Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Having that many babies at once is a choice
O.k. go out and get pregnant with quints. I'm guessing that's a lot easier said then done.
No one expects to get pregnant with quints.
How many spontaneous quint pregnancies are you aware of? Pretty sure the answer is zero.
So, you find out after a procedure you paid for that you are pregnant with high level multiples. You have options at that point.
I'm pretty sure the Dionne quints were spontaneous.
Nonetheless, if you're unwilling to consider selective reduction, then you should probably not do anything that would lead to the need to have to consider it. I, for one, am tired of hearing about people having large litters of children and then whining about the costs and work involved in raising them. There's the new family that's going to be on TLC who needed help to have their first 3 kids and then had sextuplets. I feel zero sympathy for them.
Where is this whining? If anything, the Busbys seem to downplay how difficult raising children is sometimes.
Have you watched from the beginning when they talked about the medical bills? How about when they lament about buying beds, clothes, etc. x 5?
So in your opinion they should have opted to selectively reduce their "litter" of children? You seriously think that they *should* have looked at those 5 beating hearts on the ultrasound and decided to terminate 1 or maybe even 2 of them?
Good grief I hope for your sake that that wasn't the only "right" option in your book.
The Busbys had five babies all at once. That IS expensive, that is logistically challenging, that is rare....and that is why they have a show.
Hey, Sparky, jump down off your freaking high horse and stop making assumptions.
The Busbys had 1 child and decided to use infertility treatment again to try to get pregnant, knowing that it was possible that Danielle could conceive multiples. Why is it on the rest of us to subside that choice when the stakes can be so high? There are kids in this country who can't get health care because it costs so much, but we've got these fools racking up tremendous medical bills from an elective procedure! What I said, if you'd actually read, is that it's probably better NOT to deliberately decide to put yourself in the situation to need to consider a selective reduction. The Busbys are tremendously lucky that Hazel's eye issue is the only medical problem that persists. There seems to be some doctors who are more responsible and ethical in their fertility treatments, but they must not be in the southern US.
Dude, I am not a fertility expert and neither are you. I'm not about to vilify a couple for going through fertility treatments. I do not think that they or their doctor were trying to get Danielle pregnant with 5 babies. But that is what did happen and that is what they are dealing with. Quintuplets are very rare. She would have been far more likely to lose all five babies than she was to deliver 5 babies. That is actually why people choose selective reduction - because they are afraid that the entire pregnancy will miscarry if they don't reduce. I highly doubt that any of them are choosing to reduce because it is the responsible thing to do for society. What a disgusting notion that is.
First of all, you have no idea what I know or don't know.
Second, no where did I vilify anyone for going through fertility treatments.
Third, different fertility doctors have different ethical standards.
Fourth, I didn't say that anyone should or does choose to selectively reduce for societal good. What I said is that it's better for everyone if people aren't in that situation to begin with (I've typed this at least twice now).
You really seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.