Very disturbing article


#1

…about “selective reduction,” which, for those who don’t know, is selectively aborting one out of multiple embryos. It was written by a woman for Elle magazine, but CNN had a link to it. Usually the comments are pretty left-leaning, but given the content of the article, even the pro-choicers are appalled.

(warning: don’t read this if you’re in a charged emotional state already. Just sayin’)

cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/03/fertility.treatment.reduction/index.html?hpt=Sbin


#2

This is no big secret. Selective reduction has always been in the cards when multiple embryos are implanted. I’m not a supporter of the scenario described in the article (which I’ve some doubts about) but do understand those who are facing a reduce your pregnancy or lose them all situation. When my wife and I were looking at IVF (and only did not do so because of cost) were completely informed of this possibility. And, perhaps it varies by doctor but ours would not even consider it unless there were triplets or more. If it were necessary it would, we were told, be based on health of the fetus and then accessibility. Sex of the fetus was NOT a consideration in any circumstance.


#3

I read this and just couldn’t understand the husband and wife. They hear about the risk of multiples with fertility treatments but get scared to implant only a single embryo due to their friends’ situation. Then they find out that both implanted embyro’s took. Instead of being overjoyed they start worrying about taking care of twins and how they’ll need to move into a low-rent town, not send their kids to private schooling, and Mom will be forced to go back to work. It seemed like they never really figured out if all this was true, but just assumed it would be. And to choose your child because you already have one boy, so you decide to keep the girl. I mean, how could you just kill your son’s chance at a brother? I really didn’t understand these people at all. It wasn’t a selection based on wanting a healthy number of babies it was a selection because they felt they couldn’t handle the cost of three instead of two children. Wow. Just wow.


#4

**Thank God we are all alive now, because with all of the "selective reduction" technologies available, most of would have been aborted for a genetically superior sibling!

Unfortunately, these technologies are all man made & therefore extremely flawed. They probably will produce more problems than they claim to solve.

Over 90% of babies with down syndrome are aborted & a number of those with minor, surgically repairable defects like club foot are aborted every year!

i was born with club foot & would be a prime candidate for abortion because i am a person born with a birth defect!

My 3 beautiful children would never have been born if my mother had aborted me because i was defective!!!!**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark


#5

[quote="ishnianqueen, post:1, topic:211423"]
...about "selective reduction," which, for those who don't know, is selectively aborting one out of multiple embryos. It was written by a woman for Elle magazine, but CNN had a link to it. Usually the comments are pretty left-leaning, but given the content of the article, even the pro-choicers are appalled.

(warning: don't read this if you're in a charged emotional state already. Just sayin')

cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/03/fertility.treatment.reduction/index.html?hpt=Sbin

[/quote]

And theres this wonderful thing called adoption.....


#6

[quote="ishnianqueen, post:1, topic:211423"]
...about "selective reduction," which, for those who don't know, is selectively aborting one out of multiple embryos. It was written by a woman for Elle magazine, but CNN had a link to it. Usually the comments are pretty left-leaning, but given the content of the article, even the pro-choicers are appalled.

(warning: don't read this if you're in a charged emotional state already. Just sayin')

cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/03/fertility.treatment.reduction/index.html?hpt=Sbin

[/quote]

How sad.

Thanks for posting.


#7

:eek: wash your mouth out! Our benevolent modern culture would never permit the concept of letting unwanted babies live to be raised by others to be viewed as a positive option!

Better to kill them… apparently :mad:


#8

Pro-choice means what?

Every time well-meaning people repeat this meaningless, mushy phrase rather than saying, pro-ABORTION, the pro-killing camp wins the war of words.

I wonder how far downhill we have to slide before enough is enough.


#9


#10

This may slide just a little off-topic, and it's strictly my own opinion, for what that's worth...

In the 1970's, after Roe v Wade was enacted, the National Right To Life Committee began it's long campaign against the evils of abortion, using all the tools that were available and seemed appropriate at the time, by targeting younger people who would likely be the ones most affected by the Court's decision. Their intent was impeccable and honorable and necessary -- but I think they took a wrong tack.

At that time, I was involved in parish adult and young-adult education and also music leader of the folk Mass, where young volunteer musicians assaulted everyone's sensibilities on Sundays (mea culpa). I also had two young children at that time and their own education was in my hands. In the later 70's, I placed an infant for adoption because of my own ethics about life and, of course, the teachings of the Church. I have personal experience with that difficult decision and difficult process -- and I lived through it.

I have to tell you, I resisted cooperating with the local Right To Life people in their parish presentations because their anti-abortion material and methods were SO militant, SO self-righteous and, honestly, so bloody and inappropriate for anyone to view, let alone teens and pre-teens. Even though their hearts were in the right place, I thought at the time that they were going about it backwards, and I haven't changed my mind. (I lost the parish battles and found that most parents and teens agreed with me...)

Stressing the negative rarely works as well as presenting the positive side of things -- in this case, showing women and couples the contrast between the good that can come from adoption, instead of stressing the evil and horror of abortion.

Of course, abortion (in all its forms) IS evil and horrible -- but I can't help but wonder how much more effective the pro-life movement would have been had they emphasized adoption instead of just not aborting. I wonder if abortion would be as common as it is now had the RTL movement used Hollywood and other media to show that adoption really can be accomplished without the birth mother withering away from grief or the child turning up years later with hatred and resentment in her/his heart. Those are movies' and TV specials' favorite adoption scenarios and certainly don't reflect the normal experience of the adoption triad (birthmother, child and adoptive family).

I know there are Catholic organizations that support women through unplanned pregnancies and provide counseling which includes the adoption choice -- but if you think of all the pro-life advertising we've seen in the past 35 years, "adoption" hasn't been the main effort. I think the early RTL movement missed the boat on their media presentations with a misdirected emphasis on the negative.

Please don't misunderstand this posting -- I applaud all the work and prayers of the pro-life movement, and the sacrifices they've made, during this long struggle. I just wish that during the past 35 years the adoption choice had been made more attractive, more acceptable, more reasonable -- maybe now it would be chosen much more than the horrific expediency of abortion which has become such a pitiful norm.


#11

I’m surprised that not one person has mentioned anything about Church teaching against IVF/IUI in the first place. I’m not saying that people who have done this don’t have their hearts in the right places, so if there’s anyone here that has, I’m not trying to judge you. But if they hadn’t tried to artificially replace the marital act, they wouldn’t be in this situation. Granted, they used hormones as well, which is within the boundaries of Church teaching, and if they’d only used that they still might have gotten pregnant with twins, but…just interesting that it hadn’t been mentioned yet.

I am baffled at the entire article. They couldn’t get pregnant - why didn’t they try hormonal treatment first before jumping further? Why would they be using expensive procedures to have another child if money is already tight? How tight could money really be if they were planning on sending their kid to private school? Why didn’t they consider adopting? Why didn’t they take into account that adopting an older child meant skipping the baby part that they apparently couldn’t handle?

Just…the whole article disturbed me to no end. It screamed selfishness, like children were property that you somehow automatically deserved, not gifts that you were given. Just…gah.


#12

[quote="ishnianqueen, post:11, topic:211423"]
I'm surprised that not one person has mentioned anything about Church teaching against IVF/IUI in the first place. I'm not saying that people who have done this don't have their hearts in the right places, so if there's anyone here that has, I'm not trying to judge you.** But if they hadn't tried to artificially replace the marital act, they wouldn't be in this situation.** Granted, they used hormones as well, which is within the boundaries of Church teaching, and if they'd only used that they still might have gotten pregnant with twins, but...just interesting that it hadn't been mentioned yet.

I am baffled at the entire article. They couldn't get pregnant - why didn't they try hormonal treatment first before jumping further? Why would they be using expensive procedures to have another child if money is already tight? How tight could money really be if they were planning on sending their kid to private school? Why didn't they consider adopting? Why didn't they take into account that adopting an older child meant skipping the baby part that they apparently couldn't handle?

Just...the whole article disturbed me to no end. It screamed selfishness, like children were property that you somehow automatically deserved, not gifts that you were given. Just...gah.

[/quote]

That is a good observation, and I always think its interesting how, while many Catholics will deny the Truth (it's never God's will for us to do something wrong), many non-Catholics understand this deep inside (from the article):
"My husband told me he'd support whatever choice I made, but for him, there really was no choice. Our twins weren't part of God's plan, he reasoned (or rationalized?). They were the product of artificial insemination."

I think it is horrible and sad this kind of thing happens. When we treat children as a right and not a gift, then its easy to go off the wrong track.


#13

[quote="ishnianqueen, post:11, topic:211423"]
I'm surprised that not one person has mentioned anything about Church teaching against IVF/IUI in the first place. I'm not saying that people who have done this don't have their hearts in the right places, so if there's anyone here that has, I'm not trying to judge you. But if they hadn't tried to artificially replace the marital act, they wouldn't be in this situation. Granted, they used hormones as well, which is within the boundaries of Church teaching, and if they'd only used that they still might have gotten pregnant with twins, but...just interesting that it hadn't been mentioned yet.

I am baffled at the entire article. They couldn't get pregnant - why didn't they try hormonal treatment first before jumping further? Why would they be using expensive procedures to have another child if money is already tight? How tight could money really be if they were planning on sending their kid to private school? Why didn't they consider adopting? Why didn't they take into account that adopting an older child meant skipping the baby part that they apparently couldn't handle?

Just...the whole article disturbed me to no end. It screamed selfishness, like children were property that you somehow automatically deserved, not gifts that you were given. Just...gah.

[/quote]

It seems selfish because you are not in the same frame of mind, and your beliefs line up differently than theirs. I don't know a single person who has been in this situation, (Yes, including myself) that thinks I DESERVE a child as if he/she is property.

Many people actually fail getting PG with all the intervention. And it would be wrong to assume that any resulting child is NOT a gift from God. They absolutely are.

You know, I will admit, I didn't investigate the churches teachings deeply when it came to IVF. I read that no man should interfere? And it didn't seem like "interference" It felt like assistance. A triple bi-pass isn't natural, but it's allowed. That was my thinking. And I failed to investigate further. After the fact, I did have long conversations with my priest. As then I became conflicted as to what if anything I should confess??? I couldn't be sorry for my children. Fortunately we worked that out. Please refrain from additional opinions.

This article is extremely sad. I cried pretty much through the whole thing. From a Catholic perspective she would have been fine without the assistance of the "turkey baster". That won't work if you're dealing with male factor. In which case, even healthy sperm just can't get there. She mentions clomid. But she clearly doesn't realize that clomid creates near hostile mucus. So thick, sperm can't travel.

Keep in mind, in her article, her procedures were covered by insurance. (They use this against you later.... I have been declined medical insurance because I've been TESTED for fertility problems. Which weren't mine. I have been told that if I get a hysterectomy, I might be reconsidered...How's that???) An IUI costs about $1800. An IVF closer to $20,000

I have been through 2 IUI's. The first one failed. The 2nd resulted in a 2 day long PG. I was told about selective elimination the day before insimination on the first run. I freaked out. No WAY was I aborting a baby. My dr. "informed me" that it was not an abortion ????? The stress was too much to endure. I'm quite confident, the reason I failed both times was because I was too scared to be faced with a decision that I wasn't willing to make. We skipped to IVF. I only allowed 2 embryos. And now I have 2 children.

Why not adoption? I was dealing with a husband who is a cancer survivor. Adoption agencies aren't keen on that. Testicular mind you. Don't think that didn't effect our entire situation. Adoption is just as expensive as an IVF. At least all the sources I found.

Why not try hormonal treatment? Because sometimes it's not going to effect anything.

So, it may seem selfish. And when you wrap in the churches teachings... wrong. However, please take a second and realize that a selfish person is rarely willing to be poked and prodded with the extreme that is necessary. The hormones used are brutal. The effects they have on your body, off the charts. The hormones to maintain a pregnancy, all I can say is OUCH. I had numbness in my hip for over a year after delivery from the projesterone shots (daily for 3 months, in the bum). It may seem selfish. But it's not done out of selfishness. I remember when I was told that I had 2 sacs but one heartbeat, I was devistated. I knew I wasn't going to do this again. I was so sad that my child was going to be an only child. I prayed for that 2nd empty sac. I prayed and prayed and prayed. I was blown away, when I returned another 2 weeks later a there was a 2nd heart beat. And he trailed behind. Always smaller... but I ended up with 2 perfectly healthy babies. I know I'm blessed.

Now, with regard to selective elimination. I just shake my head. It's a horror story. I don't know how anyone could do it when they want a child so badly. I realize that many don't have a religious foundation to get them through. I would like to be available to the mom who is about to have twins to say it's not that hard. You can do it! They need to hear that!

It's always easy to look at a situation in hind site. It's always easy to say you should have... I'm going to venture a guess, this woman was not educated up front. She didn't have anyone giving her ideas about what else she could do. Plus she clearly had a husband who was not on the same page to contend with. That alone is a big issue. I suspect she compromised way more than she would have otherwise. And, I think it's clear she doesn't have a religious foundation that would have prevented much if not all of this.


#14

I should add… I realize that no one here was even close to making an opinion about myself. I just wanted to answer some of your questions from anothers perspective who has actually been through this. Whether rightly or wrongly.

I would really like to see us as Catholics come at these issues with compassion. Especially when we can’t offer a solution to someone’s pain.


#15

faithfully...

Congratulations on your family -- I know from close friends what all the infertility problems and processes are and I sympathize with what you've gone through. I'm happy your efforts were successful.

I especially liked your comments on compassion from the Church in this area. It seems to me that there is SO little compassion regarding any deviation from the strict letter of Catholic law -- and when the law directly affects lives and families, that doesn't seem to be Jesus' message of the two laws of love He left us.

"The Church is always right" in matters of faith and morals -- granted -- but in so many of these particular areas, the Church seems never to be on the side of compassion or understanding, either.

(The nasty, evil, liberal side of me wonders if women were involved in developing Catholic dogma -- or if the Roman hierarchy had families of their own -- would there be more understanding and less rigid thinking.)

Before anyone yells at me, I know the Church law and the reasons for it -- I also know the Church is behind about 300 years on other modern issues and I pray that in the future there can be some reconciliation between what is medically possible and what is acceptable.

God bless you and your family, faithfully.


#16

OK – this is too weird. Between the time I read “faithfully”'s post and typed my own reply, that post disappeared. Maybe it’s just my system – or maybe it was deleted?

My post replied to the history of bearing children successfully through assisted means…

Is my post the next to go?


#17

I don’t think anyone here would say anything about how those children don’t belong here or that we are unhappy that they exist. However, the idea that there is no compassion in the Church when it comes to issues of infertility is a farce. Women are a part of the process when it comes to creation and clarification of teachings relating to modern issues. Just because they’re not priests doesn’t mean that they’re not with the Church.

That said - there is a reason why the Church teaches what it does. Procreation is something totally different and special from anything else we do. Man and woman are supposed to be co-creators of children with God. Fertility issues that cannot be solved or helped through other means cannot be solved by IUI or IVF. Pain and empathy is not a reason to discard the teaching. It is a reason to love the people in the situation and pray for them.


#18

[quote="challam2010, post:16, topic:211423"]
OK -- this is too weird. Between the time I read "faithfully"'s post and typed my own reply, that post disappeared. Maybe it's just my system -- or maybe it was deleted?

My post replied to the history of bearing children successfully through assisted means...

Is my post the next to go?

[/quote]

Yeah, I noticed that. I don't know where it went. Maybe the poster wanted to reword something?


#19

OH Jeez... I'm sorry. I deleted my post. It seemed so personal. I felt up for attack. No ONE else deleted it.

For those that caught it, I'm happy to answer questions...


#20

OMG how HORRIBLE!
I am a twin and my sister is my best friend in the whole world. I would be lost without her. I can't imagine how sad my life would be if she had been 'reduced'. we always joke that we feel bad for singletons because being a twin is the best thing ever. I am so apalled that someone would kill their child's sibling in the womb right there next to them. How terrible! Ugh I wish I'd never read the article. Seriously. How can anyone say they wouldn't be able to handle it. We can all handle a lot more than we ever thought possible :(. I read another article about a lady who reduced her triplets to a single child and then never had another. How sad for that child- what if he finds out what his mother did? Abortion is all terrible of course but being a twin, the idea of 'selective reduction' is particularly revolting for me. What on earth is wrong with having twins? My parents always told me that for the first 2 years having two babies was incredibly difficult, but after that it was actually easier than having just one because we kept ourselves entertained so well. Can't these selfish parents deal with 2 difficult years? I don't mean to downplay the difficulties in having twins as I've never been there but I have had two babies and I would love for God to send me a set of twins even though I'm sure the first 2 years would be extremely challenging. I feel like it would be an incredible gift.
I also find it particularly apalling for people to go through fertility treatments to make babies and then to kill the babies that result.
ugh ugh UGH.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.