Abort girls now for fear they might lose right to abort later
An unashamed aborting father in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times attempted to tie the partial birth abortion ban with selective reduction abortions.
The other side typically attempts to evoke emotion to support death. This is hard in the case of partial birth abortion, but I do commend this warped man for trying.
But what I found most interesting was his rationale for aborting his two boys rather than his two girls. One reason he considered aborting the girls was because they might some day lose their right to abortion. He considered killing two of his children for fear they might someday lose the right to kill their children….
My wife and I just had an abortion. Two, actually. We walked into a doctor’s office in downtown Los Angeles with four thriving fetuses – two girls and two boys – and walked out an hour later with just the girls, whom we will name, if we’re lucky enough to keep them, Rosalind and Vivian. Rosalind is my mother’s name.
We didn’t want to. We didn’t mean to. We didn’t do anything wrong, which is to say, we did everything right. Four years ago, when Tina and I set out on this journey to have children, such a circumstance was unimaginable. And yet there I was, holding her hand, watching the ultrasound as a needle with potassium chloride found its mark, stopping the heart of one male fetus, then the other, hidden in my wife’s suffering belly….
Some wanted to know how we decided to keep the girls. Partly, it was a matter of how the fetuses were arranged. Partly, it had to do with other factors. Some studies show offspring of older fathers (I’m 47) run a higher risk of autism, and males are four times as likely to be autistic. Still, I had reservations about bringing girls into the world now, when forces seemed to be aligning to disenfranchise them (nine of 10 GOP presidential candidates favor reversing Roe vs. Wade). I hate to think my girls will have to fight the battles their mothers and grandmothers fought.
No, you blind man, you did not do “everything right.” You and your wife contrived to thwart nature at every turn, first forcing this pregnancy at an advanced age, then baling when her health was apparently threatened by exterminating two of the children whose lives you forced.
This seems like a good time to replay the laughing quadruplets video.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Hi Jill,
I get a kick out of title of the column
“He and his wife have always been pro-choice; recently, they were forced to make the Choice.”
they were FORCED? according to him, all of the babies have been thriving..
Jill, not knowing much about birthing, could this lady have carried the 4 babies until birth? he’s saying that her health was at risk. Mt wife’s friend had triplets and had to go on bed-rest, but she is fine, she just had to take it easy.
That father has some twisted thinking. I love this video.
Jasper, acknowledging I know nothing about this case, I found his words intriguing: “Tina’s health would have been in jeopardy, according to her doctor.”
So it wasn’t yet, although he also said she had been hospitalized once.
The babies were 15 weeks old when aborted. At 23 weeks they would have been potentially viable.
It appears that everyone jumped the gun, or rather, needle.
He considered killing two of his children for fear they might someday lose the right to kill their children:
That is the most ludicrous thing to me. I honestly can’t understand what goes through these people’s heads. People like this man have got to be literally insane.
That is one of my favorite videos, by the way. I’ve watched it about a hundred times. I always let the kids watch it with me. They get a huge kick out of it!
And I have read the article a few times and see no where that his wife actually was in jeopardy at any time. Or the babies, until they were aborted.
This is what “being forced” to make a choice to abort means?
There are a lot of actresses in Hollywood that say the same. They are really quick to say “I have NEVER had an abortion.” Then they add, ” I want my daughter to have that choice though.” I don’t buy it.
Why would they want the choice for their grandchildren to be killed?
“And yet there I was, holding her hand, watching the ultrasound as a needle with potassium chloride found its mark, stopping the heart of one male fetus, then the other, hidden in my wife’s suffering belly.”
This wimp of a man see’s his 2 unborn sons as fetuses. And he just sat watching his sons get killed…
His THRIVING unborn sons, no less!
To me, this statement says all:
“The fact is, multiple pregnancies are high risk, and they can go bad very suddenly.”
This was the “health” problem. The possibility is ‘could’ go bad.
I had a single birth, and my pregnancy went bad very quickly. If this was a criteria of woman’s health, then our society is going down faster than I thought.
I’m sure they were told about the chances of having multiple babies when having in vitro fertilization. This is why they didn’t feel guilty about watching the needle peirce their sons hearts. They already knew this was what they were going to do if multiples happened. They were prepared for this posibility. Abortions selecting one child over another have to be done in 2 – 3 trimester. This is why this abortion was done so late, not because they ‘just’ found out a problem existed. The babies have to be big enough to make sure you kill the right one.
He was so open about all the details, yet he wasn’t specific on what the ‘health’ problem was. It is because there really wasn’t one.
And for all those wanting to critisize me because I shouldn’t ‘force’ them to keep a multiple child pregnancy, let us not forget that they were NOT forced to do in vitro which causes multiple child pregnancy.
Heather, 9:43a, I’m particularly incensed by rabid pro-abort Blythe Danner. There was a photo publicized of her last month with granddaughter Apple (Gwyneth’s baby) and a quote she made I can no longer find of how she ogles over her grandchildren, when I know she would have heralded their prenatal demise as a sacred right.
http://babyrazzi.com/baby/2007/04/03/apple-out-with-grandma/
No, you did NOT do “everything right”. You watched your sons be murdered after killing who knows how many children who didn’t make it to implantation. How in the world can this man look at his daughters and think “well, it was 50/50”. How will these children feel if they discover that their parents “Reduced” their siblings? This is so distubing.
The Bible says that a good man leaves a legacy to his children’s children.
If a man has essentially killed his children’s children by selectively killing his children then what logical conclusion can be made about the man?
The Bible also says that children are a blessing from the Lord and happy is the man whose quiver is full of them. Seems to me that God was really trying to bless this man. He told God to go take a hike with his blessing.
It’s hard to understand how far down the moral abyss our society has descended into when parents can make a choice like this and feel no remorse.
Yes Jill. I was aware of Blythe Danner.She and Gwyneth issued that statement for Planned Parenthood on mother’s day!! Very tacky! Kathleen Turner is another one. If a woman is really proud of defending “Choice,” then why are they so quick to say, “I personally have NEVER had an abortion.” Seems to me they don’t want to wear that label. It’s okay if you kill your child, but I want everyone to know that I’m not in that category.
I was aware of Blythe Danner.She and Gwyneth issued that statement for Planned Parenthood on mother’s day!! Very tacky!
Ugh, tacky is an understatement.
Did you see that Bethany?
Cameron contributed:
I have to ask you again, and you have yet to answer, if you think that reproductive therapies should be banned?
Jill can answer for her specific concerns, but I’ll tell you that pro-lifers generally have a lot of unease about some (not all) reproductive treatments. In particular, in-vitro fertilization opens a lot of thorny issues that might have been better left closed.
My own $0.02 is this: Reproductive therapies have great potential for abuse, and as such they should be carefully controlled. In particular, when using IVF, we should only fertilize (and implant) one embryo at a time. That would eliminate a lot of the thorny issues surrounding IVF.
More pro death stars: Jennifer Aniston, Ashley Judd, Cher, Demi Moore, Susan Sarandon, Kathleen Turner, Anne Archer, Linda Ellerby, Ed Asner.
Odd, each and every last celebrity could adopt a child.
A few pro life celebs; Patricia Heaton, Brooke Sheilds, Kathy Ireland, Kim Alexis.
From the Article:
“But in the real world, that’s not how it happens. Virtually no one takes the matter lightly. I would also point out that even the most fervent abortion opponents may one day find themselves suffering from infertility and may rue supporting the court’s from-the-bench obstetrics.”
*Infertile fervent aboriton opponent raises hand to say that I DO NOT rue supporting the court’s “from-the bench obstetrics”!
Cameron –
“if you think that reproductive therapies should be banned? Should people be prevented from having kids simply because they can not do so
Hisman –
“Seems to me that God was really trying to bless this man. He told God to go take a hike with his blessing. ”
I don’t think he was that polite.
Cameron, 10:51a: Naaman, 11:19a, may not have intended to answer for me, but he did.
Hal, that’s sweet.
Hal, I appreciate that you point out areas of agreement. Thanks.
One embryo at a time??
That’s so retarded it’s funny.
The reason they do more than one embryo is because of the “odds” of success. Doing it one at a time does not increase the odds of success, and does not reduce the number of embryos consumed. Also, the low success rate of the typical shot-gun IVF procedures, extracting eggs, enduring the hormone treatments, the actual implantation, and not to mention the expense associated with each attempt, pretty much makes it prohibitively expensive and logistically asinine to go with one embryo at a time approach. In short, one embryo only will only prevent many couples who want a baby from having one, and will not save babies among the handful of people who would actually abide by this clause.
Once again a beautiful, human action (a life giving union between a husband and wife) is reduced to the level of animals.
Women were never meant to have litters.
They were meant to have babies.
Cameron- Yes, making things ethical would make them more difficult, such is our world. I believe it was Valerie who asked if you would jump on “toddler stem cells” if it was discovered that the stem cells of 2-4 year olds held the potential to save lives.
Sometimes the benefit is not worth the cost.
The distruction of countless lives in order to give birth to one is a good example of this.
Toddlers?
Do you have anything realistic or meaninful to say, or do you just want to attack me like always?
How’s this for hyperbole….
I suspect you all would force 12 year olds into motherhood after being raped by their siblings… and no matter the likely health outcomes for both mother and daughter.
Cameron,did you know that abortion clinics actually cover the tracks for the perpetrators of incest? I was reading about a father that repeatedly raped his two very young daughters. They both became pregnant several times over the course of many years of abuse. Dad kept on taking them to the abortion clinic. The abortionist kept on performing abortions on them. No questions asked. Their secret was finally discovered after one of the girls gave birth at the age of 16. How disgusting that the abuse had to continue as long as it did.
Cameron, you support the destruction of life at one stage of development. Why not another?
I suspect you all would force 12 year olds into motherhood after being raped by their siblings… and no matter the likely health outcomes for both mother and daughter.
Posted by: Cameron at May 7, 2007 05:51 PM
Well, then I would be guilty of rape as that’s the only way I know of to force a 12 year old into motherhood.
And I just don’t have the right equipment.
You know… there are legitimate ethical concerns regarding IVF. Does anybody want to actually craft some sort of argument regarding abuse of the procedure… or are you all so incapable that you’d sooner attack me some more?
Here’s the thing Cam. There are many “legitimate ethical concerns” about IVF, but those are secondary to the primary concern that it is used to destroy life in the process of creating it.
The blatant consumerism of the procedure wouldn’t be an issue were we not talking about actual lives.
Does anybody want to actually craft some sort of argument regarding abuse of the procedure… or are you all so incapable that you’d sooner attack me some more?
We are very capable…it’s just that it’s more fun attacking you. Being such an easy target and all…
Okay, nice to see you back. Enough sparring for one night.
Have a good one Cam.
Good night.
Sleep night.
Most likely kill you in the morning.
The Dread Pirate Roberts
Cameron –
“I suspect you all would force 12 year olds into motherhood after being raped by their siblings… and no matter the likely health outcomes for both mother and daughter. ”
Why is adoption never an option with pro-aborts? I would not force her into ‘motherhood’ becaue I believe adoption is a good thing. I haven’t let PP and NAF brain wash me on their “belief’s”. And what would be the likely “health” outcome be for the 12 year old and the baby? Would it be a different “health” outcome is she was 13 years old? 14? What is the cutoff age for likely “health” outcome.
And, let me ask you a question that may seem off topic. Do you agree or disagree that we should use the medical knowledge that was gained by the experiments the Nazi’s did on the Jews in the consentration camps?
MK –
Do you know where the 6 fingered man is? I think Inigo is looking for him.
Exactly what was the health risk? If time was running out where his wife’s health is concerned, then why did he take the time to select which babies would be aborted?
Boys might be autistic? I wonder if he knows that girls run a higher risk of personality disorder, a form of mental illness. I mean, we have to consider every possibility, right? And what guarantee is there the girls will not become autistic?
I am sitting here reading your column tonight while listening to Sara McLachlan’s “Ordinary Miracle” and this post just made me ill.
May God have mercy on this man’s soul. How anyone could lead the mother of his children in, watch two of them die and be utterly untouched is beyond comprehension.
Valerie,
A great point. I understand survivors of the concentration camps were outraged that any information obtained from experimentation on inmates would ever be used by the medical profession. They questioned if any of those wanting to use this info had any idea of what horrors the victims endured to obtain it.
But then, like the unborn, the concentration camp victims were “going to die anyway” and if any “good” could be obtained from their deaths, well, why not? That certainly is ample justification, isn’t it?
Will someone tell me why these pro-aborts find it necessary to tell the world about their abortions, selective or otherwise. How many of us feel compelled to write newspaper articles about our visits to the doctor’s office and why we went there? They talk about private decisions then write newpaper articles giving us the despicable details of killing their unborn children and how they reached that decision. Just who do they think wants to read this but more important, why do they feel compelled to do so? Confession is good for the soul perhaps?
Cameron, 1:04p, said: “The reason they do more than one embryo is because of the “odds” of success. Doing it one at a time does not increase the odds of success, and does not reduce the number of embryos consumed. Also, the low success rate of the typical shot-gun IVF procedures, extracting eggs, enduring the hormone treatments, the actual implantation, and not to mention the expense associated with each attempt, pretty much makes it prohibitively expensive and logistically asinine to go with one embryo at a time approach. In short, one embryo only will only prevent many couples who want a baby from having one, and will not save babies among the handful of people who would actually abide by this clause.”
Cameron, 6:54p, said: “You know… there are legitimate ethical concerns regarding IVF. Does anybody want to actually craft some sort of argument regarding abuse of the procedure… or are you all so incapable that you’d sooner attack me some more?”
Here I am.
I thought I recalled research indicating single implantation had about the same results as multiple with less risks. I found this:
RESULTS: Pregnancy resulting in at least one live birth occurred in 142 of 331 women (42.9 percent) in the double-embryo-transfer group as compared with 128 of 330 women (38.8 percent) in the single-embryo-transfer group (difference, 4.1 percentage points.
CONCLUSIONS: In women under 36 years of age, transferring one fresh embryo and then, if needed, one frozen-and-thawed embryo dramatically reduces the rate of multiple births while achieving a rate of live births that is not substantially lower than the rate that is achievable with a double-embryo transfer. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=15575055&dopt=medline
Some JLS proposed solutions to IVF ethical problems:
1. New technology has highly increased the success of freezing human eggs. Consider freezing nonfertilized eggs until needed.
2. Consider fertilizing less of those eggs at a time.
3. Consider implanting fewer embryos.
“last time I said this I was told that I upset people because they were conceived this way. yet, it’s okay for them to talk about how it would have been fine if their mother had aborted them.”
Good grief.
It’s on a level with Islamist rioting world-wide because of Danish cartoons that depict Islam as a riotous religion.
The world has gone bonkers.
“He considered killing two of his children for fear they might someday lose the right to kill their children”
Aaack!
Maranatha…
It sounds like this guy didn’t want to support 4 kids.
Well it’s such a transparently stupid choice, from an ethical standpoint. I mean, make it a categorical imperative. Do that and, paradoxically, you’d have another cohort afraid NOT to abort their children because they’d be afraid there’d BE no people someday who would even exist in order to, we presume, exercise this right.
So totally stoopid.
This is kind of a disturbing question, but one that has been bothering me. How do they get the murdered babies out without hurting the living ones?
Very carefully. One has to be very careful, after destroying the parasitic growth that’s enslaving the woman, to preserve the precious, sweet life of her unborn baby.
:-/
but in a few decades, will they have the extended ‘right’ to abort their parents?
rasqual –
that is just beautiful!
oh – the hypocrisy
John –
That too would be a form of poetic justice.
The baby is a parasite. My parents are now a parasite. I wonder what one can do about the parasitic boss?
Good one John!!