It’s now called “selective reduction” when you choose to keep one pregnancy going while ending others.
It’s called “selective reduction.” It means killing one or more babies when a woman is pregnant with “multiples.” It is a difficult decision of great moral moment.
But not in the view of free-lance lecturer Amy Richards, whose account just appeared in the New York Times Magazine. She was living with her boyfriend and decided to go off the pill. They agreed to have the child if one showed up.
Alas, three babies appeared in place of one. Now what?
Her income would take a significant hit. “There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that,” she allowed. “But it was a matter of, Do I want to?”
Her answer was no. There were health risks. Moreover, “I’ll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise.” So it was off to the specialist who would shoot potassium chloride into the hearts of two of the babies.
When looking at the sonogram, her boyfriend, Peter, thought: “Oh my gosh, there are three heartbeats. I can’t believe we’re about to make two disappear.”
But the doctor pushed him out of the room and did the deed. “I had a boy, and everything is fine,” concluded Richards. Still, she’s worried about becoming pregnant again: she might have “multiples.”
If so, she opines, “I would do the same thing.” And it’s no one else’s business, even that of her boyfriend: “This is why they say it’s the woman’s choice.”
“Choice.” Making two heartbeats disappear is simply a “choice.”
CHOICE IS THE MANTRA chanted by abortion supporters. The group NARAL now styles itself “NARAL Pro-Choice America.”
There’s a “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice” and “Catholics for a Free Choice.” Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry promises to “protect the right to choose.” Those who criticize abortion are accused of being “anti-choice.” NARAL goes so far as to complain about restrictions short of a ban which “are designed to deter women from choosing abortion and to make it more difficult and burdensome to obtain for those that do.”
Yet abortion really is not about choice. It is about consequence. The consequences of choices freely made.
Consider Amy Richards. There’s no doubting the burden that she faced carrying multiple babies. It would have been extraordinarily difficult. But it would have been the consequence of her own multiple decisions.
She chose to live with someone. She chose to have sex with him. She chose to go off the pill. All choices appropriately left to her, unregulated by government.
But having enjoyed the freedom to make those choices, she wants to avoid responsibility for the result of doing so: becoming pregnant with triplets.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online