NYT article about reducing from twins to a singleton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eek, I'm a previous poster but did not realize this:

"The procedure, which is usually performed around Week 12 of a pregnancy, involves a fatal injection of potassium chloride into the fetal chest. The dead fetus shrivels over time and remains in the womb until delivery. Some physicians found reduction unnerving, particularly because the procedure is viewed under ultrasound, making it quite visually explicit, which is not the case with abortion."

Why can't they do the reduction when they are still early embryos and not fetuses of several weeks??

The embryo/fetus must be developed enough to see where the shot of potassium chloride is going. Earlier than 12 weeks, too likely that both will not survive the procedure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eek, I'm a previous poster but did not realize this:

"The procedure, which is usually performed around Week 12 of a pregnancy, involves a fatal injection of potassium chloride into the fetal chest. The dead fetus shrivels over time and remains in the womb until delivery. Some physicians found reduction unnerving, particularly because the procedure is viewed under ultrasound, making it quite visually explicit, which is not the case with abortion."

Why can't they do the reduction when they are still early embryos and not fetuses of several weeks??

The embryo/fetus must be developed enough to see where the shot of potassium chloride is going. Earlier than 12 weeks, too likely that both will not survive the procedure

no, it's done at just after 12 weeks to allow for 1) vanishing twin syndrome should it occur and 2) CVS testing to ensure that an abnormal fetus (should there be one) is the one that is reduced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, 16:20. If IVF cost $1000 a shot, I do think it'd be different. But for those AMA, I think the race of time may also be a factor.

Damn our health system!

People have abortions for all sorts of reasons that are lame in my book and many of those same women got to that point by very reckless or thoughtless behavior. Personally I'm not too unsettled by an embryo reduction in comparison.

but that is partial abortion, althougth she fully knew that she was risking twins when having 2 embryos implanted. There is no difference. It is adjusting the number of children you allow to be born for your convenience, just like an abortion.

I think you are not unsettled by this because you could relate to it, probably being AMA with fertility treatments yourself. I conceived naturally and when I didn't have to race against the clock and I simply cannot imagine how one can abort a fetus (it is not an embryo anymore at 14 weeks) despite having knowingly accepted the risk of having more than one child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

Although not the majority, there are many people in this world who don't want the inconvenience or feelings of guilt that come with "rules" or the acknowledgement of "right" and "wrong." They want to do what they want on their own terms. They make choices in life based on their own needs, desires, and ambitions. It makes it easy for them to say that everything and every decision is a personal choice and not for anyone else to condemn because "that would be judging."

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why this same comment keeps getting posted and reposted. Could the PP please distinguish which part is a quote from another person, and what part is intended to be a response?

Otherwise, I totally get that you think that some things are unequivocally right and wrong, and that abortion is unequivocally wrong. Reading the same words four times now is not necessarily strengthening the point

But for what it's worth, I don't think that every decision is a personal choice. I don't think that someone should walk up and shoot you dead because it was their personal choice to do so. But I distinguish you as a living, walking-on-this-earth human being from a fetus that cannot live without incubation in the womb. I think that is just a fundamental difference in our respective views. It doesn't make me a person who cannot acknowledge the difference between right and wrong, but it does mean that it unlikely we can ever bridge this gap.

[Anonymous]

I think you are not unsettled by this because you could relate to it, probably being AMA with fertility treatments yourself. I conceived naturally and when I didn't have to race against the clock and I simply cannot imagine how one can abort a fetus (it is not an embryo anymore at 14 weeks) despite having knowingly accepted the risk of having more than one child.

Honestly? I don't think that most people do this. I think that most women knowingly accept the risk of having more than one child, and if they end up with more than twins, reduce to twins. (Although there still hasn't been any exploration here about why that is somehow different, or better, because one fetus is still gone in this equation.)

And as for the women who really insist on reducing from twins to singletons? They are not the women I would really want force to have twins against their wishes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why this same comment keeps getting posted and reposted. Could the PP please distinguish which part is a quote from another person, and what part is intended to be a response?

Otherwise, I totally get that you think that some things are unequivocally right and wrong, and that abortion is unequivocally wrong. Reading the same words four times now is not necessarily strengthening the point

But for what it's worth, I don't think that every decision is a personal choice. I don't think that someone should walk up and shoot you dead because it was their personal choice to do so. But I distinguish you as a living, walking-on-this-earth human being from a fetus that cannot live without incubation in the womb. I think that is just a fundamental difference in our respective views. It doesn't make me a person who cannot acknowledge the difference between right and wrong, but it does mean that it unlikely we can ever bridge this gap.

Happens all the time on this and other forums. How many times are the same comments posted about politicians--especially negative comments about ones who hold more conservative views?!

[Anonymous]

I couldn't say -- I'm not on other forums or talking about conservative politicians. I'm referring to a post that seems to be a literal cut-and-paste of stuff that was said before, making it hard to distinguish what is a quote from what is a response.

But anyway, this conversation was bound to end up where we are. I understand that for some people who are against abortion, they feel they must preach that gospel at every opportunity that presents itself. This clearly is one of those opportunities, I get that. Message received.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't say -- I'm not on other forums or talking about conservative politicians. I'm referring to a post that seems to be a literal cut-and-paste of stuff that was said before, making it hard to distinguish what is a quote from what is a response.

But anyway, this conversation was bound to end up where we are. I understand that for some people who are against abortion, they feel they must preach that gospel at every opportunity that presents itself. This clearly is one of those opportunities, I get that. Message received.

And then there are those who want to think of abortion as a matter of choice--not just in cases of rape, incest, or health of mother--but for convenience. Message received.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eek, I'm a previous poster but did not realize this:

"The procedure, which is usually performed around Week 12 of a pregnancy, involves a fatal injection of potassium chloride into the fetal chest. The dead fetus shrivels over time and remains in the womb until delivery. Some physicians found reduction unnerving, particularly because the procedure is viewed under ultrasound, making it quite visually explicit, which is not the case with abortion."

Why can't they do the reduction when they are still early embryos and not fetuses of several weeks??

The same drug we use to execute people.

[Anonymous]

As someone who has had a termination for medical reasons I find it heart breaking to hear this is a "common" practice.

I wonder how any twins feel about it?

[Anonymous]

And then there are those who want to think of abortion as a matter of choice--not just in cases of rape, incest, or health of mother--but for convenience. Message received.

You are *absolutely* correct. 100 percent. There are those, like me, who believe that abortion is a matter of choice in cases other than rape, incest or health of the mother. (Which is an exception I've never fully understood, anyway -- either abortion is "murder" or it's not.)

Anyway, my conviction on this point mean that some, possibly many, women will have abortions for reasons that I personally would not agree with nor do I personally understand. But I am not willing to advocate taking away that option for all based on my discomfort/disgust with some.

The unbridgeable gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't say -- I'm not on other forums or talking about conservative politicians. I'm referring to a post that seems to be a literal cut-and-paste of stuff that was said before, making it hard to distinguish what is a quote from what is a response.

But anyway, this conversation was bound to end up where we are. I understand that for some people who are against abortion, they feel they must preach that gospel at every opportunity that presents itself. This clearly is one of those opportunities, I get that. Message received.

And then there are those who want to think of abortion as a matter of choice--not just in cases of rape, incest, or health of mother--but for convenience. Message received.

You're lame. Go affix another pro-life bumper sticker on your car. p.s. They don't want to think of it that way, they DO think of it that way. Sucks you have to live in a country where this is their freedom. You do have other choices.

[Anonymous]

let's just end this thread. obviously some pro-life people cannot discuss the article and the complex situation, which is the point of the thread, as opposed to spouting off an unchangable pro-life stance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:let's just end this thread. obviously some pro-life people cannot discuss the article and the complex situation, which is the point of the thread, as opposed to spouting off an unchangable pro-life stance.

Definitely. Because only the "pro-choice" advocates discuss the article and the complex situation with intelligence and open-mindedness. They would never spout off an unchangeable pro-choice stance.