Going to have triplets, but don't want to give up your swanky Manhattan apartment?
 

Could you make this choice?

LIVES
When One Is Enough
By AMY RICHARDS as told to AMY BARRETT

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.


From NY TImes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/ma...rint&position=

Yes, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I wish more people put this kind of thought into having children. Too many people have children they know they can't care for in the right way. And later on, both the parent and the child are punished for it. The mother is bitter that the children ruined her life and the children are bitter that their mother couldn't bring them up properly. It just makes screwed up, unhappy people.
I hope this lady and her kid (and her boyfriend) are happy together.

You know what would have been better? After she went off of the Pill, USING A CONDOM!!! Thats the part that pisses me off the most. Sure, the pill might suck and turn you into a moody cow. And yeah, condoms are a pain in the ass too. But so would discovering that you're not pregnant with triplets.

Me me me me me me me me me me

that's what annoys me the most about that article

I agree completely. I believe that since this woman left if up to chance that she should have lived with the consequences. She could have had her tubes tied, or her boyfriend could have had a vascectomy, or they could have used condoms, like Averett said.

Just because you don't want to have to "deal" with taking a birth control pill does not mean that you get a "Get out of trouble free" card.

Well, to be fair it wasn't that she was pregnant (with just one kid), which she said (and proved) she was willing to deal with, it was that she was pregnant with triplets. It's not like they didn't want to get pregnant, it's that they didn't want to get pregnant with three kids all at once. And I kind of have to respect that - I mean, on top of having three children to take care of all of a sudden, being financially strapped on top of it because you have to give up your income, and having your lifestyle completely change in a way that one baby wouldn't necessitate...I have to sympathize with her. I find it makes me really uncomfortable choosing to abort two babies and keep one, but it's her decision, not mine, to make, and I don't have to like it. I don't find it irresponsible as much as vaguely unsettling.

It doesn't say if she even considered adoption. And so far no one in this thread has either. Its not like she only had 2 choice, abortion or birth- granted its not me who has to carry 3 babies for 9 months, I cant imagine how hard that must be.

I only point this out as a man in a relationship with a woman who can’t have children and adoption is the last resort. I'm sure there are thousands of couples out there who would have jumped at adopting twines.

I thought this woman went beyond selfish.

Precisely what I was thinking.

and I won't even go into what me beliefs about using abortion as a means of birth control. or is this partial birth control?

How awful. I can't believe someone would be so shameless as to put this in writing.

You know, I don't normally comment about things like this, but in this case....

Abortion as birth control is just plain wrong, which also makes selective reduction wrong...in this case. If the mother's life were at risk, then that's a different story, but just because your lifestyle is going to so drastically change....well, maybe she should have swallowed the goo and kept her legs closed.

Because I have children of my own, it's especially difficult to hear things like this. These are the type of people that have children as status symbols, not because they actually WANT children.

I would have done the same thing. She knew the result of going off the pill, and she got pregnant. It isn't fair to say that she should just accept the consequences of THREE children. In fact, to say that children are nothing but consequences is worse than deciding not to have them. I think those of you who think she should live with "her consequences" are worse than someone who decides whats good for her and takes care of it.

I'm finding it real hard to have any sympathy. How selfish can you get?

Those of you arguing against selective reduction, would you be singing the same song if it was a mother who took fertility drugs and conceived, say, quintuplets? Septuplets? The usual hue and cry in that case is that it's irresponsible NOT to selectively abort, as multiples often cause health problems for the mother, and often have developmental disabilities for the rest of their lives. Just because the multiples in this case were naturally-occurring triplets doesn't mean that the issues - how difficult it's going to be to raise multiple kids with potential probelms - are much different. Just because she was honest about her motivations, I don't think this woman should be villified. Some might consider it selfish, but I think she was brutally honest about her own limitations. I don't think she ought to be castigated just because her actions don't conform to someone else's ideals - she's the one who had to make the decision and live with the consequences either way.

I think the issues are totally different. Like, in one case you're talking about people who are having trouble conceiving doing something unnatural to bring conception about. You can justify selectively aborting because in that case, as you say, the mother's health is at risk, and perhaps so is the health of her brood. Like we've had cases in the news over here where women have been pregnant with octuplets with IVF. One case i remember, the woman was promised a lifetime supply of this and that and money from the papers for her story if she carried them all to full term. Foolishly she tried, and lost them all. Anyway, I digress.

In this case, we've clearly got a woman who wants to give birth in her lunch break and get back to her desk in time for close of trading. It's like she wants to drop it between shopping trips. She only considers how the child's life impacts on hers, not the other way around. I admit carrying three kids can't be any picnic, but apart from that, what problems has she got? She said she would have to lose her income, but could probably work around it. The key quote here is "Do I want to?"

Well, in my opinion, a woman who has a kid (any number) owes it to that kid to give it as much of her attention as she possibly can. If a new mum can afford to stop work, then I think she should. And by afford, I mean reprioritising your expenses. I realise that might be unworkable for some, but how can you stack a Manhattan apartment against two of your kid's lives? Because that's how this boils down, she's not risking life or limb, or the health of her unborn kids, except by her own recklessness.

Superb point.

Edit: Oh yeah, meant to say, giving the twins up for adoption might have been the most unfucked thing to do here.

I'm editing myself before the big boys come and get me.

Her course of action is simply not the one my wife or I would have chosen. I have an intense dislike in regards to using abortion as a form of birth control. With the exception of that pregnancy causing extreme physical harm to the mother. Nowhere in the article does it say this as a reason (unless I'm blind)
The article is extremely self involved and leads to my belief that the one person she cares about is herself and her lifestyle. Castigating? Villifing? No, just disagreeing with said person.

My wife and I went through the fertility drug thing once. They don't just give you the drugs and send you home, at least not at the doctor that my wife was going to. You took the drugs and a couple of days prior to ovulation you have an internal ultrasound and determine whether or not you are going to "go in". They can see how many eggs are going to come out of each ovary. So I would say, YES, I would "sing the same song" knowing what I know. I would go on to say those that have gone ahead knowing that there is a chance of having 6 or 7 kids at once are imbeciles, that is just irresponsible. One thing for it to happen naturally, another thing to know that you have the chance to end up with that many.

It's vaguely unsettling, but I can't really say I think there's anything wrong with it. Grace and I have been discussing what we'll do with her treatments when we try to get her pregnant, so it's something that's been on my mind lately. I can't fault the woman here for thinking about herself a little bit as a part of the decision making process.

I'm a little unsure as to what is meant by objecting to abortion as a means of birth control. There really isn't any purpose for abortion other than birth control.

Also, I think the title and some of the characterizations are a little unfair to the woman involved, presenting her as someone who underwent the selective reduction merely because having kids would be inconvenient. She makes it clear that she's aware that it would be a profound change affecting everything about her life, to such a degree that perhaps she wouldn't be able to care for three children as they would deserve. The selective reduction seems like something that will be better for both the mother and for the one child she'll have in the long run.

Gilda

"I Tommy you know I love my little boy, I just killed your other brothers because I couldn't be bothered with three of you and something bad might have happened, aren't you glad you were the oldest!"

I just saw quintuplets in my office not long ago, they were all fine.

It had nothing to do with the childrens health but someone being selfish. Glad I didn't marry this one. Shes a looser.

Ugh! How enraging!! I'm starting to rethink my position on abortion, thanks to this story. She killed 2 human lives, and for solely selfish reasons. Just because 3 babies would cramp her style gives her NO right to end 2 of their lives! I don't know about other mothers, but I thought about what I'd do if I had multiples before I even got pregnant. I decided that, as long as my health wasn't in jeopardy, I would keep all of them. Apparently this bitch didn't think about it. Also, she could've carried them to term and given the twins up for adoption. What a selfish woman.

I can't even find the words to begin. Unbelievable.

wow... a nice dig up from last year.

here is a current link that works if you'd like to see the article from NYTimes.com

I have a small apartment, I have to walk up flights of stairs, I have to lecture and tour.

The person's life will change, change is scary to most people.

I wonder if there is a follow up article since she more than likely had the "single" baby now.

edit: can't even read... nice dig up from 2004!!!!

An editor's note that followed that piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/ma...pagewanted=all

Personally, I don't think feminism is a valid reason for her mindset. I consider myself a feminist and yet I could never, ever do that, even if it meant risking my own health.

God forbid she'd have to move to Staten Island.

clearly you've never been to staten island :lol:

This had been bothering me a bit in terms of it didn't 'feel' right.

It almost seemed like the kinda thing you would write if you were trying to write pro-life and put the pro-choice side in a bad light. I was going to look up the author but onesnowyowl's post does clear up why it seems so 'wrong'. It wasn't clever Satire ala Swift, this woman is just plain all fucked up.

The author is a femi-nazi. Now this is a term most of you don't understand, being use of the term femi-nazi has nothing to do with being pro-choice or a feminist. It’s the mind set that the right to abortion is what defines womens progress, and they have a desire to see more abortions. It means having an abortion should be your first choice over having a child, not the last choice, and not a hard choice.

Shes really just sick and does far more harm than good to her own cause.

I'm sure there are much worse places to live in this world.

The role reversal was kind of interesting. I feel sympathy for Peter, and not her and her 'problems.' He obviously didn't want to have the abortions when it was first being talked about and up to the moment that it happened. To me it's vaguely like having three puppies and then having your friend who you loved and trusted come up and drown two of them because she didn't want to take care of them.

I strongly think that Men should have a right to choose, also, and that if a man can legally prove that he has the capacity to be a sufficient father to a child (or children) financially, mentally, etc. he can keep a woman from aborting his child.

I'm pro-abortion and right to choose, but aborting a baby isn't a joyous occasion. People shouldn't have them, then brag about it afterwards. That sort of thing disgusts me.

Isn't it true that mother's of many different species of animals will kill / eat their offspring if resources aren't enough to support all of her offspring?

I know that our dog did this to two or three pups when she had them, although I am unsure if they were born healthy or still birth.


Anyways, to chime in on the article- I feel like the woman was most afraid of change than anything else. Putting the kids up for adoption would have been the best option and ethically correct one IMO.

For the most part this is only issue when a male takes over a new territory and kills the offspring off of the other male. This makes genetic 'sense' and doing so means he can mate sooner with the surviving females.

I'm surprised at the outrage here. How is this any different than a regular abortion? It's not. It's not any different because it was the ending of two fetus' growth, than in the normal one-fetus scenario. Is that what it is? Abortion is ok unless we're talking about two abortions at once?

If her selfishness is the x-factor, I wonder how many other abortions are caused by similar motivations but are just not known to be caused by such feelings?

Honestly, i thought about ti and Wow, that's a really hard choice to make, have 3 and risk complications, major lifestyle changes, etc, have them all aborted and live with that or having 2 aborted and keeping 1...

Wow, i just can't imagine how many feelins ya got going on there.

It's not even the 2 that were aborted that i'd feel bad about as the parent, it's telling the one you had that you aborted 2 and kept him/her...

that's just gotta be rough.


as for the feminism part...not sure what to think of that, honestly. In some ways, it is definitely pragmatic and the amount of consideration that went into it is amazing, but in others, that is just cold. I'm all for pro-choice/women's rights, etc, but this is pushing how far i'd go. It isnt' the abortion aspect or the twin abortion aspect, it's the 2 abortions and 1 lives choosing whom to abort...

Well, I have to admit I'm a little afraid. The generational pattern on my mom's side of the family is predicting triplets for me. I'm not sure that I will end up with triplets, by any means, it's mostly speculation.

Anyway, I'm not sure that I could deal with an abortion...that's a situation I'd have to be in before I could judge another's decision as selfish.

I do think that her priorities were a little out of whack, and I really sympathize with Peter. The man should definately get some say in the matter, and he is obviously not the kind of guy to leave her to care for the children alone. He seems like he would have gone way out of his way to help her, and all she was worried about was her life, not his.

I'm pro abortion in some situations, but the fact is she knowingly and willingly had unprotected sex. That's what bothers me.


Ok FIRST let me highlight: "She knew the result of going off the pill"
Did she really weigh all the options though, like... adoption.

Second, if work is that important to her should she really be having children? It sounds to me like she really didn't even want one, much less three.

Third, this is the woman who will be treating the one child as the consequence because that's what it was, it was an "if" situation. Who knows maybe she'll realize that she loves the kid and be a great mother, but she clearly wasn't ready to get pregnant. So the responsible thing is to use a condom. (stated for the millionth time...because it's common sense)

And we should definately think about this:

He's got a good point. Maybe some of us have been really naive as to peoples motives for getting abortion. I know I have and this woman has really opened my eyes.

I guarantee that a good many regular abortions are caused by the same type of "selfishness" (if you want to call it that). I'm not saying a majority, by any means, but a hefty sum. I don't see this as any different.

i'd have to agree that, if not the majority, than a hefty sum of abortions are probably the result of the selfishness xfactor or the plain, "I just do not want children" factor, be it for any reason, financial or otherwise.

I rarely hear of someone having an abortion for health reasons, honestly. I've heard of a few that were for the woman's health in that the later term and giving birth could have caused her massive trauma, but that's about it.

My father was a triplet, and his mother was a twin. His mother gave birth to those three triplets back in the 1940s, in Iceland, and went on to have 10 children in all. Don't give me bullshit about complications from a natural (non-fertility) multiple-conception.

I am all for pro-choice; people can do whatever things they want with their bodies, even if it's for entirely selfish reasons (as I view this case--and no, I don't think all cases are like this). I am sure a LOT of people use abortion for birth control when it was their own responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place, and I do judge that as being, well, stupid. But humans are humans, and we should be allowed to do what we need to do.

That said, I would NEVER go through with this, unless my death or severe dismemberment was IMMINENT. Jeeeeesus. If you ask me, her bad decisions started as soon as she went off birth control and decided to not take any precautions... WTF? Yeah, you really value your career and Manhattan lifestyle so much, that you can't even handle a condom during sex to protect that lifestyle? And you invalidate your partner's feelings to the point where, shit, I would have probably divorced this women if I were him... When you take the risk of getting pregnant, you take the risk of ALL that comes with it, multiple births or siamese or whatever the hell else comes out of you. If you can't handle that, get the FUCK on birth control, and stay there.

Goddamn this article pissed me off... I don't care if I seem closed-minded, feel free to tell me so, but goddamn.

I agree with you completely, but it will never happen because men will never be able to carry and give birth to children. That, in itself, is why women will always have free reign to get rid of fetuses at will, even the fetuses that, after birth, some partners would be willing to raise and take care of. Though you have to admit, I bet that's a pretty rare occasion.. in fact, I haven't met or heard of any men, other than in this story, that didn't want an abortion when the woman did... usually it's the other way around.

Anyway, this isn't meant to be an abortion post, I just thought Frost had a very interesting point about the lack of ethics in why Peter wasn't allowed any say whatsoever in the matter.

I'm ready to get a vasectomy to protect my Manhattan lifestyle. I've been contemplating it for just about a year now. We live in a 1 bedroom, I want a 2 seater sports coupe, and don't want to give up going to theater, movies, restaurants all because of a child.

So maybe there is some balance in the world...

Good for you, Cynthetiq. :thumbsup: I fully support your responsible, considerate decisions for yours and Skogafoss' own good. Some may call it selfishness, but I found that particular woman's actions to be far more selfish than simply deciding, "No, I don't want kids, and as such I will do whatever possible to stop that from happening."

/has more to say but it's probably better to restrain myself. :p

This is an old article.

I find it interesting to note that everyone seems to have assumed they didn't use condoms, but there is no mention of whether they did in the article. Just because you use condoms (or get a tubal ligation or vasectomy) doesn't mean you won't conceive.

That said, the world already has enough children that no one will support. Are your morals going to cry for them when their lives are miserable because the mother couldn't raise them properly?

Yes I'm sure they will wish every day that their mother had aborted them instead. :rolleyes:

This also doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article, which was about one selfish womans quest to keep her lifestyle.

Everyone's body is different. Your grandmother's superhuman uterus and vaginal elasticity notwithstanding, there are literally dozens of factors that contribute to the ease, or hardship, of a pregnancy in each individual woman's body. They are hardly directly comparable.

That's just a spin on the story. It could very well be written in a different way that doesn't irritate you or anyone else outraged by this, and still be 100% true.

i just wonder how the kid would feel when his parents tell him that his other siblings were killed so his mum could keep the apartment in manhatten and that the one being killed could easily have been him.

i see problems with this kid already.

For starters, my mother-in-law lives on staten Island, it isn't bad at all, for second, HOLY SHIT BATMAN, THIS WOMAN IS SELFISH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed 100%.

I cant help but think of a whiney two year old going "but I dont wanna!!!" when I read this woman's so called thought process. Up until this point I've always let abortion be a non issue for me. I felt that as a man, I was somehow less qualified than women to vote on the issue. But if even a small fraction of women that have abortions go through the same "me, me, me" decision making process, then I will feel pretty good about casting my vote next time elections come around. This woman simply wanted to have her cake and eat it too. There are so many ways she could have avoided becoming pregnant so she really have NO excuse.

The issue with the boyfriend brings up another point. When it comes to abortion, guy has zero legal say in the matter. "Its the woman's body". "Its the woman's life" and other phrases come to mind. But when you mention child support, the man instantly has atleast %50 of the responsibility. How can you have faith in laws that have such huge contradictions? In either case, the man is villified, almost as he tricked the woman into having sex with him and that its his fault she's pregnant. In abortion the attitude seems to be "this man got me pregnant, now I get to decide if i go through giving birth or not". And with child support the laws seem to reflect the attitude of "well I decided to have the kid, im going to make the guy pay big time." Im not saying I have anything against child support, but rather pointing out how both abortion and child support laws contradict each other when it comes to a man's responsibility in the birth of a child.

Roe vs Wade allows her to make this decision freely, her body her choice, whether we agree or not is not an issue, however perhaps as Blade said it does make things seem rather out of place (the BF having no choice and he attitude despite people who would love to adopt the kids).

Fair 'nuff, I didn't intend for it to be a direct comparison... just wanted to say that I know people who have survived giving birth to multiples, and that it's not always a health issue. If she was poor, had little access to health care, etc... then I might understand.

I think we can say from the article that the woman's concern was not primarily her health.. it was her Manhattan lifestyle. If they had made a greater case in the article for her health and less about her material selfishness, then I would be more sympathetic.

I find myself uncharacteristically :p agreeing with Analog's observations here. I would not have attributed a pro-life attitude to this board, although I can't say as the topic of abortion has come up a lot. So abortion is OK as long as the woman isn't acting out of what is in your (general "your", here) opinion, selfish motivations?

I would liked to have seen more on the father's perspective. Who knows, it's *entirely* possible she wrote more in that vein, but for space constraints or whatever reason, the editor cut it out.

Yes, I agree she should have been more responsible about unprotected sex, but she didn't seem to want to prevent pregnancy at all, she just wasn't prepared for the extraordinarily miniscule chance of triplets. Of course, if it ran in her family she should have realized there was that chance. I wonder what she would have done with only twins?

As a side note, I don't really understand the "abortion is ok if the pregnancy or birth threatens the mother's life" idea. So life isn't life if it's dangerous to preserve it? Is it OK to let a person in a burning building die because it's very risky to others try to save them? I know that's not a great analogy, but work with me here.

I really don't see a problem with this choice at all.. perhaps I should stop calling myself pro-choice and more anti-life...

I really don't give a fuck what happens to these cells but I do care what happens to actual human beings.

So she saved herself and her potential child from a lot of heartache and a likely horrible life (nonwithstanding my opinion, she's still a crybaby) and in the process destroyed a few cells.. whoooopy doo.

I am in favour of a woman being able to choose whether or not to have a child she is pregnant with. I would hope also that the women who make those decisions are responsible and mature enough to choose wisely. Of course that is not always true and some women will abuse that choice, but I still believe the choice should be available. I think when people refer to abortion as a means of birth control, they mean when people choose not to use contraception and then don't face the consequences of their choice.

I have to admit I found the description of how they would kill the foetuses in this story quite chilling. Yes it feels wrong - really wrong. I myself would probably have had the 3 babies, as I don't think I could live with the opposite decision, or its consequences. But I am in favour of choice. Within reason, a person should not be forced to do something they don't want to do.

Perhaps she is being selfish. We live in a selfish world, let's be realistic. Is it selfish to want to live your life as best as is possible for you? Is it selfish to want things for yourself? Her tone in that article is pretty self-centered, I agree. But on a softer level I'm sure most of the people here would have to admit that they all want something for themselves and sometimes the things they want will go against what someone else wants. Is that why it's selfish? I think the fact that the woman in this story is so direct and "brutally honest" as another poster said, is part of what makes everyone point her out as selfish.

I'm fine with what she did, and the reasons why she did it. I would never make the same choice, but whatever.

If I was pregnant with triplets and I only wanted one, I'd remove all three and hope for better results later. I couldn't deal with choosing which to live.

I always thought that the majority of abortions in the developed countries were lifestyle choices and a form of last chance birth control. It's not that most people can't afford to raise a child, it's that they don't want to. This woman is just being brutally honest.

A MAJORITY of Americans oppose abortion as a method of birth control.

It is only supported for the usual rape/incest/danger reasons.

This woman is poster child for why most Americans feel this way, she is everything thats wrong with modern society, all wrapped up in one neat fetus killing package.

I don't get why everyone is freaking out over this woman's choice. She didn't want three babies, and didn't think she could raise them, then it was right for her to terminate two of the three fetuses.

I don't think it's selfish at all- in fact, she was probably doing the could-have-been triplets a favour.

I agree fully. Isn't it better that she can give one kid a good childhood instead of a bad childhood for three of them? Geez, some people are making it sound like she had two babies taken out back and shot in the head.

Did you READ the article? It has NOTHING to do with her not able to raise the children or them having a 'bad' childhood. Nothing.

she basically did, not as graphic as that, but did eenie minie moe catch a tiger by the toe, my mother said to pick the very best one and you are not it.

As a man who's g/f aborted a child that he wanted to keep and raise, I wonder what could have been with that child. I'd have a 16 year old now, I'd be concerned about going to college, worrying about him/her going out with friends driving drunk etc.

But I wonder what could have been...

If this were me, I'd wonder if I picked the right one...

and I'm not even sure about the missing other 2 for the triplet as they say some twins that lose there other somehow don't feel complete...

i think the last few comments are the most illustrative.

i don't always think this discussion is entirely centered on "the fetus/child/whatever" but much more so on the "what ifness" of the decision, and the reflection (or naval gazing if you care to be critical) that our society engages/indulges in.

some folks are very moved and challenged, in some cases paralyzed, by such what if questions, others are not...

and i almost wonder if that preference is what we're trying to codify here.

From the article:
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?

This part says to me that she felt she could not handle three kids at once. She had no problem with having a baby, just not more than that. Sure, I'll agree that there is a selfish tone in what she says. I would still say it has a LOT to do with her not being able to, or atleast fearing not being able to raise that many children at once.

I understand how people can feel this way, but for me personally I don't think I would spend much time thinking about what could have been, I'd try to focus more on what actually is.

I agree. It's blunt but true.

I do focus on what is. I try very hard to not live in fairy tales and what ifs.

But once in a while, particularly on Father's Day, I wonder. It doesn't have to be long, it could even just be for a few minutes.

feel bad for the stand alone kid who has to live with her. Hope he can find access to potassium chloride soon and do it to himself.