NYT article about reducing from twins to a singleton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What really sucks about millions of abortions over the last 25+ years is far more serious an issue than you suggest, but you'd have to put a high value on potential life. In fact, many African-Americans are deeply saddened at the number of pregnancies terminated by African American mothers. It's tragic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The article really disturbed me and I don't know what I would do in this situation. However, I think this is a very good point. If reducing to a singleton greatly increases one's chances of having a healthy baby, then I can see why someone would do it.

[Anonymous]

I am black. It is true that many black people feel saddened about abortion among black people (though the abortion rate among white women (36 percent of abortions) is higher than the rate among black women (30 percent). See Guttmacher Institute, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)

Yet, I do find it saddening and also tragic that many (not all) people who are aligned against abortion seem also to be aligned against the anti-poverty programs that might make abortion less prevalent. If you are a woman with a low-paying job (or no job), who feels she cannot adequately support an additional child (because most women who have abortions already have children), who has inadequate family support, inadequate health care, and inadequate housing, abortion may seem perfectly logical decision.

In those cases, abortion is not the problem, it is a symptom of many larger problems.

This seems to be wandering far afield of the original article, though, which wasn't really about black people per se and DEFINITELY wasn't about poor people -- people who have gone through IVF multiple times are generally not among the poor. If this is just to become an abortion debate, there's not much that can be said to move the needle on either side, not in this venue. As an earlier poster suggested, it's quite correct that pro-choice people also have unchangeable views on the subject. It's not like either side has the market on "open-mindedness."

[Anonymous]

Re abortion rate above -- upon re-reading I see I misspoke. I don't mean to suggest that 36 percent of white women and 30 percent of black women get abortions. That's WAY too high.

I meant that *among the subset of women who have abortions*, (22 percent of all pregnancies end in abortion), 36 percent of the women getting abortions are white, 30 percent are black, 25 percent hispanic, 9 percent women of other races.

[Anonymous]

NP here. I did IVF at age 37 - we implanted two crummy-looking embryos (the only two embryos that made it from the entire IVF procedure) because we were given a less than 10 percent chance that both would stick, and about a 30-40 percent chance that one would stick. I had a one-year-old at the time, and we did not want twins. Well, both embryos stuck. Though we never considered selective reduction, there were times that I hoped both would not make it - I felt horrible thinking it, but I could not fathom how we would manage three small children. We were very fortunate - no complications throughout pregnancy, no bedrest, etc. I even worked up until two days before my scheduled c-section at 38 weeks. We had two healthy girls - no NICU. We all went home after three days. Even today, my 14-month-old girls are healthy, beautiful, and wonderful. Their 3-year-old brother loves them dearly as well. I can not imagine life without either of my girls. I am glad that I did not reduce to one, but I understand and support other's decision to do it.

[Anonymous]

I am a SMC, and twins would be very hard for me. However, I would not reduce. I know another SMC, she used fertility drugs and ended up with twin girls. I haven't talked to her to find out how she's managing it, but obviously, it has to be difficult.

If there is a medical reason, and the pregnancy is more likely to survive after a reduction, then how can I judge a woman who has to choose between losing one for sure or potentially losing both?

That said, I think this is nobody's business but the woman or couple doing the reduction. I'd rather not know if a friend or relative did this, terminated a healthy child because they want one instead of two. I can't say I'm "supportive", but again, it's not my decision. Abortion is legal. I support the right to choose, yet when it's someone I know, I judge them/am mad at them (can't help it) because they're terminating their child but I'm still supportive.

So, really, if we don't approve, it's up to us not to do a selective reduction of twins, but not up to us to stop someone who does.

I am moving on to use drugs, I already know that if it is twins, I will carry them (God willing) unless there is a clear medical indication that the whole pregnancy is in danger without reduction--which according to the article, is rare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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]

Really? I see this thread is half or more pro-choice women discussing how uncomfortable the article makes them and challenging themselves as to why they think on way or another about this issue. Can't say the same from those self-identified as or otherwise clearly pro-life. You are a thread killer. Let us all discuss without taking this to a place that we will never agree upon. Believe me, if you're pro-life we KNOW that you think this is horrible horrible horrible. You don't need to share that. We're clear there.

[Anonymous]

Sometimes wishing for something is more appealing than actually having it. A lot of women who TTC for such a long time, don't even know what to do when they actually do conceive. TTC can become all consuming. Live and let live, as in, be an individual. Don't push your opinions and beliefs on others, especially when they have zero impact on your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really? I see this thread is half or more pro-choice women discussing how uncomfortable the article makes them and challenging themselves as to why they think on way or another about this issue. Can't say the same from those self-identified as or otherwise clearly pro-life. You are a thread killer. Let us all discuss without taking this to a place that we will never agree upon. Believe me, if you're pro-life we KNOW that you think this is horrible horrible horrible. You don't need to share that. We're clear there.

Freedom of choice is law.
So is freedom of speech.

People who don't share your views have every right to express their own. Even if it makes you uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

Why the hell was this woman having more kids if she was worried about a twin taking resources away from her older children? Sounds very selfish to me. She does not sound like someone who really wanted more kids. I could not imagine going through all of the conception stuff and then getting rid of a healthy baby. But I guess this is how those type of people think. I am just glad they are a small minority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really? I see this thread is half or more pro-choice women discussing how uncomfortable the article makes them and challenging themselves as to why they think on way or another about this issue. Can't say the same from those self-identified as or otherwise clearly pro-life. You are a thread killer. Let us all discuss without taking this to a place that we will never agree upon. Believe me, if you're pro-life we KNOW that you think this is horrible horrible horrible. You don't need to share that. We're clear there.

Yes, yes, we are clear there too. Being pro-choice means that if someone actually chooses to not subscribe to your view (choosing the other side) then they should shut up.
That is why you are pro-abortion not pro-choice. Clear there too.

I am pro-life and actually posted before. I find the article sad. I am not against IVF or medical assisted fertility. I do think that when you decide to have sex/procreate that, whether you have a one night stand with a stranger or IVF, that you aren't guaranteed a thing. LIfe isn't like that. You could have triplets from your one night stand. A baby with a congenital heart defect via IVF. You could have a healthy child who turns out to have leukemia and die at the age of 6. You just don't know. It is just sad that this couple has gotten to the point where they think they can control that. I can't help but think that the rest of their life will be an uncontrollable disappointment to them.

[Anonymous]

To PP 17:35: I'm a pro-choice poster in this thread. If you don't mind me asking, do you think that you would feel differently or be more accepting of a decision to abort a fetus (or fetuses) if the reduction was from triplets to twins? Quints to twins? Is reducing a twin pregnancy to a singleton something that is particularly triggering, or is it any reduction at all?

I appreciate that you say that you're not against IVF or medically assisted fertility treatments. With IVF, there's somewhat more control over multiple births because you know how many embryos you're implanting.

(Though, just as you say, some things aren't in our control. I heard a story recently about a woman who had two embryos implanted, and both split into identical twins!! She had (healthy) quadruplets.)

But anyway, using Clomid or injectibles doesn't offer as much control over how many eggs may fertilize. Do you think that women should forgo those types of treatments if they're not prepared to bear every fetus that may develop, even if they might have higher-order multiples?

I know it's hard to read tone of voice through this forum, but please know that I'm asking all these questions sincerely. I am not looking to score points or dig up some way to insult you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To PP 17:35: I'm a pro-choice poster in this thread. If you don't mind me asking, do you think that you would feel differently or be more accepting of a decision to abort a fetus (or fetuses) if the reduction was from triplets to twins? Quints to twins? Is reducing a twin pregnancy to a singleton something that is particularly triggering, or is it any reduction at all?

I appreciate that you say that you're not against IVF or medically assisted fertility treatments. With IVF, there's somewhat more control over multiple births because you know how many embryos you're implanting.

(Though, just as you say, some things aren't in our control. I heard a story recently about a woman who had two embryos implanted, and both split into identical twins!! She had (healthy) quadruplets.)

But anyway, using Clomid or injectibles doesn't offer as much control over how many eggs may fertilize. Do you think that women should forgo those types of treatments if they're not prepared to bear every fetus that may develop, even if they might have higher-order multiples?

I know it's hard to read tone of voice through this forum, but please know that I'm asking all these questions sincerely. I am not looking to score points or dig up some way to insult you.

I am a scary pro-lifer -- I know, I know this about me and usually don't discuss it because it is my personal belief so I won't bore you with the details. But I am also the person who would hold your hand while you made your decision. I have friends who have had abortions, a family member who did a reduction (triplets to twins) and others who have discarded embryos. I don't judge them. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

That said, I did use clomid for secondary infertility. I had OHSS but did became pregnant knowing what I was getting into. I actually did become pregnant with twins. Women don't go in not knowing what the chances are. Sometimes you are the 1% in the 1% chance.

[Anonymous]

I'm not the pro-life poster, but I do think there is a difference between reducing twins to a singleton and reducing triplets to twins. Going back to the Rawls I read in college, if I was a triplet embryo - I think I'd be OK with the mom reducing to twins (1/3 chance that I'd die but if no reduction there's a high chance of pretty low quality of life due to disability) but if I were a twin embryo there is no way I'd want the mom to reduce (risk of dying is 50% and risk of horrible disability is very low). Does that make sense? BUT at the same time, I support abortion rights - so clearly I'm not fully consistent on this (although I would not want twin to singleton reduction to be illegal so maybe I am consistent?)

That said, I kinda agree with the previous poster -- these women/couples all seemed like crazy micromanagers. Having a child means accepting that you are losing a lot of control over your life - your kid could be autistic, have a rare disease or just be one of those really difficult kids. What would those parents do then? Also, while the doctors in the article justified what they were doing based on the health risks of having twins, the parents seemed most concerned with how hard and inconvenient it is to have twins. Well kids in general can be hard and inconvenient...