"Eliminate One or More"

I had a similar reaction to the NYT piece as Rick. But I was also puzzled by it. At one point I thought it was a wickedly clever parody of an extreme pro-choice attitude. Surely no one -- even one who has a principled pro-choice position -- could express themselves so coldly, and with such complete indifference to the possibility that these were human lives. And surely only a nasty parodist could concieve of a person who would so exalt shallowly elitist consumer and real estate preferences over two human lives. Of course this person had serious issues -- family experience of women being trapped at an early age, career ambitions, a tenuous relationship with the father -- but she either was -- or steeled herslf to be -- as eager to rid herself of these lives as as she would have been if they were malignant tumors. But I guess it was for real, and not a parody. If so, you don't have to be a pro-lfe absolutist to find this piece dismaying. A person who believes that a woman must have the right to choose should at least be prepared to ask whether that exercise of choice was a moral act. Where is the mother's moral struggle here? Where are the regrets, the mixed feelings? Where is the sense of human potential wasted? Was there any attempt to examine one's conscience? To pursue adoption possibilities? The father's recognition that there were three heartbeats was presented as a male indulgence foisted on the woman, who should not have to think about that fact. Perhaps I'm missing something here, some trace of regret or ambivalence which would suggest that the author was concerned with anything beyond herself. Is there any irony being expressed about the author's determined and undiscussable decision? If not, I have to ask myself what this author is trying to say. If all she is saying is that it was a damn good thing that I could legally get rid of these inconvenient twins so that I don't have to reenact my female relatives' history, then I have to ask why the Times published it. Who cares about such a crass, unexamined decision? Why should we care at all about a person who cares so little about others? Pro choice and prolife people have to find a common ground on which to engage - something like this can only push us farther apart, as it presents "choice" as a value in itself that trumps all other values and eliminates the need to consider the moral dimensions of one's choice.

-Mark