Because it went so well the last time we let doctors decide which patients should have babies.

[ohinternets.livejournal.com]

I've been really perplexed at the huge uproar over the woman who had octuplets yesterday. The mother is healthy, all eight babies are healthy, the family appears to be functional with plenty of (non government!) support, so what is the problem, exactly?

Apparently CNN questions the ethics of having that many babies at once. Among some of the reasons cited by experts (with obvious biases and agendas) are the usual concerns about the mother's health - which in this individual case, was never a concern - and the risk to babies in multiple births. Amazingly, though every set of triplets I've ever met was perfectly normal in every way, and being the parent of a child with special needs, I resent the implication that a disability might be a good cause to terminate a pregnancy, the scientists in the article advocate partial abortion be considered even in triplets. They do quote one guy who refers to fetal reduction as killing babies, but this is the note on which the article ends, and which is most scary to me:

[Sara] Rosenthal[, bioethicist at the University of Kentucky], on the other hand, questions the woman's capacity to make a good decision under the circumstances. Some neonatologists believe that when pregnant women are told about dangers of prematurity or have great expectations about giving birth, their judgment can be impaired, she said.

The situation raises the issue of whether a doctor ought to override a patient's wishes for the sake of saving lives, she said. Although the health care system in America gives patients autonomy in making decisions about their own bodies, when emotionally distraught, some people decide poorly, she said.

Eugenics v2, anyone? Except a million times worse. She is advocating forced abortions because pregnant women can't make rational decisions. What happened to "the government should stay out of our uteruses" rhetoric that most pro-abortion people advocate? The article ends by saying that women with that many fetuses shouldn't give birth to all of them even if they are all healthy - because it might encourage other women to do it, too.

I'm so beyond horrified right now, you guys.

Comments

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

'Kay, by that logic, women should NOT be allowed to have abortions because their judgment is obviously impaired if they want to kill their babies, right?

By that logic. *groans* Good grief. You're absolutely right when you say it contradicts their own rhetoric.

The situation raises the issue of whether a doctor ought to override a patient's wishes for the sake of saving lives, she said. Although the health care system in America gives patients autonomy in making decisions about their own bodies, when emotionally distraught, some people decide poorly, she said.
SAVING lives? SAVING lives? *disgusted laugh* Change "horrified" to "sickened", and I'll second your last line. Look, one thing to be pro-abortion, another thing to FORCE women to abort children. Whatever happened to "freedom of CHOICE"?

[ohinternets.livejournal.com]

The consistent feminist silence on the situation in China, where women are forced to have abortions past their first pregnancy regardless of whether they want to, is deafeningly telling enough as to how much of an ethical dilemma many (though not all) abortion rights supporters see forced abortions. After all, if it's just the removal of non-human tissue, who cares? Would you object to a deranged person being forced to undergo an appendectomy for their own good? etc.

[pastygothchick.livejournal.com]

Whatever happened to "freedom of CHOICE"?

It hasn't changed it's freedom to make the choice they want you to make which is no freedom or choice at all.

[kimana83.livejournal.com]

ITA. This article is disgusting and those who actually think this a viable option are appalling.

And a whole lot like our new president.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Yeah, they're not shy about making the "choice" for you if it's "for your own good"--or even "for the good of society," whatever that means at that particular moment in time. I guess at this moment, it means "so we don't encourage other women to get pregnant with multiple babies."

Do these people ever listen to themselves? Because the hypocrisy is so blatant that anyone should be able to see it.

[moviequeen985.livejournal.com]

For the good of society. By that logic, we should kill off babies on the off chance they're going to be serial killers.
Also, how often do women get pregnant with multiple babies? I mean, up to 8, like that woman. Seriously. If she was healthy and the children were healthy, what is the big deal?

[cakemaven.livejournal.com]

honestly, instead of taking issue with whether or not a woman should be forced to reduce the number of babies she is carrying, they should focus on perhaps preventing the situation to begin with, by limiting IVF transfers to a maximum of 3 embryos transferred. This would eliminate the need for the debate completely.

[ohinternets.livejournal.com]

I think the AMA should adopt standards, but not press for legal regulations. Ultimately, it should be a choice between a woman and her OB/GYN how many embryos should be implanted.

[cakemaven.livejournal.com]

I don't agree. Because I think abortion is wrong, I think it is wrong to willfully cause a woman to become impregnated with more embryos than she can/should safely carry. The practice of transferring too many embryos and then reducing after the fact is no different than aborting a baby for convenience. It is ending the life of a fetus with a beating heart.

If any of those kids end up with developmental or health issues, they should sue the doctor. His negligence (in placing 8 or more embryos inside this woman) is why this woman had a litter of babies. Maybe once doctors start getting sued for this kind of thing, doctors will stop doing it.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Oh, this is rich:
But [George] said that selective reduction is not the same as traditional abortion because the goal is the healthiest possible birth rather than the termination of a pregnancy.

Because the result isn't a baby (or more than one baby!) that's just as dead as the dead baby in a "traditional" abortion? The goal is exactly the same! They might couch it in "noble" terms, but they're still ripping a healthy baby out of a woman's uterus for the sake of convenience, most of the time. What is the matter with these people?

[pastygothchick.livejournal.com]

Am I the only one who thought CNN's tone slanted in favor of the practice? They talk about how the experts are split but both experts were in favor of reducing the number of babies the woman is carrying. One doctor supported the mother's decision even though he disagreed with it, the other didn't believe the mother should have been able to make the decision.

Way to show both sides of the issue, CNN. /sarcasm

[snackbreak.livejournal.com]

Well, I think the real issue is simply trying to avoid impregnating the woman with multiple children in the first place. Rather than deal with the problem after the fact (when it should be considered too late, since they are already developing people), they need to have better IVF regulations.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

One of my friends is a twin whose sister died (of natural causes) at birth. All her life she has missed that "phantom" sister. I can't BEGIN to imagine the sense of loss and the survivor's guilt of children whose siblings were aborted. Are these people MAD?

... and being usually pro-choice, I can't even express in polite terms what I think of those KGB types who believe they can think in place of a pregnant woman.

These people are nasty, fascistic ideologues and I want them FAR AWAY from my uterus.

[morbidmuse.livejournal.com]

That is exactly how I feel. I'm also someone who is pro-choice and appalled at the suggestions in this article that someone besides the pregnant family should be able to control the pregnancy in this way. It is fascist and terrifying.

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

Since everyone covered everything, I'll leave only two people you should read up on.

1. EnterStageRight.com's Michael Moriarty. He's a former "Law & Order" actor, now writing conservative ish essays. He often writes on the Progressives' embrace of death. It will serve you well, although, his earlier works are more... verbose compared to recent times. Still, I highly recommend.

2. Ann Coulter's Godless. She documents on how the liberals want to de-humanize the Traditional family. I think Laura Ingraham's Power to the People also addresses it, but I'm not sure.

Now, why they want to promote such instability, as a caller asked Bill O'Reilly a month ago, I wish I knew. He didn't know, either. Beyond the liberal "never responsibility for anything," I suppose.

[pastygothchick.livejournal.com]

"Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg includes a section on abortion and eugenics. It recounts the history of enforced sterilization in the United States.

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, you're right -- I so need to read it. I know Moriarty referenced it several times, so I can't lose, either way.

[kensieg.livejournal.com]

they want to destroy the family so that nothing will interpose between the State and the individual.

[scarletwalk.livejournal.com]

Mother Teresa was 110% correct when she talked about America developing into a culture of death. It's frightening how right she was.

That's all I have to say about this.

[kensieg.livejournal.com]

It is the couple's decision and responsibility on how many children to have.

"The article ends by saying that women with that many fetuses shouldn't give birth to all of them even if they are all healthy - because it might encourage other women to do it, too."

That's the most important part of the article, they don't want women having lots of babies.

Another telling phrase is: "some people decide poorly," that is to say not as Ms Rosenthal would.

I just love (not!) people who feel that they are more entitled than I am to make my decisions.

[snackbreak.livejournal.com]

I would agree with you that people can have as many as they want, only I think there should be one important rule: as long as they don't expect any help from anyone in taking care of their kids.

Seriously, if they all starve, cry me a river, I'm not doing a damn thing about it through charity or taxes and I shouldn't have to because I wasn't the genius that decided to have 14 kids.

[snackbreak.livejournal.com]

I happen to work in fertility, and it is so so SO unethical for the doctors to be as irresponsible as to allow this to happen in the first place.

I believe this happened with the same group of fertility doctors that recently had a woman give birth to 4 or 5 babies. Everyone in my clinic scoffed and had some pretty harsh things about the quality of those doctors' work.

There needs to be higher regulation regarding this sort of thing, since apparently some clinics don't give a shit.

I definitely question the ethics that allowed this woman to even get impregnated via IVF with ONE child, considering the fact that she already has six to begin with. Is she running a plantation? Seriously.

[sreya.livejournal.com]

What I find most telling about this is the attitude that it's a horrible thing to have multiple children.

As the oldest of four children (almost of five), I've grown up with people expressing shock over the number of children in our family. Bwuh? Good GRIEF, it's only in the last century that families of 4 or less are even common, much less the norm. People used to pity women who couldn't a child or more than one in her lifetime. (Actually, in some cultures, these women were considered outcasts or otherwise treated poorly - not right, but shows the concern with having large families.) Now, a woman who CHOOSES to have multiple children, either by multiple pregnancies or in one, are somehow not thinking clearly?!

I just don't understand it, really. Yes, I am somewhat amazed by the families that have a dozen or more children in this day and age, but mostly it's awe that they can do it. That takes something really special, and usually produces some amazing members of society who REALLY understand the concepts of love and charity.

[longlostblue.livejournal.com]

I'm Mormon, and know quite a few families with 6+ children. Although I'm not from a large family, and personally wouldn't want one, I fail to see the problem with them. The majority of large families (in my experience) are organized, responsible, thriving, and, most importantly, happy.

[ainu-laire.livejournal.com]

Dear lady in article,

Fuck you. I'll decide how many children I do or don't want to have. Poor judgement or not, it's fucking America. I get to make the fucking decision.

DIAF,
Me