The New York Times editorial staff has once again descended to a new low. Perhaps their intent is to demean “modern love,” pregnancy, and the “choice” of whether or not to abort a child. Today’s “Fashion and Style – Modern Love” section presents us with “Would Our Two New Lives Include a Third?,” the story about one woman’s decision to forgo an abortion and have her baby. (The article is accompanied by the graphic, above, of a blind-folded woman and a pinata – in the shape of a baby.)
Thankfully, the author decided to “keep it,” and convinced her husband that the child would not get in the way of their plans and life “Style.”
Despite the final, mature decision by the couple, I was brought to tears by the essay that seemed to weigh the life of a child against his mother’s and father’s age, marital status, career plans, and politics. It struck me that, although the decision seemed to be the mother’s choice, she felt pressure to defer to the decision of the father, even against what she reports as her own growing wish to protect her baby. Until I realized that the piece was published in the “Fashion and Style” section, under “modern love,” I intended to write about the difficulty created by teaching that a child is a “choice” that can be weighed against careers and previous choices and that deliberations about that choice threatens marital unity much more than the actual changes a new baby brings with him.
The shallow treatment of the story by the NYT is a true reflection of the environment in which these two people were forced to make this “choice.”