Subject: "Heartless article in New York Times Magazine" First topic | Last topic
InnaG
Sun Jul-18-04 08:36 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
119 posts
#34913, "Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
Sun Jul-18-04 08:58 PM
I read this article called "When One Is Enough" "http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/magazine/18LIVES.html yesterday in New York Times Magazine and cannot get it out of my mind.
I am pro-choice and when I got pregnant I was considering a selective reduction. It was an agonizing process, and, ultimately, we could not go through it.
I just cannot get over the fact how easily and matter of factly the author made a decision to go through with reduction; and how "threat" of buying big jars of mayonnase in Costco was used as a reason for it.
If not for all my worries of the day ( see my other post ), I would have written a letter to the Magazine. Maybe I'll still do tomorrow...
EDITED: I posted the text of the article in the reply to this thread, so you do not have to register if you want to read it.
Inna,
mom to Rachael (8/7/99),
Evan, Ari and Josh (5/29/01)
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Replies to this topic
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, LisaM817, Jul 18th 2004, #1
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, mw, Jul 18th 2004, #2
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, tulip, Jul 18th 2004, #3
The text of article, InnaG, Jul 18th 2004, #4
I was right, tulip, Jul 18th 2004, #7
RE: The text of article, Rookie, Jul 19th 2004, #10
RE: The text of article, SquicciTrips, Jul 19th 2004, #15
RE: The text of article, hanerhah, Jul 19th 2004, #18
RE: The text of article, Heavensentme5, Jul 19th 2004, #29
RE: The text of article, ewicka22, Jul 19th 2004, #44
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Tasha, Jul 18th 2004, #5
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, InnaG, Jul 18th 2004, #6
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, jody_mom, Jul 18th 2004, #8
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, sixqdrdrs, Jul 18th 2004, #9
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Laurie14, Jul 19th 2004, #11
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, TylersMom, Jul 19th 2004, #12
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, jenanddarol, Jul 19th 2004, #13
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, gracy3, Jul 19th 2004, #14
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, PAML, Jul 19th 2004, #16
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, psalm127_3, Jul 19th 2004, #47
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, MXer, Jul 19th 2004, #17
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, hanerhah, Jul 19th 2004, #19
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Misty Lee, Jul 19th 2004, #35
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, FLTripletMom, Jul 19th 2004, #20
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, psalm127_3, Jul 19th 2004, #48
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, jody_mom, Jul 20th 2004, #55
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Mommyofsix, Jul 19th 2004, #21
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, jen31, Jul 19th 2004, #22
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, wendi, Jul 19th 2004, #23
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, safeathome, Jul 19th 2004, #24
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, tlyman, Jul 19th 2004, #25
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Karens5girls, Jul 19th 2004, #26
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Plymrocker, Jul 19th 2004, #27
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, 3meeces, Jul 19th 2004, #28
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, phxmom, Jul 19th 2004, #30
RE: Sorry to say..., Tonka, Jul 19th 2004, #49
RE: Sorry to say..., 3meeces, Jul 20th 2004, #54
RE: Sorry to say..., Plymrocker, Jul 20th 2004, #57
RE: Sorry to say..., trpsn1, Jul 20th 2004, #59
RE: Sorry to say..., Misty Lee, Jul 20th 2004, #61
RE: Sorry to say..., Plymrocker, Jul 20th 2004, #63
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Paula, Jul 20th 2004, #56
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Plymrocker, Jul 20th 2004, #58
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, jody_mom, Jul 20th 2004, #62
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Plymrocker, Jul 20th 2004, #64
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, jody_mom, Jul 20th 2004, #67
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Sammy_N, Jul 21st 2004, #68
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, trpsn1, Jul 16th 2005, #84
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Plymrocker, Jul 21st 2004, #73
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, trpsn1, Jul 21st 2004, #74
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Sammy_N, Jul 21st 2004, #75
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, trpsn1, Jul 21st 2004, #76
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Sammy_N, Jul 21st 2004, #77
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Triplet Mommy, Jul 21st 2004, #78
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Tasha, Jul 20th 2004, #66
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, gracy3, Jul 21st 2004, #70
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, splangysmom, Jul 19th 2004, #31
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, K8tina, Jul 19th 2004, #32
Dr. Laura Speaks, steadman6pack, Jul 19th 2004, #33
RE: Dr. Laura Speaks, InnaG, Jul 19th 2004, #34
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Hennetrips, Jul 19th 2004, #36
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, 2 boys 1 girl, Jul 19th 2004, #41
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, nc_trips, Jul 19th 2004, #37
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, TylersMom, Jul 19th 2004, #38
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, K8tina, Jul 19th 2004, #39
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, AmbroseGusChris, Jul 19th 2004, #40
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, tulip, Jul 19th 2004, #42
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Misty Lee, Jul 19th 2004, #43
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, AmbroseGusChris, Jul 19th 2004, #46
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Misty Lee, Jul 20th 2004, #60
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Catw3kittens, Jul 21st 2004, #69
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Jwhite, Jul 20th 2004, #53
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Mama_Of_Many, Jul 22nd 2004, #82
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, my4beauties, Jul 19th 2004, #45
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Erikall, Jul 19th 2004, #50
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Catw3kittens, Jul 19th 2004, #51
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, starrynyt, Jul 20th 2004, #52
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, mom2four, Jul 20th 2004, #65
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, JenniferP, Jul 21st 2004, #71
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Misty Lee, Jul 21st 2004, #72
Jennifer-WELL SAID!, Karens5girls, Jul 21st 2004, #79
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Sammy_N, Jul 22nd 2004, #81
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, BeatriceCasey, Jul 22nd 2004, #80
RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine, Mama_Of_Many, Jul 22nd 2004, #83
LisaM817
Sun Jul-18-04 08:43 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
1351 posts
#34914, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
The article is horrible. I, too, am pro choice. However, the woman so flippantly describes what should be a terribly painful decision. I am not sure if the article has a purpose. However, I truly hope this woman is a better mother than the article makes her sound.
Lisa
Mom to Aidan, Christian, and Rachel (10.03.01 @ 36wks)
Lisa
Mom to Aidan, Christian, and Rachel (10.03.01 @ 36wks)
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
mw
Sun Jul-18-04 08:49 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
2790 posts
#34915, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
This article makes me sick to my stomach. I sit here hoping it's fake story trying to make some point...and thinking of my precious baby that I did NOT CHOOSE to lose.
Marie
Marie
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
tulip
Sun Jul-18-04 08:51 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
6083 posts
#34916, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
I cannot access the article (and do not choose to register), but being against abortion I can predict what my reaction would be if the excuse of not wanting to buy large jars of mayonnaise was mentioned. So that's what a human life can be valued at these days? The price of a jar of mayonnaise? Or the changed social status projected at having to put a big jar of mayonnaise in one's cart?
The casual manner in which SOME people (like the author of that article?) choose abortion literally makes me break down and cry my heart out. I am in no way judging anyone here who has considered SR, or who went through with it, because I'm sure you agonized over the subject. But there are other people I've come across in my life who just make me sick.
Tulip & The Three Amigos
Born at 35w5d on December 31, 2002 - Happy New Year's Eve!!!
YES! You *can* breastfeed triplets!!!
http://www.tripletconnection.org/dcforum/forum1/14349.html
Tulip & The Three Amigos
GBG born at 35w5d on December 31, 2002 - Happy New Year's Eve!!!
YES! You *can* breastfeed triplets!!!
I am a Velveteen Rabbit, and the birth, love, kisses & magic that are my children has made me Real.
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
InnaG
Sun Jul-18-04 08:56 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
119 posts
#34917, "The text of article"
In response to Reply # 0
I did not realize you need to register to access it (since I was logged in). Here is the text I copied and pasted.
When One Is Enough
By AMY RICHARDS as told to AMY BARRETT
Published: July 18, 2004
grew up in a working-class family in Pennsylvania not knowing my father. I have never missed not having him. I firmly believe that, but for much of my life I felt that what I probably would have gained was economic security and with that societal security. Growing up with a single mother, I was always buying into the myth that I was going to be seduced in the back of a pickup truck and become pregnant when I was 16. I had friends when I was in school who were helping to rear nieces and nephews, because their siblings, who were not much older, were having babies. I had friends from all over the class spectrum: I saw the nieces and nephews on the one hand and country-club memberships and station wagons on the other. I felt I was in the middle. I had this fear: What would it take for me to just slip?
Now I'm 34. My boyfriend, Peter, and I have been together three years. I'm old enough to presume that I wasn't going to have an easy time becoming pregnant. I was tired of being on the pill, because it made me moody. Before I went off it, Peter and I talked about what would happen if I became pregnant, and we both agreed that we would have the child.
I found out I was having triplets when I went to my obstetrician. The doctor had just finished telling me I was going to have a low-risk pregnancy. She turned on the sonogram machine. There was a long pause, then she said, ''Are you sure you didn't take fertility drugs?'' I said, ''I'm positive.'' Peter and I were very shocked when she said there were three. ''You know, this changes everything,'' she said. ''You'll have to see a specialist.''
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.
Having felt physically fine up to this point, I got on the subway afterward, and all of a sudden, I felt ill. I didn't want to eat anything. What I was going through seemed like a very unnatural experience. On the subway, Peter asked, ''Shouldn't we consider having triplets?'' And I had this adverse reaction: ''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.'' Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn't be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It's not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I'm going to have to move to Staten Island. 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. Even in my moments of thinking about having three, I don't think that deep down I was ever considering it.
The specialist called me back at 10 p.m. I had just finished watching a Boston Pops concert at Symphony Hall. As everybody burst into applause, I watched my cellphone vibrating, grabbed it and ran into the lobby. He told me that he does a detailed sonogram before doing a selective reduction to see if one fetus appears to be struggling. The procedure involves a shot of potassium chloride to the heart of the fetus. There are a lot more complications when a woman carries multiples. And so, from the doctor's perspective, it's a matter of trying to save the woman this trauma. After I talked to the specialist, I told Peter, ''That's what I'm going to do.'' He replied, ''What we're going to do.'' He respected what I was going through, but at a certain point, he felt that this was a decision we were making. I agreed.
When we saw the specialist, we found out that I was carrying identical twins and a stand alone. My doctors thought the stand alone was three days older. There was something psychologically comforting about that, since I wanted to have just one. Before the procedure, I was focused on relaxing. But Peter was staring at the sonogram screen thinking: Oh, my gosh, there are three heartbeats. I can't believe we're about to make two disappear. The doctor came in, and then Peter was asked to leave. I said, ''Can Peter stay?'' The doctor said no. I know Peter was offended by that.
Two days after the procedure, smells no longer set me off and I no longer wanted to eat nothing but sour-apple gum. I went on to have a pretty seamless pregnancy. But I had a recurring feeling that this was going to come back and haunt me. Was I going to have a stillbirth or miscarry late in my pregnancy?
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.
Inna,
mom to Rachael (8/7/99),
Evan, Ari and Josh (5/29/01)
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
tulip
Sun Jul-18-04 09:46 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
6083 posts
#34918, "I was right"
In response to Reply # 4
This woman makes me sick. She should LEARN SOMETHING FROM THIS EXPERIENCE!!!! If she's so friggin' scared of getting pregnant again, then for everyone's sake she should either go back on the pill, or get her tubes tied! OMG, what is wrong with her??? She shouldn't even be talking about "if" she gets pregnant again. Getting pregnant again should not be an option for her, and being pro-choice should mandate that you exercise your "choice" completely and BE RESPONSIBLE. Don't have sex if you can't risk getting pregnant. Period. If you want to have sex, then do everything within your power NOT to get pregnant! It's not like she's a young-n-dumb teenager who is so clueless as to not know how people get pregnant, right?
She's so obviously in love with her perfect life, she really needs to take control of it and make sure she doesn't get pregnant again. One of her reasons for deciding to have the SR was because she wasn't married. And yet she is still choosing to go off birth control and have a child if something happens? If she had been married would her decision have been different?
And if you ask me, that poor "Peter" got screwed (pun intended). It really sounded like he wanted his babies to live.
And what's wrong with triplets, anyway? It's just SO sad that people view triplets as The End Of All Things.
"Heartless" was a good way to title your thread.
Tulip & The Three Amigos
Born at 35w5d on December 31, 2002 - Happy New Year's Eve!!!
YES! You *can* breastfeed triplets!!!
http://www.tripletconnection.org/dcforum/forum1/14349.html
Tulip & The Three Amigos
GBG born at 35w5d on December 31, 2002 - Happy New Year's Eve!!!
YES! You *can* breastfeed triplets!!!
I am a Velveteen Rabbit, and the birth, love, kisses & magic that are my children has made me Real.
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Rookie
Mon Jul-19-04 02:55 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
259 posts
#34919, "RE: The text of article"
In response to Reply # 4
"There are a lot more complications when a
woman carries multiples. And so, from the doctor's
perspective, it's a matter of trying to save the woman this
trauma."
Boy oh Boy - I am glad beyond words that my doctor didn't try to 'save me' from the trauma of triplets. They are they love of my life. Challenging? Yes! Rewarding? ABSOLUTELY!!!!
Sonya
Quinton 6/96
Alexander 4/04
Lucas 4/04
Grace 4/04
Check us out!! www.deines.org
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
SquicciTrips
Mon Jul-19-04 06:38 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
235 posts
#34920, "RE: The text of article"
In response to Reply # 4
I am confused! She doesnt make sense. Can we go kick this womans ass please!!!!!!!!!!
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
hanerhah
Mon Jul-19-04 07:40 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
1077 posts
#34921, "RE: The text of article"
In response to Reply # 15
Just tell me when and where and I'll be there!
Heidi
Lydia - 5lbs, Sasha 5.8lbs and Isabella 5.7lbs
born at 34 weeks 5 days
AND NOW...MARCUS EARL, 9.2lbs!!!!
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Heavensentme5
Mon Jul-19-04 11:54 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
1211 posts
#34922, "RE: The text of article"
In response to Reply # 4
"I was tired of being on the pill, because it made me moody" she MUST have a crappy OB-there's like 20-30 different birth control pills out there! Not to mention a ton of other options!!
Let's just run out and make a baby b/c we were "tired" of taking a pill...then just as callouosly, kill the "excess" ones-they might want to have mayo on their sandwiches some day.... I think I'm going to puke...
Korrie
http://www.tickercentral.com>
http://www.tickercentral.com>
http://www.tickercentral.com> http://www.tickerc
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
ewicka22
Mon Jul-19-04 05:55 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
690 posts
#34923, "RE: The text of article"
In response to Reply # 4
This article makes me so mad especially after losing one of my triplets. She just seems so selfish!!!!
I agree about wanting to kick her ASS!!!!
Engrid
Jackson 4# 2oz
Ruark 3# 11oz
Ethan 2# 15oz our angel in heaven
All born on 12/23/02
Liam Ethan 8# 7oz born on 5/11/05
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Tasha
Sun Jul-18-04 09:05 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
1238 posts
#34924, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
Maybe it’s just that I am tired from painting all day but the article just seems to be unfinished or poorly written. Is it in response to a question or series or something? Just doesn't seem to be a good stand alone article. It just seems too odd that someone would just out of the blue write an article about having selective reduction in such a matter of fact and not really well put together way. It comes off as extremely heartless. I know many women do choose selective reduction for many reasons. And as a pro choice woman I do not judge any of them. Even if buying large jars of Mayo is an issue for her. (not that I have ever bought the large jar of mayo LOl) But her thought process, or lack there off just seems odd. It seems most people I have talked to who do it or consider it go through some doubt and struggle with the decision. But to say get rid of one or two in the initially ultrasound and then say if she was to get PG with triplets again she would just reduce again with about as much emotion as you would put into a pap exam. Well it just seems heartless.
Tasha
Julia, Megan & Alex 7/00 at 30 weeks
Abby 12/02
Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
InnaG
Sun Jul-18-04 09:13 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
119 posts
#34925, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 5
NY Times magazine has a column called "Lives" on the last page. It mostly concerns some life affecting desisions. They are mostly written by non-writers, some of them ( as this one ) are written by journalist from the words of a person. So they are often feel choppy and unfinished.
Inna,
mom to Rachael (8/7/99),
Evan, Ari and Josh (5/29/01)
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
jody_mom
Sun Jul-18-04 10:15 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
600 posts
#34926, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
Inna,
I too am pro-choice, and I was HORRIFIED by this article. Many of the "Lives" columns are genuinely thought-provoking, or at least intriguing, but this one seemed just to be a forum for someone so immature, naive, and (forgive me) stupid that it's hard to imagine what the New York Times was thinking. I'm quite certain there's a thoughtful article to be written about the fears of an early triplet pregnancy, and the issues involved in selective reduction--in fact, I've read the germs of that article right here in this forum. But this was just--well, if it weren't so morally reprehensible, I'd say it was just plain dumb, and bad journalism. It read like a "like, then, fer sure, we killed the excess babies" piece. The "Lives" pieces are almost universally meant to evoke sympathy or understanding for difficult decisions, so this piece just seemed beyond the pale. To endorse this woman's tragically bad information was negligent, even criminal, journalism.
Jody
g/b/g born Jan 2001
http://www.geocities.com/hombiblio/
P.S. "Identical twins and a stand alone"? There are so few stories to be told, so few lives to be broadcast, that we get THIS? Really: Good Lord.
Jody
g/b/g born Jan 2001
http://www.geocities.com/hombiblio/
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
sixqdrdrs
Sun Jul-18-04 10:53 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
297 posts
#34927, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
I CAN NOT imagine not having all three of my babies. It is sad that this lady will miss out on all the happiness that multiples can bring. She doesn't deserve it anyways.
Heather, mom to:
Ryder-1/15/00
Brayden,Emalee,&Rayce
Born 2/21/04 @ 34 weeks 2 days
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Laurie14
Mon Jul-19-04 04:42 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
673 posts
#34928, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
Unbelievable. I cannot get over her question: "Is it possible to get rid of one (or two) of them?" It does make this woman appear cold, uncaring, and selfish.
I also have two identicals and a fraternal and had been advised to selectively reduce the twins. I do remember one of my peri's later stating that the only reason for reduction would be for "lifestyle" considerations. Obviously this woman made her decision based on her desire to maintain her lifestyle (sans the large jars of Costco mayonnaise that she would be forced to carry up 5 flights of stairs). The seeming lack of emotion that this woman appeared to feel by simply ending the lives of her identical twins with a shot of potassium chloride to their tiny hearts is so unfortunate and misleading.
An article detailing a woman's decision to keep her triplet babies and the sacrifices and life changes made would have been a far more rewarding and interesting piece.
Laurie
BBB triplets: Luke, Jonathan, Max: 34w6d, February 20,2004
See my boys:
http://hometown.aol.com/belize12/myhomepage/laqualia.html
Laurie
BBB
2/20/04
34.6 weeks
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
TylersMom
Mon Jul-19-04 04:56 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
386 posts
#34929, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
This makes me absolutely sick! "Get rid of one or two"!!! The attitude that comes across in that phrase is so cold and inhuman. I hope for the sake of her remaining baby that it did not accurately portray her....... I am strongly pro-life, but I can certainly understand the agonizing decision that selective reduction has been for some families and do not judge them. For her, though, it does not seem like there was any discomfort about this decision at all and that is what bothers me the most. I hope she is not as shallow and self-absorbed as she comes across in this article.
I was about to eat breakfast, but I think I have lost my appetite. I cannot imagine not having any of my three by my own choice.......Costco or not!
Sonya, Mommy to:
Tyler 8-15-01
Amanda 5-23-03
Leah 5-23-03
Trevor 5-23-03
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
jenanddarol
Mon Jul-19-04 05:42 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
594 posts
#34930, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
This woman doesn't even deserve the one she didn't kill. Yes its a choice in this country, but like most choices there's a right one and a wrong one. My triplets are glad I made the right one.
Jen
Mom to
Spencer 6yo
Seville, Olivia, Noah 2yo
See my family at http://www.raisingmultiples.com/DavisFamily.html
Jen
Mom to Spencer 7yo
Seville, Olivia, Noah 4yo
Check out our family at http://www.raisingmultiples.com/DavisFamily.html
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
gracy3
Mon Jul-19-04 06:09 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
1867 posts
#34931, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
To think of the hell that most of us went through to get pregnant in the firstplace and the joy I personally felt when I found out there were 3, this woman makes me sick....not only she was lucky enough to concieve "on her own" after years of being on the pill, but was blessed enough to conceive spontaneous triplets to have the nerve to ask so callously to "get rid of" 1 or 2 of them. Apparently her mother was a single mom, what if she had taken the same attitude... then we would not be having this conversation. I would be curious to see letters to the editor regarding this column..perhaps I will write one myself!
Gracy
BGG (9/18/04 @ 31 weeks) and G (3/6/06 at 38 weeks)...
Save the babies!
www.walkamerica.org/4littlesplinters
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
PAML
Mon Jul-19-04 06:52 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
2183 posts
#34932, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
SICK to my stomach! I also hoped for 1 maybe 2 babies, my DH and I always said that's probably all we wanted, but we took responsibility for OUR actions when we found out we were having triplets, it's not the babies' fault that we decided to create life. My God, she acts like this was forced on her and she had no choice, she did have a choice, and when you choose to create life you take chances.
Author's quote: ''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.''
I disagree, I think it should be the man and woman's choice. And as far as giving up her life, she thinks having 1 isn't going to affect her life...think again!
If I go out today I am going to see if I can find this article, and if I do I am going to write a letter to the editor and tell him or her that they really should reconsider what they print, offensive material like this is absolutely disgusting.
PAM
ggg @ 31+ weeks
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
psalm127_3
Mon Jul-19-04 07:38 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
654 posts
#34933, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 16
Mon Jul-19-04 07:39 PM
yeah, kill the lives of her unborn children so she could have a life of her own (and obviously not to save her physical life). what a *(^%*&^(*&)*(&*()! she obviously doesn't deserve such a blessing. makes you wonder and definitely fills my head with questions for God.
morally reprehensible and utterly disgusting. i cannot remember a time when i have been so repulsed and upset by an article.
i am so sick of the entitlement attitude and ME ME ME fixation of people today! bleh
seems to be society today is heading downhill fast and she has just jumpstarted the ride. what a piece of trash.
. . . missing my own lost babies.
Michelle
Mom to three beautiful girls and a precious baby boy!
http://www.shaklee.net/healthyhomematters
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
MXer
Mon Jul-19-04 07:34 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
157 posts
#34934, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
Makes me sick too - another reason not to read the NY Times - trash journalism!
Steve
Proud dad to Dana, Valerie & Madeline
10/2/02
And Carly! 2/22/07
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
hanerhah
Mon Jul-19-04 07:46 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
1077 posts
#34935, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
I can't help but think "Thank God for those childrens sake" - she is probably a horrible Mother to the one she has. She would rather keep her apartment and keep flying around the country than give her child a lawn to play in and a mother to tuck him in! Can't we just put all the asshole people like that on one island and let them take each other out! I have a few others in my life that I would like to nominate to go.
Heidi
Lydia - 5lbs, Sasha 5.8lbs and Isabella 5.7lbs
born at 34 weeks 5 days
AND NOW...MARCUS EARL, 9.2lbs!!!!
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Misty Lee
Mon Jul-19-04 12:57 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
843 posts
#34936, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 19
I was thinking the same exact thing - in a way, those two babies are lucky that she reduced - she's probably a horrible mother!
We were also offered reduction because we aren't even sure that I can carry one - but it was never a "real" option for us. I am pro-choice, and in fact had two abortions many years ago for reasons I won't go into now, but when we found out we were having trips, we were overjoyed! We had lost two, and now somehow there were THREE in there??? It was beyond belief, and amazing to even think about. Just last night we were both marveling at how on earth we managed to get pregnant with triplets. People in my husband's family had suggested that we reduce as well - but they have not been through the losses we have - and I can't imagine that if they had, they would choose to reduce either.
I do think it's a personal choice, but the callousness that this woman approached the situation with is simply disgusting.
Misty Lee
BBB Spontaneous Triplets
Born Nov. 8, 2004 at 33 weeks 3 days
This, too, shall pass
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
FLTripletMom
Mon Jul-19-04 08:12 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
612 posts
#34937, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
This article is shocking and heartless. It makes my stomach turn with her blatant disregard for human life. The article is so poorly written, I am shocked it was even published.
~Dionne
Mommy to Jessica, Alexa & William 02/20/02 31w6d
Working Moms of Multiples - Join our On-Line Group:
http://www.msnusers.com/WorkingMomsofMultiples
~Dionne
Mommy to Jessica, Alexa & William 02/20/02 31w6d
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
psalm127_3
Mon Jul-19-04 07:41 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
654 posts
#34938, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 20
well because it celebrated the destruction of life. seems to me a lot of people in the media have a blatant disregard for human life and celebrate any soul on earth who enjoys putting themselves above all else and go about life in a celebration of ME.
. . . still nauseated and depressed over this horrible article.
Michelle
Mom to three beautiful girls and a precious baby boy!
http://www.shaklee.net/healthyhomematters
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
jody_mom
Tue Jul-20-04 06:43 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
600 posts
#34939, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 48
Michelle:
I have read a lot of "Lives" articles, and they're all about really hard decisions or tough situations, and they're mostly meant to get you thinking, gosh, what would _I_ do in that situation. What so nauseates me about this piece is that they would NEVER have published it if it were just a story of a singleton abortion. The triplet angle was what apparently convinced some editor that it deserved publication: because a triplet pregnancy (ESPECIALLY one that didn't involve the fertility angle, which they probably thought had been "played to death," but hey, this was NEW) somehow changes the equation. Only, wait, NOT SO MUCH.
It's horrifying, given that it's estimated as many as a third of triplet pregnancies are reduced, that the "newspaper of record" publishes this story as some sort of representative tale of a mother's thought-processes after discovering she carries HOM. WHO AMONG US EVER THOUGHT THAT WAY?!
Jody
g/b/g born Jan 2001
http://www.geocities.com/hombiblio/
Jody
g/b/g born Jan 2001
http://www.geocities.com/hombiblio/
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Mommyofsix
Mon Jul-19-04 08:18 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
3 posts
#34940, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
This article made me cry. My dh and I were presented with reduction right after it was identified that we were have triplets. We immediately said no AND I ALREADY HAD THREE SINGLETONS....granted the girls were 9, 11 and 13, but there was no question in my mind that three more children would only make our life richer.....and it has...I think everyday about who would have been chosen to be reduced....My Matthew - (Baby A) who is my sensitive one. Nicholas who is the clown (baby B) or Brandon my lover boy.....
I have my career, I make 6 figures, my family works as a team. THE boys are now 5 and my daughters can not imagine not having them around.
OMG this made me sick....I am truly blessed as are we all with multiples. This woman will never truly know joy because regardless of what she says this will haunt her for the rest of her life...Will she tell her son about his two sisters?
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
jen31
Mon Jul-19-04 08:41 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
361 posts
#34941, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
Lord, this just breaks my heart. I wanted my triplets so much, but lost my little darling Dylan. This beast did not deserve the blessing of children. But then life is not fair, as I well know.
Jen~ Mommy of 4 angels, 3 with feet, 1 with wings:
Lillian Victoria (Lila)- 7/8/00- 10 days NICU for GBS RDS
Triplets~ 1/15/03 at 28w5d (due to GBS sepsis)
Gavin Michael 3lb2oz -identical- 51 days NICU
^Dylan Scott^ 3lb4oz -identical- d.2/4/03
Hayden James 2lb12oz -fraternal-54 days NICU
Jen~ Mommy of 4 angels, 3 with feet, 1 with wings:
Lillian Victoria (Lila)- 7/8/00- 10 days NICU for GBS RDS
Triplets~ 1/15/03 at 28w5d (due to GBS sepsis)
Gavin Michael 3lb2oz -identical- 51 days NICU
^Dylan Scott^ 3lb4oz -identical-d. 2/4/03
Hayden J
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
wendi
Mon Jul-19-04 08:52 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
469 posts
#34942, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
I'm just utterly speechless....to believe that someone could be so cold. I had 2 other children at the time we found out we were having triplets. It NEVER entered my mind that I wouldn't have all 3, I feel God picked us who are we to question that? But then this begs the question...why did he pick them? Sounds like the boyfriend wanted to discuss it and would have wanted to have all 3, granted it is the women who goes through the pregnancy physically but the husband or boyfriend takes on a great deal as well. The fact that she didn't even have a care for his thoughts or feelings is extremely selfish and sad. I really feel we all need to pray for this little boy that she ended up having....she showed just how very selfish she is and even having 1 it will affect him in someway (other then the fact he will be going through life without 2 parts of him!!)in the future. It just makes me so sad that people don't stop to think of the life they just killed....to be seeing the heartbeats and knowing in just a few seconds there actions are going to stop them.....its truly sickening!!!!
Wendi
Kenyon 2/95
Tyler 10/97
Makenna,Sammy and Andrew 3/03
Wendi
Kenyon 2/95
Tyler 10/97
Makenna,Sammy and Andrew 3/03
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
safeathome
Mon Jul-19-04 08:54 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
265 posts
#34943, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
This woman is an abomination. Notice that almost every sentence begins with "I" and that she is void of emotion, except when it comes to herself and the inconveniences such as Costco and moving to Staten Island! And for the icing on the cake, note how she says nothing about her new baby except "I had a boy." We here at Triplet Connection, like most moms, go on and on (probably ad nauseum) about how wonderful our kids are and how much we love them. She barely acknowledges the poor child, only her fears of another pregnancy. We can only pray that Peter is a loving Dad to this boy, since he obviously is getting nothing from "that woman who delivered him" (I can't bring myself to call her a mother).
Terri
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
tlyman
Mon Jul-19-04 09:01 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
508 posts
#34944, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
Bedrest at 20 weeks? no flying at 15? Who was her OB? I'm almost 24 weeks and I'm just now slowing down. With good nutrition, regular exercise and some lifestyle modification and luck she could have made her speaking engagements. I am pro-choice and I (and the husband) seriously agonized over the question of selective reduction. The author sounds like she lives in New York City- there isn't a shortage of highly qualified specialists there. She could have gotten the information about the health risks to herself and to her children. It sounds like she has chosen to remain unmarried and raise her son alone. It is a shame that her reasons for that choice are so shallow. Perhaps that was the right choice for her. It would not have been for me.
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Karens5girls
Mon Jul-19-04 09:57 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
546 posts
#34945, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 25
Not only did she DO IT, but she put it in writing to the ENTIRE WORLD TO READ....DUH!!
I hope she gets a ton of hate mail. OH! And freelance writer....I'd never employ her. She can't write!
My girls were spontaneous. I FREAKED!!! 3 more! My gosh, what was GOD thinking! We were told of the option and I said "OH MY GOSH, there is ONLY 3 in there!"
I feel sorry for her son and her husband or boyfriend. Poor guy seemed like he wanted them all. I hope she never utters this garbage to her son so he ends up dysfunctional!
Karen
Mom to 5 Beauties
Allison,7,Grace,4
Margaret, Melissa, Michelle (6/20/02--34weeks 1day)
Healthy living without a price
www.imaginebalance.com/TakeChargeNow
Karen
Mom to 5 Beauties
Allison,8,Grace,5
Margaret, Melissa, Michelle (6/20/02--34weeks 1day)
Showing other MOMS how to stay home and earn extra income!
www.ImagineBALANCE.com/TakeChargeNow
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Plymrocker
Mon Jul-19-04 11:10 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
598 posts
#34946, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
I am really honestly confused on something here. I'm really not trying to start anything, but I just don't get this for the life of me! And that is, that those who are 'Pro-Choice' are offended by the cold heartedness of this article?! Whether one thoughtlessly reduces, or agonizes over the difficult decision for however long, if reduction is followed through with, the bottom line is the life of an innocent child was taken from them! The chance at the life God gifted them was ended by the decision/action and selfish reasons of human hands. I just don't understand how the perspective of coming to the decision is more compassionate in one way than another....when in the end, an innocent baby was still given a death sentence! Whether you feel bad or not!
Obviously I am strongly pro-life. We are responsible to keep ourselves from concieving if we are not ready to care for a child with a lot of love and treat them as the true gift(s) given to us that they are. Once that life has begun, it is not the WOMAN OR THE MAN'S choice to change what has already begun through lack of prevention. They had the chance to be responsible in the first , and they blew it.
The article does indeed make me feel sick. But so does justification to kill a life ok because you thought about it long and hard and feel bad first, or after.
Laura
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
3meeces
Mon Jul-19-04 11:26 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
302 posts
#34947, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 27
Hey Laura,
I think that the people who stated they are pro-choice are probably pro-choice in the way that I am. I think if something happens and woman is unexpectedly pregnant (rape, incest, condom broke, birth control pill failed, whatever) then she should be able to make the choice about carrying to term. Ms. Amy Richards wanted to get pregnant and purposefully stopped taking birth control pills in hopes of getting pregnant. I think that makes a big difference.
Mikheal
SAHM to Noah, Olivia, and Connor
10-01-2002 @ 32w 3d
Partner to Rebecca (TripletProject)
Mikheal Partner to Rebecca (TripletProject)
SAHM to Noah, Olivia, and Connor
10-01-2002 @ 32w 3d
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
phxmom
Mon Jul-19-04 12:00 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
183 posts
#34948, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 27
Not everyone who is pro-choice thinks like this woman. I am pro-choice, but personally could never have an abortion (even in a rape situation). Please don't think that because some of us have different views on this than you may have that we think like this heartless woman. I'm not going into my views b/c I know you didn't want to start something, but just really want to clarify that all people who believe in a woman's right to choose do not think like her.
Susan
b/g/b born 1/7/03
Susan
b/g/b born 1/7/03
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Tonka
Mon Jul-19-04 08:38 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
54 posts
#34949, "RE: Sorry to say..."
In response to Reply # 30
I'm sorry to say, but would it make a big difference to anybody if she became pregnant "accidentally" then reduced after thinking about the mayonaise jar, etc. so casually? I think not. It would still be hideous and nauseating to hear about someone disregarding their unborn child so readily. I really don't see a difference here for those of you proud of your "pro choice" stance. She made her choice. Many teens make their "choices" based on not wanting to get fat, having their boyfriends break up with them, etc. This may just be a more open view into one person's (albeit poor) "choice". I disagree with it and am nauseated by it just as much as I would be by someone saying, I will "reduce" the singleton that I am carrying because it is just not a good time for me now.
-Tonka
Mom of 5
-Tonka
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
3meeces
Tue Jul-20-04 05:44 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
302 posts
#34950, "RE: Sorry to say..."
In response to Reply # 49
Yeah, it would make a difference if she were a 12 year old who had been raped by a family member and wanted to terminate the entire pregnancy.
Mikheal
SAHM to Noah, Olivia, and Connor
10-01-2002 @ 32w 3d
Partner to Rebecca (TripletProject)
Mikheal Partner to Rebecca (TripletProject)
SAHM to Noah, Olivia, and Connor
10-01-2002 @ 32w 3d
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Plymrocker
Tue Jul-20-04 07:25 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
598 posts
#34951, "RE: Sorry to say..."
In response to Reply # 54
Even in painting the worse case scenario of circumstances:
>12 years old, >raped, >by a family member.....
I still say it in no way justifies wiping out the life of an innocent person! It is the BABY'S FAULT that they were created under such circumstances? How does that justify termination and make THAT life suddenly unworthy? Because the truth as I see it is that...any life that begins, under any circumstances, begins in God's hands. And if it ends in God's hands, there is His own divine purpose in that too.
I don't think there is EVER a good enough reason to take the life of another human being. It is not our decision to end one, just as it really isn't our decision to begin one! Only God knows what He created that life for and what the purpose of their life was here on earth, that He created them for. Perhaps their life's purpose was to
show us why and how evil is so evident all around us, and how ultimately it may have been for the purpose of something far greater than our minds could ever imagine! Don't you ever look back and see the good that came out of something that seemed so awful at the time? There IS a reason for everything. Especially the purpose in which God created a life.
Who are any of US to say He is wrong?!
LAURA
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
trpsn1
Tue Jul-20-04 11:21 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
382 posts
#34952, "RE: Sorry to say..."
In response to Reply # 57
Tue Jul-20-04 11:24 AM
Thank you Laura! A beautiful post! We have a child with Down Syndrome and hear stories all the time of the termination of a pregnancy based on this disability. In fact, I had someone from my community call me and get my opinion regarding terminating her Downs baby. I was physically sick for about a week. EVERY life created by God has been created for a reason. We may not ever know that reason, but my faith leads me to believe that I should trust in Gods plan. I discovered the reason we were blessed with Katie the first time I held her and looked into her sweet little face! Cannot imagine our lives without her and thank God every day that He chose us as her family!
Bless you Laura for your faith!
Gina
SAHM to Spunky 7/10/94
Mojo 6/29/97
RinRin 6/29/97
Kakiecakes 6/29/97(DS)
"I looked on child rearing not only as a work of love and duty but as a profession that was fully as interesting and challenging as any honorable profession in the world and one that demanded the best that I could bring to it." Rose Kennedy
trpsn1
SAHM to Spunky
Mojo
RinRin
Bugaboo
"I looked on child rearing not only as a work of love and duty but as a profession that was fully as interesting and challenging as any honorable profession in the world and one t
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Misty Lee
Tue Jul-20-04 12:38 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
843 posts
#34953, "RE: Sorry to say..."
In response to Reply # 57
Am I correct in assuming that you would expect a 12 yr. old rape and incest victim to carry and give birth to a baby just because YOU don't happen to believe she has the right to choose whether or not to have that child??? That is just...well...it makes me livid to think of the injustices that are put upon some people in this world because of what OTHERS believe...shameful.
Misty Lee
BBB Spontaneous Triplets
Born Nov. 8, 2004 at 33 weeks 3 days
This, too, shall pass
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Plymrocker
Tue Jul-20-04 12:44 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
598 posts
#34954, "RE: Sorry to say..."
In response to Reply # 61
Yes, makes me livid too....like the injustices put upon that baby because of what OTHERS believe....SHAMEFUL!
Laura
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Paula
Tue Jul-20-04 07:01 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
217 posts
#34961, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 27
One thing that this thread reveals is that caring, thoughtful, intellegent people can have very different views on this hot-button issue. I too was very disturbed by the article (though it strikes me that the author seemed to go out of her way to make this woman seem as unsympathetic possible and I wonder if her motive was to incite exactly this kind of response). I'm not going to get into my views because I don't see what could possibly be contrucive about a "pro-life, pro-choice" debate herebut it saddens me that this is turning into an attack on others' personal views. As it says on the bottom of the page here, "Respect others' opinions even if you disagree with them."
Paula
bgb 11/2000
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Plymrocker
Tue Jul-20-04 07:34 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
598 posts
#34962, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 56
Well if ONE person changed their mind and decided to have a baby (or 3!), because they read this thread, than I would say that that could "possibly be constructive about a pro-life, pro-choice debate here." And if that one (or 3!) had been given the chance to live their entire worthy life because their mother read something I said and thought twice, I really don't care if I disprespected someone else's opinion in the process!!!
Gee....sorry YOU'RE SAD! But I'll save my sympathy for the murdered babies!
Laura
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
jody_mom
Tue Jul-20-04 12:42 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
600 posts
#34963, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 58
Tue Jul-20-04 12:50 PM
Laura:
There's no question, a baby's life is FAR more important than civility or kindness. Still, what in the WORLD provoked such a mean tone in your reply to Paula? What cause does incivility serve here?
One fantastic way to end abortion, ESPECIALLY selective reduction, is to share information. What might change a parent's mind, confronted with an unplanned triplet pregnancy, is all the amazing support and information and guidance available on this forum. I dare say most people wavering about selective reduction are more likely to change their minds because they find out that a triplet pregnancy can be successful, and that life with triplets can be manageable (even wonderful) than because someone condemns abortion as a moral evil. Those of us who reject abortion don't waver (much) when triplet pregnancy is upon us.
We might wish it were different--that everyone shared our moral and Bible-based understanding of abortion--but the world doesn't work like that. There are upwards of 1 million abortions in the USA each year, and ONE THIRD of all triplet conceptions end with a selective reduction. My God. Unless abortion is both illegal and unobtainable (something that has never been true in the history of this nation), information is the best weapon against abortion we've got. In that sense, anything that undermines this forum's usefulness--for example, unkind and personal attacks--threatens lives. Please reconsider.
Jody
g/b/g born Jan 2001
http://www.geocities.com/hombiblio/
Jody
g/b/g born Jan 2001
http://www.geocities.com/hombiblio/
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Plymrocker
Tue Jul-20-04 01:05 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
598 posts
#34964, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 62
Jody - I can say in a heartbeat THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. But it isn't my nature. I just see red!, get hot under the collar, blow my stack, and come out-a-swinging.......when it comes to innocent babies dying because of selfish people, and the ridiculous rights they think they have! So that is what provoked my mean tone.
I can't stay calm enough to explain some rational/compassionate perspective to them. But it sounds like you can! So by all means...inform! Reading statistics, as I did in your post, makes me even more sick and mad to know how much this is happening. Sometimes, I think about keeping my mouth shut. And then I think....what if someone finally GETS IT! And the words fly...
Can't say I'll change. But I do see what your saying, and admire your ability to stay so calm. I'll keep watching, and maybe learn. LOL.
Laura
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
jody_mom
Tue Jul-20-04 10:36 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
600 posts
#34965, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 64
Tue Jul-20-04 10:47 PM
Laura:
I do plan to continue to get the word out about abortion, and I'm not shy about sharing my opinions, or rather--and surpassingly better--the Word as it's found in Psalm 139 et al. FWIW, neither of us knows how Paula thinks about abortion/selective reduction--only that she highly values this community and civil discourse within it. That's why your comment to her seemed so unkind. I appreciate that it's an emotional issue for you. I dare say it is for most of us.
And it happens that, believing in limited, secular government, I myself am pro-choice: vehemently anti-abortion, but strongly committed to the idea that so long as science itself presents a complicated picture of embryonic and fetal life, and so long as pregnancy is both life-threatening and potentially gravely damaging to women's and already-born children's lives and health, I prefer my government to leave the decision (hedged around with certain key protections) in the hands of each mother and father and their doctor.
There's no place I'd rather live than the secular democracy of the USA. The price we pay for our democracy is that we have to convert people to our faith, not force it on them as they do in Iran, Indonesia, and the Sudan. In brutally practical terms, for now, the alternative to legal abortion isn't the absence of abortion: it's poor women getting butcher jobs in back alleys, leaving their other children motherless and destitute, while rich women fly off to clean clinics in other countries for their abortions. But I don't believe it has to be that way forever: I believe God has a better plan. So I'll continue to pray for Christ's Kingdom to be established, to spread the Word as it relates to abortion, and to share what science does tell us about fetal life (it's a miracle). And I'll also vote for politicians who support children's services, effective sex education, and health insurance for birth control, too.
I apologize in advance if I disappoint you. I truly believe we're both working for the same purpose in the end.
Best wishes,
Jody
g/b/g born Jan 2001
http://www.geocities.com/hombiblio/
Jody
g/b/g born Jan 2001
http://www.geocities.com/hombiblio/
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Sammy_N
Wed Jul-21-04 06:23 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
33 posts
#34966, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 58
I was reading this thread, and have never actually replied to these heated issues, but I had to this time.
Your post was SO uncalled for! Are you so wrapped up in your own personal beliefs that you don't take time to have concern for the feelings of others? Are you so consumed by crusading for unborn children that you disrespect those that are living?
Every person on this board has faced challenges. We've dealt with those challenges based on our own personal moral beliefs, medical histories, family situations, and religious values. Luckily, we live in a country that allows us to live in this manner.
The point of this forum is to serve as support for each other while facing these challenges-not critcize the manner in which they are dealt with. You don't have to agree with everyone's choices, but you do have to allow those choices to be made free of judgement...at least on this board.
This is not a place to be judged. This is (or should be) a safe place for multiple moms and dads to opening share their feelings, fears, and questions without being nervous of the judgements that others are ready to impose.
Take a moment to recall why you sought out the Triplet Connection in the first place...
These are my thoughts...while I will not discuss my moral beliefs on abortion, I will say that discussions that cannot be civil and remarks that are purposefully unkind have no place in a "support group" type forum.
Sammy
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
trpsn1
Sat Jul-16-05 02:05 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
382 posts
#34967, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 68
Wrapped up in her own personal beliefs? Hmmm, IMHO, Laura seems anything but wrapped up in her own personal beliefs. She is advocating for the life of an innocent child, who is trying its da*mndest to survive. If anything, she is being very unselfish in sharing her strong beliefs that abortion is very wrong to her. Society today is sooo wrapped up in themselves and what THEY want for THEMSELVES, it's a me me me society. Everyone knows that when you become sexually active a pregnancy is always possible even on birth control. It is a chance you take and that should be thought of as a responsibility. The value of human life today has gone into the toilet. Choice-smoice. How about another option. Adoption.
What really makes me ill, is when a baby is aborted because it is not "perfect". To me, VERY PERSONALLY, that is sick.
Gina
SAHM to Spunky 7/10/94
Mojo 6/29/97
RinRin 6/29/97
Kakiecakes 6/29/97(DS)
"I looked on child rearing not only as a work of love and duty but as a profession that was fully as interesting and challenging as any honorable profession in the world and one that demanded the best that I could bring to it." Rose Kennedy
trpsn1
SAHM to Spunky
Mojo
RinRin
Bugaboo
"I looked on child rearing not only as a work of love and duty but as a profession that was fully as interesting and challenging as any honorable profession in the world and one t
Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Plymrocker
Wed Jul-21-04 08:56 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
598 posts
#34968, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 84
Dear Gina ~
Normally when I get frustrated and worked up enough in my desperation to make my point up against what looks like a losing battle, I end up crying. But in this mess I have found myslef in, I realized I never did cry, until I saw this picture of Katie. And then it flowed like a river.
COULD SHE BE MORE BEAUTIFUL??!!! I think not!
I really want to thank you in seeing past my sometimes vicious and lack-of-finess-ways and really seeing where I am coming from, and publically supporting me. I knew you had a child with Down's Syndrome, and knew 'you get it.' But boy...seeing that picture of Katie and what you look at every day.......no wonder you do. One of those things where I would say "The proof is in the pudding." That's what I saw when I looked at Katie.
Often times I have to struggle a bit myself to know God has a greater plan, and that though I may not see it, there IS a a good reason He has for everything that happens. To remember that is not always easy to do. But I have never questioned His purpose at all whenever I my path has crossed someone's with Down'S Syndrome. Their purpose in earth is SO EVIDENT to me! IMMEDIATELY. They beam love and sunshine, happiness, and lack of judgement of others. They give so selflessly from their heart, and it is not even a decision they have made, but it seems to me, more of a pure automatic reflex of who they are. I am having a hard time explaining what I mean. But suffice it to say, it is quite the example to me to learn from. I do
experience more joy and love in a day than my heart feels like it can hold sometimes. Life is a beautiful thing. And not a day goes by that I don't thank God every night for that one, and the ability to see it as so. But I do get real angry too when it comes to these topics, and others views on them. My compassion, for their lack of compassion (so it appears to me), goes right out the window!
Perhaps that is in itself the God's whole purpose of Down's. I have often wondered what a loving world it would be if we all could see eachother through their eyes.
I wish Katie were right here before me, because I have an overwhelming need to hug her. (There's that selfish ME ME ME again! lol) You are so lucky and blessed that you can anytime. So hug her for me...will you? She was "a keeper." Aren't they all!?!
Thanks for your posts. It means a lot.
Laura
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
trpsn1
Wed Jul-21-04 10:35 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
382 posts
#34969, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 73
Laura,
I am choking back my own tears right now. Thank you for your kind words! Your description of Downs pretty much describes what we have seen in Katie. She is an absolute joy and yes, we are very lucky and blessed that she is our child. Just ask her Daddy---MAJOR bond between those two! Whenever he has a stressful day at work, he claims that when he sees Katie run to him with her arms wide yelling "Daddy!" that stress just vanishes. It warms my heart!
She has taught us alot without even her knowing it. We have learned to not fret the small stuff and just be thankful that we have each other! Life is the greatest gift and I too, thank God for every minute that He allows me to have.
You should not have to apologize to anyone for what you strongly believe in. Like you have stated, if it saves one life, it is totally worth it, IMHO. To me, some things are negotiable choices that we, as individuals should have a say in (SAHM vs. working outside the home, etc) but when it comes to something as precious as a life.....well, I think you know what I mean, it's not something that should be up for negotiation. Obviously, I am pro-life, always have been, and always will be and it is something that I am proud of.
I gave Katie a big hug for you! She hugged me (you) back AND you also got a kiss! She's big into smooches right now. If she is sitting in one of our laps, she grabs our faces and covers them with kisses. It is too sweet, especially when she giggles and says, "Katie loves, Katie loves!"
God Bless you! Your kids are blessed to have you as their Mommy, don't change one bit!((((HUGS)))))
Gina
SAHM to Spunky 7/10/94
Mojo 6/29/97
RinRin 6/29/97
Kakiecakes 6/29/97(DS)
"I looked on child rearing not only as a work of love and duty but as a profession that was fully as interesting and challenging as any honorable profession in the world and one that demanded the best that I could bring to it." Rose Kennedy
trpsn1
SAHM to Spunky
Mojo
RinRin
Bugaboo
"I looked on child rearing not only as a work of love and duty but as a profession that was fully as interesting and challenging as any honorable profession in the world and one t
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Sammy_N
Wed Jul-21-04 10:40 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
33 posts
#34970, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 84
I never said she was being selfish...I actually don't recall ever making any stand on the abortion issue at all, so there's no need to lecture me on that. I said her response was unnecessarily mean and uncalled for. That's the only point I was trying to make. My issue is not with her beliefs-it's with mean-spirited way she chose to post-that's all. There's no need to read anything more into it.
Sammy
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
trpsn1
Wed Jul-21-04 11:07 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
382 posts
#34971, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 75
No, you never used the actual word of selfish, BUT the phrase, "Are you so wrapped up in your own personal beliefs that you don't take time to have concern for the feelings of others?" pretty much points toward the many definitions of the word selfish, IMHO. Sorry if my post came across as a lecture, but it wasn't directed at you personally. It was meant as my statement of my personal beliefs on something that is very important to me and my support of Laura. She is a kind and caring person that feels strongly about something that I hold in high regard---life. Sorry if I have offended.
Gina
SAHM to Spunky 7/10/94
Mojo 6/29/97
RinRin 6/29/97
Kakiecakes 6/29/97(DS)
"I looked on child rearing not only as a work of love and duty but as a profession that was fully as interesting and challenging as any honorable profession in the world and one that demanded the best that I could bring to it." Rose Kennedy
trpsn1
SAHM to Spunky
Mojo
RinRin
Bugaboo
"I looked on child rearing not only as a work of love and duty but as a profession that was fully as interesting and challenging as any honorable profession in the world and one t
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Sammy_N
Wed Jul-21-04 01:03 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
33 posts
#34972, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 76
I see that Laura has written a heart-felt note to the board and it is appreciated. My message was to protect the integrity of this group and the feelings of all of it's members-that is something that I hold in high regard. I just want this to be a supportive place--not one filled with negativity. I hope you see that that is my only message. I apologize if my message came across in any other way.
Sammy
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Triplet Mommy
Wed Jul-21-04 01:35 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
2099 posts
#34973, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 84
What a doll!! Seeing her face just makes me smile from ear to ear. Moments like this makes me proud to be a Mom and knowing I am sharing that title with others that deserve it.
Just a thought - because we have the ability to do something doesn't mean we should.
Click here to subscribe to a parent's group with triplets born in the summer of 2002: tripletsquads2002-summer-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
*†¯`•.,*† ¸.•´¯`•.¸¸.->*† .¸¸.•*†(¯`•.¸*†¸.•´¯`•.¸¸.->*†
Mom of SuperTwins
I believe in miracles - I have three that live in my home. June 2002 @ 30 wks
http://www.michaelclancy.com/ (picture of a baby holding doctor's hand while still in utero during surgery @ 21 wks)
Sure you can home school your kids: www.thehomeschoolmagazine.com/How_To_Homeschool/tosbrochure.pdf
*†¯`•.,*† ¸.•´¯`•.¸¸.->*† .¸¸.•*†(¯`•.¸*†¸.•´¯`•.¸¸.->*†
I believe in miracles - I have three that live in my home. g/g/g- June 2002
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Tasha
Tue Jul-20-04 09:57 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
1238 posts
#34974, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 27
Pro Choice does not mean pro abortion. We don’t sit around and read something like this and think “yeah another one decided to end their pregnancy! Woo hoo” . It is possible to be pro choice but still wish nobody choose to do it. And we can certainly still be appalled that someone not only choose to do it without a second thought but then also write about it for all to read in such a flippant, almost bragging, manor that should could have been talking about how she learned to drive. I can only hope she gave this matter a lot more thought. I also hope that she was not truly that self involved but rather she was edited so badly it came across that way. But that is me trying to hope for the best in everyone. However, her article as published didn’t have any substance to it. It was devoid of emotion and didn’t even really tell a story at all. It actually comes off a little a promoting selective reduction as an easy option with no risks. And to me that is disgusting.
I do agree that everyone should take every precaution necessary to prevent pregnancy if they are not ready to care for child/children. But many of us here know all to well other than abstinence there is no 100% birth control. Both my pregnancies were failed birth control (different birth controls). And while I can wish that everyone would take responsibility even when the pregnancy was unplanned, I am not willing to force that desire onto others.
I also do not think abortions or SR should be used a birth control or planned for. I have talked to a few women online who under went IVF and put back more than standard amount of embryos to increase the chances of pregnancy and already said if more than X number took they would just reduce. To me that is miss use and wrong. I don’t think that you should take chances like that with SR as a backup for pregnancy population control.
Would I ever choose to have an abortion, no. As a rape survivor I can also say that I wouldn’t even in the case of rape (thankfully that was not something I had to deal with though). But I also understand that not everyone believes the way I do. I don’t think I can force my beliefs on everyone else. There are some people in the US that do not believe life begins at conception. I don’t think I can force my views on them anymore than they should be able to force their views on me. So in that sense I am pro choice. If I could make the choice for everyone then SR and abortions would only be allowed if the mother and/or child’s life were in imminent jeopardy and possible cases of rape. But it isn’t up to me.
I guess my point is that being pro choice does not mean that we think that everyone should just have an abortion or reduce without a second thought; after all it is their choice to make. But rather while we aren’t willing to take the choice away we still hope that everyone would think it through completely first and take the decision seriously. We hope that because some who do think it through first may change their mind and not do it. So yes it would less disheartening for me read a story where the woman “agonizes over the difficult decision for however long, if reduction is followed through with” it. Because while I may not agree with her final decision at least I know she didn’t make the decision lightly or rashly.
Tasha
Julia, Megan & Alex 7/00 at 30 weeks
Abby 12/02
Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
gracy3
Wed Jul-21-04 07:02 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
1867 posts
#34975, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 66
Well said, Tasha
Gracy
BGG (9/18/04 @ 31 weeks) and G (3/6/06 at 38 weeks)...
Save the babies!
www.walkamerica.org/4littlesplinters
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
splangysmom
Mon Jul-19-04 12:16 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
339 posts
#34976, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
I was reading the article, all the while feeling my 3 babies moving and grooving in my belly. Wow, that made me sick!
I had 3 older kids and was a single mom for a time, worked full-time, scraped by, and we never bought giant vats of mayo. Now we have 3 kids at home and 3 on the way, and I can tell you that we still don't buy giant vats of mayo.
She made no sense - starting by saying it was a low-risk pregnancy and then changing her story to make herself out to need bedrest at 20 weeks. I believe she was just justifying her selfish attitude, if you ask me.
Three kids, whether at once or spread out, are a blessing and a challenge.
She seems like a selfish pig-of-a-woman and I hope her uterus falls out before she eventually ends up with 3 kids anyway and has to go out and get giant vats of mayo.
Lesa
Lucky Mom of:
Kristi(18)
Kevin(15)
Kelli(13)
Angus 11/17/02
ggb due 11/24/04
Lesa
Lucky Mom of:
Kristi(18)
Kevin(16)
Kelli(13)
Angus 11/17/02
Ruca, Nadia, & Max 10/14/04 at 34w1d
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
K8tina
Mon Jul-19-04 12:18 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
205 posts
#34977, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
I don't know if I want to cry or bash this woman in the head with a book on multiple pregnancy! I am sooo hurt that someone like this exists, yet on the other hand, that article could have been written by my mom's 42-yr old cousin who did practically the same thing 2 yrs ago (she didn't want more than one baby b/c it would cramp her upper-class lifestyle... then she went and hired a nanny in the end to take care of the one she ended up having!!). I'm beside myself, sick to my stomach and almost at the point of tears! I cannot imagine NOT having my three precious babies. I just don't know what to write other than that I hope this woman never gets pregnant ever again, so she won't have to make a choice like this again. (PS. I wrote a letter to the editor of the NY Times stating how upset this article made me. Who knows if that will make a difference, but you never know...)
Thanks for letting me vent my feelings.
Katina
Mommy to Derrick, Nicholas & Kaitlyn ~ 3/3/04 @ 34w6d
Katina
Mommy to Derrick, Nicholas & Kaitlyn ~ 3/3/04 @ 34w6d
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
steadman6pack
Mon Jul-19-04 12:37 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
1266 posts
#34978, "Dr. Laura Speaks"
In response to Reply # 0
I am a big fan of the Dr. Laura show on the radio and today I was listening to it right at 2pm. She was talking about the New York Times article and how horrible it is that a woman would be willing to kill 2 of her own babies just so she could continue to live the way she wants. She was saying how will the woman explain to her child that she killed his two siblings. She is urging people to write to the New York Times and complain about the letter. She has already written her letter. It kills me that the New York Times would choose this woman and let her tell her story. The woman was a selfish, childish, B**ch!!! Buying mayo at Costcos didn't even enter my mind when I found out I was having triplets. What happened to the sanctity of human life?!?!
Are all the stories in the 'Life' section of the New York Times magazine controversial? It makes me wonder if it was a publicity stunt?!
Beth
Dylan-8
Tommy,Karli,Abby- 10/14/02 32w 2d
"The decision to have a baby is to decide to forever have your heart go walking around outside your body."
Beth
Dylan-10
Tommy,Karli,Abby- 10/14/02 32w 2d
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
InnaG
Mon Jul-19-04 12:49 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
119 posts
#34979, "RE: Dr. Laura Speaks"
In response to Reply # 33
No, not all of the stories are contoversial.
Many are small private stories. I remember a story by a man talking about his father's suicide when he was child; stories of lost friendships; story of a mother telling a heart-breaking story about her child getting sick with some rare desease, and then, misteriously getting better. A week before they ran a story by a woman who was telling about her experiences as a volunteer nurse in Bosnia.
"Lives" is one of my favorite sections in NY Times Magazine. It's usually what I manage to read when my kids are eating breakfast on Saturday morning.
Inna,
mom to Rachael (8/7/99),
Evan, Ari and Josh (5/29/01)
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Hennetrips
Mon Jul-19-04 01:06 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
499 posts
#34980, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
I hope she's happy buying her SMALL JAR of mayonnaise!!
I'll write my letter to the editor shortly.
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
2 boys 1 girl
Mon Jul-19-04 02:29 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
621 posts
#34981, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 36
I grew up in Staten Island, and I don't think I turned out so bad. This woman is too shallow and self absorbed to be a proper mother to one, let alone triplets.
Tara
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
nc_trips
Mon Jul-19-04 01:42 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
34 posts
#34982, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
This woman does not deserve children. All I hear in the article is ME ME ME.... How it affects me... I won't be able to do this or that.
Well ya know what lady...That is what being a mother is all about. You don't think of yourself, just those beautiful children that you have been blessed with. Even when I just had one child I never had any "ME TIME" and that was fine with me. I would rather read my daughter a book than paint my nails. One day my 4 children will be off to college and it will be ME TIME again. Until then I will cherish each day of their young lives.
Thanks for letting me vent.
Shawn
Mom to:
Christian (11/01)
Ben Matt and Josh (7/03)
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
TylersMom
Mon Jul-19-04 02:02 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
386 posts
#34983, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
I posted this article on my breastfeeding website and so far it is a thread with 100+ replies - it has stirred up some controversy over there, that's for sure!
I am planning to write my letter to the editor tonight after the kids go to bed.
Sonya, Mommy to:
Tyler 8-15-01
Amanda 5-23-03
Leah 5-23-03
Trevor 5-23-03
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
K8tina
Mon Jul-19-04 02:14 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
205 posts
#34984, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 38
I couldn't help but share this article with some others on my friend's message board for women w/young children, and boy, did it make for a lot of controversy! Everyone is sharing their same distaste for what the woman wrote, pretty much the same opinions and feelings that have been shared here. I hope no one minds that I shared it with others -- I just was soooo upset, I needed the additional support from my friends.
Katina
Mommy to Derrick, Nicholas & Kaitlyn ~ 3/3/04 @ 34w6d
Katina
Mommy to Derrick, Nicholas & Kaitlyn ~ 3/3/04 @ 34w6d
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
AmbroseGusChris
Mon Jul-19-04 02:25 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
32 posts
#34985, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
Outrageous the story is, and isn’t the storm it has created pleasantly surprising? Posts here are an example of the talk on radio and banter on internet blogs. In a strange way it has proved thought provoking. In this case, unlike other “Lives” snippets in the New York Times, perhaps it is what is NOT written that provokes sympathy and helps the reader understand a difficult decision.
Gracy pointed out that this Costco avoiding Manhattan mom remains oblivious to the example her mother set by struggling through and raising a daughter who transcended the “working-class.” I think there is more to this and, at risk of offending some, propose it says a lot about the need for fathers.
The woman had no father and had convinced herself that fathers are only good for financial and societal security. Though she does not see it, many who condemn her decision to kill two of her triplets will see in her attitude about fathers the seeds of the poor judgment that produced such a callous person. And since her attitude on fathers was undoubtedly prompted by her fatherless upbringing, and maybe a good bit of repressed longing for a father, it seems that a small bit of sympathy may be in order. That is, if you are willing to concede this as an example of why fathers serve an important role in shaping people. The tragedy of her murdered innocent babies may have been prefigured by the tragedy of her father’s absence. This is not to excuse her actions or portray all poor decisions to be marks of poor upbringing and emotional trauma. But taking the picture as a whole it is easy to reason that she could have benefited greatly from having a father. It is probably a stretch of psychoanalysis, and a short ill-conceived article like this one doesn’t shed much light, yet does anyone else read into her class consciousness an attempt to break free of the legacy of growing up fatherless? Or perhaps she wants to avoid a “slip” and escape the middle class because indiscretion in a pick-up truck and the “working class” remind her of the father she did not have.
She was not married when she conceived and, though she tries to say reducing was a mutual decision, her writing betrays the father's lesser role in the decision. Others here have pointed out that the story insinuates that the boyfriend had more reservations about the abortions. Here again, her attitude about fatherhood gives us pause. Had she a better respect for the institution of dads she may have been more willing to do the right thing and make her boyfriend her husband and involve him fully in such an important decision.
As for the thought that “those two babies are lucky that she reduced,” this too begs the question of fathers. Even taking the supposition that having a terrible mother would be worse than taking the child's life – though I completely disagree – what about the chance that these two babies would have a loving father?
Though this is an abomination, it is much more common than most are willing to admit. These abortions for convenience represented the normal reasoning that goes into an abortion. The statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute bear this out fully. Taking the 25.5% of women wanting to postpone childbearing, the 10.8% of women feeling a child will disrupt their education or career, the 14.1% of women who have a relationship issue and the 7.9% of women want no (or no more) children and you have 59.3% of abortions in the U.S. occurring for convenience sake. That does not include the 21.3% who claim they cannot afford a baby and the 12.2% who claim they are too young, some of whom surely are masking convenience behind financial hardship and shame. The 3.3 % who abort because of fetal health and 2.8% who abort for maternal health are what we hear about while moms who dread Costco mayo make excuses. Sometimes, thankfully, they make the mistake of writing about it and opening our eyes.
David
David
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
tulip
Mon Jul-19-04 02:53 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
6083 posts
#34986, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 40
I agree with so much you said! Absolutely, yes, I think growing up fatherless shaped this woman's decision to abort her babies. It certainly was a big factor in her not taking her boyfriend's feelings into her considerations. I agree with you, she has put her own fear of being a working-class, unwed, suburbanite mother above the life of two human beings. Apparently she wants to be nothing like her own mother, right?
And yet she CHOSE to get pregnant in the first place for convenience sake (because the pill made her moody, so she stopped taking it). And she is CHOOSING to get pregnant yet again. Obviouly her life revolves around her convenience, perceived social status, and personal comfort. This is not the mind-set of someone ready to be a parent.
I am certain there would have been many infertile couples in New York that would have given anything to adopt her two identical babies. What a selfless act it would of been on her part to do the RIGHT thing and adopt them out. But the concept of "selfless" doesn't seem to present itself in her pathetic essay.
But back to your original point of the absent father, yes, it is obvious that had this monster had a father in her life, she might have turned out to be an altogether different person. What is so wrong with societal security, anyway? What is so wrong with financial security, either? How are those things wrong? In fact, aren't they a GREAT BENEFIT for any child??? It's so sad that she only sees fathers in the role of money and status. This does not bode well for poor Peter. Or her son, for that matter.
Tulip & The Three Amigos
Born at 35w5d on December 31, 2002 - Happy New Year's Eve!!!
YES! You *can* breastfeed triplets!!!
http://www.tripletconnection.org/dcforum/forum1/14349.html
Tulip & The Three Amigos
GBG born at 35w5d on December 31, 2002 - Happy New Year's Eve!!!
YES! You *can* breastfeed triplets!!!
I am a Velveteen Rabbit, and the birth, love, kisses & magic that are my children has made me Real.
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Misty Lee
Mon Jul-19-04 02:55 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
843 posts
#34987, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 40
While I respect and understand the point that your post was trying to make - that fathers are undoubtedly an important factor in child bearing and raising, and the mother's experience with her own father can possibly be directly related to her behavior and decision making regarding her unborn children, I do have to point out that fathers, just like mothers, are NOT always necessary to the raising of healthy, loving, wonderful children.
My own father was worthless beyond reproach - he beat my mother, cheated on her with various women, used drugs in our home, beat my sister (who wasn't his - and when my abusive mother was in one of her rages, he would take me and leave the house so that my sister would get the brunt of her violence), and raped my sister repeatedly until my mother finally left him. This man spent most of his life in and out of jail and only contacted us when he needed something or a place to stay between jail sentences. On one occasion - the last time I ever saw him - he was even caught touching me inappropriately. Thank God I was too young to remember - but it still happened. Why did my mother stay with him, you might ask??? Because HER generation was brainwashed to believe that without a man, a woman is nothing. She believed that children could not be raised without a father, that a father was a vital piece of the child's life, and that child would not be "raised right" without a father. In my sister and my cases, she couldn't have been more wrong...
What I'm trying to say is that every situation is different - you can't just generalize and say, "See? Fathers ARE important! This girl is messed up and callous because she didn't have a father!!" My sister is messed up beyond belief, in part because she had the WRONG father...we both would have been (and were later) MUCH better off with no father at all. The fact is, some "fathers" are nothing more than sperm donors - and some are truly invaluable to their childrens' lives. You never can tell.
Misty Lee
BBB Spontaneous Triplets
Born Nov. 8, 2004 at 33 weeks 3 days
This, too, shall pass
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
AmbroseGusChris
Mon Jul-19-04 07:23 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
32 posts
#34988, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 43
Agreed, "You never can tell." But I must disagree elsewhere. You CAN "just generalize and say, See? Fathers ARE important!" Though it is a generalization, statistics and history prove it to be an accurate one. Further, the presence of terrible fathers demonstrates the need for good fathers all the more. Granted, the damage done by wretched fathers is often greater than the harm of being fatherless. When a man chooses not to be a father, either by being absent or by being a tyrant who exhibits no fatherly qualities, the damage cascades through generations and reveals itself in statistics.
Previous generations misplaced the emphasis, probably because at the time women where held back in education and careers. What should have been stressed is not that without a man a woman is nothing, but that without a father a family is hampered. And this would be a call for men who think they are somehow just a sperm donor and a paycheck to recognize the true traits of fatherhood, like leading, exemplifying, loving, and training, to name a few. Abusive men are not fathers they are criminals and they should be recognized as such. Unfortunately we see today a new brainwashing taking place. This one misplaces the emphasis again by stating that fathers are unnecessary. Carelessly throwing the baby with the bathwater, the current social construct claims that fathers are only good for financial and by extension societal security. Strangely, the emphasis is the same as in previous generations. The art of fatherhood is ignored. The only difference between the misplaced emphases is that people in previous generations still held remnants of pre-suffrage bias toward women and so men where considered obligatory for their paychecks and security. Now that women have mostly broken the ceilings in education and the workplace men are still viewed as paychecks, though not obligatory. We have few voices in society – not government, media, education, nor even religious institutions – placing the emphasis on the traits of fatherhood that have nothing to do with paychecks.
As with all generalizations it doesn't fit perfectly, and your life bears this out. The story in the NYT could easily be interpreted as demonstrating the generalization.
David
David
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Misty Lee
Tue Jul-20-04 12:29 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
843 posts
#34989, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 46
I agree that the tables have definitely turned on men in our society, and that the extremeness of "Without a man, a woman is nothing" has turned into "WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' MEN" - and that is a shame. I'm not sure who or what is to blame for any of it - and blame doesn't even solve the problem, so what does it matter, right?
My point was this: While a father CAN BE a valuable component in a child's life, and further, in a family's life, he is not NECESSARY. The same goes for mothers - there are plenty of single dads out there doing a kick-ass job and raising great kids. Most of the time, I am thankful that I didn't have a father - I firmly believe that it made me more independent, more streetwise, more determined, and more self-confident than many of my peers. I grew up a lot quicker, and learned the value of self-reliance while many of my friends were still dependent "daddy's girls" - some of them, at our age (27), are STILL leaning on "Daddy" for every ridiculous thing that they should be out there earning themselves...
Anyway, I'm rambling. Suffice it to say that I don't think two-parent households are absolutely necessary - I'm glad my children will have one, but we'd be just fine if they didn't, too.
Misty Lee
BBB Spontaneous Triplets
Born Nov. 8, 2004 at 33 weeks 3 days
This, too, shall pass
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Catw3kittens
Wed Jul-21-04 06:58 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
3536 posts
#34990, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 46
David, let me start by saying that I agree with everything that you've said.
Let me add that we have taken another swing of the pendulum and are now, again, throwing out the baby with the bathwater and saying that not only are fathers necessary, but that there is NO DISTINCTION between fathers and mothers in determining what is in the best interests of children. Courts are now bending over backwards to take this approach in child custody battles and the results are frightening. I've recently been working with a case where the mother, the sole primary parent for the entire life of the child, has been trying for more than 18 months to join her new husband where he is stationed in the military. She has finally been placed in the situation where she must either choose her husband (and their three children), or choose her son -- if she goes to be with her husband and three children, she must abandon her son. The result has been two extended separations from her son, with him developing severe emotional problems -- and, much more extended separation from her husband, who has also thereby been separated from his three children.
The interesting detail is that the son's father has only seen him a maximum of 30% of the time in the past, and works (sporadically) and spends most evenings in a bar, leaving his girlfriend to care for the child during those times.
It is as though no one can simply open their eyes and think logically anymore. Being a biological father, or a biological mother, does not automatically turn someone into a parent with the proper attributes of that particular parenting role. David is right when he notes that there is much more to being a father than simply donating sperm. And the poster who drew his response is also correct in stating that those "fathers" who do not have fathering attributes are not necessary -- just as mothers who do not have mothering attributes are not necessary.
I'm seeing way too many circumstances these days where adults have refused to grow up and they value themselves and their "needs" more than their children's legitimate needs. There is truly a difference between being there for the conception/delivery and being a parent.
Cat w/3 Kittens
Caidan, Carina and Caeleigh
born at 31 weeks, 1/8/04.
It is better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all. In memory of Carina, who was greatly loved.
Cat w/3 Kittens
Caidan, Carina and Caeleigh
Born at 31 weeks, 1/8/04.
It is better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all. In memory of Carina, who was greatly loved.
http://b3.lilypie.com/bDA
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Jwhite
Tue Jul-20-04 05:15 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
219 posts
#34991, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 43
I would hesitate to refer to anyone as a "mother" or "father" simply on the basis of whether or not they contributed genetic material to the act of conception or on the basis that they may have been physically present in a house where children lived.
Being a father or a mother is a conscious decision that is made daily. It is, as I read on a post here some time ago, "deciding to wear your heart on the outside". It is giving all you have and then some to make sure your children have all that they need financially, emotionally, and spiritually. It is the hardest job there is, but it is also the most rewarding.
Being a mother or father is to be willing to give up your life for your children. Too often of late, the opposite is seen; children giving up their lives for their parents.
Jonathan
Dad to Al 19), Dan(17),
and Aidan, Zachary, and Jillian (9-01)
Jonathan
Dad to Ally(22), Dan(19),
and Aidan, Zachary, and Jillian (9-01)
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Mama_Of_Many Thu Jul-22-04 10:40 AM
#34992, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 40
David, I completely agree with you. Very well written. Personally, I believe that every child thrives best with a father-figure in their lives, whether it be their biological father, a grandfather, uncle, family friend, you-name-it, but in the end it is SO important for children to experience positive male influence in while growing up.
Thanks for your post.
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
my4beauties
Mon Jul-19-04 05:59 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
1826 posts
#34993, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
This is so sad. I truly feel sorry for this person. She just doesn't get it.
Irene
Blessed SAHM
Sophia, Jack, Nina 1/02
Harrison 6/03
****Faith is not believing that God can - it is knowing that HE WILL.****
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Erikall
Mon Jul-19-04 08:50 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
1023 posts
#34994, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
I just want to say that this article sickened me. I, and many others would give anything to have all of our triplets...I was floored by the sentence about the injection into the baby's heart. I knew that our identical boys made our pregnancy even higher risk - but they were so badly wanted...What is she going to tell her son?
Mom to:
Matt (1991) Megan (1994) and ^Eric Jr^ Levi and Vivian (2003) at 26 weeks
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Catw3kittens
Mon Jul-19-04 10:55 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
3536 posts
#34995, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
"The procedure involves a shot of potassium chloride to the heart of the fetus. There are a lot more complications when a woman carries multiples."
This absolutely breaks my heart. How brutal.
I've been weeping for the past six months because the heart of my little baby girl stopped before I ever got to meet her. I simply cannot imagine how anyone could knowingly and willingly stop the heart of one of their babies.
I've been crying, again, while I read this article. I'm so jealous that she had the opportunity to have her babies and she chose to kill them. I lost my baby and I didn't have any choice or say in the matter. She's gone and I can't hold her, can't see her smile, can't see my trio playing together.
I hope that this woman is right. I hope that years from now she grows into the kind of person who understands how wrong this was and how she took a very special blessing and deliberately destroyed it.
Cat w/3 Kittens
Caidan, Carina and Caeleigh
born at 31 weeks, 1/8/04.
It is better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all. In memory of Carina, who was greatly loved.
Cat w/3 Kittens
Caidan, Carina and Caeleigh
Born at 31 weeks, 1/8/04.
It is better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all. In memory of Carina, who was greatly loved.
http://b3.lilypie.com/bDA
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
starrynyt
Tue Jul-20-04 12:17 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
191 posts
#34996, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 51
I wish this woman would have taken the time to speak with someone who has been there and had triplets. OK I think we all agree that she would have to move out of the 5 story walkup but who knows she might have found something better.
My pregnancy was wonderful and not just for a triplet pregnancy but for any pregnancy. I was never on bedrest and only went to part-time because I wanted to not because I had to. I am glad that the one she didn't reduce was healthy but she could have just as easily been on bedrest with him alone.
The DR I saw right after coming out of the U/S to find out it was viable triplets told me I could reduce. I told him that we wanted each one of them and would not be reducing, his next comment was "well maybe you will lose one of them naturally". Needless to see I will never go see him again or refer anyone to him, in fact I do still refer the other doctors in the practice but not him and he is a newbie so he could use the references. I now have 3 beautiful healthy babies that are more loved than I ever thought was possible and I couldn't imagine not having one of them.
Thanks for posting this article so it opens our eyes to the ignorance that lives all around us. I just hope that the Times posts some of the replies to give both sides of the story.
Thanks,
michele
Deborah, Suzanne, and Jack
born at 32w6d, 4/20/04
Michele
Mommy to Debbie, Suzie and Jack
Expecting again!!
[url=http://lily
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
mom2four
Tue Jul-20-04 04:14 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
109 posts
#34997, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
Tue Jul-20-04 04:16 PM
I have to agree witht he rest of you. This article was disgusting. I can not beleive the blatant disregard for those babies, obviously she wasn't ready to have any children let alone the one she was left with. It's too bad she hadn't chosen a more permanent birth control method instead of stopping the pill to help her moods. I do think however that those babies that have returned to God are in a better place then they ever would have been here on earth being cared for by a mother that so vehemently didn't want them.
You know I try to be understanding of everone's views, but I have to say I'm really distubed by some of the comments that flew back and forth between members here. Each persons life is so private and individual that only the people involved in that relationship really have any say in it. I too like I think a couple others actually thought about having a reduction. I obviously couldn't go through with it in the end, but it was something I agonized about. I say agonized because that's exactly the emotion I was feeling. I have an older daughter and we were young and we wanted to expand our family by one. Financially, we still aren't truly able to afford children, but we play the juggling act and scrape by somehow. I will say my older daughter's life was a big part of my decision making. Some people wanted to give me input about my decision, but they were simply told they didn't get any.
I don't think I should be judged because someone thinks differently than myself. Since we're bible conscious I beleive the words go "judge not lest ye be judged". There's only one person's opinion that I truly care about and I will here it when I pass from this life. I live my life to the best of my ability and have a clear conscionse. Perhaps some need to remember that they are not judges of character. I had my reasons for thinking about reduction and they are my own private reasons, but they were definately NOT SELFISH reasons no matter what some think. There are better ways to educate people than to be mean and careless in your words. And guess what I love my children just as much as anyone else on this board does!
Krysta, blessed mommy of
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
JenniferP
Wed Jul-21-04 07:05 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
566 posts
#34998, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
I was not going to post to this topic after it moved to the 2nd page, but since it has already been bumped back to the top, I will. I think this article in the Times was terribly written and that the editors showed terrible judgment in printing it. What exactly is the purpose of this story, anyway? Are we supposed to feel sorry for this woman? To me, the fact she chose to abort two of her three babies is no more appalling than if she had chosen to abort a singleton for those same reasons. She showed an absolute lack of responsibility and concern for anyone but herself. I had my dh read the story and – as a guy who is not usually apt to pick up on things like we ladies do – his response was “What a selfish person. All you ever hear in this is ‘me, me, me’.” How sad that this woman is missing out on the miracle of raising triplets just because she did not want to change her big city lifestyle. How sad that this boy will never know his identical twin siblings because they would have impacted his mother’s shopping habits.
Unfortunately, I think this article illustrates the thought process – or lack thereof – that goes into many abortion choices. It angers me when abortion is used as the quick fix for being irresponsible about birth control. As an adoptee, it also angers me to no end that adoption is not given its due time in the media as a serious alternative when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Nearly every story you see on TV that depicts an unplanned pregnancy addresses only two choices: abortion or becoming a teen mother. Why don’t they ever mention adoption?? Because it is the most loving, SELFLESS choice a woman can make, and these days, people are just not interested in being selfless. But that is another topic for another debate. The bottom line is that it is true, too many abortions are done for all the wrong reasons or because a woman is not well informed of the alternatives.
However, I also know that many women who choose to abort a baby (for whatever reason) are tormented by their decision, and it tears their heart out to do it. Even if they are ok with it at the time, it can haunt them as they get older and they are in a different place in their lives
Aside from some of the out-of-hand replies, this discussion has been a mostly civil exchange regarding a very heated topic that has really made me think about my views. I have come to the conclusion that I am not comfortable with either label - “Pro Choice” or “Pro Life” – because both have taken on such negative meanings over the years. When I hear “Pro Life” I can’t help but think of the zealots who feel justified in attacking clinics and doctors who provide abortions in the name of ending legalized abortion. Or the people who stand on the street corner outside Planned Parenthood, waving giant pictures of dismembered babies in the name of protest. On the other hand, “Pro Choice” has been depicted as “Pro Abortion” which could not be further from the truth.
If you ask most people, I think everyone is “Pro Life” meaning that we all would prefer to have abortions cease to exist. In a perfect world, no one would have to make such a terrible choice to end the life of an unborn child. In a perfect world, everyone would be responsible about preventing unplanned pregnancies, birth control would always work, and rape and incest would never happen. In a perfect world, the line that defines “life” would be clearly visible to all and leave no room for debate. But that is not the world we live in, and things are never that black and white. Although I myself could never imagine having an abortion, I also can not imagine the government dictating such a personal and (usually) difficult decision. A couple my husband and I know found out their unborn child had a horrible, fatal genetic defect, and that the child would die immediately after birth. The couple was told that they could choose to continue with the pregnancy and suffer for months knowing their baby would die on the day he was born, or they could terminate the pregnancy. What a heart-wrenching position to be put in for two loving parents who created a new life together in the hopes of being a family. Neither choice is easy, and neither option is without tragic emotional effects for the rest of their lives. All I know is that I would never feel comfortable telling someone in that position what to do, and I am glad we live in a society that allows them to make that decision for themselves.
I would, however, like to see a society that does more to foster knowledge and understanding, and do more to ensure that unplanned pregnancies do not happen in the first place. I wish reproductive endocrinologists would stop pushing SR on patients because it makes their numbers look bad. Only a peri should be able bring up that option, because he or she is the one who is truly knowledgeable about the risks of a HOM pregnancy. I wish more parents would put their teenage daughters on birth control if they suspect even for a second she is sexually active. Instead, they choose to hide behind the excuse that “giving her birth control will only encourage her to have sex”. I wish more people had free or reduced cost access to methods of birth control besides condoms and the pill, which require diligent use to be effective. I wish society would do more to encourage women to endure their unplanned pregnancy and give the ultimate gift to another person – give someone the child they could never have on their own and that they will cherish forever. More than anything, I wish people could work together to solve these problems instead of attacking each other’s views because, in the end, I think we all want the same thing.
Jennifer P.
Proud mom of first-round IVF miracles!
Nicholas, Victor, & Jacob
(12/15/00 @ 29 wks)
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Misty Lee
Wed Jul-21-04 07:47 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
843 posts
#34999, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 71
Bravo, Jennifer - very well said.
Misty Lee
BBB Spontaneous Triplets
Born Nov. 8, 2004 at 33 weeks 3 days
This, too, shall pass
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Karens5girls
Wed Jul-21-04 05:01 PM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
546 posts
#35000, "Jennifer-WELL SAID!"
In response to Reply # 72
and Jennifer....that is why I consider you a very close friend. You see all sides. You read your response before hitting "post" and....just....well said.
Now go and submit something to the NY Times! You GO Girl!!!
Karen
Mom to 5 Beauties
Allison,7,Grace,4
Margaret, Melissa, Michelle (6/20/02--34weeks 1day)
Karen
Mom to 5 Beauties
Allison,8,Grace,5
Margaret, Melissa, Michelle (6/20/02--34weeks 1day)
Showing other MOMS how to stay home and earn extra income!
www.ImagineBALANCE.com/TakeChargeNow
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Sammy_N
Thu Jul-22-04 06:55 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
33 posts
#35001, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 71
Wow--great post! Very well said.
Sammy
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
BeatriceCasey
Thu Jul-22-04 06:13 AM
Member since Jul 18th 2005
891 posts
#35002, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
I am probably the only one who will admit this and I am quite sure that I will receive some negative comments when I say this but here goes. Not trying to start a battle here but I feel that someone should speak for this woman.
It was HER Choice and I don't think that any of us have the right the judge her or make accusations as to why she made the choice of reduction.
We all make decisions in life that others may not agree with and I would assume that we would wish that individuals choose to leave it at that and respect our choice.
It's her life and I really don't understand why she chose to publish her story but I personally feel that we do not have a right to bash this women. We don't know her nor do we have the righteous act to completely speak of her in a horrible fashion.
Just my opinion.
Beatrice, mother to:
Aidan James (7/28/03-8:41pm)
Connor Michael(7/28/03-8:43pm)
Fiona Rose(7/28/03-8:44pm)
Bea and Mike
Parents to BBG (3 years)
LOVE is a wonderful thing!
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Mama_Of_Many Thu Jul-22-04 10:52 AM
#35003, "RE: Heartless article in New York Times Magazine"
In response to Reply # 0
As an adoptive mother myself, I have experienced 1st-hand the joy and happiness that comes from adopting a child into your family. To think that my son, my precious Andrew, could have possibly been aborted just tears me to pieces. I am SO thankful that his mother chose life! Someone quoted a Bible verse "Judge Least Ye Not Be Judged" - That's right, who are we to judge? That is our heavenly Father's duty, but at the same time,we are instructed by our Lord to take a stand against what is wrong and evil in this world, and I applaud the ladies in here who did so, and did so in a loving way IMO. I see nothing wrong with speaking out against abortion, just as many pro-choicers want their words to be heard, these babies have no voice and need to be heard as well. We are their only voices.
Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top
Top Triplet Talk Triplet Connection Multiple Questions topic #34913
First topic | Last topic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment