The Truth About Multiple Births

If Octomom can't hold a job because of a back injury, how on Earth can she expect to raise 14 small children?? For the sake of the children, and in fairness to tax payers, perhaps the children should be given up for adoption. How about making the adoptive parents sign a legal agreement that they will never profit from the adoption (interviews with People magazine, etc) so there is no risk of the children being seen as meal tickets for potential adoptive parents.
Now we just need to figure out who's going to pay for the C-section and the ongoing ICU bills for the octuplets...

The rationilization technique this man uses in justifying the "selective reduction" act he performs in choosing the fetuses to reduce as some type of noble act mystifies and scares me. He really thinks he is some type of god doing good works --Lord, help us!

This doctor says, "Finally, if nothing else matters, we can take into account gender preferences if the couple has them." Sixty million girl children are now missing from the population of India, aborted because of "son-preference."
If every doctor were to adopt this doctor's a-ethical approach to gender preferences, consider what the kind of testosterone-driven world we'd live in, and the wars that would result from the competition for scarce women.
Shauna Singh Baldwin
www.ShaunaSinghBaldwin.com

This doctor says, "Finally, if nothing else matters, we can take into account gender preferences if the couple has them." Sixty million girl children are now missing from the population of India, aborted because of "son-preference."
If every doctor were to adopt this doctor's a-ethical approach to gender preferences, consider what the kind of testosterone-driven world we'd live in, and the wars that would result from the competition for scarce women.
Shauna Singh Baldwin
www.ShaunaSinghBaldwin.com

All of this hot air about whether or not IVF is appropriate, and for whom, who should receive welfare and who should not, and so little outrage at this modern day Josef Mengele. I am horrified that he can so cavalierly pass off murdering a living human as "selective reduction" and then base those decisions on potential defects and gender. This Dr. needs to be tried for crimes against humanity.

The real story is that IVF has a 70% FAILURE rate. That means for every 10 women that start and complete an IVF cycle, only 3 will bring home a baby. 7 of the 10 women will not have a pregnancy.

That figure doesn't even touch the number who are canceled for a variety of reasons.

The reality is that the majority of selective reductions occur after IUIs, not IVFs. Most patients don't know the difference. And, increasingly, it seems, most non-Reproductive Endocrinologists and reporters don't either.

Government should not be involved - unless you want the entirely reasonable idea of only allowing trained reproductive endocrinologists being allowed to do any infertility treatments. That is the only regulation I would get behind. Any of the other would lead down the same awful roads as the rules around asthma inhalers and painkillers. We don't need more government intervention, we need less.

Nadya is a player of the system - not someone who should dictate legal remedies.

The real story is being lost. 70% of completed IVF cycles FAIL. The media is giving a very false impression that IVF works really well and you will always have multiples. Nothing can be further from the truth.

This sort of headlining is just irresponsible. The women who normally face selective reduction are not like this Nadya character.

Keep politicians out of my reproductive tract!

Shouldn't the fertility doctor be liable for her child support?

Why not have fertility doctor support her children. It relieves the tax payer. It would certainly make the fertility specialist think twice and do a full evaluation: psych, physical and financial before empregnating welfare cases. In this case, he undoubtedly soaked up her entire disability judgement and her only new worth.

i would like to see an article discussing the dionne quintuplets and their lllives and this very controversial situation. thanks

How is it done? How is selective reduction done? C section? Is it done through the opening the cervix? Does this cause a problem for the rest of the live babies inside? How often? What is the risk for the mother? The same as selective abortion? Abortion through the cervix can ruin a woman's fertility. Isn't this problem exactly what needs to be avoided?

How is selective reduction through abortion done if done through the cervix? D&C? What are the risks of tearing the limb off of one of the babies that won the lottery? Will the doctor be forced to terminate that baby also? One would think so. Cannot the D&C abortion that tears limbs and crushes the skulls of the babies be dangerous for the live babies? Are they killed by poisoning? This would cause him/her to shiver violently; maybe it is simpler for the doctor, less traumatic and dangerous for the mother, that they be removed by C-section. Are they removed alive or dead? This brings me back to the 1st. question: how is it done?? If removed alive, is this something that should be of concern to the parents? to society? why or why not? Are there moral implications? why or why not?

This is no pro-choice -vs.-adoption issue. This simple piece of one side editorial that belies its headline does not give enough information to make up one???s mind about the goodness of selective abortion. Two sides of an argument does not an answer give, just a complete question. We need the other side. (can a cafeteria line of only green beans have a choice of beans , no matter how many trays full of it are there?). What is the other side? Not adoption

Adoption is not an answer to abortion any more than life without parole instead of capital punishment is an answer to murder. Issues relate, but they are parallel. Maybe due to their unique situation, childless couples are in a great position to be able to help such children. But adoption is a social issue. A separate one. It is how a caring society responds to alleviate the fate of its most fragile citizens. It is NOT in place to alleviate the fate of childless adults!! lest we turn an orphanage into a grocery store of sorts for the infertile. It Seems that IVF has become just that.

The question discussed here is whether selective reduction through abortion is RIGHT. One side of the argument is provided: the value of giving a child to a childless couple, by means of killing their own in the process. A hard thing, he says, for the couple, yet he and they feel it's a praiseworthy end, as the happiness of two caring people are involved.
.
Finally, the other side! We must find how much is the happiness of two adults is worth. Answer that and you have both sides, but NOT an answer YET. ONLY after we compare both values can we truly make up our minds about the subject and find which one of the two sides is lacking civility -and ...dare I say...morality!?- (gasp!). Now, THAT is what is called true choice: knowing both sides.

How is it done? How is selective reduction done? C section? Is it done through the opening the cervix? Does this cause a problem for the rest of the live babies inside? How often? What is the risk for the mother? The same as selective abortion? Abortion through the cervix can ruin a woman's fertility. Isn't this problem exactly what needs to be avoided?

How is selective reduction through abortion done if done through the cervix? D&C? What are the risks of tearing the limb off of one of the babies that won the lottery? Will the doctor be forced to terminate that baby also? One would think so. Cannot the D&C abortion that tears limbs and crushes the skulls of the babies be dangerous for the live babies? Are they killed by poisoning? This would cause him/her to shiver violently; maybe it is simpler for the doctor, less traumatic and dangerous for the mother, that they be removed by C-section. Are they removed alive or dead? This brings me back to the 1st. question: how is it done?? If removed alive, is this something that should be of concern to the parents? to society? why or why not? Are there moral implications? why or why not?

This is no pro-choice -vs.-adoption issue. This simple piece of one side editorial that belies its headline does not give enough information to make up one???s mind about the goodness of selective abortion. Two sides of an argument does not an answer give, just a complete question. We need the other side. (can a cafeteria line of only green beans have a choice of beans , no matter how many trays full of it are there?). What is the other side? Not adoption

Adoption is not an answer to abortion any more than life without parole instead of capital punishment is an answer to murder. Issues relate, but they are parallel. Maybe due to their unique situation, childless couples are in a great position to be able to help such children. But adoption is a social issue. A separate one. It is how a caring society responds to alleviate the fate of its most fragile citizens. It is NOT in place to alleviate the fate of childless adults!! lest we turn an orphanage into a grocery store of sorts for the infertile. It Seems that IVF has become just that.

The question discussed here is whether selective reduction through abortion is RIGHT. One side of the argument is provided: the value of giving a child to a childless couple, by means of killing their own in the process. A hard thing, he says, for the couple, yet he and they feel it's a praiseworthy end, as the happiness of two caring people are involved.
.
Finally, the other side! We must find how much is the happiness of two adults is worth. Answer that and you have both sides, but NOT an answer YET. ONLY after we compare both values can we truly make up our minds about the subject and find which one of the two sides is lacking civility -and ...dare I say...morality!?- (gasp!). Now, THAT is what is called true choice: knowing both sides.

I have no issue w/ the invitro procedure, no issue with "selective reduction", and no issue with a womans right to a complete abortion. What I do have issue with is some dumbass MD implanting embryos into a SINGE< UNEMPLOYED< WOMAN, who already has 6 children, 3 of which will recieve disability payments for the rest of their lives due to their idiot incubater and some screwball with skill. I have a hard time calling her a mother. To me, real mothers who love and care for their children would NEVER, EVER intentionally put themselves, or their children at such risk. A real mother would NEVER, EVER intentionally create a life that is potentially riddled with congenital disorders. I think the MD responsible for the newest litter, is the same who performed the service for the other children this chick has. Is he (or she) not responsible to some standard of ethics? Who paid for this procedure in the 1st place? Who paid for the sperm? She herself has been recieving disability payments for some job injury she recieved years ago. If a person is too disabled to get out of bed and go to work everyday (where they get to go home and leave it at the office), how in the hell are they capable of "mothering" even 6 children, never mind 14? To me, this is an outrage! This woman should be charged with some sort of criminal offense for putting the lives of these babies at such high risk. If I intentionally put the life of my 16 year old son at risk, I am guilty of a crime! The MD who filled up her oven should be charges with aiding and abetting. He should be financially responsible for the medical expenses and all the care these children will need for as long as they survive.
This chick is CRAZY!!! If her motive was strictly "motherhood" there are millions of children across the world who need mommas, adoption is ALWAYS an option. Just a guess here, but there probably isn't an adoption agency in the world that would give her a second thought, unlike some dickweed who has chosen to play god! If this were about propegating the human race, she has already contributed her fair share to our over burdened population.
What an OUTRAGE! I don't think the sperm donor should be responsible financially or otherwise, however he must not be real bright not to notice that this woman is not anywhere close to taking care of herself, the 6 children she already had, or the latest litter! Shame on him!

I have to laugh at all the people freaking out about the government "taking over" News flash ! The government has always been in charge. They are also the ones who give you your medicare and social sercurity later in life, so stop acting like they are the enemy..lol where would we be be with no government involment? Hmm let's see, still under england's rule, still owning other human beings, still working at unsafe jobs with little pay and no overtime pay, driving unsafe cars, riding on unsafe unregulated trains and planes. Still beating our spouses and children without fear of punishment. women would still be out of the work place, or being sexually harressed while at work, and not voting rather they worked or not. Wake up the government isn't the bad guy in most cases they are trying to look out for everyone on the whole. a damn big job..and you can't please everyone when trying to protect the masses from themselves or foriegn threats. You may not agree with everything the government does, nor do I but without the government being involved the country and the whole world down the line would be a total mess. Think about it.

Well isn't that special?.. A doctor who will take all the criticism he gets for performing abortions..and yes doctor it IS an abortion, no matter what you chose to call it. I am not a pro-lifer, persay, I feel a woman should have a choice, but I also feel that it is everyone's responciblity in cases such as this to do everything possible to try to prevent the need for abortions. aka reductions. The doctor who does the implantations has taken an oath.. in that oath it says "first do no harm" By implanting more then two embryos the doctor has placed his patient.. and now it's pural patients in harms way.
creating the possible need medically speaking for an abortion aka reduction. Everyone freaks out about the government stepping in on the public's personal life, but the fact is until someone steps in, this kind of neglect runs amok. If there were laws that stated only two embryos could be placed at one time. It would reduce the risks to everyone from the patient/s to the taxpayer who in alot of cases ends up paying for some kind of aid to the family of mulitiples. If limits were placed on the doctors as to how much they could profit/charge to preform the implantations and "reductions".aka abortions. I have a feeling their outlook about providing these services would change drastically. If couples want children bad enough, if their goal is in fact to parent, to love a child, then they wouldn't think twice about adopting. There are many many children who have "suffered years of anguish" for parents. Granted couples don't have to go thru the process of having their mental well-being and their past histories investigated to have a doctor perform IVF. Maybe there should be laws in place to change that as well. Because I persoanlly think this mother of now 14 would not have passed such an investigation. So who is suppose to take the responcibilty for this? who should step in and pass laws? If the doctor's involved are not following the path of less risk, letting the patient call the shots by insisting all the embryos be implanted? You can bet money played a role in his decision. If he refused she would of taken her embryos somewhere else. So yes in some cases the Government needs to be involved since common sense, and morals hang so loosely among some the public/patients, and some of doctors.