Call me a cynic but my first thought when I read a piece like this one is “This has got to have been written by a pro-life commentator to show the overall menace of an unqualified right to choose…” But I’m afraid I may be wrong.

As an expecting mother of twins, this article hit close to home. But in trying to think of all the reasons why reduction is wrong, I could not come-up with arguments that were not already applicable to abortion in general. In the words of a so-called “reduction pioneer” – there’s a title you want to hang on a shingle — quoted in the article:

“He consulted his staff, all women, and they concluded that if a woman can choose to end a pregnancy, she can reduce from two to one. Besides, in this case, the team would be saving a fetus that would otherwise be aborted.”

What is more immoral or unethical about reduction than straight-up abortion? What this case illustrates is one of the steps down the slippery slope of commodification, that even with a wanted live baby kicking and growing inside you, you may still view your children’s lives not as something you created but as something you own. The tone of the article, all about the women and their doctors with a passing mention of children as being disruptive and twins as being hell, shows very well that when it comes to so-called reproduction rights, it’s all about the grown-ups.

_____________________

Andrea adds: This quote took me by surprise. “If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.” It’s so forthright about what happens when we make reproduction into a choice. Almost as if to act as an example of what not to do.

Here’s Pauline Pearce, standing up to the looters in London:

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ4MBrr6Wrg”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ4MBrr6Wrg]

You’ll forgive me if I don’t welcome this simple test to tell whether your baby is a boy or a girl even earlier. We all know how it is going to be used.

Read about it here. I am not impressed by those who are so irate over photos of abortions, but don’t bat an eye at clinics strategically placed across the country providing the service that results in the photos.

For those of you who think, “that Andrea: She’s so conservative,” I’ll have you know that you are…right. However, once in a while, I do stretch myself by reading the autobiographies of communists. Right now I’m enjoying The Long Loneliness by Dorothy Day. I’m about halfway through and I finally hit the point where she explains the title:

I was lonely, deadly lonely. And I was to find out then, as I found out so many times, over and over again, that women especially are social beings, who are not content with just husband and family, but must have a community, a group, an exchange with others. A child is not enough. A husband and children, no matter how busy one may be kept by them, are not enough. Young and old, even in the busiest years of our lives, we women especially are victims of the long loneliness…”

And that rang true to me, so I thought I would share it.

From Gallup,

PRINCETON, NJ — Self-described “pro-choice” and “pro-life” Americans agree about nine major areas of abortion policy, while disagreeing on eight others. Among the areas of consensus, in which a majority of both groups hold the same opinion, especially large percentages are in favor of requiring informed consent for women (86% of pro-choice adults and 87% who are pro-life) and making abortion illegal in the third trimester (79% and 94%).

Norma McCorvey is Jane Roe:

I’m currently in the first stages of putting together a community event.

When I first came to Nova Scotia from Colorado 4 years ago, I was surprisingly pregnant, again, with a nursing seven month old in tow. Needless to say, I didn’t get out much and that first year was pretty lonely. Mom groups did help, but as a new parent, I felt a lot of pressure to “measure up” to other moms and not show my seams. Since that trying time, I’ve been looking for a way to integrate marginalized populations for their mutual benefit in order to curb some of the depression these groups feel from simply being isolated (try wheeling a double stroller around a city and you’ll see just how restrictive urban life can be!).

Right now, I’m looking to organize single or new moms with young children, particularly those who find themselves feeling lonely, for community interaction with senior citizens.

 In 1987, 8.5 million elderly lived alone; by 2020, 13.3 million elderly will live alone.

The concept? Take two lonely groups and pair them together for their mutual benefit. Ideally, this would be a weekly event taking place in a senior home facility. As I said, we’re in beginning stages, and the details have yet to be ironed out, but if there is anyone in the HRM area who would like to get involved, participate, offer advice, offer transportation etc. please contact me. I am currently working with a location, the home is for ladies only, so at this time the project participants are restricted to mothers and their children (hopefully in the future fathers can participate as well!).

_________________________

Andrea adds: Sounds like a great idea to me. Our communities today are very, very weak, to our detriment. Best wishes, Jennifer!

Yes, it is still summer. I have noticed people have already taken to doing the old, “wow, how did the summer pass by this quickly!!” thing. Well, it hasn’t. And for me, it won’t. Not until, oh say, October, when you will have to pry the flip flops off my cold feet. Not that anyone would be interested in doing such a thing. I’m getting off track.

Back to summer reading: I’ve just become aware of Reinventing the Rose. I have not read it yet, but the main character wants to keep her baby, and her boyfriend wants to force her to abort. The author, Kenneth J. Harvey, details the development of the embryo alongside the court battle between the mother and the father. Here’s the plot summary:

As a fatherless girl with a mother who persistently encouraged her daughter’s artistic temperament, Anna Wells is highly sensitive to the life developing in her when she discovers she is pregnant. Anna’s gynecologist boyfriend, Kevin, considers the time just not right to have children, so Anna moves to a 100-year-old house in Bareneed, an abandoned cove in Newfoundland, where she takes comfort in renovating the interior of her new home and working on a series of paintings detailing roses.

Paralleling Anna’s own journey is a minutely detailed, day-by-day development of the embryo. All goes well until a car arrives delivering a court summons. Kevin has filed a statement of claim seeking the termination of the embryo as “return of property.”

One night, while still in Bareneed and upset over the impending legal action, Anna discovers an abandoned little girl almost frozen to death in her front yard. Mysterious circumstances continue to surround the children in Bareneed as pro-choice and pro-life factions marshal their forces.

As I said, I haven’t read it, but I will note this: Detailing embryology rarely leads individuals to cherish “abortion rights” because it is so miraculous and there is so much going on at such high speeds, all concealed in utero. This Canadian author is quite prolific and one can only hope that Reinventing the Rose might cause a reader or two to reinvent their thoughts on life, when it begins and why that matters.