Medical Questions > Abortion > Medical Abortion Forum

Twins (Page 1)

Must Read
A D&C is a standard procedure. But it can be scary when you don't know what to expect. Learn about what happens during dilation and curettage to prepare yoursel...
Dilation and curettage, or D & C for short, is a procedure that is used to diagnose and treat a number of womens health conditions. What are some goals of a D a...
A D&C usually is free of problems, and the recovery period for the procedure is short. But knowing about possible complications can help you detect problems ea...
I am looking for some information or advice that may help my wife and I as we work through a difficult decision. My wife 38 and I are happily married and have a beautiful healthy child thanks to years of ivf, surgeries and even a miscarriage. Needless to say, it has been a very long road but we were overjoyed to find we were once again pregnant after 2 more years of ivf. The ultrasound at 6 weeks has showed twins. I was very happy at first, but my wife is overwhelmed. She felt that we could have one more child, but is completely sure that twins is not possible for us to deal with. She is so scared that there just won't be enough time or energy to give all three children what they need. She has a very successful (but very stressful) corporate career and loves everything about it except that she can only spend a few hours a day at home with our daughter. I stay home full time with our daughter. I love being a stay at home dad and think we could make twins work, but truth be told I do wish my wife could spend more time with our one daughter let alone the addition of twins. I have always been absolutely pro choice. My wife wants to have a selective reduction on one of the two embryos. My questions are
1) Is this a procedure that is done as an elective procedure even in cases where there doesn't appear to be any health issues with either fetus? 2.) If so where can I find reliable info on clinics and doctors? I have done some basic research on the web and have found some info indicating that the remaining twin would have at least as good chances or better of being healthy at birth, not to mention possible better life after birth because of increased attention and time from us parents. My last question is: 3) Are my wifes feelings of being overwhelmed normal in this case and have you or your readers ever heard of this delimma? I guess I am just looking for anyone to talk to about this. I want to look at the positive side of this, but I am genuinely concerened for my wife and how overwhelmed she is feeling.
Did you find this post helpful?
|

replied 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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied 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??
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied 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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 13th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Do you know if they are sharing an amniotic sac or if they are in seperate sacs?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied 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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied 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
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied 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%.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 13th, 2007
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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied 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".
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied 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
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied 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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied 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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied 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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied 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
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied 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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied 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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied 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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied 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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied 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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
12 >>