Medical Abortion Forum

Tylanas

replied on April 13th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

It doesn't sound like a safe procedure to have done. I'd be terrified the other embryo would be harmed.

When women get pregnant naturally with twins, the thought never crosses their mind to kill one of them simply because it's an inconvenience. It's the technology that's making your wife even consider such a thing.

Hopefully someone knows more about the procedure and can give you some unbiased information.

|

Carifairy

replied on April 13th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Selective reduction is very common! They also do it in such a way that the other embryo is typically unharmed!

Many couples with multiple births will consider selective reduction, and many well trained physicians do this procedure.

Have you spoken with your doc about it??

|

Jules

replied on April 13th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Eiri wrote:

When women get pregnant naturally with twins, the thought never crosses their mind to kill one of them simply because it's an inconvenience. It's the technology that's making your wife even consider such a thing.

I agree totally. I can understand aborting one of multiples when there is a health risk involved to the mother or the other babies but to kill one just for the sake of convenience seems cold hearted. It is a well known fact that multiples are a 'risk' with ivf so this situation should have been factored in when you considered the procedure in the first place.

|

mc4ever02

replied on April 13th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Do you know if they are sharing an amniotic sac or if they are in seperate sacs?

|

sillyakchick

replied on April 13th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Twins Are Tough

Havaing twins is a lot of work, but since you do most of the childcare, and you sound up for it, perhaps you should take some time to speak with your wife at length. I think people make the amount of time necessary, no matter how many kids they have. It sounds like her career is important to her. Can you afford to hire someone to cook or clean? Even if it once a week or so? That may free her up to spend more time with the children. There is always a risk to the other fetus when the environment of the womb is invaded. Early pregnancy is a time of hormonal upheaval. Many women panic and think "there is no way I can do this!" Before I found out I was pregnant with my second child, I freaked out thinking there was no way I could possibly give attention to two children adn how unfair it was to my other child, etc. Then i found out I was actually already pregnant. Even though i was happy, a part of me wanted to get of the roller coaster before it climbed up the first hill. This is a normal reaction to the situation she is in. Only the two of you can come to a decision that is best for you, regardless of what any other people say. i will tell you this, though-twins share an amazingly special bond with each other, even if they do not get along all of the time. My hubby has twin sisters, and I am somewhat envious of their closeness. Admittedly, I would not want my own sister for a twin! I hope you can both come to a decision that is peaceful for you.

|

jenn_smithson

replied on April 13th, 2007

Active User, very eHealthy

Eiri wrote:

When women get pregnant naturally with twins, the thought never crosses their mind to kill one of them simply because it's an inconvenience. It's the technology that's making your wife even consider such a thing.

That's not always the typical response. I have known several couples who were crushed and rather heartbroken to find out that they were having twins instead of just one child (especially if it was their first pregnancy). By the time they found out it was twins, they had just become comfortable with the idea of having .a child. Then on top of that the realization of the extra work, the extra expense, the extra college education, etc, caused them to become very stressed and agitated. Where they felt prepared to handle one, they felt helpless when finding out two were expected. On top of that it's not something they felt they could discuss with anyone because everyone around them was crooning, "twice the love" or other such phrases and it made them very uncomfortable because they knew they didn't feel that way. One of them broke out sobbing uncontrollably at her baby shower because she just couldn't bottle it up anymore. People can be very cruel when you don't respond in the way they expect you to or in a way that is socially accepted.

The only advice I could give to this particular situation would be to find out whether or not there are some parent's of multiples support groups in your area and to sit down and speak with them. They may be able to give you more information and the reality of having multiples.

Best of luck!
Peace,
Jenn

|

Kypros

replied on April 13th, 2007

Experienced User

Eiri wrote:

It doesn't sound like a safe procedure to have done. I'd be terrified the other embryo would be harmed.

When women get pregnant naturally with twins, the thought never crosses their mind to kill one of them simply because it's an inconvenience. It's the technology that's making your wife even consider such a thing.

Hopefully someone knows more about the procedure and can give you some unbiased information.

Sorry, Eiri, but I completely disagree. I would say that Cari and Jenn are much more accurate. Selective reduction is quite safe and harm to the other foetus is not common, as far as I'm aware. I don't know what the doctor will say and I do believe that such an abortion can be obtained at ease based on grounds like psychological and economic difficulties.

My advice to the author of the thread: talk things over with your wife and ask her to give it some more time and thought (whilst simulataneously contacting a doctor and researching) and it might be worth asking any families you know how they cope(d) with twins and other children. Be open with her about your thoughts and hopes for the kid you already have and hopefully you will be able to come to a compromise about your current daughter and also the pregnancy your wife is currently in. Tell her what you're thinking but make sure she knows you will support her 100%.

|

aren_1987

replied on April 13th, 2007

New User

mc4ever02 wrote:

Do you know if they are sharing an amniotic sac or if they are in seperate sacs?

I was thinking the same thing mc4ever02. The procedure can't be done if they share a sac.

|

Tylanas

replied on April 15th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

Now that I know that it is a safe and common procedure, I rescind the first part of my post. The second half I still stand by.

Jenn, even if the natural-twinned mother was "devestated" - and remember that this is a desperately wanted pregnancy, not a maybe-wanted or accidental one - I don't think the natural-twinned mother would ever consider removing the second fetus out of "convenience".

|

hopefulmjz

replied on April 15th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

What about adoption? This was after-all, an ivf case...I'd think of it as a blessing after going to such lengths to concieve in the first place. Confused

|

Tylanas

replied on April 15th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

hopefulmjz wrote:

What about adoption? This was after-all, an ivf case...I'd think of it as a blessing after going to such lengths to concieve in the first place. Confused

Yes, that's my opinion.

|

Birch

replied on April 16th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Who's gonna tell the born child that s/he had a twin that was "selectively reduced"? Abortion for unintended pregnancy is one thing; "selectively reducing" twin embryos after going to great lengths to get pregnant is something else.
It's not like the normal arguments for abortion can go into place here.
She purposely got pregnant, she's going to remain pregnant, she's going to give birth.
So she's going to have two kids instead of one; a risk I'm sure she was educated about before undergoing ivf tx.

*sigh*

Don't get me wrong; prochoice means supporting her choice. I just don't agree with this particular choice.

Do I have to fullfledgely agree with a choice to support it? What does support mean, exactly?

Meanderings after a late glass of merlot.

|

Tylanas

replied on April 16th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

Birch wrote:

Who's gonna tell the born child that s/he had a twin that was "selectively reduced"? Abortion for unintended pregnancy is one thing; "selectively reducing" twin embryos after going to great lengths to get pregnant is something else.
It's not like the normal arguments for abortion can go into place here.
She purposely got pregnant, she's going to remain pregnant, she's going to give birth.
So she's going to have two kids instead of one; a risk I'm sure she was educated about before undergoing ivf tx.

*sigh*

Don't get me wrong; prochoice means supporting her choice. I just don't agree with this particular choice.

Do I have to fullfledgely agree with a choice to support it? What does support mean, exactly?

Meanderings after a late glass of merlot.

I agree with you birch.

And no; to be pro-choice, you don't have to agree with every choice.

I quote voltaire because he said it best:

"I do not agree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it."

As far as my position is on pro-choice, that's where I am. I believe that some women abort for bad reasons, plain and simple. However, they have the right to do so and the right is more important than their choices, as dumb as those choices may be.

|

Birch

replied on April 17th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Eiri wrote:

I agree with you birch.

And no; to be pro-choice, you don't have to agree with every choice.

I quote voltaire because he said it best:

"I do not agree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it."

As far as my position is on pro-choice, that's where I am. I believe that some women abort for bad reasons, plain and simple. However, they have the right to do so and the right is more important than their choices, as dumb as those choices may be.

Well...hmm. Confused

I think Voltaire's quote might be more about speech versus action. And I'm not sure I necessarily agree with what he said.

Anyways...

The question for me is; do I have to support and agree with all choices to be prochoice and not be hypocritical?

Am I prochoice only when it suits my personal views?

For example, I am not opposed to current legislation that disallows late term abortions for nonmedically necessary reasons. But does prochoice mean that if she chooses at 7mos to abort, then I support her decision?

What does 'support' mean?

And who am I to decide this for her?

Does that make me one of the dreaded "conditionally prochoice"?

Am I not a feminist?

I just think I lost a part of my identity. Wink

|

Magical Logic

replied on April 17th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

all i am gonna say is twins are a blessing. twins are not that much harder than having one child.

|

Sunflower_pie81

replied on April 17th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

chase4 wrote:

all i am gonna say is twins are a blessing. twins are not that much harder than having one child.

not for you maybe, but for this lady it might be overwhelming.

|

Tylanas

replied on April 18th, 2007

Especially eHealthy

Birch wrote:

Eiri wrote:

I agree with you birch.

And no; to be pro-choice, you don't have to agree with every choice.

I quote voltaire because he said it best:

"I do not agree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it."

As far as my position is on pro-choice, that's where I am. I believe that some women abort for bad reasons, plain and simple. However, they have the right to do so and the right is more important than their choices, as dumb as those choices may be.

Well...hmm. Confused

I think Voltaire's quote might be more about speech versus action. And I'm not sure I necessarily agree with what he said.

Anyways...

The question for me is; do I have to support and agree with all choices to be prochoice and not be hypocritical?

Am I prochoice only when it suits my personal views?

For example, I am not opposed to current legislation that disallows late term abortions for nonmedically necessary reasons. But does prochoice mean that if she chooses at 7mos to abort, then I support her decision?

What does 'support' mean?

And who am I to decide this for her?

Does that make me one of the dreaded "conditionally prochoice"?

Am I not a feminist?

I just think I lost a part of my identity. Wink

I don't care if voltaire was talking about free speech. I think that his concepts are how I view pro-choice, hell, life in general. I simply used his quote because he stated it so eloquently. I am not sayin that voltaire was pro-choice.

You don't have to always agree with what someone does to support their right to do it.

People with freedom will make stupid choices, but they have the right to make those choices.

I see nothing hypocritical with telling people they have made a dumb desicion whilst supporting their freedom to make it.

|

Kypros

replied on April 18th, 2007

Experienced User

Birch wrote:

Eiri wrote:

I agree with you birch.

And no; to be pro-choice, you don't have to agree with every choice.

I quote voltaire because he said it best:

"I do not agree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it."

As far as my position is on pro-choice, that's where I am. I believe that some women abort for bad reasons, plain and simple. However, they have the right to do so and the right is more important than their choices, as dumb as those choices may be.

Well...hmm. Confused

I think Voltaire's quote might be more about speech versus action. And I'm not sure I necessarily agree with what he said.

Anyways...

The question for me is; do I have to support and agree with all choices to be prochoice and not be hypocritical?

Am I prochoice only when it suits my personal views?

For example, I am not opposed to current legislation that disallows late term abortions for nonmedically necessary reasons. But does prochoice mean that if she chooses at 7mos to abort, then I support her decision?

What does 'support' mean?

And who am I to decide this for her?

Does that make me one of the dreaded "conditionally prochoice"?

Am I not a feminist?

I just think I lost a part of my identity. Wink

You have to look at the literal meaning of the term 'pro-choice'. It means 'for (in the sense of agreeing with and supporting) choice [terminating a pregnancy]'; it is a euphemism for 'pro-abortion' or 'pro-foetal killings'. One can deduce that even if s/he wholly disagrees with abortion, s/he can support the choice. I certainly believe that this extends to law. For example, you said that you do not agree with late-term non-medical abortions and advocate the legislation which prohibits them. The first part is pro-choice (if, of course, you would still support a woman to make that decision) all though the latter isn't, since you are backing a legislation which limits a woman's choice. You are enforcing your own view (that late-term non-medical abortions are wrong, which is a pro-life view at that) as law, which I totally disagree with. Every person who shares that opinion has failed to convince me or give me a good reason why they should support its illegality. As pro-choicers very often say to pro-lifers: "Fair enough if it's your opinion, but you don't have the right to apply your opinion as law", which is most certainly valid here too. As pro-choicers, I think we should know better. If you disagree with late-term non-medical abortions, then that's your opinion and I don't have anything against your right to have one of those, but by supporting an unequal law you are taking away another person's rights. Woman's body, woman's choice, no matter what anybody else thinks. To be pro-choice in this area, then I would say the itinery is that you support such a female's choice and a law which allows her to make this choice (law must, in my eyes, be open for women to be able to do this).

Kypros.

|

Birch

replied on April 18th, 2007

Extremely eHealthy

Kypros wrote:

You have to look at the literal meaning of the term 'pro-choice'. It means 'for (in the sense of agreeing with and supporting) choice [terminating a pregnancy]'; it is a euphemism for 'pro-abortion' or 'pro-foetal killings'. One can deduce that even if s/he wholly disagrees with abortion, s/he can support the choice. I certainly believe that this extends to law. For example, you said that you do not agree with late-term non-medical abortions and advocate the legislation which prohibits them. The first part is pro-choice (if, of course, you would still support a woman to make that decision) all though the latter isn't, since you are backing a legislation which limits a woman's choice. You are enforcing your own view (that late-term non-medical abortions are wrong, which is a pro-life view at that) as law, which I totally disagree with. Every person who shares that opinion has failed to convince me or give me a good reason why they should support its illegality. As pro-choicers very often say to pro-lifers: "Fair enough if it's your opinion, but you don't have the right to apply your opinion as law", which is most certainly valid here too. As pro-choicers, I think we should know better. If you disagree with late-term non-medical abortions, then that's your opinion and I don't have anything against your right to have one of those, but by supporting an unequal law you are taking away another person's rights. Woman's body, woman's choice, no matter what anybody else thinks. To be pro-choice in this area, then I would say the itinery is that you support such a female's choice and a law which allows her to make this choice (law must, in my eyes, be open for women to be able to do this).

Kypros.

In my dealings in life, I try to live a certain way to minimize suffering, pain, and hatred. Animals through rescue work, humans through social work. In keeping consistant with that theme, I ask myself when is the time where a womans autonomy to her body can cause suffering and pain for another. I'm no doctor so I have no idea when physically this could happen, except that when some premature babies are born, they grow into healthy individuals. When this is a possibility, I consider that a woman's autonomy is compromised by her own biology and the choices she's made (if she's been aware). I don't understand how a compassionate view of life, such as what I try to have, can condone an 8th month termination for reasons other than the usual medically necessary situations. I don't shut the door on that however; I understand that I don't know everything, and there might be situations in which I would change my mind completely.

As I understand it, the current legislation in the US is on par with this. What would you like to see changed? Maybe I will agree with you.

|

12 >>