The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy

  • Thread starter Thread starter richard_wang
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

richard_wang

Guest
nytimes.com/2011/08/14/magazine/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

New York Times Magazine

By RUTH PADAWER
Published: August 10, 2011

As Jenny lay on the obstetrician’s examination table, she was grateful that the ultrasound tech had turned off the overhead screen. She didn’t want to see the two shadows floating inside her. Since making her decision, she had tried hard not to think about them, though she could often think of little else. She was 45 and pregnant after six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, donor eggs and disappointment — and yet here she was, 14 weeks into her pregnancy, choosing to extinguish one of two healthy fetuses, almost as if having half an abortion. As the doctor inserted the needle into Jenny’s abdomen, aiming at one of the fetuses, Jenny tried not to flinch, caught between intense relief and intense guilt.

“Things would have been different if we were 15 years younger or if we hadn’t had children already or if we were more financially secure,” she said later. “If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. **But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.” **

(Emphasis Added)
 
This story makes me so sad (not only for the lost child, but for the twin, the other children and the mother–to me is obvious from her quotes that she doubts herself).
 
“Ethics,” [Dr. Mark Evans] said, “evolve with technology.”

:crying:

This is saddening, sickening, and just wrong. Is it any wonder the Church opposes IVF with all of the issues it raises?
 
Eventually, they will (and probably already are in some places) use the “unwanted” embryo/baby for harvesting stem cells and other “useful” experimental research. I wouldn’t be surprised to see IVF encouraged as a way of farming these tissues. Sad, but likely.
 
The most telling statement is this quote by the doctor who started all this: “Ethics,” he said, “evolve with technology.” I’m not sure where in this whole mess he sees any ethics…
 
What is even more sad is that the child she is killing wasn’t the result of marital love, it is from an egg donor. She is essence killing the child of another.
 
What really bothers me is her statement that she felt somehow more entitled to end the life of this child because the child was conceived artificially, as if somehow that makes the child…less human? more of a commodity?.. I don’t understand.
I really hope we see abortion ended and all life protected soon.
 
Such sterile language:
Dr. Mark Evans, an obstetrician and geneticist, was among the first to reduce a pregnancy
This secrecy is common among women undergoing reduction to a singleton.
It’s just a reduction. You’re just reducing. You’re having a singleton instead of twins. You’re not killing anyone. You’re not aborting an embryo. It’s not a human. It’s just a bunch of cells. A well-ordered bunch of cells.

Some of us well-ordered bunches of cells sure don’t get it. This is such a sad story.
“This is bad, but it’s not anywhere as bad as neglecting your child or not giving everything you can to the children you have,”
Really? Killing your child isn’t as bad as neglecting your children? I strongly doubt he or she would be neglected, but killing your child is worse either way. And what does she mean by “everything”?
She felt that twins would soak up everything she had to give, leaving nothing for her older children. Even the twins would be robbed, because, at best, she could give each one only half of her attention and, she feared, only half of her love.
I’m not a mother (yet), but I know that our children, whether we’re able to have one, two, four, or ten, and whether we birth them or adopt them, will all be our children, and we’ll love them all equally, and with all our hearts. Nobody ever worries that, if one more baby is born that it will be too many for God to love. (Then again, God is infinite and infinitely loving.) You cannot quantify or limit love. You can always love more. You may not always have more time, but time is not love. Money is not love. Love is love. Ending a life for your own convenience? Also not love.

One fallacy presumed to be truth–the disposable nature of unborn humans–and our logic and respect for life collapse.
 
nytimes.com/2011/08/14/magazine/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

New York Times Magazine

By RUTH PADAWER
Published: August 10, 2011
…
— and yet here she was, 14 weeks into her pregnancy, choosing to extinguish one of two healthy fetuses, almost as if having half an abortion.
…
**” **

(Emphasis Added)
It isn’t “almost” a half abortion. It is a full abortion. One full life was extinguished.

It is sad that abortion has become so matter of fact to the liberal media.
 
This is so heartbreaking. I have twin daughters and I couldn’t think of one without the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top