Very disturbing article

[lifeisbeautiful]

At 43, twins (or more) are risky health propositions, both to the mother and to the children.

Why is this relevant? She chose to use a medical procedure to get pregnant, pregnancy in itself can be very risky. On top of that, in her case her babies were both very healthy, not that being unhealthy would be a reason to kill a baby, but anyways.

I can see how this process would upset some religious people, but I only have partial sympathy. First of all, the entire process of IVF or implantation (not insemination or hormone therapy) involves the creation of fertilized embryos that are either stored indefinitely or destroyed. Secondly, implantation most often includes losing a few embryos (multiple are implanted, as was described here). This does mean loss of potential lives (genetic individuals at the earliest stages). However, this also naturally occurs frequently in our bodies (30% of pregnancies result in miscarriage) and even–it turns out–NFP practices result in fertilized eggs (rare, but often enough in aggregate since so many people have unprotected sex all through a partner’s menstrual cycle) that are lost through menstruation. In other words, loss of fertilized “life” is a quite common natural experience. The addition of IVF loss numbers is hardly a blip on the natural death numbers for fertilized embryos.

There is a huge difference between naturally occuring loss of life and, for example, the destruction of embryos. If the fact that <the loss of “fertilized” life is a quite common natural experience> was a justification for the deaths due to IVF, then wouldn’t it be a justification for abortion too? since it doesn’t matter if the deaths are naturally occuring or result of an unnecessary medical/lab procedure. How about a justification to kill any person, especially if they are older or ill, since its common for people to die naturally anyways?

Add to this that the RCC in no way condemns other medical or technological practices when persons seek to correct, repair, or improve other physical dysfunctions, but in this case holds that to “artificially” circumvent a physical impairment is morally wrong even though it results, perhaps, in no greater number of lost embryos than a woman’s natural struggle with miscarriages or other lost embryos that are flushed out in menstruation and we never even know of. This apparent double standard is hard for many persons, even some decent Catholics, to justify and they end up seeking IVF treatment in their wish to get around their physical impairment and raise God-fearing, God-loving children of their own.

And I, for one, don’t blame them.

Its not a double standard. The Church is very much open to medical treatment to correct any problems the woman may have with her reproductive organs, or to help the man have medical treatment to correct any problems he may have with his reproductive organs, just like with any other organ in the body. The problem comes when people decide to create life outside of the marital embrace and all the issues that come with that. For example, it is not uncommon for there to be several embryos frozen indefinitely or destroyed during an IVF treatment, after selecting the “best” embryos. This is no longer “treating” a problem within a body, this is creating new lives and destroying or leaving them indefinitely to an unknown fate. Now, I do know it can be very painful to go through infertility, I have seen beautiful couples suffer because of this, and although I cannot say I know what they go through, I know it is painful. These are not the only people that some times resort to IVF, though, there are many healthy women that resort to this too. Women that do not have any spouse and just want to have a child (or 8) through a donor, women that cannot have a child with their partner because their partner is a woman, women that are naturally passed childbearing age, are all examples of people that will use IVF despite not having anything wrong with their bodies.

 

[larkin31]

There is a huge difference between naturally occuring loss of life and, for example, the destruction of embryos. If the fact that <the loss of “fertilized” life is a quite common natural experience> was a justification for the deaths due to IVF, then wouldn’t it be a justification for abortion too? since it doesn’t matter if the deaths are naturally occuring or result of an unnecessary medical/lab procedure. How about a justification to kill any person, especially if they are older or ill, since its common for people to die naturally anyways?

If an individual already has a legal recognition of personhood, then the law protects other individual rights from superseding his or hers. So, the elderly already have this protection, and fetuses do, too, after a certain point of gestation. Embryos and pre-viable fetuses do not. But, yes, there is some overlap of argument here. But the argument is no invalid simply because you don’t like how it could be applied in a different situation under different circumstances. I was commenting on the approach to IVF and implantation of multiple embryos.

Its not a double standard. The Church is very much open to medical treatment to correct any problems the woman may have with her reproductive organs, or to help the man have medical treatment to correct any problems he may have with his reproductive organs, just like with any other organ in the body. The problem comes when people decide to create life outside of the marital embrace and all the issues that come with that. For example, it is not uncommon for there to be several embryos frozen indefinitely or destroyed during an IVF treatment, after selecting the “best” embryos. This is no longer “treating” a problem within a body, this is creating new lives and destroying or leaving them indefinitely to an unknown fate.

True, and a fair point. But our bodies already do this form of embryo loss in fairly high numbers, and all naturally. Even NFP contributes to this, because we now know that NFP results in fertilized embryos and their subsequent loss.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

If an individual already has a legal recognition of personhood, then the law protects other individual rights from superseding his or hers. So, the elderly already have this protection, and fetuses do, too, after a certain point of gestation. Embryos and pre-viable fetuses do not. But, yes, there is some overlap of argument here. But the argument is no invalid simply because you don’t like how it could be applied in a different situation under different circumstances. I was commenting on the approach to IVF and implantation of multiple embryos.

If we are using the law as a standard, then IVF is legal on its own, so that would be justification enough. Laws can change, they can decide that fetuses no longer have legal recognition of the personhood and it would not change the morality around abortion. I am just saying that, simply speaking, the fact that something occurs naturally is not a justification to cause it to occur unnaturally.

True, and a fair point. But our bodies already do this form of embryo loss in fairly high numbers, and all naturally. Even NFP contributes to this, because we now know that NFP results in fertilized embryos and their subsequent loss.

I am curious about this. I was not familiar with this aspect of NFP, are you suggesting that there are studies etc indicating that having intercourse during the infertile times and conceiving during that time (highly unlikely, but can happen) can cause the likelihood of losing an embryo to be higher than if the embryo was conceived during fertile times? Or are you just saying that a couple who conceives during what infertile times can have a miscarriage, just like a couple who conceives during fertile times? Where you talking about actual infertile times or just perceived ones? Or were you talking about using NFP to conceive, and then having a miscarriage?

 

[larkin31]

…I am curious about this. I was not familiar with this aspect of NFP, are you suggesting that there are studies etc indicating that having intercourse during the infertile times and conceiving during that time (highly unlikely, but can happen) can cause the likelihood of losing an embryo to be higher than if the embryo was conceived during fertile times? Or are you just saying that a couple who conceives during what infertile times can have a miscarriage, just like a couple who conceives during fertile times? Where you talking about actual infertile times or just perceived ones? Or were you talking about using NFP to conceive, and then having a miscarriage?

It was a study that came out about two years ago. You can probably find it with a quick web search. I don’t remember if it compared NFP miscarriages to miscarriages outside NFP. It it calculated a rate of miscarriage (embryo loss) and then calculated a total over, say, 10-30 years or something (or maybe more–I don’t remember all that well). The point I am making is that even NFP results in embryo loss, and NFP in part relies on this embryo loss. Parents practicing it don’t know and typically aren’t concerned about early lost embryos–if they are seeking to avoid pregnancy the onset of menstruation is a welcome sign, and the potential loss of a fertilized embryo is not a moral concern. It is a relief, even if not a fully conscious one.

Of course, for those parents using NFP to get pregnant, menses is a sad event. But that is the other side of the NFP coin.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

It was a study that came out about two years ago. You can probably find it with a quick web search. I don’t remember if it compared NFP miscarriages to miscarriages outside NFP. It it calculated a rate of miscarriage (embryo loss) and then calculated a total over, say, 10-30 years or something (or maybe more–I don’t remember all that well). The point I am making is that even NFP results in embryo loss, and NFP in part relies on this embryo loss. Parents practicing it don’t know and typically aren’t concerned about early lost embryos–if they are seeking to avoid pregnancy the onset of menstruation is a welcome sign, and the potential loss of a fertilized embryo is not a moral concern. It is a relief, even if not a fully conscious one.

Of course, for those parents using NFP to get pregnant, menses is a sad event. But that is the other side of the NFP coin.

Hmm… I am trying to understand this… NFP does not rely on embryo loss, that I am sure of. It relies on using the natural cycle of the female fertility, that can be identified through observation of different signs, to participate in intercourse when the woman is naturally infertile, and not likely to be fertile within the window of time that the sperm will stay alive, and then abstain from intercourse when she is fertile, or within the window of time where she could become fertile while the sperm is still alive. I am trying to see where the embryo loss comes in. Yes, even if practiced correctly to avoid there is a minimal chance of fertilization, but I wonder how this relates to embryo loss… hmm… Regardless, if the timing of intercourse had anything to do with it, it would happen NFP or not. It would be interesting to see what the study shows.

 

[1234]

Selective reduction is not used commonly these days. The case in point is an exception. It was in the old days when clomid-type drugs were used to (hyper)stimulate the ovaries, resulting in the huge litters of marginally viable babies being born. After the most recent of these cases, in Iowa, the ACOG, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly advised against using these drugs. Now, IVF is used with the implantation of one or at most two embryos and most parents are happy when both implant.

 

[faithfully]

This Article talks about the rate of naturally occuring miscarriage, and the amount that might happen when a women doesn’t even realize she’s PG… hence usually a “heavy” period…

 

[Blenderx]

Selective reduction is not used commonly these days. The case in point is an exception. It was in the old days when clomid-type drugs were used to (hyper)stimulate the ovaries, resulting in the huge litters of marginally viable babies being born. After the most recent of these cases, in Iowa, the ACOG, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly advised against using these drugs. Now, IVF is used with the implantation of one or at most two embryos and most parents are happy when both implant.

I’m not sure where you are getting your information, but Clomid and similar drugs are quite commonly used. There are many women pregnant with ‘clomid babies’ in my due date forums right now. It is also very common, especially when a mother is of advanced maternal age, to implant more than 2 embryos with IVF. As for the ACOG, well, ACOG guidelines are very frequently ignored. Any woman researching natural childbirth quickly discovers that.

As for the article, there are no words. :crying:

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I wonder, is anyone else bothered by these euphemisms “reduction” and “selective reduction”?

Being a chemist I wonder when are they going to start talking about “selective oxidation”. Wait, is that what Hitler did to the Jews, Poles, Gypsies, gays, people with Down Syndrome, Catholic priests, and others? He “selectively oxidized” them in his crematories, after he first had them selectively killed.

How about using more straigthforward terms, such as killing, or even culling?

answers.com/topic/cull

tr.v., culled, cull·ing, culls.
1.To pick out from others; select.
2.To gather; collect.
3.To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for example).
n.
Something picked out from others, especially something rejected because of inferior quality.

Culling is the process of removing animals from a group based on specific criteria. This is done in order to either reinforce certain desirable characteristics or to remove certain undesirable characteristics from the group. For livestock and wildlife, the process of culling usually implies the killing of animals with undesirable characteristics.

 

[faithfully]

I wonder, is anyone else bothered by these euphemisms “reduction” and “selective reduction”?

Being a chemist I wonder when are they going to start talking about “selective oxidation”. Wait, is that what Hitler did to the Jews, Poles, Gypsies, gays, people with Down Syndrome, Catholic priests, and others? He “selectively oxidized” them in his crematories, after he first had them selectively killed.

How about using more straigthforward terms, such as killing, or even culling?

INteresting… the article I posted on miscarragies a few posts back says that they are really “spontanious abortions”… but that people don’t like that, so they are called miscarriages…

I don’t even know what the proper scientific term would be…

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

INteresting… the article I posted on miscarragies a few posts back says that they are really “spontanious abortions”… but that people don’t like that, so they are called miscarriages…

I don’t even know what the proper scientific term would be…

Faithfully, when they talk about selective reductions or reductions they mean they are purposefully aborting one or more fetuses to reduce the number of fetuses in a pregnancy involving more than one fetus (like the woman in the article chose to do). This is different to naturally occuring spontaneous abortions/miscarriages. The article you presented talked about naturally occuring miscarriages, which, while they are common (and nowadays with earlier testing technology etc people are becoming more aware of them), they are different from choosing to destroy embryos in reproductive technology.

 

[faithfully]

Faithfully, when they talk about selective reductions or reductions they mean they are purposefully aborting one or more fetuses to reduce the number of fetuses in a pregnancy involving more than one fetus (like the woman in the article chose to do). This is different to naturally occuring spontaneous abortions/miscarriages. The article you presented talked about naturally occuring miscarriages, which, while they are common (and nowadays with earlier testing technology etc people are becoming more aware of them), they are different from choosing to destroy embryos in reproductive technology.

Ok… a couple of things…I totally comprehend what a selective reduction is. I’m the one here that has had the IVF. I’m very familiar with all the terminology. Now for the record, I did not have a SR. As I stated, I put 2 embryos in… 2 out.

The article I presented was strictly for the purpose of the discussion regarding the amount of NATURALLY occuring miscarriages… as there was discussion with Larkin31 about how many embryos might be lost naturally…

With regard to what you quoted…" INTERESTING"… Was with regard to Joseph saying they are using the term Selective Reduction… vs. Abortion… and I do think it’s interesting… We do have a way of trying to make things sound better… as in the article… they state that what really have are SPONTANEOUS ABORTIONS (obviously, not medically assisted.) But that basically it’s a term no one likes, so we call them miscarriages. Nobody gets upset about that though do they?

I’m not arguing over the grossness of a Selective Reduction. I can tell you, having a Dr. even mention it to you when you know it’s not something you would consider is gut wrenching. Yes, When I first had an IUI, and my Dr. mentioned the possibility of the need of a Selective Reduction sent me running out of his office in tears. I truly thought he was out of his mind. Completely unaware of what I was in there for…

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Ok… a couple of things…I totally comprehend what a selective reduction is. I’m the one here that has had the IVF. I’m very familiar with all the terminology. Now for the record, I did not have a SR. As I stated, I put 2 embryos in… 2 out.

The article I presented was strictly for the purpose of the discussion regarding the amount of NATURALLY occuring miscarriages… as there was discussion with Larkin31 about how many embryos might be lost naturally…

With regard to what you quoted…" INTERESTING"… Was with regard to Joseph saying they are using the term Selective Reduction… vs. Abortion… and I do think it’s interesting… We do have a way of trying to make things sound better… as in the article… they state that what really have are SPONTANEOUS ABORTIONS (obviously, not medically assisted.) But that basically it’s a term no one likes, so we call them miscarriages. Nobody gets upset about that though do they?

I’m not arguing over the grossness of a Selective Reduction. I can tell you, having a Dr. even mention it to you when you know it’s not something you would consider is gut wrenching. Yes, When I first had an IUI, and my Dr. mentioned the possibility of the need of a Selective Reduction sent me running out of his office in tears. I truly thought he was out of his mind. Completely unaware of what I was in there for…

I apologize, I misunderstood, I thought you were offering him some other terms for Selective Reduction, totally my bad .
Hmm, well abortion does have the connotation of being done on purpose, though, which might explain why people who have had naturally occuring miscarriages want to avoid it even if it is accompanied by the term “spontaneous”, while selective reduction is done on purpose, so it wouldn’t be attributing an incorrect connotation to the event.

 

[faithfully]

I’m sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you were offering him some other terms for selective reduction.
Hmm, well abortion does have the connotation of being done on purpose, which might explain why people who have had naturally occuring miscarriages want to avoid it even if it is accompanied by the term “spontaneous”, while selective reduction is done on purpose, so it wouldn’t be attributing an incorrect connotation to the event.

No biggie… I just didn’t want you thinking I thought otherwise… not that we even KNOW each other! LOL!

I know of only one miscarriage that I’ve had… And Yeah, I don’t like the idea of calling it a spontanious abortion… blech! I certainly don’t know all the ins and out of an abortion. My understanding was if they wanted to do a Selective REduction, it could be done very early in the PG, It is grossly an injection that causes the fetus to die and dissolve. I have NO IDEA if there is pain. I just know I couldn’t kill my heart beating baby…

 

[Zooey]

I wonder, is anyone else bothered by these euphemisms “reduction” and “selective reduction”?

Being a chemist I wonder when are they going to start talking about “selective oxidation”. Wait, is that what Hitler did to the Jews, Poles, Gypsies, gays, people with Down Syndrome, Catholic priests, and others? He “selectively oxidized” them in his crematories, after he first had them selectively killed.

How about using more straigthforward terms, such as killing, or even culling?

:sad_yes:Thank you for saying what I was thinking…:crying::crying:

 

[Demetra2]

Asa mother of twins that died, here is my response to Elle and the author:

9/6/2010

Dear Ms.Paige:

I recently read online your article concerning the abortion of your healthy twin son. If I was your mother, sister or aunt I would have told you to keep your child. Unfortunately your husband and friends gave you very bad advice. The only decent and merciful thing to do was to be responsible and be grateful and give birth to the healthy baby boy that you and your husband created. You did not love your older so by killing his brother. If your husband couldn’t hack it (he is very selfish) you should have had the child anyway. He could have been a man and raised his babies and supported his wife or he could have left. At least you would known the caliber of the man. He should have stood up to the challenge of a different lifestyle perhaps less financially stable but he would have shown himself to be a man of character. What nonsense praying for the child while you are killing it! Your husband is such a loser and so confused and so are you. You need to pray but it is for yourself and for forgiveness.

I am shocked that you and Elle magazine would publish this article as if putting it in print would put an imprimatur of approval on your lack of character, love and mercy toward your own child. How many people would love to have been given the opportunity to love your child which you put to death because he might have been too much trouble. You could have put him up for adoption you know. Or would that have been to hard for you to know he was out there in the world and not wanted by you. You could have been noble and had a much better and stronger family by telling your existing children about your sacrifice to love and cherish all of your children. Frankly people like you with your lack of morals horrify me and you are what is wrong with our society. Your lack of compassion is eerily similar to the start of Nazi Germany when they first got rid of all the “undesirables” who were handicapped. Even the Nazi’s would not have killed a healthy male child. What does that make you?

By the way, I have also been pregnant with twins. The difference is that I choose to give birth to my conjoined twins and not kill them. Was I terrified? YES! But I refused to kill them even with serious medical problems. My wonderful husband stood by me because they were our babies and they were not too much trouble. We loved them. You don’t know it yet but your marriage is toast. You two are incredibly shallow. I hope that your kids have mercy on you when you are old and senile or perhaps they should choose a mercy killing because after all you will be a lot of work and it might effect their lifestyle.

 

[reindeer]

I never married or had children because I was raped at age 4. While I was away from
the church I frequently taught Sunday school just to be around children. My favorite
group was the 2 year olds. The only prerequisite was to be potty trained. Since I’ve
returned to the church I love seeing the children and babies approaching the
communion rail with their parents. I am so sorry that so many children, God’s
gifts, are thrown out like garbage.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Thank you, Demetra for sharing your letter. I’m so sorry for your loss.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

No biggie… I just didn’t want you thinking I thought otherwise… not that we even KNOW each other! LOL!

I know of only one miscarriage that I’ve had… And Yeah, I don’t like the idea of calling it a spontanious abortion… blech! I certainly don’t know all the ins and out of an abortion. My understanding was if they wanted to do a Selective REduction, it could be done very early in the PG, It is grossly an injection that causes the fetus to die and dissolve. I have NO IDEA if there is pain. I just know I couldn’t kill my heart beating baby…

Although abortion is bad with or without heartbeat, babies have a heartbeat very early on, somewhere around 18-22 days post conception! I had a 7 week ultrasound and saw my baby’s heartbeat beating nice and strong. The article says the “optimal time to reduce was between 11 and 13 weeks”. I just had an ultrasound 3 days ago, and saw my 11 week old baby kicking and moving his/her arms and head, it was just beautiful! The horror to think someone would kill a tiny baby like that, and the scary part is she is clearly aware of what she is doing, she doesn’t act as if she is just getting rid of a clump of cells or something else, like people like to describe young unborn babies, she knows she is choosing to kill her little boy. Just horrible.

 

[1234]

I’m not sure where you are getting your information, but Clomid and similar drugs are quite commonly used. There are many women pregnant with ‘clomid babies’ in my due date forums right now. It is also very common, especially when a mother is of advanced maternal age, to implant more than 2 embryos with IVF. As for the ACOG, well, ACOG guidelines are very frequently ignored. Any woman researching natural childbirth quickly discovers that.

As for the article, there are no words. :crying:

I had natural childbirth with both my babies in hospitals with obstetricians. Obstetricians do not support birth* at home*at it dangers both child and mother if something should go wrong. This has nothing to do with natural childbirth and everything to do with safety. Most hospitals which offer labor & delivery either have birthing suites on the premises or nearby, ie next door with a large corridor connecting the facility to the hospital, in case something goes wrong.

Obstetricians do not oppose natural childbirth* in prepared women.* Obstetricians oppose unsafe practices.