A World of Cheese, For your Pleasure

Wow. I don't know how to feel about that article. Even though I had an abortion myself, ten years ago, the idea of selective reduction still somewhat repulses me. Perhaps it was her seemingly non-chalant attitude about it and the fact that she admitted she might do it again that got me. I know that I wouldn't have another abortion - one was enough...now I think about those people out there who want to adopt and the idea that she selectively decided to abort the twins...hmmmm. I'll be thinking about this entry for awhile, I think.

But what if you got pregnant 1, 2, or 3 years after your first abortion? (Sorry about that, btw). I can't say what I would decide.

And why doesn't everyone who gets an abortion just give their kid up for adoption? I'm not attacking you personally - at all - I'm just really interested in knowing what the difference is. Plus, she did say that the mandatory bedrest for a multiple pregnancy would interefere in her career, which would affect their income, therefore their financial ability to care for the children.

I think that's why I said it somewhat repulses me...I'm not sure how I feel about it. It's like...you'll *have* one but not the others...that's what seems to make it so different from abortion. The couple were *trying* to have a baby - it wasn't an accident and the article didn't say that there was anything wrong with the twins who were terminated - and the chance of having more than one is always a risk. Yet, you're right, the financial difficulty a couple goes through with three would be much rougher than with one. It just seems strange. Along the same lines, a friend of mine recently asked me if I would abort if I knew I was having a Downs baby. At first I said no (I have a cousin with Downs) but who knows? I 100% agree with your statement that we wouldn't know what we would do until we had to do it. That's been my argument/pro-choice stand ever since I had mine. If I had triplets or a Downs baby I *might* do the same thing. I'd just like to think that I wouldn't.

Which makes no sense.

Another thing that bothered me was the fact that they hinted that her husband wasn't comfortable with it. Sure, it's a woman's body and we have to do through everything to have a baby but it *does* take two to get the proverbial ball rolling. It was also interesting that the article was written by a man - which, I'm sure, has something to do with its non-chalant slant.

Plus, I know a lot of it comes from being all Baby High from the picnic yesterday and the fact that Tara handles the twins beautfully...even though she had to take several months off work and is the bread winner in her family.

Don't worry, though, I know you aren't personally attacking me. In fact, I think it's a very interesting topic to bring up. I'm struggling to understand it myself.

P.S. BTW, I LOVE comments!

It is different from simply aborting. She wanted a baby, she planned for it. If you want a kid and nature gives you three, why abort two?

Once they grow up a little bit, it is a lot easier to care for three kids than for one because they play together instead of harassing you every minute for just about anything. If one kid is expensive, the ones that follow become less and less expensive too.

Between one or three kids, it's not going to make a lot of difference on her professional life. Zero kid will, but once she has a kid, or two, or three, it's all the same, I think. You need to leave work at 5:00 to pick up one kid, two kids or three kids at the daycare.

And I wonder about the father. Is he working? She does not mention his as a support. Can he help at all or what? She's talking as if she's alone! His opinion does not count and yet, they have been together for a long time, she says.

She's trying to control every element. She wants everything she sees on tv to be in her life and this baby is just a new fixture to add in hers, just an instrument.

"Simply aborting"? No. I don't think so.

What about the mandatory bedrest? What about the loss of momentum? When one is advancing in their career, it's hard to take a year off. In her case, it would be more than a year. What if the three kids didn't all take naps at the same time? It would be at least three of years of next to no time for herself, her husband, her business.

The article linked is not the letter she wrote, so I would take the slant against her with a grain of salt.

To answer your question, you abort two so that you can give at least one child the quality of life you feel it deserves, instead of struggling with three. It was a fluke of nature that she got pregnant with triplets and she made a choice that suited her. Just as it was a fluke of nature that I got pregnant - and had an abortion.

I found the actual letter online if anyone's interested: When One is Enough

You have to scroll down a bit.

I was excited to see that we got our first trackback, and then I noted that it was from Liz. How very meta, indeed.