"That's what I'm going to do." He replied, "What we're going to do." He respected what I was going through, but at a certain point, he felt that this was a decision we were making. I agreed."

What a hero! In the old days, doing the honourable thing meant marrying the girl and raising the child. Now we give medals for valor to those brave, brave guys who hold their hands during the abortion.

It is bad enough she would do this, but what was the point in writing about it and telling the world? What is going to go through her son's mind when he discovers the yellowing copy years from now?

There's a verbatim transcript of the Wannsee Conference--if Jews or blacks or babies or whoever aren't human beings then there's no reason not to talk about killing them.

Well, the line from my fellow Catholics is "I personally oppose it and wouldn't do it, but who am I to make that choice for others?"

And I'm thought of as being fairly indecent, bordering on dogmatically psychotic, for opposing abortion for others, not just me.

If you are that desparate for a pet, get the puppy.

I'm no theologian but I suspect there is a special place in hell for a person like this.

Finding out that this 34 year old has a "boyfriend" of three years is all I needed
to hear. When do these people actually think
adulthood begins? This sounds like an episode
of "Friends."

Apparently hell to Ms. Richards would be Tottenville, a 90-minute trip to lower Manhattan. That's Amy's real nightmare, even if the train ride to the ferry is free.

Aside from the astounnding callousness of her decision, the amazing thing about this is that either she and/or the edtiors of The New York Times Magazine thought that while this abortion was unsual, it was still a normal enough lifestyle choice to run a story of the entire process in the magazine, since the point of the article obviously isn't that Amy shows any regrets about her decision.

(The alterative would be that Amy has no regrets, but someone at the magazine thought this was a horrific act and allowed the story to make it into print in order to hang her with her own rope. That would mean there's at least one person un charge at the Times who is not an abortion absoolutist, which would be a major story in and unto itself.)

That's the problem with freedom. It allows people to make atrocious choices.

Still beats tyranny.

Jeff:

I assume you would favour repealing all those laws prohibiting racial discrimination in housing, education and employment so that free people can make their atrocious choices?

Jeff-

You are a hard guy. If intelligent folks believe that it is tyrannical to prevent the death of innocent human beings at the hand of an ignorant, easily manipulated, self-absorbed airhead then what limits are left? What do the gods of libertarian rationalism recommend? Where's the reciprocity when the innocent has no right to live? Sounds a little one-sided, no? A five story walk-up or allowing your children to live...tough choice.

John:

I think both of your reasons are correct: they think it's perfectly acceptable behavior, and they know it will horrify half of the country.

But I don't think their intent in horrifying us is to discredit Ms. Richards. It's pure condescension. They're absolutely convinced they're right, and they're rubbing our noses in it. Possibly to instruct us, but more likely just to revel in their superiority.

Tom:

"What would the gods of libertarian rationalism recommend"

Mightn't they say: "Do whatever feels good or seems right, and don't worry if you can't tell the difference."

It's an odd libertarianism that doesn't view mass murder as tyrannous.

Spare some sympathy for the survivor. There's no reason to think that's going to go well.

David:

Exactly. What will happen when this child gets sick, or won't sleep, or won't eat (and momma is busy)? What if Mr. Boyfriend decides to leave one day? The next article this woman writes may be in collaboration with Peter Singer (just 50 miles away in Princeton).

Thanks for posting, OJ.

I echo the thoughts above: How exactly does she plan to break this news to her child someday? It's not like she can keep it a secret -- after all, she just spilled the beans all over a leading American newspaper.

What a heartless, loathsome wench.

If someone said, We need a home for a set of twin babies or else they'll be killed, I would have raised my hand in a microsecond.

J.H.:

This sounds like an episode
of "Friends."

Except, on "Friends", Phoebe actually gave birth to the triplets.

Peter B:

I assume you would favour repealing all those laws prohibiting racial discrimination in housing, education and employment so that free people can make their atrocious choices?

Yes, eventually...
At some point, society will decide that, on the whole, there isn't much discrimination left, and those few bigots who remain will be free to deny anyone housing or employment.
However, that'll happen long after you believe it should happen.

Tom C:

If intelligent folks believe that it is tyrannical to prevent the death of innocent human beings at the hand of [a][...] self-absorbed airhead then what limits are left?

An innocent human being that is completely dependent and cannot be safely removed...
When it is possible to remove a fetus or zygote and transfer it to a host-mother or artificial womb, then abortion should become illegal.
Further, society allows, even champions, the right of marginal parents to rear and psychologically twist their misfit children.
Why is it better, as David Cohen and jim hamlen point out, to force this women to have her children and destroy them slowly, instead of quickly and relatively painlessly ?

oj:

It's not mass murder, it's serial killing.

One of the primary differences between the Nazi Holocaust and abortion is that the Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals didn't have any choice about whether or not to be killed.
Mothers do have a choice, and if they decide that they'd be unfit parents, why should we second-guess them ?
After all, if one deplores such women's choices, why not allow them to slowly deplete their own tribe ?
Leaves more spoils for the rest of us breeders.

Michael:

What in the world makes you think racial or cultural antipathies are bound to die out and disappear? Been tracking the Middle East and Europe of late? I'm looking forward to the day we can repeal our spousal and child abuse laws when rationally-educated, therapeutically-sensitive modern men realize how destructive and pathological their behaviour is and stop en masse forever.

Michael: I'm not sure that was the point I was trying to make.

I'm not sure I can think of a more extreme case, or a better case for prohibition. This is a woman who purposely stopped using birth control with the intention of getting pregnant. There are no health related reasons for an abortion, including mental health, and, in fact, she still intends to carry a baby to term. This is entirely about her convenience after giving birth and, as suggested above, new born American twins could be adopted immediately and easily. Frankly, I'm not sure that this woman, in these circumstances, has a constitutional right to have an abortion if the state tried to prohibit it.

David:

But surely she would have no trouble getting professional opinions to the effect that, while the one baby she wanted would be a blessing and send her self-esteem soaring, three would be very damaging and turn her into an emotional wreck. That is clearly what she herself wants to believe.

Remember when Connie Chung left NBC to have a child and the media couldn't stop talking about her "courage". That's the way modern types think. They know they can somehow compartmentalize and work around one, but three? That is by definition a mental health issue.

Peter B:

Sorry, I should have specified that I was speaking specifically of the US, where racism among Gen X and younger is quite tame.

For one thing, in a couple hundred years, we'll all be shades of brown in America.
Also, I don't expect racism or tribalism to end, just be less pervasive and damaging.

Michael:

Ok, let's hope you are right. I remember long, long ago, when I was a young and dashing liberal, just assuming that history would be a straightline affair where freedom and tolerance just kept growing. Now, as a old and cranky conservative, I take a more cyclical view of things.

Well, it certainly could be cyclical.

All I know is that Gen X is less racist, (by far ), than their grandparents, and also that blacks and browns are far better off now than they were in the 60s.

Maybe it's just a good era for 'em, like the Harlem Renaissance.

Michael:

No, it's that their parents and grandparents liberated blacks. If Jim Crow still existed Gen-Xers would support and oppose it in identical numbers to their ancestors.

Michael-

So if the innocent human being is completely dependant and not... removeable...? Did I miss something?