Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it were likely that 3 healthy, fully functional kids would be born from a pregnancy like this, I would have serious qualms about aborting them. Somebody wanting children would readily take a set of newborn identical twins.
The only problem is....the risks can be high and serious impairments brought about. I would never want to inflict that on my offspring. It's a difficult choice. I would rather die than "live" as a seriously impaired individual. Why should I force that on my child? Personally, if I were to consider this kind of thing, I would have kept the twin pair and aborted the other. Twins are born healthy all the time.
First - this was a highly edited article, says so right there, we don't know what was excluded.
Second - do some research. She's a really good writer, very open honest. Braver than I would be to believe so strongly in something that I would put it out there for all the wingnuts to gnaw on.
Third - Sure, adoption is an option. 40 weeks of pregnancy, some of those weeks would be bedrest. Medical expenses, loss of earnings, and 8 to 12 week post-partum recovery, plus post-adoption counseling. Physically and financially takes a year out of a woman's life. Psychologically a lot longer. Who is going to foot the bill for that?
Fourth - Would it be a better situation if a single woman plans to have a baby whilst living in less than desirable conditions, with an unreliable paycheck and no support systems. Would you respect her decision, or criticize her for it?
Last edited by Mike from back east; 10-16-2009 at 09:04 AM..
I don't know what her real reasons were. If she's really that stupid, that she made the decision for the wrong reasons, well, I'm still glad she made it because it means three little babies aren't going to suffer a life of horrible disabilities. As they say, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. And I'm not so much defending HER as I'm trying to correct some misconceptions on this issue. It is important to be aware. It is highly annoying to me to read posts from pro-lifers that are so emotion laden, with nary a thought about what is really involved here.
This woman became pregnant spontaneously, right? Okay, so she's one in a million who got pregnant with triplets without medical intervention. But the majority of couples who must face this awful, gut-wrenching decision are couples who HAVE ALREADY suffered years and years of heartbreaking, frustrating infertility. Marriages, family relationships and friendships as well as jobs and careers suffer under the strain, and couples are financially devastated just trying to pay for treatments. (And please please let no idiot say "they can just adopt" because my head will explode if I hear that -- adoption is not that easy). Infertility is also humiliating, devastating, but that's a subject for another day.
So infertile couples FINALLY succeed at getting pregnant with much loved, much anticipated, much dreamed for, much prayed for, much desired baby or babies, only to be told that this time, they got "too lucky" and now it is in the best health interests of the mother or infants to do selective reduction.
Can you even begin to imagine what that would be like??
Forget this woman. She's an idiot. Think about the larger issue and try to understand it.
The larger issue is faith, there is no getting around the fact that the Christian
belief is that the soul is infused at the moment of conception.
If you accept this premise you will obviously, come to different conclusions than those who don't.
A woman in actual danger of death is one thing, there are provisions for that.
The heartbreak you mention is indeed that, its a secondary reason the church forbids in-vitro etc.The main being the belief that life is not disposable.
Life is hard, not having children can be tragic, life is that also.We all understand.
I think it's a sad comment that so many men who would not be carrying a pregnancy to term have the most comments.
It boils down to it's not your business what a woman chooses to do to her body and for what reason she chooses to do it.
How about you get to make the decision when you get pregnant, but only for yourself.
If a pregnant woman dies due to complications of a multiple gestation she could have prevented by fetal reduction, isn't she, in effect, killing ALL her unborn children?
No, you can not,in Christan ethics 101 anyway,commit an illicit act because you THINK you may be causing a greater good.
Doctors stating death of mother a strong possibility, another thing.
I think it's a sad comment that so many men who would not be carrying a pregnancy to term have the most comments.
It boils down to it's not your business what a woman chooses to do to her body and for what reason she chooses to do it.
How about you get to make the decision when you get pregnant, but only for yourself.
"Only for yourself" is the operative phrase.
It states you recognize nothing, on earth or in heaven, as being of any concern but you.
First - this was a highly edited article, says so right there, we don't know what was excluded.
Second - do some research. She's a really good writer, very open honest. Braver than I would be to believe so strongly in something that I would put it out there for all the wingnuts to gnaw on.
Third - Sure, adoption is an option. 40 weeks of pregnancy, some of those weeks would be bedrest. Medical expenses, loss of earnings, and 8 to 12 week post-partum recovery, plus post-adoption counseling. Physically and financially takes a year out of a woman's life. Psychologically a lot longer. Who is going to foot the bill for that?
Fourth - Would it be a better situation if a single woman plans to have a baby whilst living in less than desirable conditions, with an unreliable paycheck and no support systems. Would you respect her decision, or criticize her for it?
The Golder Rule states "do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.
Right. She only wanted to have ONE child. Does it really make a difference WHY she wanted to have one child? She felt that one child is the max she could handle. Nature decided to gift her two times too many. It isn't her fault. She (wo)manned up to an out of wedlock pregnancy by continuing it, but she did not want to have three children. It's her right. Sure, the way she recounted her decision was unsettling for me -- I felt it was too over the top and could easily come off as flippant. I ain't no heartless b****, there was no need for her to go through such lengths to tell us what was involved. Then again, she's a feminist, rabid pro-abortion gal, so like the article mentioned - it doesn't surprise me.
I don't find what she did to be any worse than an infertile couple finding out that 7 kids took and they decided that they only could have two. What? They're supposed to have 7...a la Jon & Kate...and give the ones they don't want up for adoption? Even animals cannibalize their own young when litter sizes are too large (not saying that's what humans would do, but selective reduction occurs even in the animal world. go figure). A woman does not HAVE to have children. People need to get that right. A woman should WANT to have children, and if she feels as if one is all that she can handle - be it for lifestyle choice, whatever - it is none of my (or yours) business.
What they are supposed to do is be adult enough to accept their fate and not get involved in this immoral IVF industry in the first place.
She deserves to get "aborted" herself, in her 212th trimester. Its chilling how casually she describes her infanticide but humans can rationalize anything. Its no difference whether you kill that thing while its still inside the womb or after its birth, as long as its convenient to the mother the "choice" is hers.
Last edited by dusk99; 10-15-2009 at 11:22 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
