Selective Reduction - An Opinion
Published July 23, 2004
Amy Richards had a selective reduction procedure. Apparently this is *not* a hoax, joke, or satire. Here is Amy's Bio. And another bio. Perspective from the other side of the fence. A pro-choice perspective.
How have we in America become so confused as to what our relationships mean? The marriage relationship is not about our own happiness as much as we seem to think. Anyone who has stayed married understands that sacrifice is the central defining characteristic of a marriage. Love is a choice, rather than a feeling.
The relationship between a parent and child is a one-way sacrifice which is never intended to be paid back. We don't have children for our own benefit, we have children for their benefit. To neglect that responsibility, once we have become parents (conception) is to completely misunderstand that role.
Upon learning of her triplets, Amy says:
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.
If our first thought isn't "Great, more kids!" then we've missed the whole point of parenthood. She admits to knowing that she could sacrifice her lifestyle in order to raise her children, but quickly destroys that option by asking "Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?"
From this article it sounds like her boyfriend Peter was interested in having all three children, but his parenthood is not recognized by anyone in our society. How strange it is to have a system which does not recognize Peter's right to his children pre-birth, but insists on child support should the mother decide not to kill her babies.
I'm not bringing this up to push an agenda, but to bring something into the forefront to spark discussion, ideas, and maybe some hard thinking. America's abortion debate has degenerated into emotion without reason, and I don't want to perpetuate that. I hope this makes you think, maybe reconsider your position, whatever it may be.
This opinion piece was written by Russell Mann. You can find more perspective on politics, religion, and entertainment at his blog. This review of The Last Samurai can be found on his blog as well.
- Selective Reduction - An Opinion
- Published: July 23, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Russell Mann
- Russell Mann's BC Writer page
- Russell Mann's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
"Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" are both inane, meaningless terms used solely for propaganda purposes.
I wish we could define these positions more fairly: "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion."
Oh well... :-/
A song from the point of view of Amy Richard's selective reduction.
Russell, since, I presume, like me, you will never, ever have to make a medical decision about carrying fetal tissue to term, how about this.
You've got some tumors growing in your prostate gland.
You've got a choice, you can carry them to term, and it might kill you. You can get surgery to reduce the tumors, but it will leave you incontinent and impotent, or you can get castrated, since testosterone is the growth factor in the tumors.
Just my opinion.
Proabortion really doesn't define prochoice advocates at all. Prochoicers are not for abortion, but instead they are for the choice of the mother, which could be adoption, keeping the infant, or abortion. A proabortionist would be someone who would want to force abortion upon the woman, instead of supporting all of her available choices, in the same way that the antichoice advocates want to force the woman to give birth.
I guess it takes a controversial post to get m/any comments :)
Gloria,
Is the entire issue you get out of reading Amy's story paternal rights?
RJ - Good point.
Jim,
Do you have children? Before they were born would you consider them to be something like tumors? Do you know of *any* specific medical conditions in which a mother is in danger for having a baby? And what are the statistics for it?
Thankfully, I've been spared from having having any reproductive acts that I know of occur.
Don't want 'em, don't need 'em. And I don't think more of the cancer which is humanity forced on this limited planet.
If you need an example of the pox which is this human stain, please feel free to point to me.
Hey, Gloria:
I'm "pro-choice" when it comes to marijuana. But I don't call myself "pro-choice" because that's too general and meaningless. I consider myself "pro-legalization-of-pot."
That DOES NOT MEAN that I think people SHOULD smoke pot. I just believe it is a personal choice, and the gov't should not be locking people up for it.
Perhaps the "pro-choice" crowd should call themselves "pro-legal-abortion" and the "pro-life" crowd should simply call themselves "anti-abortion."
Does that work for you?
Russel Martin,
No, Paternal rights is not the only issue that I got out of the story, but it's the one that hit a nerve with me on a personal level. The very thought that a single person would be allowed control over my body is very frightening to me.
RJ,
I understand your point, but I think that pro reproductive choice, since we are for all of them(adoption, keeping, and abortion) and would be just as angry if say the choice to adopt were threatened, would per perhaps be a better if not a little lengthy term. While during our generation only one of the choices is currently being threatened. In the past however it was common for young women, especially in other countries, most noteably Irland during the 1950's to force the mother to give up her child for adoption. IMHO, once one of the choices is taken away it opens the doorway for others to be as well.
Gloria
RJ, if you had read the article you would see that she didn't make the decision to abort based solely on health concerns, she based it on inconvenience. She would rather end the life of two of her babies than shop at a lower end store. That's one of the most selfish things I've ever heard. A life should be much more important than her "shopping" rights. How can you not agree?
I think we should force women to have unwanted children.
Then we can complain about something less abstract -- like parental child abuse.
(Just an FYI, I'm for mandatory sterilization for everybody except my family.)
I think any abortion after viability is infanticide. I think any abortion PRIOR TO viability is incredibly disturbing, and I think the states should decide the legality of such.
...and I think we'll value your opinion when you show us your ovaries.
When has anyone's prostate gland ever produced a viable human?
And if abortion is legal due to a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, why isn't prostitution legal as well?
I'm just sayin'...
Jim,
Why don't you kill yourself now and spare us from you!!!!!
"And I don't think more of the cancer which is humanity forced on this limited planet."
People are cancer? So a lifeless orb spinning around in space is better than humanity?
Dude, pull your head out, or as previously suggested, try putting it in a gas oven for a while. Maybe you think you're a waste, but the rest of us like humanity, warts and all.
Gloria, understand something.
No one cares ANYTHING about what you do with your body. Really. What many people care about is THE BABY'S BODY! Do you get that?
People like you would be funny, if the topic wasn't so sad. When a baby has a flap of your skin over it, it has no rights. But the moment YOU decide you want a baby, and I pray you don't have any, your precious Junior has all the rights in the world--once your skin is not covering him. So, skin over, no rights...skin not over, rights.
If some creature ingested you whole, and you were still alive in its stomach, have you no rights to be rescued? I am sure you think you would have every right, as you are a person, and not, God forbid, a baby.
How about it Gloria? Your position is indefensible.
And I don't think more of the cancer which is humanity forced on this limited planet.
Jim, within the context of the self-loathing of that statement, suddenly all your posts and points of view make sense.
Vic
Jim Carruthers: Since when are human beings just "tissue"? Suppose I decide that your adult tissue is just an annoyance that needs to be disposed of?
Gloria: No one gives a rip what you do with your body... Just leave the baby alone. If you don't want to get pregnant, use reliable birth control or don't have sex. If it happens anyway and you have an immaculate conception, give the baby to someone who wants it. There are plenty of people waiting in line to adopt.
Shark: Gimme a break. There are plenty of choices out there other than abusing your unwanted child. And no one is trying to force anyone to keep a child they don't want. BTW, I definitely have ovaries.
Thomas A: Thank you.
Wow, this kind of makes me sad and I didn't even know Jim Carruthers other than I think one memorably ugly exchange on the Bill Cosby discussion.
Hey, guys? Jim committed suicide. For real. For people who are "pro-life," you sure are cavalier about the lives of others.
That is all.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/17767)
So, the father's prebirth rights should be considered. What if he decides that he wants the children aborted. Do you think his rights should still be considered then. Didn't think so. Only as long as it supports your antichoice agenda, I assume.