NYT article about reducing from twins to a singleton

[Anonymous]

.

So you could look at an ultrasound screen at two healthy lives you deliberately created and point to one and say "I choose that one," and then watch the doctor stab the other one in its beating heart?

We are not supposed to have any "problem" with that?

I LOVE how people use a false premise to get to their outrage!! "Two healthy lives you deliberately created." About every ounce of that is not factual but totally your prism/spin. The link shows that the "healthy" lives are at risks for being twins. "Lives" is an interesting term for an embryo that probably 50% of Americans would disagree with you on. But, most importantly, "deliberately created"? Where did you get that? Someone on Clomid did not deliberately create twins. In fact, they may have been taking the most conservative Clomid approach to avoid this very thing.

You can have a problem with it, but I'm sure you're the type of person who takes issue with alot of choices others make. Focus on yourself and what YOU would do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

.

So you could look at an ultrasound screen at two healthy lives you deliberately created and point to one and say "I choose that one," and then watch the doctor stab the other one in its beating heart?

We are not supposed to have any "problem" with that?

I LOVE how people use a false premise to get to their outrage!! "Two healthy lives you deliberately created." About every ounce of that is not factual but totally your prism/spin. The link shows that the "healthy" lives are at risks for being twins. "Lives" is an interesting term for an embryo that probably 50% of Americans would disagree with you on. But, most importantly, "deliberately created"? Where did you get that? Someone on Clomid did not deliberately create twins. In fact, they may have been taking the most conservative Clomid approach to avoid this very thing.

You can have a problem with it, but I'm sure you're the type of person who takes issue with alot of choices others make. Focus on yourself and what YOU would do.

It's not a false premise. Did you even read the article?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

.

So you could look at an ultrasound screen at two healthy lives you deliberately created and point to one and say "I choose that one," and then watch the doctor stab the other one in its beating heart?

We are not supposed to have any "problem" with that?

I LOVE how people use a false premise to get to their outrage!! "Two healthy lives you deliberately created." About every ounce of that is not factual but totally your prism/spin. The link shows that the "healthy" lives are at risks for being twins. "Lives" is an interesting term for an embryo that probably 50% of Americans would disagree with you on. But, most importantly, "deliberately created"? Where did you get that? Someone on Clomid did not deliberately create twins. In fact, they may have been taking the most conservative Clomid approach to avoid this very thing.

You can have a problem with it, but I'm sure you're the type of person who takes issue with alot of choices others make. Focus on yourself and what YOU would do. .

It doesn't sound like you read the article.

If there is no such thing as objective right and wrong, you can do whatever you want. Create life and destroy life as you will. There are no rules except the ones you write for yourself.

But if there IS such a thing as right and wrong...

[Anonymous]

NP here. "Right and wrong"--of course there is "right and wrong" but that is in the eye of the beholder. There are those who believe that IVF is wrong. I have one child, via IVF, and will soon undergo another cycle to try for more. The whole thing raises ethical issues. I'm not sure what I would do but I have to say, twins is not a good outcome to me. Does that mean that I should only transfer one embryo at a time? Perhaps. My first pregnancy started as a twin pregnancy and one miscarried in the first trimester. I feel no guilt over believing that having a singleton was much better for me and the baby.

If someone is completely anti-abortion, then the opinion on this story is obvious. I'm curious about those of us who are pro-choice. I'm bothered by the story but I can understand it. I have to admit that it makes me more uncomfortable to hear about reduction for financial or lifestyle reasons. I find the medical reasons very compelling. I had a high risk pregnancy the first time around and was in and out of the high risk ward, often sharing rooms with women expecting multiples. People are so blase about it now because it's become more common, and most people are aware more of the good outcome situations. There isn't enough awareness or understanding of the risks and complications.

[Anonymous]

If "right and wrong" is ONLY in the eye of the beholder, then there is no such thing as right and wrong.

[Anonymous]

The pro-life Nazis on DCUM are alive and well!

[Anonymous]

I read that article as I am sitting here on bedrest for my DE embryo transfer this morning. My husband and I chose to transfer only one because the risk of twins was too high for our taste. I'm as pro-choice as they come, but I am bothered by the article as well and I can't exactly articulate why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: ... Im sure I have friends who have aborted fetuses with non-life-threatening genetic anomalies, like Down syndrome.

I don't know why people think that Down syndrome is not life threatening. These patients have a substantially elevated mortality rate due to congenital abnormalities. about 30% of patients will die before age 30 - many of these in the first year of life.

signed someone who terminated a Down syndrome fetus with severe heart malformations.

.


Ironic that just as medical advances have dramatically improved the quality of life for Downs babies, technology allows search and destroy missions to end the lives of Downs babies.

Signed someone who would gladly adopt a Downs baby

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: ... Im sure I have friends who have aborted fetuses with non-life-threatening genetic anomalies, like Down syndrome.

I don't know why people think that Down syndrome is not life threatening. These patients have a substantially elevated mortality rate due to congenital abnormalities. about 30% of patients will die before age 30 - many of these in the first year of life.

signed someone who terminated a Down syndrome fetus with severe heart malformations.

.


Ironic that just as medical advances have dramatically improved the quality of life for Downs babies, technology allows search and destroy missions to end the lives of Downs babies.

Signed someone who would gladly adopt a Downs baby

Not to be a jerk, but why haven't you done so? I think you could easily adopt a Downs child or baby.

[Anonymous]

The ONLY issue I have with this particular article is that they CHOSE to have 2 embryos transferred, explained how they used donor egg, and justified the choice that if they were conceived "naturally" they wouldn't have had an issue with it being a twin pregnancy. Contradicting themselves, but like others have stated, they are the only ones who have to live with their decisions. Zero impact on my life, so very easy to pass judgement.

[Anonymous]

I'm curious about those of us who are pro-choice. I'm bothered by the story but I can understand it.

I am pro-choice and I, too, am bothered by the article. Part of me is thinking, you worked so hard to have a baby and now you just want to throw one away? How can you do that? Another part of it is personal -- I don't have even have one baby yet, and here are women with an embarrassment of riches.

But then I think, would I have a problem if we were talking about reducing from a singleton to zero? Not as much; as I mentioned I'm already pro-choice. How about from five to two? I wouldn't have a problem with that either, it seems like it would be a clear "life of the mother, life of the fetuses" situation.

So this situation really is not that much different from the others I just described, though it does feel different and more bad, I acknowledge that.

Honestly, right now I look at our society and I see a whole lot of willingness to judge, but not a whole lot of willingness to reach into our pockets and collectively help the less fortunate, including the moms and babies that would exist if we do away with abortion. If some woman out there after careful consideration decides that she cannot take care of two infants, then I'm not going to be the one who makes her.

Sorry that my thoughts on the subject are so hazy. If I thought that this situation was cut-and-dried like our anti-abortion friend on this thread, it'd be easy to just consign them all to damnation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: ... Im sure I have friends who have aborted fetuses with non-life-threatening genetic anomalies, like Down syndrome.

I don't know why people think that Down syndrome is not life threatening. These patients have a substantially elevated mortality rate due to congenital abnormalities. about 30% of patients will die before age 30 - many of these in the first year of life.

signed someone who terminated a Down syndrome fetus with severe heart malformations.

.


Ironic that just as medical advances have dramatically improved the quality of life for Downs babies, technology allows search and destroy missions to end the lives of Downs babies.

Signed someone who would gladly adopt a Downs baby

Not to be a jerk, but why haven't you done so? I think you could easily adopt a Downs child or baby.

.


Not exactly. At least 90% of Downs babies are aborted. When women are given the diagnosis, adoption is not generally considered.

And right now, financially, we can't do it. But we are considering becoming a foster family, in the hopes that might lead to adoption in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pro-life Nazis on DCUM are alive and well!

Pro-life Nazis? Give me a break. 1) that's an oxymoron. 2) it's disrespectful to Jews. 3) you mustn't have read the article.

[Anonymous]

I conceived twins and for a brief period of time, considered reduction to a singleton. But the idea of carrying around one dead fetus, that you aborted for no (serious) medical reason, alongside your living fetus, seemed like very, very, very bad karma. I could not bear to do that, to myself, or the surviving baby. I'm surprised anyone else could. Yes, it's spooky and eery, to say the least.

And now I have two beautiful, healthy, wonderful, precious, amazing children who have the strongest bond with each other.

[Anonymous]

Twins are much riskier than singletons. An RE or ob/gyn may only consider whether the baby lives at birth. Parents have a greater concern over lifelong severe disabilities from extreme prematurity. I can consider how a couple struggling with infertility would choose to maximize their chances at having a healthy baby by reducing to one child. Try spending some time in a NICU seeing twins being born with IUGR or before 29 weeks.