This post no longer fully reflects my current views. Nonetheless, I’m leaving it up because I think it is important to document one’s stages of intellectual evolution!
I said I wasn’t going to blog again today. But I just read this short piece in today’s Sunday New York Times Magazine, and I have tears of rage running down my cheeks. Entitled “When One is Enough”, it’s the story of a 34 year-old woman named Amy Richards who became pregnant with triplets, and decided to kill two of them and give birth to the third. No medical complications were involved; her real reasons are here:
On the subway, Peter (the boyfriend and the child’s father) 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.
At this point, I thought I was reading a not terribly clever satire of 30ish East Coast career women, their elitism, and their incessant anxiety about becoming “just a mom”. But the story continues grimly:
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. (Bold emphases are Hugo’s).
Anyone on the pro-choice side want to make a case that what this woman did was morally defensible?
I’ve mentioned before that I’ve worked and given money on both sides of the abortion divide. Pro-choice until about four years ago, pro-life since; always, always, sympathetic to both sides of this immensely troubling, personal, complex social issue. As a man, I’ve no way of actually knowing what it is like to carry life inside of me. But as I get older, and spend more time with children, and think about becoming a father myself (Lord willin’), I find it harder and harder to accept the old pro-choice bromide that men “have no say in what a woman does with her body.” When I was younger and irresponsible, I liked that line. Pro-choice rhetoric thrust all responsibility on to the woman; I, like other young men, was off the hook. If it’s not my body, ultimately, then my obligation to respect and care for it is lessened accordingly.
Maybe it’s Sunday, and I’m just tired. I’m usually so good at seeing both sides of the issue. Normally, I would blog about this woman and explain how she was clearly caught in a terrible place, and while I disagree with her ultimate decision, I respect her choice, etc., etc., etc. But honestly, folks, the more I think about Amy Richards, the angrier and more tearful I get. I’m sitting here at my keyboard trying to muster sympathy for her, and I just can’t. Amy fucked up. (Honestly, Ph.D. and tenure and all, and that’s the most apt expression I can come up with right now.) And for once, I’m not going to blame what she chose on our society’s treatment of women, or male irresponsibility, or consumer capitalism or anything else. Her own words, as far as I can read, are too damning.
All I can think of is three heartbeats becoming one and I shudder and shudder. I’m going to go hug my girlfriend and my chinchilla now.
To say that Amy Richards “fucked up” is to let her off way too lightly. Everybody fucks up. I did myself yesterday, when I missed an intersection and had to make a u-turn later. What Richards did was nothing of the sort; it was pure evil.
Bravo, Hugo. It’s very comforting to know that pure evil does excite unmitigated and unconflicted responses, even in you! ;-)
I shall pray for the poor child she has bourne, who will have to do without his brothers and sisters. God have mercy on her.
this is one of those times when you wish this is a jason blair holdover and it’s completely made up…… dang it.
Ann Richards is an adult woman, what she chose was a choice, and Hugo, it is a choice that is well worth the rest of us crying over. I don’t have the energy right now to feel anger, but the tears as I type this are real. I’m gonno go watch my three sons sleep.
The woman is a human being, and as such is as liklely to screw things up as anybody else. What about the guys who get loaded and drive drunk, hit other cars and kill people? Do you cry as much for that loss? Or is it only the pre-term individuals who cause your tears?
I’m a woman. I’ve had a child. I can’t say for sure what I’d do in the identical situation, but can only speculate on what I might do. From what has been said, she has been portrayed as a thorougly selfish, “think of me and my creature comforts” kind of woman. But I’ve raised a child alone for a period of time and it’s tough. How much more so when there are 3? Maybe she is selfish — but can I really judge? No. I see how someone has chosen to portray her. It may or may not be an accurate depiction of what went on.
So I can’t totally condemn her. I haven’t walked in her shoes, experienced what she has, and seen things as she does. Call me a sicko if you want, but I’m pro-choice — which does not mean “pro death” but rather giving more weight to the woman in the situation than outsiders who don’t know the situation or who won’t be there after the birth to help her cope.
OK, I’ll say it. What she did was morally defensible. Not in your terms, because there is not apparently anything defensible about any abortion. But someone who views abortion as an option under extenuating circustances would consider this to be a reasonable case, as presented.
First, aside from some last-minute reservations (and it’s not clear from the article that they were disclosed), it seems that the boyfriend was a consenting part of the decision-making process, so any “the man should have a say” arguments are tenuous, at best.
Second, how is multiple-reduction abortion different from solitary abortion? It’s not as easily dismissable as a selfish decision, because it’s not just about the quality of life of the mother: it’s also about the quality of life of the surviving fetus/child. In this case, there is a very strong sense that this is someone who would deeply regret and resent the life changes that came with triplets. I used to joke with my wife that we should have twins up front and save ourselves time and trouble, but one was and is quite enough to deal with; there’s no efficiency of scale with multiples: any savings of time or spending is more than offset by the extra work of having three children in the same phases but different states. Some people really can’t deal well with more than one energetic, demanding, irrational, totally dependent soul at a time.
Now I have to go play with my son. Not out of despair, out of voluntary obligation.
This article really got to me. I aborted twins at 5 1/2 weeks, and it was the most horrible thing I’ve ever done. I wanted those children so bad, but my moral dilemma was whether or not I should carry any child to term when I was taking 4 mg of Xanax a day. It is physically impossible to quit that large of a dose after you have been taking it for years, and I researched it, asked docs, pharmacists, etc., and they all said it was harmful to a fetus. So I thought it would be a sin to willfully bring life that I had damaged into the world. To me, it seems that the real sin took place before I ever got pregnant, by not taking double precautions, since I knew Xanax and pregnancy don’t mix.
This woman seems selfish beyond belief. I don’t think women like her should be forced to carry children that they don’t want to term. She could have made those childrens’ life a living hell. I don’t think she was capable of doing the right thing either way. It is chilling how cold she is. I had the abortion two years ago and cannot seem to get over it. I dream about those babies frequently. How someone could make that choice that cavelierly, I don’t know. I would have gladly taken the bed rest and the large jars of mayo…but I guess we are all different, and that is why choice should remain an option. God knows I’ve seen many irreparably (arguable, I know) damaged children in our criminal justice system. The thing that is the larger crime, is to allow horrible parents to do horrible things to children and make their lives a hell on earth.
One more thing, although I do find this woman’s actions deplorable, right now it might be a better course of action to focus on how we can stop the genocide of thousands upon thousands of children in Sudan, and the bombing of children in Iraq.
I agree with Jonathan. What she did was morally defensible to the same extent that any abortion is morally defensible. This is no different than any other abortion.
It just seems to have caught your attention, Hugo. because the odd circumstances created some publicity. (What’s wrong with a woman realizing that trying to raise triplets was going to result in her and her children living in near-poverty and making a choice not to live like that?)
(Are you an expert on such pregnancies, including the dangers to the mother and the fetuses? Are you an expert on this woman’s financial situation and home life?)
I could go on and on, but I won’t. The bottom line is that it’s hypocritical to come over all sentimental about a fetus in the womb when this country can’t manage to provide decent lives for the children already living here.
People who say they’re deeply concerned about “life” should consider the nightmare that “life” is to too many children in this country.
If you want to do something useful, leave the women who choose not to bring forth lives they can’t take care of alone and put your energy into reforming something like the “family welfare” agencies in this country so that the people charged with overseeing and protecting our most vulnerable citizens have the resources, finances, and training they need to do just that.
Jonathan, there is no “savings’ with having twins or triplets. In fact, it’s more expensive.
Instead of saving the first child’s outgrown clothing for the next arrival, you have to outfit two or three at once.
Medical care…every expense is doubled or tripled immediately, instead of being spread out over a number of years. Food bills…again, you have to feed two or three extra mouths from “day one” instead of one extra mouth. Strollers, car seats, cribs, everything has to be purchased in multiples.
Housing can be a nightmare. For the first year you might be able to put three children in one apartment-sized bedroom, but shortly thereafter you’re going to need a lot more space.
I’m still trying to decide which is worse- the shallowness or the selfishness of this woman.
Twins are dead because of it.
This is her, by the way.
She closes her bio with “Who knows what tomorrow holds, but I hope more of all of the above,” after detailing various not overly noteworthy activities.
Guess who didn’t get to have a tomorrow because you had to keep your East Village loft.
Anne-
A few points. First, if you read the article, you’ll note that, at the point she terminated the twins, the doctor had told her that there was minimal risk.
Secondly, people who can afford to live in Manhattan aren’t financially ill-equipped to have children, even several at once.
Putting aside the larger abortion or not argument for a moment, none of the concerns you raise justify what this woman did.
Jonathan - I came back to apologize to you. :)
I should not, of course, have forgotten all of the work you do with kids, and I’m sorry that I did forget for a moment. You didn’t deserve that particular rant.
Hugo, I often agree with your perspectives even when we’re coming from completely different places, but this time I had the exact opposite reaction as you when I read this–the article made me feel quite good. Here’s why: as a pro-choice with feminist convictions, I’ve always been troubled by the way many, many pro-choice advocates and politicians join with pro-lifers when it comes to heaping shame on women who have abortions. I want to live in a world where women aren’t lead that their abortion is a moral and personal failing that leaves them with a horrible stain and so on. The only way to get to that point is for women to stand up and and say “I’ve had an abortion. I’m still a moral person, I don’t need to justify myself to you through shame or defiance.” Amy Richards should be applauded for doing just that. I don’t expect this will win me many fans around these parts, but it’s my honest reaction to this story.
Anne: I was trying to be funny with the line about savings, but it didn’t work. You’re right, which is something that I came to realize very quickly once we had our own solitary child.
And those who think that she should have kept all three might also want to consider the following: it takes approximately twenty-five acres of resources to sustain the lifestyle of the average American, but there are only five acres of land per person on the world. So in the long run, her decision saved the lives of several, possibly dozens, of other people. I’m not a utilitarian consequentialist, by nature, but population and natural resources is an issue which needs to be considered.
Hugo:
Another one of your better works. I don’t see anything wrong with being consistent in how you feel and what you believe in. Nor do I see reason to try and reconcile opposing views. The excerpts in your post said enough and the link The Angry Clam left– only enforced the same “shallowness or the selfishness of this woman.”
Again, there is no point in trying to reconcile these two views. DJW hits the point on the head with the argument regarding shame. Shame leads to guilt. If pro-choicers can absolve themselves of shame then there is no guilt therefore no wrong and no reason to change. As pro-choicers absolve themselves of shame they begin to cast shame on those who have children that they believe the parents cannot “afford”.
So both sides can create arguments, even some “intelligent” ones that sound all fancy and rational. Though I don’t see what is rational in “intentionally” getting pregnant and then aborting, which is a clue as to when abortions may truely have justification. It is what you believe and if it helps… I will help you say it– it’s fucked up what she did.
As pro-choicers absolve themselves of shame they begin to cast shame on those who have children that they believe the parents cannot “afford”.
Does it have to be one or the other? I certainly don’t align myself with people who do that. I’d rather work to build a society that supports childrearing as a valued and financially feasible for all, regardless of their means, and works to eliminate the disadvantages the children of the poor face. Though we’re not there, I think the decision to raise children should be honored and respected regardless, and what help we as a community can offer for those of lesser means should be made.
DJW (and joe): The connection you note between pro-choice and anti-poverty rhetoric has its roots in the early 20th century relationship between abortion and eugenics, as well as in the very real “demographic transition” which took place around the same time.
In short, the late 19th/early 20th centuries is when the demographic transition took place in the industrialized West. The demographic transition, for those of you who aren’t social historians or demographers, is the point at which the majority of the population stops trying to have as many children as possible, because it is no longer economically advantageous or viable. In other words, in order to preserve and protect their family finances, lots of families limit their size, and average family size drops sharply. Life expectancies usually rise, due in part to drops in infant/childhood mortality rates (which is also a factor in attempts to control births).
This is all well and good, but this also happened around the time of the eugenics movements, which sought to “improve the species” by promoting birth among “good quality” populations and discouraging it among “poor quality” populations. It was believed by many of the theorists and followers of this movement, including one Margaret Sanger, that most people were poor because they didn’t have the qualities necessary to succeed, and so reducing the size of the poor family would both improve the financial situation of the families involved and decrease the share of the population occupied by such unsuccessful breeders (never noting, apparently, the contradiction between these propositions).
There was indeed a very strong strain of rhetoric, in popular science, in social science, in women’s magazines, etc., which equated birth control with intelligent family practice and cast large families as moral and financial failures.
Before we get too condemnatory, I just want to point out that this was the height of social and anthropological science at the time, and these views were held by a very wide swath of educated Western society, middle- and upper-classes, across the US and Europe and in some strongly Western-influenced Asian societies.
That said, there are a number of clear, fatal flaws in the logic (and science) involved, which is why those of us who support choice try, usually, not to invoke too many economic choice arguments. Sometimes it makes sense, but the ghosts of those old arguments are hard to shake off.
I would, though, like to point out that this whole debate hinges, in part, on contraceptive choices, which only one of the commenters here have addressed.
I’m going to try to keep my comment brief today, because if I’m ever going to get a good post up on my site today, I need to curb my commenting impulses a bit!
My immediate reaction was this: Amy made a terrible mistake, and a terribly selfish choice. There may be more to it than that, but that’s what I felt right away. It’s very sad.
But I think we should all be careful not to paint all pro-choice women (or men, for that matter) with that same brush.
I don’t see Amy’s situation as evidence that a pro-choice stance is an inherently selfish one. I see it as one woman - one educated, adult, American woman - making what seems to some of us to be a poor choice. That doesn’t mean (in my opinion, of course) that the right to choose should be revoked for everyone because some people don’t use that right wisely.
I think there are plenty of pro-choicers out there who could never possibly terminate a pregnancy, but realize that sometimes this is the best or the ONLY option for other women. I don’t call that selfish.
First, my earlier apology should have been tendered to Hugo and not Jonathan. That’s what I get for posting when I’m tired.
And I did understand you were joking, Jonathan, but there are a fair number of people who do, in fact, believe you can raise twins or triplets for just a fraction more than a solitary child.
Clam - Your points are valid, but that doesn’t change the fact that having triplets would have a severe, negative impact on anyone’s financial situation. (I’m leaving the Rockefellers and their ilk aside, of course)
Consequently, it also doesn’t change the fact that she was right in saying that giving birth to triplets would necessitate a much lower standard of life for her and for the babies. Especially when you consider that she would have had to spend months in bed for a “safe” pregnancy even before the babies were born. After the birth…well, three babies take three times as much care, so that’s a substantial amount of time she wouldn’t have to spend making the money she needed to support her family.
Your own first comment, where you sneer at her work, says plainly enough that you believe she should have put reproduction ahead of everything else, regardless of how she actually wanted to spend her life.
A woman is more than a womb and a pregnancy shouldn’t be the end of her life as an independent adult.
I have to second Lorie, this was one woman’s choice, and although it appears to be a poor choice to many and an option to some, her decision is not a valid reason for arguing to revoke the right to choose for all.
The fact is that if we all made the right choice the first time around then we wouldn’t need options like these…but that it is not realistic is it.
I think that if we boil it down to whether a woman (or family) can afford, care for, have time to manage a child or multiple children, we are really focusing on the wrong thing. In my mind, what it really comes down to is whether the person or persons whose choice it is to make, want the child or children. If you have children and love them, then it is almost impossible for you to understand the desire to not want a child.
Our society label women as selfish when they choose, for whatever reason, not to have children. These women, myself included, are seen as incorrect somehow. Devoid and unfulfilled are terms that I have been forced to endure. And its okay, for now. I know that my choice and that of my husband to refrain from producing offspring is and will continue to be the correct decision for us. But we have been lucky. I could say that we have been very careful, having taken necessary steps for permanent birth control, but even more drastic steps have been known to fail.
I applaud those couples who choose to have children and then raise them well. I am horrified by people who just have children and set them loose upon society. My ideal world would be one where people make responsible and loving choices for marriage and family, where our first choices were made wisely and with real thought and communication. Although it sounds simple, it is rarely achieved.
And, perhaps, those of us who are watching Rudy and Sam and are sympathizing with the difficulties that this loving family are going through, are more sensitive to the cold, harsh reality of another persons life decision and more quick to be critical and judgemental than usual.
Very good comment thread. Anything i might add would simply make me sound like a right wing, anti-abortion zealot (which i probably am, by the way). Although, like Hugo, i was pro-choice until just a few years ago when i realized that i couldn’t logically justify that position with my belief that a fetus is a human life. And like John Kerry, i believe that abortion is murder, so for me to feel the slightest sympathy whatsoever for that Richards woman is completely out of the question. Sorry.
Again, Hugo, Happy Seneca Falls Day!
Anne: that sound you’re hearing in the background is the world’s smallest violin. Heaven forbid that a larger than expected pregnancy might conflict with a woman’s “independence,” or even force her to move to - horror of all horrors - Staten Island. A word to the wise: as long as you plan to maintain a lifestyle as an “independent adult,” Do. Not. Get. Pregnant. It’s really that simple.
Oh, but if she hadn’t killed 2/3 of her babies, she might have had to go on bed rest for a few months! Boo frickin’ hoo. Mrs. X has been on bed rest since early May for a single baby that’s not due until October. You know what? That really sucks! Primarily, it sucks for her, of course, but it sucks for me, too, and for everyone else involved. Nevertheless, neither of us ever considered abortion, even though both of us are pro-choice. Part of the deal with freedom on any issue is a moral obligation, if not a legal one, to use that freedom responsibly. Amy Richards did not do that, which is bad. Now she’s out advertising her bad choice and encouraging others to do the same, which is worse. If I abused my constitutional right to free speech or press (to say nothing of my constitutional right to bear arms) half as badly as Richards abused her pseudo-constitutional right to abortion, I’d be in prison, and rightly so.
Perhaps the silliest defense of all that I’ve seen in this thread is the notion that the Richards Massacre was a selfless act that helped preserve a higher standard of living for the one child that survived it. I say we reserve judgement on that one until he as least old enough to speak for himself. Then let him tell us if his life would have been better growing up on the mean streets of Staten Island with two siblings his own age and the shame of a mother having to shop at Costco, or if mommy did the right thing by bumping them off so he could grow up as an only child in posh Manhattan.
As the saying goes, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. It appears to me that those who hold to a Christian viewpoint tend to be the first to judge other people. As a so-called man you should let this woman’s decision be her decision. Whatever results occur due her decision is for her to deal with. Are you her parent? As a side note, I don’t see you or the church and its sheep taking in homeless or abused children and women. Your outrage is nothing more than feigned concern for the “unborn child”.
First of all none of us can really comment effectively because none of us are 1) either one of the two children in this case who were killed or, 2) the father of those children who had no real say in their deaths other than to be told that having them live would be impossible.
Our society’s policies on abortion now are incoherent. On the third floor of a hospital in a major urban area doctors and nurses can gather, smock and begin a medical testing procedure on a 16 week old preborn needed to save her life. In this case they treat her as their patient because, in fact, that is what she is.
On another floor of the same hospital, or in a clinic only miles away, a preborn the same age can be defined as inhuman and done away with. Same city, same age child, same everything, but one child is a patient and the other not even a human being.
This is a logical break as unsustainable as slavery was in the 1850’s and the steadily marching advance of medical technology will make the divide loom only larger.
With all that said, there is nothing for situations like this one but conversion. Having kids of any number is tough. Having three infants is tough, but then so is having a two year old and an infant (as my god daughters family), so is having five kids under the age of five (as does another family I know).
The only love that makes any sense in a sitution like this is the love of Christ, the love that gives itself away in order to find itself in the end. I feel badly for the everyone in this case, for Amy and for the father, who likely mourns, for the kids who were killed and for the one who remains who faces life (if the witness of other twins is true) echoing with the syblings no longer here. I know who will be part of my prayers this week.
Oh, for the record to David, who wrote above, I feel very confident that had Amy felt she needed financial or other support to have raised these kids, or to have two of them adopted, she would have found ample support in the New York area from among the city’s Christians and others of good will.
Anne — I had the same reaction as another commenter below you, but I’ll take it further: independence is a farce. You can’t be in a relationship of any kind and maintain full independence. Full independence requires full selfishness, full of not giving a shit about anyone else because if you did, concerns for them would infringe on your independence. It doesn’t matter whether you’re having one child or five: you are no longer beholden only to yourself.
As for Ms. Richards’ contempt for suburbia and Costco, I can’t say that isn’t what I’d expect from someone who doesn’t see value in anything but her narrowminded goals and ideals. Life changes when you have children, just like life changes when you fall in love, just like life changes when you see a little more of the world, look at it a little bit closer, have the courage to challenge your values, accept the possibility of change.
I certainly think relative independence is a time in life to be cherished, celebrated, and enjoyed (within reason, not doing harm to others or to your future). Some people never become adults capable of having others depend on them. But to stop two hearts because you can’t stand the thought of being like the rest of American women not only demonstrates a foul contempt for motherhood, but an unwillingness to compromise with perceived ideals.
Would I be more financially privileged today if my parents had only had one kid? You had better believe it. But I wouldn’t be the person I am, and my life would be empty by comparison. I’d trade all the niceties of Manhattan and the world for my siblings.
And the sad thing is, I would bet that Amy Richards’ little boy would, too.
I went to watch my three sons sleep because I know given a few different circumstances in my life I might have made the same choice as Amy Richards. And I’m thankful that I didn’t.
It is one of a female’s primal instincts to protect her young. Amy chose not to. And I believe there is a natural consequence to disregarding the law of nature.
My tears, again, as I write this comment are for Ms. Richard’s, her three children, and Peter. Call me simple, call me sentimental, call me stupid. Noone can see the wound to a soul. That does not mean they are not worth crying over.
Jonathan:
I have thought somewhat along with what you have written, of course I haven’t the training nor the inclination to check the demographics, thanks. I have simply noted that the more affluent and maybe more enlightened societies have become, the less children folks have. I have also observed that the poor and less educated folks don’t have these same limits, to put it nicely, and even where there isn’t social welfare like in the U.S. I have wondered, and maybe you have an answer, historically has this been a problem with civilizations. Does affluence ironically breed civilizations to ruins?
Rhetoric is thick in these parts, I agree. However, I would disagree with you in and say that contraception has little regard, if any, in this debate. If one doesn’t want to get pregnant then don’t have sex—there’s a choice.. Contraception is only a means in limiting the risk and responsibility of pregnancy.
Sneer at the value of her work?
She’s written a manifesto-ish book, done some low-level political organizing, and done the lecture circuit, to who knows what size of crowds.
That’s not saying that it’s trivial, just that her life isn’t exactly so utterly crucial to the rest of the world that children, whom she conceived after knowingly going off the pill, needed to die for it.
I freely admit that I haven’t done anything altogether noteworthy with myself, either. I’ve done some interesting things, had various successes and failures, but the world would not stop if I cut back on my job. I know this. Anne doesn’t.
*Ann = Amy.
Confusing her with the former Texas governor Anne Richards…
I was sorely tempted to call her “governatrix” as well, just to see what the reaction would be.
Children, Children , Children. Whenever people don’t like something they use children as an excuse. Whatever the decision is to abort a pregnancy is a decision that a woman will have to live with forever. Most people seem to think that it all occurs in a vacuum. I can guarantee that the psychological and emotional damage a woman experiences due to abortion will never be known. Mr. Hugo and those who rally behind him should ease up. How do they know it was an “easy” choice to make? Are they sure that this woman is having a good time right now? Relax people. There is more to the situation than your assessing from an article in a paper.
By the way, I just heard that a six year old girl was gunned down with an AK-47 in El Monte. Where is the outrage folks? I think that is far worse than sparing an unborn child the ridiculousness around us.
joe: I don’t think anyone has equated affluence with impending decline: all empires fall, eventually, but I think attributing it to the ennervating effects of affluence is an association, not a causal relationship.
My favorite demographic fact: other variables matter, but the strongest correlation, substantiated time and time again, is between declining birth rates and rising female literacy and education.
Now, declining birth rates aren’t necessarily a problem, if you have ways to replace labor with automation, outsource, or renew the population with immigration (but then, to persist in the form to which it’s become accustomed, the empire must also acculturate its immigrants).
I disagree about contraception, though: the whole “adventure” began when she decided to trade one set of side-effects and risks for another one.
Jonathan:
Your favorite demographic was my point, probably poorly stated. “Now, declining birth rates aren’t necessarily a problem, if you have ways to replace labor with automation, outsource, or renew the population with immigration” But isn’t this the crux of the whole problem. I’m leery with throwing this name out due to a lack of understanding of his full works; however, aren’t these, and more so immigration, the problems which S.P. Huntington has referred? “The empire must also acculturate its immigrants”. Can this happen in American society, with so many freedoms. Many times the reverse seems to happen.
It would be interesting to know how many other animals in the animal kingdom have sex for recreation. Pleasure would seem to be a drive for most if not all animals to have sex or is there actually an instinct that leaves pleasure out of the equation and procreation becomes the natural drive? I guess the one thing which makes humans different is our ability to rationalize beyond all other known animals. Not to turn this into who is morally right, but take the laws of Judaism or Christianity. Their god had the foresight to create some laws forbidding certain sexual acts. Was this because the same god made them rational and He knew what would eventually be rationalized?
Self-interest and self-gratification appears to be many folks rationalization on how to conduct themselves. I think a main reason clergy were hesitant with contraception was not so much a person taking responsibility for the effects of their actions, but potentially demeaning the whole process and power of procreation. Hence when contraception fails–abort.
Folks my sideline this issue, but the choice in having children rest in the choice in having sex.
Anne:
don’t try the drop in quality of life crap. I just posted in the follow up to this piece, “more on amy…” I’m a divorced father of two. Blue-collar type guy who lives in an efficiency with a dvd player, TV, and computer as my (nearly) only itmes of any value…..but my ex- and I both work many hours a week to make sure that the children can live in comfort. It’s called “doing what you have to do, for who you’re responsible for”. I’m lucky that I have technical skills, so I can get a halfway decent job, but in the past, I have worked 3 seperate jobs to get the money my family needed. She has no excuse other than the fact that she is a morally bankrupt and utterly despicable human being, and I use that tem very loosely at this point. I’m not trying to label her, but to act like it’s all on her is childish and unrealistic. I do everything I do for my family with NO support system. My ex moved where we presently live from another state, so she has no support. We work as a team to look after our little non-traditional family unit. As pointed out before to you, in the real world, someone who lives in manhattan is NOT financially challenged. Face it, she didn’t want to be inconvenienced with more than 1 child, so she decided to “have her cake and eat it too”. Sadly, I am willing to bet she would NEVER have considered carrying the 3 to term, THEN give the twins up for adoption….because THAT would make her look like a horrible person. HAH, the irony of that is not lost on you, I hope.
Here’s the thing Anne, When you enter into a relationship, be that husband and wife or mother and father, you are no longer independant. You become Co-dependant. This does not mean you lose your individuality. As a father of two and our last child residing in the NICU for 2weeks with a few touch and go moments, I realized that my family and I are one unit. To suggest that you lose your independence, you are correct. But the co-dependency shared by this unit we call family is stronger than any argument you could make otherwise.
I hope it’s okay that I repeat a comment I posted on A Small Victory:
I’m pro-choice and I have absolutely no problem with what Amy Richards did.
The two embryonic children she killed hadn’t yet developed functioning cerebral cortexts; they were incapable of feeling or thinking anything. Humans with no history of thought or feeling are not capable of being harmed.
Amy Richards decided that she wanted to raise one child at a time. As a result of having this child (rather than triplets), there’s a good chance she’ll feel willing and able to have another child in a year or two, which she might not have been willing to have otherwise. Part of pro-choice is the idea that women have the right to control not only the size, but also the timing of their families, as much as medicine and biology (and luck) permits.
In the end, this is better for everyone - not only for the parents, but also for the children who are born. (And it’s not bad for the children who are aborted, because they’re aborted before they become people).
joe: This is wandering a bit off the abortion topic, but…
Yeah, Huntington is big on immigration and acculturation these days. But there’s several things wrong with his argument. First, the new migrants are acculturating, more or less at the same rate that immigrants have always acculturated, it’s just that it’s more of a steady flow than we’ve ever allowed. We can try to speed the process (which doesn’t work terribly well) or we can try to legislate the content of curricula to shape the acculturation (which doesn’t work terribly well in this country), or we can just try to be good and interesting people and hope that people will want to be like us, which works, as it happens, really, really well.
Second, change happens. The “culture” he’s hell-bent on preserving did not spring, like Athena, from the forehead of Zeus, nor was it unproblematically a great culture. Huntington wants to freeze things; that’s irrational and irresponsible and impossible. Even if we closed our borders today, or went back to a “percentage based on previous share of population” as the infamous 1924-1965 immigration regime had it, that’s not a guarantee that my son will grow up in the same civilization that I did, any more than I grew up in the same culture that my parents did. There are continuities, yes, but it’s not the same.
Murder for the sake of convenience…how many will think it’s such a grand idea when our children decide which of us are candidates for “reduction” when our lives become inconvenient to them?
Jonathan:
Feel free to correct me. Let me see if I can return this to the topic of abortion. Abortion and the option of abortion, do you see it as a decline in society or an improvement to it?
Affluence, which I will equate with “rising female literacy and educationâ€, has been a cause to declining birth rates. Has abortion become a tool to this end? Contraception most definitely has. I pointed out earlier, when contraception fails, then abort, and I’ll add—for some. At least then, it is another option and method of declining birth rates.
For the less affluent people, are birth rates declining and if so are they substantial in comparison to the affluent? In getting off the topic, I was hoping to draw a comparison to those of affluence (education) and those less affluent (little education) and its impact on society. Do the enlightened ideals of abortion and contraception, which are probably used mostly by the well-to-do, a benefit to society?
joe: Birth rate is less a function of affluence and more a function of education, particularly women’s education, so there’s an association, but not a cause. And I think your presumption that abortion and contraception are used “mostly by the well-to-do” both overestimates the numbers of well-to-do and underestimates the number of lower and middle class folks who use all those condoms, pills, diaphrams cluttering up drugstores. Also, and this was a fallacy the early eugenics movement fell into, too, it’s not necessarily a bad thing for there to be fewer rich kids and more lower and middle class kids.
I think it’s impossible to answer the question you’re asking, is abortion a benefit or a detriment to society and how, in the abstract. There aren’t enough historical examples, nor has enough time passed on the ‘experiments’ currently in progress, to make those judgements.
rather than accepting hugo’s premise that amy richards is shallow and morally bankrupt for choosing to reduce her pregnancy, i would rather label hugo as shallow and morally bankrupt for presuming to know better than amy richards what the best decision would be for amy to make. hugo isn’t involved with amy’s boyfriend, hugo isn’t going through this pregnancy, and hugo isn’t living amy’s life.
hugo would apparently like to believe that to create a baby, you simply deposit sperm in a woman and let ‘er cook for nine months. no strain or stress on the woman’s body whatsoever, and by the way, giving birth is easy too. and we all know that peter’s absolutely guaranteed to stick by amy and be there for her and any children she has, too, just like my partner has been a fantastic emotional support system for me and doesn’t believe that all he has to do to be a good father is write a check every month. </sarcasm>
the bottom line is, it isn’t up to you. legal or illegal, abortion will happen. i’m just glad it’s legal so it can be safer for women, so they can safely make decisions which will allow them to properly take care of themselves whether or not they’re absolutely independent–because if childrens’ caretakers don’t take care of themselves, the children will suffer too.
but, i dunno, maybe i’m just crazy. it isn’t like i’ve never been pregnant or had a child or anything. unlike hugo, um, i actually have a uterus.
Geez how incredibly materialistic, “Anne”, you moron. These are human lives, and you worry about cost of diapers and health care.
When we had our first child, some of the attendees of the child pre-birth classes and the Lamaze classes had vouchers paid for by the government. There is all sorts of help available.
Stollers and carriages? There are used ones all over the place with little use. Pick up 3 for 30 bucks. One bedroom could accomodate the 3 for at least a few years.
So typical of the spoiled “me first” idiots out there. Thanks for confirming that there are more idiots than just this Amy character out there. Please honey, for our sake, don’t breed.
Medical care…every expense is doubled or tripled immediately, instead of being spread out over a number of years. Food bills…again, you have to feed two or three extra mouths from “day one” instead of one extra mouth. Strollers, car seats, cribs, everything has to be purchased in multiples.
Housing can be a nightmare. For the first year you might be able to put three children in one apartment-sized bedroom, but shortly thereafter you’re going to need
a lot more space.
Thomas Anderson, and anyone else who thinks that this is primarily about money, what planet do you live on?! Have you ever spent time in the NICU?
Look, if you were to see me in person, you would think I was the picture of health. My ob-gyn certainly thought so, and there was no reason why she shouldn’t have. Being a real gym rat and having a physically active job gave me a very visible muscle tone. I’m a lifelong nonsmoker. Not one drop of alcohol during the pregnancy (or during my breastfeeding later..but I’m getting ahead of myself). Took all my vitamins. I avoid fast food, preferring good old fashioned Sicilian home-cooking. If you had seen me during my pregnancy, you woulda thought, “Hell, bet she could carry two or three….standing on her head, even…and doing pushups besides.”
But it didn’t turn out that way. My cervix dilated early, for no apparent reason. After a week of hospitalized bed rest (I was too far gone for cerclage), I was rapidly wheeled into the operating room, where I delivered a 25-week daughter into the world, a whopping 1 pound, 10 ounces…by emergency c-section.
Have you seen any babies born that early? I mean, up close and personal? My daughter was red…like red meat. Preemies of that gestation do not have body fat, and their skin is translucent, so you see right down to the muscle layer. Her hand was as big as my knuckle….and buddy, I’ve got small hands. Her hand wouldn’t reach all the way around my finger. She was an ‘alphabet soup’ of complications…that’s what I called it, because for convenience’s sake, the long medical terms are shortened….”bronchopulmonary dysplasia” becomes BDP, IVH instead of intraventricular hemmorage, you get the idea. The University of Wisconsin has a section of their website devoted to information for parents of preemies; if you go there and look at the list of common complications—my daughter had almost all of them. About the only thing she didn’t have was any kidney problems; she peed like a trooper from day one (good thing too, because one of the first things her neonatologist told me, immediately after my anesthesia wore off, right as they were wheeling me out of the operating room, was that she had a 50-50 chance of survival, and kidneys are crucial in that statistic…80% of those who died in the first couple of days were due to kidney failure).
I got a crash course in neonatology over the next six months, in two different hospitals. And the ordeals weren’t over when she came home either.
I’m pro-choice. For other people. I never want that for myself. But the fact is, carrying triplets is not so fucking easy. A regular, run-of the mill pregnancy for a young, healthy, “health-nut” turned out to be not so easy. Carrying triplets is a guaranteed trip to the NICU. And usually around the same gestational frame that my daughter made it there in. I am fortunate. A lot of parents I met buried their preemies.
Now, a lot of folks keep coming back to the Costco-mayonnaise comment. I think it is good to keep in mind that Ms. Richards told her story to someone else who wrote the actual article. And how we speak is usually different than how we write; vocal inflections, hand gestures, facial expressions, pauses….all of the modifiers of our speaking voices are not present in print—it’s a naturally colder medium. Being someone’s mama, I didn’t bat an eyelash at that comment, because I thought it was an ironic jab at the vapid stereotypes of motherhood that are presented to us in the media….which is a whole-’nother post of it’s own. Many mothers are angry about not seeing realistic versions of motherhood; I’m one of ‘em! So…there’s that.
I don’t assume that we know the whole story here, and I certainly don’t assume to know what was going through her mind. I do know that in crisis situations, you do a lot of thinking on your feet, and images and scenarios come quickly….just like life itself does at that time. I flashed forward to the disabilities I feared my daughter would have. I started reading books on brain development. Literally, a hundred-thousand different scenarios crossed my mind in the short time I would wait in the anteroom before seeing her. That’s how it works.
I don’t know what I would do in her situation. I’d like to be able to say, “hell no, I wouldn’t selective-abort!”, but I don’t know that to be true. I have a classic c-section, one that doesn’t allow me to tolerate labor without uterine rupture (which tends to be a killer for mother and baby, unless they’re already in the operating room).
People have an almost religious faith in the powers of modern medicine. We see programs on TV and read magazine articles about miracles….like my little miracle. We are not bombarded with the other stories the stories of burials, of institutionalized kids, of marriages that break under the strain, of the suicides of heartbroken parents.
People. She wanted a child. No one expects to have triplets. It’s scary. For very real reasons. She had a healthy, full-term baby. I say congratulations for her. She made a medical decision, even if that wasn’t what came out in the article. For all I revealed, I left a whole helluva lot out.
Think about it. And remember what you-know-who said about casting the first stone.
Thanks for the post. I am sort of late reading about this. Thanks for sharing. I needed that.
hmm. so, i’m incredibly late reading this, but i’m shocked and appalled at most of these responses, which focus obsessively upon whether or not what Amy did was “justified” by the circumstances - ??? I’m a male feminist who has known several women who have had abortions, including an ex. we “fucked up,” yes, but we agreed - with the final decision (not that it was a difficult one to make) going to her - that we were not ready or willing to bring another child into the world or to adequately parent it.
I’m too frustrated to lay out an argument for my conclusion, but I believe that the decision to abort is not one that needs to be “justified,” and all the quibbling about justification on the part of people who (well, some of them) appear to consider themselves pro-choice is the kind of self-defeating drivel that is going to get roe v. wade overturned w/in the next four years. would you say that a woman who “fucked up” by getting pregnant when she did not plan to do so (regardless of whether she had a partner and whether or not she, or the couple, had the financial ability to care for a child) whould be “fucking up” again by having an abortion? I certainly hope not. Amy was in a special situation which made her decision (to me) completely understandable…to say nothing of “justifiable,” because such language shouldn’t even enter into it.
john, there are a lot of people (on whatever ’side’) who simply can’t or won’t think logically about abortion. Their position relies mostly on their evaluation of their own risk (”what if *I* needed one?”) or on subjective opinions of the pregnant woman’s sexual behavior. That’s why you have ‘pro-choice’ people screaming about Amy Richards, or ‘pro-life’ people who nonetheless think abortion for rape victims is perfectly OK.
My question is what makes what Amy Richards does regarding her own body and her own health that is any of your or my business? The Constitution protects against illegal search and seizure, and yet somehow a woman’s womb is considered public property. Why is that? It’s what I don’t understand about the anti-choice-pro-government stance.
If the fetuses are not viable, then any government action necessarily entails taking over control of the woman’s body.
I note all the men’s resistance to anything like castration of serial rapists and child molesters. Funny how the attitudes change when it comes to a man’s body.
I’m with media girl. If the fetus cannot survive outside the person’s body, then it’s still part of the person’s body, and nobody else’s business.
But I would add that if you believe abortion is murder… then it shouldn’t matter the reasons for the abortion. If you believe abortion is murder - then the only reason that could justify abortion would be if the baby was trying to kill the mother - ie: self-defense.
So this story isn’t exactly a convincing argument “against abortion”.
Just sounds like an opportunity to judge someone else as petty & selfish. Well, there’s plenty of people like that in the world - and a lot of them are men!
And after all, I’ve heard MANY stories where men have coerced or forced their wifes/girlfriends into having abortions. I hope you’re crying for them too, and outraged by those mean selfish bastards!
The eugenics generation. Feminazi HellBitches and their typical dissonance.
You’ll try to justify abortion under any circumstance. What a smug, hellish despotic gang of thugs this generation of
American feminazis really is. What despicable pieces of shit. Millions of healthy children slaughtered to inflate your arrogant, bloated egos. Youre not even worthy to carry your gonads let alone decide the fate of the unborn. The day is coming when all you feminazi-bolshevik dupes are going to be paying the piper. The day is coming when all you infanticidal despots are going to eat every last word and every putrid deed. Get ready for the Gulag vermin. North Korea will be your fate.
Feminazi Chloe blathered frothingly;
[Just sounds like an opportunity to judge someone else as petty & selfish. Well, there’s plenty of people like that in the world - and a lot of them are men!
And after all, I’ve heard MANY stories where men have coerced or forced their wifes/girlfriends into having abortions. I hope you’re crying for them too, and outraged by those mean selfish bastards!]
Forced an abortion?? Your arrogance even dwarfes all the crusading despots throughout history. Feminazi’s are the epitome of coercion and brutality. To hell with you and your twisted demands for power and control. Stalinists to the core, yet even Stalin rejected abortion. Youre the phoniest hypocrits in all human history. The Gulag will suit you best when youre digging those latrines in the mud. Change your nazi ways. Jerks.
This story is about convenience. Who wants to put up with 3 babies when you can only have one. After all, it’s not normal! When things get a little beyond the range of what is comfortable we just opt for abortion. No problem….except for the reality that you have to live with your decision for the rest of your life!
Hugo: Anyone on the pro-choice side want to make a case that what this woman did was morally defensible?
Yes. If you think (as I do) that abortion is part of a woman’s moral right to control her own body, then why would you have any particular indignation about Amy Richards’ decision?
Your reaction makes sense on one common anti-abortion view (the view that abortion is a grave evil, but that women who feel constrained to choose it by dire circumstances deserve compassion rather than condemnation). It doesn’t make very much sense on the most common pro-choice views. It seems to me that the disagreement on this case will have a lot to do with general attitudes towards abortion and very little to do with Amy Richards’ circumstances specifically.
The pro-choice position does not depend on whether you feel sorry for the poor girl or not. It’s based on respect for women’s choices.
candace: And the sad thing is, I would bet that Amy Richards’ little boy would, too.
This is preposterous arrogance. You don’t know Amy Richards and you almost certainly will never know her “little boy.” He didn’t ask you to speak on his behalf and I can’t see where you got any particular knowledge or authority that would make it appropriate for you to do so. If you want to make a case against abortion you should feel free, but using a stranger’s child as a ventriloquist’s prop in trying to make it only undermines your efforts.
joe: In getting off the topic, I was hoping to draw a comparison to those of affluence (education) and those less affluent (little education) and its impact on society. Do the enlightened ideals of abortion and contraception, which are probably used mostly by the well-to-do, a benefit to society?
There’s no need to speculate about who “probably” uses abortion and contraception. Data is publicly available. As it happens, you’re correct about contraception but mistaken about abortion: poor and low-income women are more likely than “well-to-do” women to have abortions (see: Alan Guttmacher Institute: Patterns in the Socioeconomic Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortions in 2000-2001 in the Findings under “Women’s Characteristics”); the rate of abortion per 1,000 women decreases fairly steadily as annual income increases. Anyway, I’m unclear what any of this has to do with whether abortion should or should not be legal. If birth rates decline in proportion to increases in female literacy and education, then that must mean that women, given the resources and options to make a meaningful choice, are choosing not to have as many children as they had previously had. The women making these choices are human beings, not machines for maximizing whatever demographic statistics you happen to find important; each and every one of the women in question has her own life and her own reasons for choosing to have fewer children, and I can’t imagine where policy-makers would get the knowledge or the virtue or the right to tell her that she needs to abandon those reasons in order to make quota.