When is enough enough

[ManlyBanisters]

you simply can not allow sentimental ideals

It is not a 'sentimental ideal' - it is a moral standpoint.

My morals differ from yours - I do not judge you for yours. They are simply different.

My point is I find it very hard to see how one person can be pro-life in one circumstance and pro-choice in another.

 

[Incocknito]

I notice that this woman and the only other woman known to have given birth to Octuplets were both using fertility drugs.

I wonder if there is something unnatural about both the births...perhaps the drugs contributed to the eight babies.

I was 1lb when I was born and 12 weeks premature FYI. I believe a woman should have her own right to decide what she wants to do with her body. My only comment on these eight children is that I would be worried about the long term effects of the drugs used.

PS the only surgey I required was a tracheoctomy to help me breathe. And as far as I'm aware I suffer from no defects. Unless sexy is a defect? lol

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Actually in this latest case they make no comment on whether 'fertility drugs' were used or not.

Of course the births were 'unnatural' - they were c-sections. The pregnancies were the result of IVF treatment, also 'unnatural'.

 

[Incocknito]

BBC News said fertility drugs were used.

I meant perhaps the CONCEPTION was unnatural due to the fertility drugs being used and that they have somehow caused the multiple births.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Hmmm - you may have misheard that - from the article linked in the OP:

"The team did not give any more details about the mother's identity or say whether she had used fertility drugs."

That's a BBC news page.

Not important.

The CONCEPTION was unnatural - 8 (or more) fertilised embryos were implanted in the mother's uterus by IVF.

 

[findfirefox]

It seems ridiculously risky of the mother to have done this, she risked not only her own life but the health and lives of her "babies".

It seems she may have wanted something horrible to happen.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

It seems ridiculously risky of the mother to have done this, she risked not only her own life but the health and lives of her "babies".

It seems she may have wanted something horrible to happen.

How the hell do you conclude that?

I agree implanting 8 or more embryos is a bad idea - I certainly wouldn't do it myself. But we don't know the full story here. Maybe she has been trying for years. Maybe she was terrified of losing all the babies if they tried 'fetal reduction' (it does happen), maybe once she knew there were 7 babies (the eighth was a surprise) growing she couldn't bring herself to 'reduce' any of them, maybe she's morally opposed to termination, maybe, maybe, maybe - all far more likely than she "wanted something horrible to happen".

 

[findfirefox]

How the hell do you conclude that?

I agree implanting 8 or more embryos is a bad idea - I certainly wouldn't do it myself. But we don't know the full story here. Maybe she has been trying for years. Maybe she was terrified of losing all the babies if they tried 'fetal reduction' (it does happen), maybe once she knew there were 7 babies (the eighth was a surprise) growing she couldn't bring herself to 'reduce' any of them, maybe she's morally opposed to termination, maybe, maybe, maybe - all far more likely than she "wanted something horrible to happen".

She put all of her children at risk of death or severe disability for what could only be describe as selfishness in all of your examples.

It's no more right then allowing your children to die because you think "praying" is the same as medicine or surgery.

 

[ZOS23xy]

I think of "eight" and I think "hamster".


The big problem with multiple births after triplets is that they are underdeveloped, more likely to be ill, undersized and often mentally slow.

Still, for some people, love will try to conquer odds.

After raising one brilliant hyperactive kid, one was enough.

 

[B_JasonDawgxxx]

Isnt it common for them to implant that many? I thought they did this so the mother has a better chance of at least one going full term. In some cases not even 1 implant will take.

 

[findfirefox]

Isnt it common for them to implant that many? I thought they did this so the mother has a better chance of at least one going full term. In some cases not even 1 implant will take.

Yes, its very expensive and a large percentage of the time none of the implants will take and sadly there is not a "take two" without paying again.

 

[AlteredEgo]

IMO- If they had money to burn they would have chosen to implant a more manageable 2 or 3 embryos.

An acquaintance of mine spent $40K doing just that. She's richer than Midas.

She said breastfeed; but what I am hoping is that she will use a breast pump and bottle feed the babies. Or rather have friends, family, and neighbors help her bottle feed the babies. That would make some sense. The babies would still get the health benefit but not the bonding. :frown1:

I don't see where she has any choice.

That's frigging stupid, if you ask me. Why do they do that? To save on money/procedures??

No way. One or two implants, max. Then if they don't "take", go back again.

I see you're richer than Midas like my buddy. Not everyone has it like that. It's $10K every time.

NJ - Sorry, 'Fetal Reduction' is exactly the same thing as abortion. It is aborting one (or more) fetus while leaving another (others) intact.

How can a person be OK with the idea of terminating some of their children and not others? If you had two post-natal babies and only enough resources to keep one comfortably alive would you kill one? Or would you try your damnedest to work something out?

I don't see this as parallel. I don't see fetuses as humans, but rather potential humans. (I'll admit that this wasn't always the case for me.) In nature, when resources are scarce, most animals will either poison themselves to induce an abortion, or eat one or more of the offspring once they are born. This is practical, and kinder to the survivors. Then again, I am pro choice. I choose personally not to have an abortion (I think) but do not see it as morally wrong. (Again though, this wasn't always the case for me.)

 

[ManlyBanisters]

She put all of her children at risk of death or severe disability for what could only be describe as selfishness in all of your examples.

It's no more right then allowing your children to die because you think "praying" is the same as medicine or surgery.

You, and others, are applying arguments to what I am saying that, while admittedly oft used, are points that I am just not making.

This is not an emotive issue for me and I am not trying to make it one.

If a person truly believes that allowing an embryo to be terminated is the same thing as killing a post-natal child then there is no issue of selfishness - there is only right and wrong. I question this woman's judgement (and that of the father) in allowing 8 embryos to be created and implanted in the first place but once they were in and viable maybe (just maybe - because I don't claim to know) she / they were morally unable to allow anything but the preservation of all of them.

That is the only point I am making. It has nothing to do with prayer, it has nothing to do with whether fetuses feel pain, it has nothing to do with imposing one set of morals on all people. I am simply saying I can understand how, when told she had 7 viable embryos growing inside her, she was unable to allow any of them to be harmed. - If indeed that is what happened.

I understand your arguments - but you are arguing against something I am not saying - and you're all perfectly able to do that without me.

*switches to read only mode*

:smile:

 

[findfirefox]

That is the only point I am making. It has nothing to do with prayer, it has nothing to do with whether fetuses feel pain, it has nothing to do with imposing one set of morals on all people. I am simply saying I can understand how, when told she had 7 viable embryos growing inside her, she was unable to allow any of them to be harmed. - If indeed that is what happened.

Then there was no reason to say anything, everyone can "understand" why she may have done it, I can "understand" why someone may choose to shoot a crowd of homosexuals. It runs along those same lines as sympathy and being able to understand the psychology of others.

If you are just saying you "understand how" she could have done something you may as well have said nothing at all.

 

[pronatalist]

Even "litters" of human babies, should always be welcome to come alive.​

With human life, not even enough is enough. There's always room to find or make, for even more people to come alive.

... ya know pronatalist is gonna be all over this post.

Well since you "invited" me.

I heard something about this news item, but not all the details. I think it's very good news, and we need some good news these days, what with all the Obama Depression and incessant layoffs.

My thought is of course, we already have some 6.7 billion people on the planet, so now we need more humans having "litters" of babies? (laugh) Sure, why not. I don't believe in population "control" of humans, so let the human race grow and grow, spreading "out of control" supposedly. Of course, most people aren't having "litters" of babies.

I don't believe humans were designed to use "birth control," so I would welcome that mother to have even more children, if she can, especially if they come naturally. Smaller children especially can share beds for a while, if one's home is a bit "overflowing" with children. Or do like some Mormons out West, and build overflow bedrooms in one's basement, garage, or attic. But there's probably an infertility problem involved, that's why the matter of implanting fertilized eggs or embryos? And I don't believe in "selective reductions," as wouldn't that be murder? One of the side-effects of all that fancy infertility treatments available now. If an "excessive" number are to be implanted, so that enough of them take, then of course they should try to have all 8 healthy babies, when they all manage to take hold.

Anyway, be happy for them, and celebrate life.

As to breastfeeding 8 babies, sure why not, if she is able. Best for the babies, as they say. 2 breasts, so 4 shifts could be arranged. The human body is actually fairly adaptable and resilient, so it may be able to handle it, especially considering that the human womb apparently can handle as many as 6 or 8 babies when it needs to. Humans are capable of having "litters" of children at a time, although we usually only have but 1 baby at a time. If she doesn't have enough breastmilk or energy, then what's what infant formula is for, as babies should survive and thrive, regardless.

A silly side-note. Don't they have those double cigarette power outlets for cars, that turns one into two? And cube taps for electrical outlets? Maybe they have a breast splitter adapter for mothers with supposedly "too many" babies, so that 2 babies or more, can share the same breast?

 

[pronatalist]

I think of "eight" and I think "hamster".


The big problem with multiple births after triplets is that they are underdeveloped, more likely to be ill, undersized and often mentally slow.

Still, for some people, love will try to conquer odds.

After raising one brilliant hyperactive kid, one was enough.

I doubt that such is always true. In the TV series, "Clifford The Big Red Dog," the dog that became the biggests, was the runt of the litter. Is that the case, only in cartoons? I doubt it. When there's so many babies, the babies may start out small, but babies don't stay small for long, and while they may get off to a bit of a slow start, I seriously doubt that it is necessarily a permanent thing.

And yes, love does seem to conquer almost everything else.

 

[Principessa]

So it is OK to terminate fetuses when it gets you something you really want but not when it gets someone else out of something you really want but don't have?

Oh. Right.
You don't see a problem with that double standard?

I'm not even sure I understand what you just said. Then again I just woke up.

I kill more clumps of human flesh every time I scrape my knee badly than are killed by each abortion.

And my knees hurt more considering early fetuses can't feel pain yet.

:wtf2: This is a serious topic, not a joke. IMO You are obviously too juvenile and stupid to participate effectively. You off my thread! :angryfire2:

one shot then i am off this topic.

Selective reduction in high risk multiple births is used to give the viable fetus a chance at a full term delivery.

That is my understanding as well. I don't think it's a decision that is taken lightly by parents or doctors.

people can quip and joke or argue their stance on abortion, but in the end those very small (1.8lbs) extremely premature (at 9 weeks premature the survival rate is terrible) babies will face life long struggles to catch up developmentally. list it off - organ malformation, serious learning disabilities or mental retardation, immune disorders, multiple surgeries to correct the birth defects. the costs emotionally, financially and the suffering those babies will go through can't even be imagined.

those parents by making a choice to carry on with such a pregnancy are selfish and to be held in contempt.

Not sure I hold them in contempt, but I do question their basic intelligence and if they really understood the true consequences of giving birth to 7 children as the 8th was a surprise.

a loving parent, a responsible parent would have made the choice to give two of the children every possibility of a long healthy life. you simply can not allow sentimental ideals of every child deserves to be born cloud your judgment. at the stage where selective reduction is an option nobody is talking killing a baby, it's a grouping of cells with the possibility of becoming a human being.

I agree. This is not usually a decision made after 8 weeks; but prior to that. They call it fetal reduction, but the truth is at the point which it usually occurs, it is actually embryonic reduction. Opponents will cry semantics I'm, sure but there is a real difference here.

in this case eight tiny human beings. connected to enough medical equipment to start eight hospitals. if they make it to three months of age the next 18 years won't be much more fun. *grumbles*

ml

Oddly, luckily these infants seem to be reasonably healthy. They were lucky, it's not always that way.

Hmmm - you may have misheard that - from the article linked in the OP:

"The team did not give any more details about the mother's identity or say whether she had used fertility drugs."

True, the article didn't say any thing about fertility drugs but I have never heard of octuplets ocurring naturally in humans. I just assumed that fertility drugs had been used. They just didn't want to say.

That's a BBC news page. Not important.

I try to be careful about the sources I quote here. I've always considered the BBC to be a good resource for real world news, unlike FOX News.

The CONCEPTION was unnatural - 8 (or more) fertilised embryos were implanted in the mother's uterus by IVF.

I believe that to be true as well.

It seems ridiculously risky of the mother to have done this, she risked not only her own life but the health and lives of her "babies".

It seems she may have wanted something horrible to happen.

What? How on earth did you get that from the article?! No woman who takes Clomid and those damned daily shots in the butt wants something horrible to happen.

She put all of her children at risk of death or severe disability for what could only be describe as selfishness in all of your examples.

It's no more right then allowing your children to die because you think "praying" is the same as medicine or surgery.

:wtf2: I strongly disagree.

Isnt it common for them to implant that many? I thought they did this so the mother has a better chance of at least one going full term. In some cases not even 1 implant will take.

That is correct.

 

[Not_Punny]

Well, this subject certainly brings out the passion in us! :wink:

- - - - -

I am sorry.

To me, the risks of multiple embryo implantation** are unacceptable. I would be utterly incapable of choosing between children, and I am shocked that any parent could.

If infertile parents can't afford to go back for repeat implantation treatments, then maybe they shouldn't be doing it at all.

Plus, I'm sure that a "fetal reduction" procedure isn't cheap, both in terms of cash... and guilt and heartache.

** By that, I mean implanting more than two or three embryos.

 

[AlteredEgo]

I could choose between the eight little lumps. I'd keep #1 and #8. I like when things add up to 9.

 

[D_Portelay Porquesword]

8 babies. I cannot imagine.

It is truly going to a village to raise all those kids.