The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy

[LotusCarsLtd]

For all its successes, reproductive medicine has produced a paradox: in creating life where none seemed possible, doctors often generate more fetuses than they intend. In the mid-1980s, they devised an escape hatch to deal with these megapregnancies, terminating all but two or three fetuses to lower the risks to women and the babies they took home. But what began as an intervention for extreme medical circumstances has quietly become an option for women carrying twins. With that, pregnancy reduction shifted from a medical decision to an ethical dilemma. As science allows us to intervene more than ever at the beginning and the end of life, it outruns our ability to reach a new moral equilibrium. We still have to work out just how far we’re willing to go to construct the lives we want.

nytimes.com/2011/08/14/magazine/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha210&pagewanted=all

I’m personally bothered by what’s being discussed in this article. I can understand the stress they’re under when considering the possibility of carrying multiple children, but the idea of choosing which babies to kill is so incomprehensibly wrong on so many levels (not to mention that it is plain murder).

The other part that bothered me is that most of the concerns were focused on difficult but surmountable challenges that were made out to be absolutely impossible. Difficult, yes, but they can be done and would be that more rewarding in the end.

And I didn’t even address the whole issue of IVF, etc…

 

[Bezant]

Irony. I was reading an old magazine article about this exact subject a few hours ago. Will have a look soon.

 

[roads152]

The other irony is the presence of people advocating contraception and abortion.
Just what, actually is the problem?
Overpopulation? Then, why the IVF?
Underpopulation? Then, why the population control through contraception, abortion and infanticide?
Are the government people around the world merely pulling our legs? Are they doing it to the point of going against God’s will?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The other irony is the presence of people advocating contraception and abortion.
Just what, actually is the problem?
Overpopulation? Then, why the IVF?
Underpopulation? Then, why the population control through contraception, abortion and infanticide?
Are the government people around the world merely pulling our legs? Are they doing it to the point of going against God’s will?

In most cases, the Government thinks it is God.

 

[SamTheNewfie]

The other irony is the presence of people advocating contraception and abortion.
Just what, actually is the problem?
Overpopulation? Then, why the IVF?
Underpopulation? Then, why the population control through contraception, abortion and infanticide?
Are the government people around the world merely pulling our legs? Are they doing it to the point of going against God’s will?

The “government people” don’t pay for IVF. It’s either private insurance or out-of-pocket.

 

[didymus]

What I find ironic is that pro-choicers suddenly have “ethical concerns” about reductions. Gimme a break. If you’re pro-abortion what grounds do you have for criticising any abortion even if the mother is selecting for eye color?

Jenny Jay, interviewed in the article, hit it on the head:

“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,” she said later. “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.”

Quite. In the US market-driven culture babies are just another consumer choice, IVF being necessary due to choosing to delay motherhood by contracepting.

It’s interesting Ms Jays says she wouldn’t have “reduced” her twins if they had been conceived naturally. I guess “you break it, youbought it” works in reverse.