NY Times Article: Aborting Just One Twin?

[byaaaaaaah23]

Article in the NY Times Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/magazine/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy.html?src=rechp

This could be an interesting ethical question for interviews. I think the parents have valid reasons, especially if they're older and have careers and older children. What a tough decision though. Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[macsta]

Article in the NY Times Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/magazine/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy.html?src=rechp

This could be an interesting ethical question for interviews. I think the parents have valid reasons, especially if they're older and have careers and older children. What a tough decision though. Thoughts?

******s take fertilization drugs without knowing the consequences. Later, they are mystified as to how they have octuplets.

 

[hiyaman]

Too long didn't finish, but couldn't she easily just have put one up for adoption?

Or am I missing something here?

 

[Stumpyman]

Didn't read the entire thing, but it seems like both fetuses were healthy, no defects or anything. She just didn't feel like taking care of two children....

 

[V5RED]

Too long didn't finish, but couldn't she easily just have put one up for adoption?

Or am I missing something here?

She could have, but instead she chose to kill it.

She already had a bunch of kids and then took a crapload of drugs so her 45 year old ass could squirt out another.

She could not afford to care for 2 more, so she murdered one.

I got very angry reading that.

 

[Goblue89]

This article almost made me pro-life. You invested so much time and money into getting pregnant and say stupid sh** like, "Things would have been different if we were 15 years younger or if we hadn’t had children already or if we were more financially secure". Unbelievable. I dont understand how you can want one child so bad and be so against having an additional one

 

[iqe2010]

I only skimmed through the first page, but why the hell does a 45 year old want a baby? If I choose to get married and have kids (which I doubt), at age 45 I would hope to be preparing to send my kids to college..

That being said, I'm pro-choice. I'd rather a child be aborted than molested, killed, etc.

 

[Epen]

I am politically pro-choice but ethically pro-life. I believe everyone has the right to choose something I would never consider.

That being said, what this person is doing is vile and entirely self-centric. There is an enormous difference between having an abortion because you cannot afford a child/would face health complications as a result/rape/incest/etc. and having an abortion because you only wanted one child instead of two.

now I won't be able to sleep tonight from the rage

 

[Nymphicus]

I only skimmed through the first page, but why the hell does a 45 year old want a baby? If I choose to get married and have kids (which I doubt), at age 45 I would hope to be preparing to send my kids to college..

That being said, I'm pro-choice. I'd rather a child be aborted than molested, killed, etc.

The baby was just as healthy as the other one. It was arbitrarily killed because the mother decided she didn't want two children. What kind of conversation is that "Oh, by the way I decided to abort your twin because he/she would have been too much work."

 

[mitchlucker]

I'm usually pro-choice but this is just silly. Give it up for adoption. You're already having one anyways, gotta go through it all. Give the 2nd one up. Basically killing it just for the sake. Sad.

 

[ponyo]

I am politically pro-choice but ethically pro-life. I believe everyone has the right to choose something I would never consider.

This is me

I think reductions of higher multiples is legit though. Twins...

By the way this from the article was really saliently written:

In an environment where you can have so many choices, you own the outcome in a way that you wouldn't have, had the choices not existed. If reduction didn't exist, women wouldn't worry that by not reducing, they're at fault for making life more difficult for their existing kids. In an odd way, having more choices actually places a much greater burden on women, because we become the creators of our circumstance, whereas, before, we were the recipients of them. I'm not saying we should have less choices; I'm saying choices are not always as liberating and empowering as we hope they will be.

 

[TheMightySmiter]

Too long didn't finish, but couldn't she easily just have put one up for adoption?

Or am I missing something here?

I don't think this is a realistic or ethical possibility. Imagine actually having twin babies and then saying, "Okay, you have to give one of these babies to a strange couple. Which one?" Or imagine finding out when you're 18 or so that you have a twin you never knew about. I'm not saying the choice the couple made was ethical, but don't think this adoption alternative should be thrown out as an easy answer.

 

[hiyaman]

I don't think this is a realistic or ethical possibility. Imagine actually having twin babies and then saying, "Okay, you have to give one of these babies to a strange couple. Which one?" Or imagine finding out when you're 18 or so that you have a twin you never knew about. I'm not saying the choice the couple made was ethical, but don't think this adoption alternative should be thrown out as an easy answer.

I understand what you are saying, I didn't think of it that way.

"Likewise, people may judge two-to-one reductions more harshly because the fertility treatment that yielded the pregnancy significantly increased the chance of multiples. “People may think, You brought this about yourself, so you should be willing to take some of the risk,” Steinbock says"

lol this is what I was thinking.

 

[V5RED]

I don't think this is a realistic or ethical possibility. Imagine actually having twin babies and then saying, "Okay, you have to give one of these babies to a strange couple. Which one?" Or imagine finding out when you're 18 or so that you have a twin you never knew about. I'm not saying the choice the couple made was ethical, but don't think this adoption alternative should be thrown out as an easy answer.

I would rather find out that there is a twin out there than Google my mother's name and find the article talking about when she killed my twin.

Alive and adopted is always better than dead.

 

[generator]

I would rather find out that there is a twin out there than Google my mother's name and find the article talking about when she killed my twin.

Alive and adopted is always better than dead.

I agree, that would suck. it seems to me like even if you wanted to abort 1 of them - you'd still be putting the other "wanted" one at risk by going through w/ the procedure. the article seems to indicate the procedure is safe... but it also seems unnecessary.

 

[Morsetlis]

Should abort all three of them and decrease the surplus population.

 

[NewYorker9]

Very interesting article, I honestly don't know what I would do if I were in the position of either the parent or doctor

 

[TheMightySmiter]

I would rather find out that there is a twin out there than Google my mother's name and find the article talking about when she killed my twin.

Alive and adopted is always better than dead.

I don't think you can really predict WHAT you would do in that situation unless you were actually in that situation. Same with having an abortion. It's a lot easier to say you would never do it if you aren't in the position of having to decide.

 

[V5RED]

I don't think you can really predict WHAT you would do in that situation unless you were actually in that situation. Same with having an abortion. It's a lot easier to say you would never do it if you aren't in the position of having to decide.

For some things, you would be right.

For this, it goes completely against my code of ethics. I am as sure that I would never kill a child for such selfish reasons as I am that I would never rape a woman for fun.

 

[TheMightySmiter]

For some things, you would be right.

For this, it goes completely against my code of ethics. I am as sure that I would never kill a child for such selfish reasons as I am that I would never rape a woman for fun.

Well, not everyone believes that a 10-week-old fetus is the same thing as a child. And of course it's easy for you to say that, you're a male and could never get pregnant.

 

[V5RED]

Well, not everyone believes that a 10-week-old fetus is the same thing as a child. And of course it's easy for you to say that, you're a male and could never get pregnant.

What does that have to do with the idea of murdering one child and letting the other live?

Even if that meant anything, which it does not, it isn't like killing one child makes her not pregnant. The idea is not about being pregnant or not, it is about whether she should be able to murder a baby because it is inconvenient for her to have two.

That is a ridiculous(edit: and very sexist) point to make.

 

[giraffe17]

wow i'm surprised that so many responses are so judgmental. would i do this? no. but i also don't think it's right to automatically assume that people who wish to do so are horrible people. maybe there are circumstances you don't know about. when you become a doctor you're going to have to deal with patients making decisions you don't agree with - and you probably won't get too far in your career if you're judging them all this harshly.

if you read on in the article, it likens this to terminating a pregnancy where the fetus is found to have a non-life-threatening anomaly, basically saying that either one is a lifestyle or financial choice. i think it's a good point. certainly something to think about.

 

[V5RED]

wow i'm surprised that so many responses are so judgmental. would i do this? no. but i also don't think it's right to automatically assume that people who wish to do so are horrible people. maybe there are circumstances you don't know about. when you become a doctor you're going to have to deal with patients making decisions you don't agree with - and you probably won't get too far in your career if you're judging them all this harshly.

if you read on in the article, it likens this to terminating a pregnancy where the fetus is found to have a non-life-threatening anomaly, basically saying that either one is a lifestyle or financial choice. i think it's a good point. certainly something to think about.

She had to go to a bunch of doctors before finding one shady enough to do the procedure. I would say that judging this to be immoral is not something out of the realm of normalcy for doctors.

 

[TheMightySmiter]

What does that have to do with the idea of murdering one child and letting the other live?

Even if that meant anything, which it does not, it isn't like killing one child makes her not pregnant. The idea is not about being pregnant or not, it is about whether she should be able to murder a baby because it is inconvenient for her to have two.

That is a ridiculous(edit: and very sexist) point to make.

Is it sexist to believe that women will be affected differently by pregnancy and childbirth than men will? I don't think so. It is so easy to say that she should just go through with the pregnancy as twins and give one up for adoption. So easy to say that. But actually carrying out that decision? Unbelievably difficult, especially when you (as a male) couldn't possibly understand what it's like to be pregnant and give birth to a child. There are things that a mother understands that a father doesn't, and things that a father understands that a mother doesn't. I do not think that is sexist, it's just the way things are.

I don't necessarily believe she made an ethical decision, especially since it was her choice to go through IVF in the first place. But I see the point she was making in the beginning of the article about the artificiality of the whole process. She didn't naturally get pregnant with twins, they were implanted. So terminating one of the two fetuses seems like just another part of an artificial process. I don't think this could have been an easy decision for this couple to make, but you seem to be very quick to pass judgment on them. Things aren't always so black and white.

 

[yellowfinGuy]

I thought that if you use IVF there was a greater chance for twins, triplets, etc. Seems to me that if your mind set is one that when you find out that you are going to have twins and your first thought is "oh no" maybe that having more kids is not the best thing to try and do. After all that expense and emotional roller coaster I would think that you are happy just to have developing fetuses. So you abort one and feel like **** and have to tell your kids what happened one day along with the other twin. Or you give one up for adoption which is beyond me? either way this is not a good situation.

 

[deleted393595]

Article in the NY Times Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/magazine/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy.html?src=rechp

This could be an interesting ethical question for interviews. I think the parents have valid reasons, especially if they're older and have careers and older children. What a tough decision though. Thoughts?

Eenie meeni mini mo...

 

[Morsetlis]

wow i'm surprised that so many responses are so judgmental. would i do this? no. but i also don't think it's right to automatically assume that people who wish to do so are horrible people. maybe there are circumstances you don't know about. when you become a doctor you're going to have to deal with patients making decisions you don't agree with - and you probably won't get too far in your career if you're judging them all this harshly.

if you read on in the article, it likens this to terminating a pregnancy where the fetus is found to have a non-life-threatening anomaly, basically saying that either one is a lifestyle or financial choice. i think it's a good point. certainly something to think about.

It is ok to be judgmental privately and not in a professional context. After all, you do discriminate between lines at the grocery store, between beautiful and ugly people, don't you?

Likewise, everybody has opinions about other people's actions and whether it fits either your own personal code of morals and ethics (in case you are a professional) or some universal code of morals and ethics (for that person's profession or situation) that you perceive to be applicable.

It is important in ethics to consider what standards the person in question, in that particular situation and of those particular privileges and responsibilities, have to live up to. In this case, she has the societal expectation to be a good mother and also a societal expectation to not cause suffering to other living human beings unnecessarily. The only question, then, is whether those are human beings aborted that could appreciably suffer.

 

[NYCMommy]

I am pro-choice and have no ethical issues with higher order reduction to protect the health of the mother and the remaining fetuses but not below twins. I am also a mother of twins and have been sitting here crying for the last 15 minutes.

 

[sworzeh]

Why is this such a big deal? Fertility drugs caused the extra fetus and abortion removes it. It's hardly different from any other abortion.

to everyone who can't understand the mother's plight. It's legal and her choice.

 

[ponyo]

to everyone who can't understand the mother's plight. It's legal and her choice.

One of the classic arguments made by pro-choice advocates is the analogy to involuntary linkage. Imagine that you had woken up one day and found yourself linked to another person. You can free yourself, but then this person will die. You can also wait a year when you'll both be freed. Very, very few people will say that you have an actual moral obligation to continue being linked to this person, and this argument has been used time and time again in the context of rape-related abortions. I am politically pro-choice and would not dream of trying to argue that in such a case you would be legally obligated to maintain the life of another person. On the other hand, I will absolutely judge, on a personal level, a person who just said "screw it, I really don't care" and unlinked himself.

In the case of the murder of Kitty Genovese (for people who don't know this, this woman was stabbed and basically screamed for like an hour while people just ignored her and eventually died), the bystanders didn't have a legal obligation to personally make sure she got the medical help she needed. Indeed, lots of people, maybe even most, who wouldn't have helped her for fear that somehow they would get in trouble. Does it make it okay that they just watched her die? F*ck no. Yes, it's "understandable", just like how it's sort of "understandable" that a kid who was sexually abused by his dad would become screwed up and a serial killer one day. "Understandable" does not equate "moral".

Tl;dr: Just because something is legal and your choice, doesn't mean it's ok to do it. It's totally legal and your choice to watch someone die before your eyes and not call for help, as long as it's not yours. But if you do it, I will judge you and consider you a person of inferior moral standards.

 

[V5RED]

Why is this such a big deal? Fertility drugs caused the extra fetus and abortion removes it. It's hardly different from any other abortion.

to everyone who can't understand the mother's plight. It's legal and her choice.

It was also her choice to get pregnant; it didn't just happen to her. In fact she busted her ass to get pregnant using methods known to produce multiple children.

You say this is hardly different from any other abortion, but that is a lie. This is far different from many other abortions. Abortions in the case of rape, danger to the mother, danger to the other fetus, and horrifyingly diseased fetuses all have at least some justification.

This was a healthy child that was created through her choices, and since it was somewhat burdensome to her she killed it.

 

[Taux]

I'm pro-choice, but this angered me. I couldn't get past the first page.

She went to extreme measures to get pregnant. She then aborted a fetus that she forcibly formed.

What frustrates me even more is that she tries to justify her actions with the ever-popular matter of affordability. If she could not afford more children, why did she try so hard to have even one more? It's impossible to factor children into a budget: New costs often arise and you have to account for potential variation in their needs.

People adapt to the prospect of having multiples as a part of an unplanned pregnancy, but a woman who went beyond planning her pregnancy, blatantly knowing the risk of having multiples, couldn't possibly adjust?

I see no ethical argument in the convoluted tale that is this woman's life. I wonder if she'll tell the surviving child how lucky they are that they didn't end up like their twin.

 

[Epen]

one of the classic arguments made by pro-choice advocates is the analogy to involuntary linkage. Imagine that you had woken up one day and found yourself linked to another person. You can free yourself, but then this person will die. You can also wait a year when you'll both be freed. Very, very few people will say that you have an actual moral obligation to continue being linked to this person, and this argument has been used time and time again in the context of rape-related abortions. I am politically pro-choice and would not dream of trying to argue that in such a case you would be legally obligated to maintain the life of another person. On the other hand, i will absolutely judge, on a personal level, a person who just said "screw it, i really don't care" and unlinked himself.

In the case of the murder of kitty genovese (for people who don't know this, this woman was stabbed and basically screamed for like an hour while people just ignored her and eventually died), the bystanders didn't have a legal obligation to personally make sure she got the medical help she needed. Indeed, lots of people, maybe even most, who wouldn't have helped her for fear that somehow they would get in trouble. Does it make it okay that they just watched her die? F*ck no. Yes, it's "understandable", just like how it's sort of "understandable" that a kid who was sexually abused by his dad would become screwed up and a serial killer one day. "understandable" does not equate "moral".

Tl;dr: Just because something is legal and your choice, doesn't mean it's ok to do it. It's totally legal and your choice to watch someone die before your eyes and not call for help, as long as it's not yours. But if you do it, i will judge you and consider you a person of inferior moral standards.

+1

 

[Epen]

I'm pro-choice, but this angered me. I couldn't get past the first page.

She went to extreme measures to get pregnant. She then aborted a fetus that she forcibly formed.

What frustrates me even more is that she tries to justify her actions with the ever-popular matter of affordability. If she could not afford more children, why did she try so hard to have even one more? It's impossible to factor children into a budget: New costs often arise and you have to account for potential variation in their needs.

People adapt to the prospect of having multiples as a part of an unplanned pregnancy, but a woman who went beyond planning her pregnancy, blatantly knowing the risk of having multiples, couldn't possibly adjust?

This is what I was thinking. Fertility treatments and abortions can't be that cheap; she must have some sort of inflow to sustain it. Either way, people adapt to multiple children all the time; if she tried she could've been able to support two more children.

Another way to think about it is that nobody knows exactly how much a child will cost over the 18+ years you care for them. For all she knows the twin she keeps will develop some horrible prolonged disease that will cost her millions. Kids are unpredictable, and this woman has the audacity to believe she can plan everything down to the last dollar and child.

 

[tn4596]

wow...just wow..
let me get this straight...this poor excuse of a human being think that it is "unnatural" for her to get prego with twin, by swallowing a bunch of pills (at this point, understandable). So her solution is to inject chemical into one of the twin to kill it and let "nature take its course".... I cannot believe this author would believe in her "i wouldnt wanna disturb natural order" BS...hipocrisy...

 

[tman5890]

Article in the NY Times Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/magazine/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy.html?src=rechp

This could be an interesting ethical question for interviews. I think the parents have valid reasons, especially if they're older and have careers and older children. What a tough decision though. Thoughts?

I'm speechless....:cry:

 

[sworzeh]

It was also her choice to get pregnant; it didn't just happen to her. In fact she busted her ass to get pregnant using methods known to produce multiple children.

You say this is hardly different from any other abortion, but that is a lie. This is far different from many other abortions. Abortions in the case of rape, danger to the mother, danger to the other fetus, and horrifyingly diseased fetuses all have at least some justification.

This was a healthy child that was created through her choices, and since it was somewhat burdensome to her she killed it.

Those are not common reasons to get an abortion.

Also, it's not a child, it's a fetus. I find it comical that some think this is comparable to watching someone die and not saying anything. Are you people against birth control pills too? Because they can cause embryonic abortions...

Would I do this? No. Would I judge her? No. I merely judge the bystanders that think they know best.

 

[V5RED]

Those are not common reasons to get an abortion.

Also, it's not a child, it's a fetus. I find it comical that some think this is comparable to watching someone die and not saying anything. Are you people against birth control pills too? Because they can cause embryonic abortions...

Would I do this? No. Would I judge her? No. I merely judge the bystanders that think they know best.

Half abortions are common? They are more common than abortions due to rape or health reasons?

Putting that aside, you said it is hardly different from "ANY" other type of abortion.

The technique to kill required the child to have developed human form(not become human, it was human as soon as it became a zygote) so that the needle can be aimed into the child's chest. It is not just a fetus.

The birth control pill argument is a straw man, and as such it is not something worth addressing beyond this sentence.

As far as not judging her, that is impossible. You are human, you judge everyone and everything you sense.

It is odd that you consider what she did to be fine, but for people to have the audacity to cast judgement upon her is reprehensible.

 

[sworzeh]

Half abortions are common? They are more common than abortions due to rape or health reasons?

Putting that aside, you said it is hardly different from "ANY" other type of abortion.

The technique to kill required the child to have developed human form(not become human, it was human as soon as it became a zygote) so that the needle can be aimed into the child's chest. It is not just a fetus.

The birth control pill argument is a straw man, and as such it is not something worth addressing beyond this sentence.

As far as not judging her, that is impossible. You are human, you judge everyone and everything you sense.

It is odd that you consider what she did to be fine, but for people to have the audacity to cast judgement upon her is reprehensible.

No, just no. You think that all abortions need to be "justifiable" to your own mind (i.e. the mother was raped or the pregnancy is risky), but most are because the mother just doesn't want a child for whatever "selfish" reason she may have. There are usually not extenuating circumstances or health reasons. I think you missed the point. I was not arguing that reducing twins was common. I said that it was no different from most other abortions.

Around 9 weeks it's considered a fetus. At 12 weeks the twin reduction is usually performed, therefore it's still a fetus :/

Yeah, I judge people who judge others. I do what I want, as do you

 

[StephanieZ]

How is she going to explain this to the other twin one day?

"Mom, why did you abort my twin and not me?"

"It was a completely arbitrary decision. It could have just as easily been you. Now eat your vegetables."

 

[candav]

Given that this woman has already had a few kids and went through great effort to have another one, I think it’s relatively safe to assume that she enjoys children and values being a mother. So why the sudden jump to “she wants to kill babies” and “she isn’t willing to work hard enough for her children”? How is that even logical?

Is aborting an accidental pregnancy more morally “right” than aborting after going thru fertility treatments/in vitro? Is aborting a single baby more “right” than aborting half of a set of twins? If people “adapt” to twins all the time, then where do you draw the line -- would you say it’s okay for someone to abort one of triplets? one of quadruplets? Or should they simply adapt to those situations as well?

Wanting ONE baby does not mean you are morally obligated to keep every single embryo that implants. Remember, women (and men) fought long and hard for their reproductive rights. Let’s not draw arbitrary and false moral lines in an attempt to limit those rights.

PS: Regarding the Kitty Genovese example cited above -- this case is misconstrued SO often. Psychologists agree that the Kitty Genovese case is an illustration of the power of the SITUATION, not of individual moral character. Go read up on it on Wikipedia -- you’ll note the actual attack was much more nuanced and ambiguous than “30 people ignored her and watched her die.”

 

[LadySophia]

Have anyone ever considered how the surviving twin will feel? One day, the mother may say to that twin in anger and spite that the twin should have been the one aborted and the other one should have stayed alive. Or, the other twin could have been better than this twin. It is a pessimistic possibility, but it is a possibility nonetheless. Poor twin. =/

 

[Morsetlis]

Have anyone ever considered how the surviving twin will feel? One day, the mother may say to that twin in anger and spite that the twin should have been the one aborted and the other one should have stayed alive. Or, the other twin could have been better than this twin. It is a pessimistic possibility, but it is a possibility nonetheless. Poor twin. =/

Maybe he'll see a psychiatrist? Maybe it could be you?

 

[NH14]

I think this is a reasonable thing to do. It is essentially the same as having an abortion with one child. If the parent isn't ready/willing/able to raise twins, then why not? I know, many people think its 'murder' - but not really, because, in a purely legal sense, you are technically not a human with rights until you are truly born (barring the abortion regulations of course, 3rd trimester stuff). So, why not? In a more cynical sense, Earth is already overpopulated and we are careening straight to environmental disaster anyway, so one less human may extend the downward spiral... cynical, I know, but indisputably true.

 

[S6MD]

Should abort all three of them and decrease the surplus population.

Surplus population? Trends are actually the opposite.

 

[S6MD]

In a more cynical sense, Earth is already overpopulated and we are careening straight to environmental disaster anyway, so one less human may extend the downward spiral... cynical, I know, but indisputably true.

I think this is a common misconception. I'll try to post some links to good sources, but I have read a lot about the shrinking younger generation. It makes sense, given selfish bastards like this woman in the article. People aren't having kids anymore.

It's a reverse pyramid now. Less younger people to take care of an 'overcrowded' older generation.

 

[NH14]

I think this is a common misconception. I'll try to post some links to good sources, but I have read a lot about the shrinking younger generation. It makes sense, given selfish bastards like this woman in the article. People aren't having kids anymore.

It's a reverse pyramid now. Less younger people to take care of an 'overcrowded' older generation.

Yes, this is true in the United States. However, the world is larger than the United States. The world population is bottom heavy. Plus, babies grow into adults right? So I guess I'm not sure what your point is exactly... Yes, as the world develops, the younger population will shrink with decreasing fertility rates, and the median age will increase. Check it out: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

 

[S6MD]

Yes, this is true in the United States. However, the world is larger than the United States. The world population is bottom heavy. Plus, babies grow into adults right? So I guess I'm not sure what your point is exactly... Yes, as the world develops, the younger population will shrink with decreasing fertility rates, and the median age will increase. Check it out: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

More like all developed nations, not just the United States. Didn't check out the link yet, but I will when I have a chance.

Going back to the article, I just don't understand why you'd be upset with twins, especially when you are trying to have kids. What a gift.

 

[V5RED]

Yes, this is true in the United States. However, the world is larger than the United States. The world population is bottom heavy. Plus, babies grow into adults right? So I guess I'm not sure what your point is exactly... Yes, as the world develops, the younger population will shrink with decreasing fertility rates, and the median age will increase. Check it out: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

Everything in this post is directed at you since you agreed with the poster claiming the American population is shrinking.

You think it makes sense to make further attempts to reduce the already shrinking American population because in underdeveloped countries people have been ****ing too much and thus caused severe overpopulation.

Following this logic, I will go eat 3 pizza's and a Big Mac to compensate for the problem of the starving children in those countries.

 

[Alcibiades]

I wonder how she chose, was it just like choosing a lobster at a seafood restaurant- "I want that one, it looks bigger and more robust"?