Did you catch this piece in the New York Times? Numerous bloggers did, and you can read their posts on the incredible article here, here, here, and here.
A thirty-four year-old professional woman describes her reaction to being informed that she had acheived her goal of becoming pregnant. Only, the doctor informs her that she is carrying three babies. "My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets," Amy Richards explained. "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?"
The mom-to-be explored other options, grisly options. She asked the doctor, ''Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?'' So that's what she did. She directed the "doctor" to kill two of her unborn children. "I had a boy, and everything is fine," she concludes. "But thinking about becoming pregnant again is terrifying." Terrifying to whom?
That's disgusting. She actully killed two of her own children.
What's REALLY cool is that, since the cosmetic industry uses collagen from aborted fetuses, she might actually be WEARING her dead babies on her face in the near future. Small world, huh?
Judge Bork has a great hypothetical situation relating to abortion. Suppose your family had a grandfather in a coma on life support. The family decision to take him off, or leave him on life support, is a tough moral choice regardless of their religion. Now, suppose the doctors said that in 9 months the grandfather would awake from the coma and be perfectly healthy - it is no longer a tough moral decision. It's amazing how justifications appear, even for murder, when the self is imposed upon. The Biblical view of human nature is correct - man is inherently selfish.
Homer Fong, you have an interesting and especially creative mind.
Who I feel sorry for in this situation is the child that lived. Why? Glad you asked. It is apparent that this woman will always put her own needs first. The other two children were "inconvenient" for her, so she had them aborted. For the rest of his life it will be, "Mommy has a meeting today," or "not now, I am working on those TPS reports for the office."
Life is life.
Um, yeah.... "Sponge Daddy".. Where going to put cover letters on all TPS reports..From now on. Umkay?
LOL, wondered if anyone would catch that one, "Bill."
By the way, I beleive you have my 'tapler...it's a swingline.
No? Okay, I'll set the building on fire....
Funny how abortion went from being a crime one minute in this country, to a fundamental constitutional right the next.
The difference in development between a five month old "fetus" and a five month old baby is 9 months. The difference in development between a five month old baby and a 90 year old man is ninety years. Yet we value the life of the 5 month old and the ninety year old equally, while the "fetus" is treated like a cancerous tumor, even though there's only nine months separation between he/she and the five month old.
What disturbs me more about this is the simple fact that the problem seems to stem on the idea of having to raise 3 babies instead of 1.
"My career will be over." she complains...
It didn't ever cross her sick, selfish mind that she could have put them up for adoption. I wish God would abort their pitiful existence...shame on the daddy for not having the balls to tell the feminist bitch to think about someone else besides herself. Being a parent means making personal sacrifices...even if it means having to shop for mayonaisse at Costco.
What's even scarier is that she speaks at conventions and writes (advise?) articles online.
Sick, sick, sick, sick....
Tony VD
WWWD? - What Would Warrior Do?
The fact that this woman chose to "selectively terminate" two perfectly healthy fetuses when millions of infertile couples are struggling to have a child and can't is literally, in the words of one woman "a slap in the face."
She was not a victim of incest or rape, she was not in an abusive relationship, she did not have cancer or AIDS, her fetuses did not carry Tay Sach's disease, sickle-cell anemia, neurofibromatosis, coolies anemia, Down's Syndrome, or other sever/fatal birth defects. She just didn't want to give up her lifestyle or make the necessary sacrifices for her children the way all mothers have done since time immememorial. Even her nice-as-peach-pie boyfriended suggsted they give raising triplets a shot; she ignored his desire and refused to do so.
Needless to say, the boyfriend was bothered by it - what normal guy wouldn't when there's even a slight possibility that raising multiple kids is going to be okay, and the woman terminates the multple pregnancy anyway because of selfishness?
Moreover, if her son ever finds out that two of hi roomies-in-utero were aborted becaue his mom didn;t want to raise all three of them together, or even let a friend or relative help raise them, how will he handle it?
