Selective multifetal reduction
-
I guess this is more a question for the pro-lifers in the crowd, but I'm wondering if you guys think something like this is immoral and should be made illegel:
Eighty percent of all triplets, and nearly all quadruplets and other supertwins, are convceived through infertility treatments, also known as assisted reproductive technology (ART)...The purpose of such techniques is to boost the chances that the woman will get pregnant at all - yet the result is often a multiple gestation.
This occurs because, with ART, it is difficult to control the exact number of embryos that will begin to grow. The problem is that the more fetuses there are, the lower the chances that any of them will survive.
That's why the technique of selective multifetal reduction was devised. The rationale is straightforward: Eliminating one or more fetuses may improve the pregnancy outcome for those that remain. It is usually presented as an option to women carrying quadruplets or more, and it may be used in triplet pregnancies if requested. Typically the goal is to leave behind twins.
More here.
-
I dont feel that is our decision to make. I feel it will be God's will whatever the outcome may be.
And I can say that after my wife and I lost a child during her later months of carrying our baby. Just Trust in God.
I know that many doctors will try and encourage expecting parents to have this done. But in reality they are in the business to make money.
-
In principle, this -logically-, is analogous to the discussion on free speech. I'm talking -structure-, not content.
It is quite moral to have fertility treatments. But, with this type of treatment, to figure to risk having so many chlidren
several cannot survive, and they have no way of being supported by the parent(s) (referring to the recent
and sad occurence - that a woman had eight babies this way... but she says once they leave the hospital,
she's --->done with helping raise them, and her grandparents will have to, and they have filed for bankruptcy?
That is across the line.
With freedom, comes responsibilities. There should be restrictions on the # of children at one time. A couple
can try with 2 or 3, three times.
but to try with what, TEN, and get eight? And some children suffer greatly, then die ?
Oh, and the "mother" wants TWO MILLION DOLLARS to be interviewed by anybody...
Once she ditches her kids, put her in the slammer for life, or, send her up on a rocket to an asterioid
with Pelosi.
You don't outlaw fertility treatments, not even this one. But to go overboard, and have eight children at one
time when the one? parent has no $$$$ to raise them? That is irresponsible.
A lot of folks wonder what the world is coming to...
-
The woman who just had eight babies in CA, whom already had SIX kids. This is just plain wrong. She must have some type of mental illness. The Hospital that performed the deed should be investigated.
-
The woman who just had eight babies in CA, whom already had SIX kids. This is just plain wrong. She must have some type of mental illness. The Hospital that performed the deed should be investigated.
The woman who just had eight babies in CA, whom already had SIX kids. This is just plain wrong. She must have some type of mental illness. The Hospital that performed the deed should be investigated.
Holy fcuk, we pretty much agree.
-
In principle, this -logically-, is analogous to the discussion on free speech. I'm talking -structure-, not content.
It is quite moral to have fertility treatments. But, with this type of treatment, to figure to risk having so many chlidren
several cannot survive, and they have no way of being supported by the parent(s) (referring to the recent
and sad occurence - that a woman had eight babies this way... but she says once they leave the hospital,
she's --->done with helping raise them, and her grandparents will have to, and they have filed for bankruptcy?
That is across the line.
With freedom, comes responsibilities. There should be restrictions on the # of children at one time. A couple
can try with 2 or 3, three times.
but to try with what, TEN, and get eight? And some children suffer greatly, then die ?
Oh, and the "mother" wants TWO MILLION DOLLARS to be interviewed by anybody...
Once she ditches her kids, put her in the slammer for life, or, send her up on a rocket to an asterioid
with Pelosi.
You don't outlaw fertility treatments, not even this one. But to go overboard, and have eight children at one
time when the one? parent has no $$$$ to raise them? That is irresponsible.
A lot of folks wonder what the world is coming to...
It is quite moral to have fertility treatments.
Wait a minute. How can you be anti-abortion but type that sentence? That is an astounding contradiction.
It is most certainly NOT morally correct to undertake any form of ART when you KNOW WITH 100% CERTAINTY that you will sacrifice fully viable embryos to even have a CHANCE to produce a child.
If you believe that a fetus (a potential baby/human) is a special, unique human life that should be protected, than you MUST -- BY DEFINITION -- believe that an embryo (a potential fetus and therefore a potential baby/human) deserves the very same protection.
To say you are anti-abortion but pro-ART is hypocritical in the extreme.
-
I guess this is more a question for the pro-lifers in the crowd, but I'm wondering if you guys think something like this is immoral and should be made illegel:
Eighty percent of all triplets, and nearly all quadruplets and other supertwins, are convceived through infertility treatments, also known as assisted reproductive technology (ART)...The purpose of such techniques is to boost the chances that the woman will get pregnant at all - yet the result is often a multiple gestation.
This occurs because, with ART, it is difficult to control the exact number of embryos that will begin to grow. The problem is that the more fetuses there are, the lower the chances that any of them will survive.
That's why the technique of selective multifetal reduction was devised. The rationale is straightforward: Eliminating one or more fetuses may improve the pregnancy outcome for those that remain. It is usually presented as an option to women carrying quadruplets or more, and it may be used in triplet pregnancies if requested. Typically the goal is to leave behind twins.
More here.
Aloysius said:
I guess this is more a question for the pro-lifers in the crowd, but I'm wondering if you guys think something like this is immoral and should be made illegel:More here.
Alo, thanks for bringing this topic up. I was thinking about posting on it after hearing about it and discussing it with many people the last few days.
To answer your specific question, I do not believe ART should be made illegal for the same reason that I don't believe abortion should be illegal, i.e., human reproductive questions are so incredibly complex and personal that individuals should be allowed the room to make the right decision for themselves.
That being said, I do believe that any health care worker in a reproductive field has an elevated level of responsibility and they must raise their ethical standards to ensure that abuses of the system (whether it's for creating or ending pregnancy) are minimized.
In this particular case, I blame the doctor/hospital that allowed their to be such a high number of implanted embryos at one time. My understanding is that the practice of implanting a large number in the hopes of keeping at least one viable embryo in the womb is now outdated, thanks to the advance in ARTs, which, if true, makes this particular case all the more egregious. EDIT: After reading the linked article and other sources more closely, it appears I spoke too soon here since it's likely that the high number of embryos was not due to implantation but rather stimulated ovulation. This matches up more closely with Alo's original question about the need for selective reduction.
Personally, I'm morally opposed to all forms of ART and this story is the perfect -- albeit extreme -- reason why.
-
-
Damajuki,
It depends on your frame of reference. An egg and a sperm don't have legs, arms, everything else, a biologically complete human being.
I can understand terminating a pregnancy, in the first weeks, not that I condone it, but I understand it.
It's later that it is a travesty to humanity - it's a matter of degree of understanding.
On a spirtual, Christian basis, I'm wrong - they often figure as soon as the two bio parts get together,
that's the beginning of what should be left to grow to completion.
I prefer to understand that and abide by that, but...
My deep offense is the sick and dangerous idea that abortion is any time before being born, or even after.
It isn't a contradiction as much as it is an understanding and evaluation of degree, depending on your frame of reference.
In nature, there are many attempted pairings that don't actually pair sufficiently to become developed embryos.
There are some that think that birth control "murders" the embryos that won't have taken place.
I figure that's pretty extreme, anybody disagree?
-
IMO it's immoral to bear children you can't take care of and to become pregnant irresponsibly.
WSS
-
Damajuki,
It depends on your frame of reference. An egg and a sperm don't have legs, arms, everything else, a biologically complete human being.
I can understand terminating a pregnancy, in the first weeks, not that I condone it, but I understand it.
It's later that it is a travesty to humanity - it's a matter of degree of understanding.
On a spirtual, Christian basis, I'm wrong - they often figure as soon as the two bio parts get together,
that's the beginning of what should be left to grow to completion.
I prefer to understand that and abide by that, but...
My deep offense is the sick and dangerous idea that abortion is any time before being born, or even after.
It isn't a contradiction as much as it is an understanding and evaluation of degree, depending on your frame of reference.
In nature, there are many attempted pairings that don't actually pair sufficiently to become developed embryos.
There are some that think that birth control "murders" the embryos that won't have taken place.
I figure that's pretty extreme, anybody disagree?
Damajuki,
It depends on your frame of reference. An egg and a sperm don't have legs, arms, everything else, a biologically complete human being.
I can understand terminating a pregnancy, in the first weeks, not that I condone it, but I understand it.
It's later that it is a travesty to humanity - it's a matter of degree of understanding.
On a spirtual, Christian basis, I'm wrong - they often figure as soon as the two bio parts get together,
that's the beginning of what should be left to grow to completion.
I prefer to understand that and abide by that, but...
My deep offense is the sick and dangerous idea that abortion is any time before being born, or even after.
It isn't a contradiction as much as it is an understanding and evaluation of degree, depending on your frame of reference.
In nature, there are many attempted pairings that don't actually pair sufficiently to become developed embryos.
There are some that think that birth control "murders" the embryos that won't have taken place.
I figure that's pretty extreme, anybody disagree?
I don't really know where to start here and frankly, I'm confused by this post.
We seem to agree that abortion is morally wrong yet I've clearly stated I'm not for using government to stop it whereas you have said all kinds of things against Obama slamming him about "genocide" against the unborn and such things.
And now you're saying you "understand" it and are okay with it?
Cal, which is it? I'm seriously confused.
Anyway, back to the original point that you kind of address in your discussion of birth control:
I've never heard anyone say that birth control "murders" anything.
The Catholic Church's position is that birth control is "intrinsically immoral" because it "proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2370-2372). Even the Church doesn't call contraception murder so I'm not sure what you're talking about there either.
While we're on the Church, here's the Church's position on ART which nicely sums up my own view:
"[ART methods] are immoral because they dissociate procreation from the act with which the spouses give themselves to each other and so introduce the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person" (CCC, 2373-2377).
In my words: when you undertake any type of ART, you give up the very control of your person to others and allow what is most personal and special about being human to become quite literally a science experiment.
-
IMO it's immoral to bear children you can't take care of and to become pregnant irresponsibly.
WSS
IMO it's immoral to bear children you can't take care of and to become pregnant irresponsibly.
WSS
And bearing children you can't take care of and becoming pregnant irresponsibly has far worse implications on society and the individuals in question than abortion does.
-
I dont feel that is our decision to make. I feel it will be God's will whatever the outcome may be.
And I can say that after my wife and I lost a child during her later months of carrying our baby. Just Trust in God.
I know that many doctors will try and encourage expecting parents to have this done. But in reality they are in the business to make money.
-
IMO it's immoral to bear children you can't take care of and to become pregnant irresponsibly.
WSS
And bearing children you can't take care of and becoming pregnant irresponsibly has far worse implications on society and the individuals in question than abortion does.
mz. said:
And bearing children you can't take care of and becoming pregnant irresponsibly has far worse implications on society and the individuals in question than abortion does."Can't take care of", mz the pussy or "Won't take care of". Unfortunately our socialist society considers those who propagate irresponsibly to be 'victims' and, oftentimes are not asked to step up for their actions.
-
mz. said:
And bearing children you can't take care of and becoming pregnant irresponsibly has far worse implications on society and the individuals in question than abortion does."Can't take care of", mz the pussy or "Won't take care of". Unfortunately our socialist society considers those who propagate irresponsibly to be 'victims' and, oftentimes are not asked to step up for their actions.
Unfortunately our socialist society considers those who propagate irresponsibly to be 'victims' and, oftentimes are not asked to step up for their actions.
...
Since I was merely agreeing with WSS, I guess he's the real Socialist around here. I'm just his follower.
-
We seem to agree that abortion is morally wrong yet I've clearly stated I'm not for using government to stop it whereas you have said all kinds of things against Obama slamming him about "genocide" against the unborn and such things.
And now you're saying you "understand" it and are okay with it?
Cal, which is it? I'm seriously confused. Damajuki
*************************************************
I am differentiating between the abortion after two weeks, which I can understand, althought I do not condone it.
reread my post, it will help.
But I do NOt understand abortion in the last 6 months, and clearly referred to a fully developed, structurally speaking, tiny human being.
And I abhor, and am 100% repulsed by, partial term abortion and leaving unwanted babies to die all along from neglect
in a closet.
My beef with Obama is a bit the same as what you are doing.
Abortion across the board must be okay and federally funded.
You have the 10 Commandments in a courthouse (the judge was removed for refusing to remove them) but you can
have federal funding, even international funding, of absolute UNLIMITED abortion?
And, I do know of a pastor who always refused to use contraception because it was keeping children from being born,
and that was against God.
He was an assistant pastor in my church many, many years ago, and is a pastor now.
and has the children in #'s to prove it. I don't agree, I think that's wrong ... but whatever...
Now, why are you confused, if you still are?
-
Thanks for the response, Cal.
You have cleared up what you are saying but I am still confused on how you can on the one hand say abortion at 2 weeks is somehow kinda-sorta okay but abortion at 6 months is WRONG and partial birth abortion is TOTALLY REPULSIVE.
Your moral inconsistency is staggering. Either a human embryo is human and is deserving of protection or it isn't. Period.
You seem to be drawing a distinction at a place where you can recognize a human figure in a fetus but if you are a religious person then you should understand that our human form is merely a vehicle for our SOUL, the thing that actually makes us unique and special individuals. I'm pretty sure that most religions agree that our bodies are simply vessels for our humanity and do not in and of themselves make us human.
So how do you reconcile your position? Are you in favor of a blanket ban on abortion since you seem to be opposed to unlimited abortion? If not, where do YOU draw your lines and how do you reconcile them?
Back to birth control: I don't see what's wrong with having kids in a responsible manner and if you're a Christian that believes that children are LITERALLY a gift from God, then that man is rich indeed.
What do you find so wrong about him doing his religious duty by fulfilling his responsibilities as a husband and father?
-
IMO it's immoral to bear children you can't take care of and to become pregnant irresponsibly.
WSS
And bearing children you can't take care of and becoming pregnant irresponsibly has far worse implications on society and the individuals in question than abortion does.
mz. said:
And bearing children you can't take care of and becoming pregnant irresponsibly has far worse implications on society and the individuals in question than abortion does.Yes but lack of availability to abortion and/or birth control is not and has never been the root of overpopulation OR irresponsible birth.
And today, as the law stands, partial birth abortion is not only legal but a "protected right" for those who wish to choose hair color among other reasons.
All I ask the lefties is to spare me the crocodile tears.
The "socialist" would be glad to pay extra for as many as this bitch can squeeze out.
Add to the constituents of the future.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login