My soul carries a new scar. The pain is fresh and keen, and I know that while time might see the pain fade, I will never fully recover from what I've seen, and done. For I have failed, intentionally and knowingly, in the first duty of a parent: protecting the lives of two of my children.
My wife and I wanted children; alas, we needed IVF treatment to realize this dream. Several cycles and multiple embryo implantations later, we welcomed our blessing from G-d, who is the light of our lives.
Recently, we tried for another.
"It never rains, but it pours," said the fertility doctor -- of the three embryos that were implanted, all three took. We were faced with the news of triplets. I was shocked, knowing the burden that would entail, but since G-d gave us three, I was prepared to do whatever I needed to do to help, manage, and provide.
My wife? Something snapped. She insisted that we do a "selective reduction" from three to one, or else she would have a full abortion. She was adamant. She would not carry three. She would not carry two.
I was presented with a Coventry-esque decision: save one, or save none. I chose the former, though I tried on several occasions to convince her to at least keep twins. I failed.
We were told, point-blank, by the doctor who would do the procedure that they would inject potassium chloride into the placenta to stop the hearts. We were told, point-blank, that it was painless. Even then, I knew I was being lied to, but given the choice presented, I agreed anyway. My mantra became "Save one, or save none."
Before the procedure, my wife's eyes teared up; she asked the doctor over and over if they would feel pain, and was assured they would not. I asked again if my wife was sure about this because once done, it could not be undone. She said she was sure, but her tears and her looking away from the screen, deliberately, and her wanting me to not look either, told me the truth: she knew as well that this was wrong. I wanted to insist that she look, but I think that her mind -- already fractured by the news of triplets -- would have snapped permanently had she seen the images onscreen. And to save the one, and for the sake of the one we already had, I needed my wife sane.
My wife didn't look, but I had to. I had to know what would happen to my children. I had to know how they would die.
Each retreated, pushing away, as the needle entered the amniotic sac. They did not inject into the placenta, but directly into each child's torso. Each one crumpled as the needle pierced the body. I saw the heart stop in the first, and mine almost did, too. The other's heart fought, but ten minutes later they looked again, and it too had ceased.
The doctors had the gall to call the potassium chloride, the chemical that stopped children's hearts, "medicine." I wanted to ask what they were trying cure -- life? But bitter words would not undo what had happened. I swallowed anything I might have said.
I know they felt pain. I know they felt panic. And I know this was murder. I take cold comfort in knowing that as far as we can tell, the survivor is still fine, and in knowing that this decision did not come from me; I would have taken the chance on triplets, even with all the work and effort it would have required. I pray that this one child will come to term, will be born into this world alive and healthy, and I know he or she will have all our love.
But that emotional scar will ache my whole life. I see my child's smile every night and anticipate a new one in some months...but I think of the two smiles I will never see. Every day, returning from work, I hear "Hi Daddy!" and know there are two voices and two giggles that I will never hear. I play with and cuddle my child, looking forward to the same with the second...but I know there are two sets of hands that will never touch mine, two sets of toes that will never be counted, two hugs that will forever be absent from my arms.
I pray to G-d every day to take those two innocents to Him, to welcome them, and I ask them every day for forgiveness. As I will every day for the rest of my life. I don't know what accommodation my wife will make mentally and spiritually. That is her business, and a burden her conscience must bear.
But let nobody fool you. It is not painless for the child, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. Abortion is not an excision of a featureless bunch of cells; it is infanticide. We have revived the practice of child sacrifice to the new deities of casual sex and convenience. We rationalize the reality of murder by altering our perspective of the nascent life through euphemisms like "fetus" or descriptions of "a clump of cells"...just like the Nazis convinced themselves that the people screaming as they were shot or gassed were "Untermenchen," subhuman, and therefore guiltlessly exterminated.
This is how every perpetrator of genocide has always rationalized his or her actions. By doing likewise, we condemn our own souls
I wept in joy, a few years ago, when I saw my first child's heartbeat on the screen. And I weep in agony now at the memory of two of my children's heartbeats being stilled. "Save one, or save none" has been eclipsed by "Out, out, damned spot!" as I wonder how I can redeem myself.
If, by baring this scar for others to see, I can prevent an abortion, perhaps that will help to balance the scales for when I face G-d's justice and I finally meet those two children -- who I hope will forgive me for my failure.
European leaders are braced for the eurozone’s first ever sovereign default this week as Greece’s efforts to secure a €206bn (£172bn) “voluntary” bond swap looks increasingly unlikely.
Authorities in Athens are ready to enforce the controversial collective action clauses, or CACs, to impose the restructuring deal on all bondholders as the number of voluntary agreements look set to fall short of the required amount.
Credit rating agencies have warned they will declare Athens to be in default if the CACs are triggered which would be a dramatic culmination to a three-year rollercoaster ride for Athens, the eurozone and global markets.
While the markets have been ready for a Greek default for months, the move could leave Greece and its banks barred from funding from the European Central Bank (ECB). On Monday, Standard & Poor’s declared Greece to be in a state of “selective default” which led to the ECB announcing it would no longer accept Greek government bonds as security for new loans.
The rating agency said its decision had been prompted by the threat of the CACs and the actual use of them is likely to tip Greece into actual default. The agency said it regarded the process as a “distressed debt restructuring”.
Raoul Ruparel of Open Europe, the London-based think-tank, said: “Greece is likely to struggle to reach the targets for a voluntary agreement so the credit rating agencies are almost certainly going to see this as a default.
"What happens next is unknown territory. "Greek banks will probably be barred from normal ECB funding and have to turn to the Emergency Liquidity Assistance [provided by the ECB] instead but for how long, we don’t know.”
Greece needs around 95pc of its private creditors to accept the deal by the deadline on Thursday in order to secure its €130bn international bail-out package and avert imminent bankruptcy.
Greek politicians back the use of CACs – which allow the deal to be imposed on all bondholders if 66pc agree to it – being inserted retrospectively if the voluntary agreement falls short.
The uncertainty over the deal on Greek debt put further pressure on the euro last week. The single currency fell sharply against the dollar and other major currencies. Uncertainty over Spanish willingness to stick to its austerity programme also put pressure on the currency.
Last week, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) declared that there had not yet been a credit event in Greece so there was no need for the credit default insurance instruments to be triggered. If the CACs are triggered this week, the committee will almost certainly reconsider its decision.
Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
Thank God women still have a choice. Had it been up to him chances are she'd have killed herself & all three fetuses or drownt them or something as children. This article would have read totally different then..
These people chose to play god..They were denied children but did it anyways. They could have tried for one at a time to avoid the consequences that are so unlivable to him. I know it's $20,000 a shot...that's why multiples are usually done at once..to up the odds something takes.. He took the cheap route. Sometimes 8 or more have taken at once..obviously not healthy for the fetuses & certainly not God's will for women. Even triplets...many times one is somewhat damaged or starved before birth left to suffer the rest of their lives.
This is common..he had to know what he was getting into. Probability played his best odds for the buck & prayed for the best.. Hope he doesn't leave his amoral wife over it..
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 144 Comments: 29294
Just my two cents worth, but they could have put two babies up for adoption; there are thousands of couples who are desperate for children who would have given a loving home to those babies. I don't know how you'd pick which two to adopt out, but it would be kinder all the way around if you're THAT sure you only want one baby, to make the decision and let the babies go to another family rather than kill them.
Member Since: November 16, 2002 Posts: 70 Comments: 7162
I have a great deal of compassion for Anonymous. He recognizes that he has participated in a heinous act, and he shares his shame and agony in hopes of helping others to avoid similar sins. I know a few people who are haunted daily by the ghosts of the children they murdered, and their grief is a terrible thing.
As a society, I think our sensibilities are being dulled by the widespread acceptance of abortion. Many of us were shocked and repulsed when we first learned of "partial birth abortion", but now people just seem to accept it as something that Obama favors. Likewise, the article that Jer posted about "post birth abortion" left me in tears, but we'll likely be arguing the pros and cons of this in years to come. The unthinkable will become devoid of emotion as it becomes commonplace, just as it has with abortion. Anonymous addresses this issue also, when he says, "...just like the Nazis convinced themselves that the people screaming as they were shot or gassed were "Untermenchen," subhuman, and therefore guiltlessly exterminated."
Member Since: October 22, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1566
I am crying as I read that header story... Amazed that when you do this IVF you are going to get multiple births... that is your choice...and you should do your part and follow thru...
Women who cannot deal with having children should not try to have them via IVF... she already had one child and she should have stuck with just the one instead of murdering two children by choice...
The father was a whimp for not making sure of their decision before doing IVF.
Member Since: August 29, 2005 Posts: 286 Comments: 40485
Gamma, I almost always agree with you, but I think this issue requires a bit closer look.
Anonymous says, Several cycles and multiple embryo implantations later, we welcomed our blessing from G-d - their first child. Apparently several tries at implantation failed.
When they tried for a second pregnancy, ...all three took. We were faced with the news of triplets. I was shocked, knowing the burden that would entail, but since G-d gave us three, I was prepared to do whatever I needed to do to help, manage, and provide. It sounds to me as though he had known that this was possible, and he accepted it.
Then he says, My wife? Something snapped. She was adamant. She would not carry three. She would not carry two... I tried on several occasions to convince her to at least keep twins. I failed. This leads me to believe that Anon had not expected this reaction from his wife - something snapped. And so he finds that his choice is between one or none.
We must remember that a woman has control over her body, including the contents of that body, even if that contents includes babies. She can abort those babies without his consent or knowledge. She was adamant.
A wimp? I don't think so. I think he's an unwitting victim of our progressive culture.
This is a good example of the slippery slope on which we find ourselves. Once abortion was made legal, the definition of abortion has been shifted and nudged to now include mid term abortion, late term abortion, partial birth abortion, and now selective abortion. That selective abortion already includes killing infants who are an unwanted race or gender.
In my opinion, the slippery slope is being greased by progressive policies and politics. The progressive agenda isn't just clean energy or universal health care - it's the long list of goals embodied in Agenda 21: energy control, loss of individual property rights, planned communities, decreased animal agriculture, etc. It includes decreasing the population of Earth, so abortion is a necessary tool to achieve their ends.
Member Since: October 22, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1566
The whole issue of abortion came down to a very simple question for me, (I used to be pro choice) it is this.
Is the unborn child apart from the mother or a part of the the mother?
The whole pro choice argument rests with the supposition that the unborn is a part of the mother. There is no doubt that the unborn can not survive apart from the mother but then again neither can an infant live apart from another human being to care for it. That does not make the infant a part of the individual caring for them and to kill an infant like any other human being is immoral and illegal.
Why then I asked myself is the mother able to make a life and death choice for another human being? Because in fact the unborn child is not the mother's body at all. Is an unborn child an appendage of the woman? Of course not she is only the temporary host to that distinct and separate human being.
When that realization finally sunk in with me I realized that abortion was nothing more than murder, plain and simple. This is not and never has been an discussion based on science or logic, it has always been an argument based on one person's (the mother) attempt to have total control of another person (the unborn). It is basically slavery to say that one person has the right to make such choices for another human being, it is worse than slavery it is genocide for convenience.
The only way the pro-choice argument holds any water at all is if you accept either of two untruths. Either the unborn is a part of the mother in which case she is free to do as she pleases with her body. Or there should be an exception for a mother in the case of murder of her unborn child.
Interestingly enough if an unborn child is killed during a criminal activity by another, often times the perpetrator of the crime is charged with the murder of that unborn even though the same murder committed by the mother is somehow lawful.
As a man I have no real say in what a woman does with her body, for that matter neither does another woman. However as a human being I do have a say in societies laws concerning murder.
Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.
Page: 1 — Blog Index
Greek default looms as voluntary debt deal looks set to fail
European leaders are braced for the eurozone’s first ever sovereign default this week as Greece’s efforts to secure a €206bn (£172bn) “voluntary” bond swap looks increasingly unlikely.
Authorities in Athens are ready to enforce the controversial collective action clauses, or CACs, to impose the restructuring deal on all bondholders as the number of voluntary agreements look set to fall short of the required amount.
Credit rating agencies have warned they will declare Athens to be in default if the CACs are triggered which would be a dramatic culmination to a three-year rollercoaster ride for Athens, the eurozone and global markets.
While the markets have been ready for a Greek default for months, the move could leave Greece and its banks barred from funding from the European Central Bank (ECB). On Monday, Standard & Poor’s declared Greece to be in a state of “selective default” which led to the ECB announcing it would no longer accept Greek government bonds as security for new loans.
The rating agency said its decision had been prompted by the threat of the CACs and the actual use of them is likely to tip Greece into actual default. The agency said it regarded the process as a “distressed debt restructuring”.
Raoul Ruparel of Open Europe, the London-based think-tank, said: “Greece is likely to struggle to reach the targets for a voluntary agreement so the credit rating agencies are almost certainly going to see this as a default.
"What happens next is unknown territory.
"Greek banks will probably be barred from normal ECB funding and have to turn to the Emergency Liquidity Assistance [provided by the ECB] instead but for how long, we don’t know.”
Greece needs around 95pc of its private creditors to accept the deal by the deadline on Thursday in order to secure its €130bn international bail-out package and avert imminent bankruptcy.
Greek politicians back the use of CACs – which allow the deal to be imposed on all bondholders if 66pc agree to it – being inserted retrospectively if the voluntary agreement falls short.
The uncertainty over the deal on Greek debt put further pressure on the euro last week. The single currency fell sharply against the dollar and other major currencies.
Uncertainty over Spanish willingness to stick to its austerity programme also put pressure on the currency.
Last week, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) declared that there had not yet been a credit event in Greece so there was no need for the credit default insurance instruments to be triggered.
If the CACs are triggered this week, the committee will almost certainly reconsider its decision.
These people chose to play god..They were denied children but did it anyways. They could have tried for one at a time to avoid the consequences that are so unlivable to him. I know it's $20,000 a shot...that's why multiples are usually done at once..to up the odds something takes.. He took the cheap route. Sometimes 8 or more have taken at once..obviously not healthy for the fetuses & certainly not God's will for women. Even triplets...many times one is somewhat damaged or starved before birth left to suffer the rest of their lives.
This is common..he had to know what he was getting into. Probability played his best odds for the buck & prayed for the best.. Hope he doesn't leave his amoral wife over it..
As a society, I think our sensibilities are being dulled by the widespread acceptance of abortion. Many of us were shocked and repulsed when we first learned of "partial birth abortion", but now people just seem to accept it as something that Obama favors. Likewise, the article that Jer posted about "post birth abortion" left me in tears, but we'll likely be arguing the pros and cons of this in years to come. The unthinkable will become devoid of emotion as it becomes commonplace, just as it has with abortion. Anonymous addresses this issue also, when he says, "...just like the Nazis convinced themselves that the people screaming as they were shot or gassed were "Untermenchen," subhuman, and therefore guiltlessly exterminated."
Amazed that when you do this IVF you are going to get multiple births... that is your choice...and you should do your part and follow thru...
Women who cannot deal with having children should not try to have them via IVF...
she already had one child and she should have stuck with just the one
instead of murdering two children by choice...
The father was a whimp for not making sure of their decision before doing IVF.
Anonymous says, Several cycles and multiple embryo implantations later, we welcomed our blessing from G-d - their first child. Apparently several tries at implantation failed.
When they tried for a second pregnancy, ...all three took. We were faced with the news of triplets. I was shocked, knowing the burden that would entail, but since G-d gave us three, I was prepared to do whatever I needed to do to help, manage, and provide. It sounds to me as though he had known that this was possible, and he accepted it.
Then he says, My wife? Something snapped. She was adamant. She would not carry three. She would not carry two... I tried on several occasions to convince her to at least keep twins. I failed. This leads me to believe that Anon had not expected this reaction from his wife - something snapped. And so he finds that his choice is between one or none.
We must remember that a woman has control over her body, including the contents of that body, even if that contents includes babies. She can abort those babies without his consent or knowledge. She was adamant.
A wimp? I don't think so. I think he's an unwitting victim of our progressive culture.
This is a good example of the slippery slope on which we find ourselves. Once abortion was made legal, the definition of abortion has been shifted and nudged to now include mid term abortion, late term abortion, partial birth abortion, and now selective abortion. That selective abortion already includes killing infants who are an unwanted race or gender.
In my opinion, the slippery slope is being greased by progressive policies and politics. The progressive agenda isn't just clean energy or universal health care - it's the long list of goals embodied in Agenda 21: energy control, loss of individual property rights, planned communities, decreased animal agriculture, etc. It includes decreasing the population of Earth, so abortion is a necessary tool to achieve their ends.
Is the unborn child apart from the mother or a part of the the mother?
The whole pro choice argument rests with the supposition that the unborn is a part of the mother. There is no doubt that the unborn can not survive apart from the mother but then again neither can an infant live apart from another human being to care for it. That does not make the infant a part of the individual caring for them and to kill an infant like any other human being is immoral and illegal.
Why then I asked myself is the mother able to make a life and death choice for another human being? Because in fact the unborn child is not the mother's body at all. Is an unborn child an appendage of the woman? Of course not she is only the temporary host to that distinct and separate human being.
When that realization finally sunk in with me I realized that abortion was nothing more than murder, plain and simple. This is not and never has been an discussion based on science or logic, it has always been an argument based on one person's (the mother) attempt to have total control of another person (the unborn). It is basically slavery to say that one person has the right to make such choices for another human being, it is worse than slavery it is genocide for convenience.
The only way the pro-choice argument holds any water at all is if you accept either of two untruths. Either the unborn is a part of the mother in which case she is free to do as she pleases with her body. Or there should be an exception for a mother in the case of murder of her unborn child.
Interestingly enough if an unborn child is killed during a criminal activity by another, often times the perpetrator of the crime is charged with the murder of that unborn even though the same murder committed by the mother is somehow lawful.
As a man I have no real say in what a woman does with her body, for that matter neither does another woman. However as a human being I do have a say in societies laws concerning murder.
Viewing: 1 - 9
Page: 1 — Blog Index