women who use all forms of birth control. They are making sure their lifestyle is better than it otherwise would be. It's the same thing.

[luckystarmom]

I know someone who had this done after she underwent invitro and conceived triplets. She had two boys,and wonders if she would have had a girl.

I was pro-abortion before I had kids, and afterwards I became against it.

I have twins, so I know that there are choices to be made in a multiple pregnancy. If you do conceive higher order multiples, you may have to reduce the number of fetuses in order for the others to survive. That would be a very difficult choice. Also, in multiple pregnancy sometimes there is a sick baby that drains everything from the stronger babies. If they keep both babies, they will both die. If they kill one, they may be able to save the other.

Also, I know that higher order multiples can kill the mother.

That said, most of this does not happen with triplets, and I think it is wrong to take a babies life to make it "easier" on the parents.

If there is a medical condition, I wouldn't want to be put in that situation. I'd support parents for whatever choice they made, and I would recognize that it is a difficult choice. I don't even know what I would do in the same situation.

Having twins is hard enough. I had contractions at 13 weeks, and was on complete bedrest in the hospital by 25 weeks. There are also issues with blood pressure, diabetes that just get complicated with a multiple pregnancy. I can't imagine having any more babies than the 2 I had.

[cyborg]

You don't see the difference between using BC to prevent a pregnancy and having abortions?

[proudofthesouth]

Of course, having them and then giving the two (or better yet all three)up for adoption would never have crossed this self-centered B***h's mind.

[proudofthesouth]

Me too.

[snowstorm12]

Well I don't see much of a difference. If the pro-choice people think embryos are the morally equivalent to sperm and egg, then to them there is no difference. Both acts are preventing pregnancy and the results are the same. I think when stem cell research using embryos cures major diseases it will be the final coup de grace and opposition to abortion and embryos experimentation will dwindle over time. That is my prediction.

[proudofthesouth]

This is what I sent her:

I read about you having a "reduction" to get rid of 2 of the 3 of your babies.

As a reformed hard core feminist and pro choicer I hope that you soon come to realize just how stupid and destructive feminism is.

You are also so obviously self centered that you never would have considered to have all three of the children and put them ALL up for adoption. After all, if 3 will disrupt your life, 1 will as well. And you are unfit to be a mother at all.

Consider this. Suppose your own mother had been pregnant with twins but she wanted only 1 child. And you were the one chosen to be "reduced".

You need to be de programmed. Tammy Bruce is all so correct in her books

[Antoninus]

Well if she is selfish so are women who use all forms of birth control. They are making sure their lifestyle is better than it otherwise would be. It's the same thing.

You've accidentally backed into a fundamental truth. You are truly sophomoric, I think.

Teddy Roosevelt on the family and planned barrenhood:

On motherhood as the true source of progress, Teddy Roosevelt said:

"A more supreme instance of unselfishness than is afforded by motherhood cannot be imagined."

Before an audience of liberal Christian theologians in 1911, he said:

"If you do not believe in your own stock enough to see the stock kept up, then you are not good Americans, you are not patriots, and ... I for one shall not mourn your extinction; and in such event I shall welcome the advent of a new race that will take your place, because you wil have shown that you are not fit to cumber the ground."

On the centrality of the child-rich family to the very existence of the American nation:

"It is in the life of the family, upon which in the last analysis the whole welfare of the nation rests....The nation is nothing but the aggregate of the families within its borders."

On parenthood:

"No other success in life, not being President, or being wealthy, or going to college, or anything else, comes up to the success of the man and woman who can feel that they have done their duty and that their children and grandchildren rise up to call them blessed."

On out-of-wedlock birth versus practiced sterility:

"After all, such a vice may be compatible with a nation's continuing to live, and while there is life, even a life marred by wrong practices, there is a chance of reform.

In another place, on the same subject:

"...[W]hile there is life, there is hope, whereas nothing can be done with the dead."

On the behavior of 90% of those who practice birth control:

"[It is derived] from viciousness, coldness, shallow-heartedness, self-indulgence, or mere failure to appreciate aright the difference between the all-important and the unimportant."

On the "pitiable" child-rearing record of graduates of women's colleges like Vassar and Smith who bore only 0.86 of a child each during their lifetimes:

"Do these colleges teach 'domestic science'?... There is something radically wrong with the home training and school training that produces such results."

[Critter]

Maybe it should have been titled When (Killing) One Baby Isn't Enough.

[Palladin]

Condi Rice is pro-abortion? Do you have any reference materials to back this up?

[ClearBlueSky]

I'm with you!
Not humans? NOT HUMANS??
We need ultrasound to prove that fetuses are human?
WHEN in the history of mankind has a human woman ever been pregnant with, or given birth to, anything OTHER than a human baby??
It can't be anything else!

[fortunecookie]

We need ultrasound to prove that fetuses are human? WHEN in the history of mankind has a human woman ever been pregnant with, or given birth to, anything OTHER than a human baby?? It can't be anything else!

Absolutely!! Excellent point. It does seem ludacris to entertain for even a moment that we might have to prove such a thing.

Humans give birth to humans. Simple. That's why their rhetoric and outright lies have to be shouted and forceful, lest 'we' realize the truth and gravity of the situation. It's become a huge industry and the shareholders don't want to lose on their investment. Thankfully, the internet and new technology help more and more people see what should have been obvious all along - they are little humans.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Thanks for the ping. I've been following the story on blogs all day.

One offbeat reaction was by a commenter (at Michel Malkin's blog) who wrote:

This is not the voice of someone who has gone through childbirth! Even some of her details of Dr.'s visits don't sound quite right. Sounds like another NYT fiction meant to stir up political fires. Misdirection, anyone?
--Posted by: Holley at July 18, 2004 04:43 PM

For my part, as you might imagine, I would expect the Amy Richards of the world would not be merely engaging in misdirection. Anti-human elitist's would have no qualms about staging a pretense that they are participating in reducing their own posterity in the hopes that the fools they mislead will actually follow their example.

If I'm right, maybe this is the natural selection aspect of such behavior coming out? For I doubt I'd be the only observer to suggest that the NYTimes would be aping the behavior of that MTV show (?) that suggested stupid ideas in the hopes some jackass would actually perform the stunts on camera. (Anybody know the actual name that show?)

Well, if Holley is right -- and even if she's not -- add the NYTimes as now most certainly the latest venue for outrageously misleading our young.

[wtc911]

What about this deadbeat boyfriend who knocked her up and then refused to marry her and provide a decent living so that she would not have to kill their other two children....

________________________________________________

Where in the story does it read that she wanted to marry him, that he refused her, that he's a deadbeat? You are projecting. It is clear in the story that the decision was hers alone. The weak Peter just caved to what she asserted were her solitary rights.

_______________________________________________

Doesn't it appear that perhaps she would have had the triplets if she had not been worried about providing for them and raising them alone in a five-story walkup apartment?

No. It does appear clear that if having even one of the three impacted her lower east side pseudo-bohemian lifestyle then all three would have enjoyed the potassium chloride hit. To people like her (and NYC has too many of them---almost all transplants from fly-over) a fifth floor walk up on the lower east side is exactly what they want...it supports their self image.

[grellis]

I don't know how to set up links but I found the thread in my history. This woman is hideous. I wonder how happy her child will be when he finds out that she killed his two womb-mates.

[headsonpikes]

At the NYT, you don't have to read the obits to see thanatos celebrated!

[freedumb2003]

If you would just right-click on the post number, then select "Copy shortcut" then pase (ctl-v) into a reply.

Thanks so much if you can do that.

[grellis]

I wish I could help you, please believe me, but you lost me somewhere back at "If." I grow turnips that are more computer savvy than I.

When I get a chance tonight, however, I'll give it a whirl.