I don’t think they’re all that rare. I think we just don’t hear about them. I think a lot of rich people use fertility drugs and abort the unwanted babies. What was that Mcq called me? Screwball? Can’t remember. Well, that might be a screwball theory, but I believe it happens and I agree with bbell. I mean, how do you KNOW they’re rare?

I don’t really think its all that common that is why there is a NY Times article about it. Twins are 1-100 pregnancies to start with. Most normal folks when faced with a twin pregnancy simply have twins.

I think a lot of people are taking fertility drugs to get twins–a lot of celebrities. And aborting unwanted fetuses.

For the most part, we are not talking here about natural births, but multiple births that sometimes result as a side effect of treatments for infertility. These are people who couldn’t have children, so they go through this expensive thera;py to get what they think is one child and sometimes it results in a high-risk pregnancy of 4 or 5 or 6 fetuses.

It’s fairly common in infertility therapy to have more than one fetus result from some treatments. Reduction of the multiple fetuses is common in those situations because in some cases it is considered unsafe for the mother to have 4 or 5 or 6 babies. You don’t hear about those reductions because it is relatively uncontroversial. You hear about the ones who don’t reduce and that result in multiple births like the octomom.

The article mentions that medical ethicists are fine with reducing fetuses down to two, but typically think it is unethical to reduce further than that. To me, it seems arbitrary to draw the line at two. Why is reducing from five to two ok, but from two to one is not?

In any event, I think the Church’s stance is that abortion is wrong except in cases were the mother’s life is at risk (excluding extreme cases like rape and incest). If the doctor’s opinion is that the mother can’t physically carry and give birth to more than a certain number of fetuses, then reducing the number is a medical necessity. If it’s not medically necessary then it seems wrong to me to reduce the number of fetuses, but I know these are difficult decisions for those in fertility treatment, and I wouldn’t presume to judge their decisions.

Eventually somebody will show up and defend this practice

It will be interesting to see if someone would defend this practice on this blog. Not likely…

Mcq, if bbell and everybody else was in favor, would you disagree?

Tim is right on.

MCO- There is a huge difference between 4 or more fetuses vs twins. It is medically risky to have a litter of children, not so much with twins. The article is about using technology developed to address high risk multiples for reductions of personal preference. Totally different situations. Please try to keep up with the class.

MCQ and Tim are spot on. Our EQ President a couple of years ago told us how much difficulty he and his wife had conceiving. When they finally did, there were five fetuses. Their doctor recommended cutting it down to two or three both for the health of his wife and the health of the remaining three fetuses. They decided to involve the stake president and bishop in their decision and both said they should do it, that the wife’s health was the most important thing in this case.

Of course if it was that big of a concern the best thing to do would be to only insert one egg at a time, but every time you do it there is a large expense, which is why most people insert more than one each time.

I think a lot of people are taking fertility drugs to get twins–a lot of celebrities.

A lot of celebrities? If celebrities were popping out twins at a larger amount than anywhere else wouldn’t we be seeing them on the cover of People magazine every week?

Clearly those who engage in fetus winnowing are selfish sinners. But bbell et al do not go far enough. Join with me in looking askance at those who, through natural or artificial means, burden an already overpopulated planet with more Americans.

“Try to keep up with the class” Yes, children, the subject of bbell’s post was those who are expecting twins and abort one for CONVENIENCE, NOT medical necessity. I don’t think any of us would argue with medical necessity. More than half of the posts wandered from this subject. Is some remedial reading comprehension necessary?

The planet isn’t necessarily overpopulated, it is more a case of foolishly squandering essential resources. The U.S. alone wastes 40% of the food it produces that stays in the country.

uh, jjohnson, they’re not on every week, but they’re on there a lot. I’ve noticed and wondered about all these celebrities who must have twins in their family. Julia Roberts, Jennifer Lopez, Angelina Jolie, Charlie Sheen, Celine Dion, Sarah Jessica Parker, Neil Patrick Harris……..

Although, I really appreciate hearing about the other side of this from Tim, etc., because I never thought about that. When Sarah was taking fertility drugs, we considered the possibility that she might have a multiple birth (one baby, much loved :)). And it was kind of mind boggling.

The topic of this post is really the idea of carrying twins and then for convenience sake aborting one because you simply don’t want to deal with a second child. Not sure how some folks upstream got off topic but it would be nice to stay on topic.

I think it pretty much goes without saying that if something is medically required you must follow competent medical advice. However this is about aborting fetuses because you simply don’t want twins. Hence the title of the post.

It was not my intent to talk about the ethics of implanting multiple embryos.

For those who didn’t bother to read the first page…

“No agency tracks how many reductions occur in the United States, but those who offer the procedure report that demand for reduction to a singleton, while still fairly rare, is rising. Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, one of the largest providers of the procedure, reported that by 1997, 15 percent of reductions were to a singleton. (1) Last year, by comparison, 61 of the center’s 101 reductions were to a singleton, and 38 of those pregnancies started as twins. (2)”

(1) It is not stated as far as I could see how many of these 15 percent started out as twins. Seeing that the article earlier stated the science for multi-reductions was developed in the mid-1980s I assume this is a new thought pattern.

(2) We’re arguing about 38 pregnancies. If the Mount Sinai Medical Center is indeed one of the largest providers, we’re probably at most talking about 80 pregnancies nation wide. I don’t know about you, but I assume the church doesn’t care what 80 people out of a reported 14 million do.

I’m confused now and have lost interest. How were we supposed to understand that this post was only about convenience. And what exactly is the moral difference between going from 2 to 1 and going from 4 to 2?

But that’s exactly the point, bbell: The doctor doesn’t say that. The doctor just says that the risks for multiples are higher, and recommends reducing the number of fetuses in order to reduce the risks for the babies and the mother. As the article said, most doctors don’t recommend reducing the number of fetuses below two, because the vast majority of women can carry and deliver twins safely. But most can also safely deliver three, and some can safely deliver more. Quit pretending like “you might die” is such a common and ironclad diagnosis. It’s simply not.

In the end, this decision is still up to the parents. As the article notes, some doctors, including Dr. Evans who was the original ethicist in this area, make the point that the risks of twins are still higher than some think, especially where the mother is older. So the idea of reducing from 2-1 is not always simply a decision based on convenience. There are medical risks and there are also financial, emotional and psychological ones. Not all parents are capable of dealing with twins, and if the twins are simply an accidental outcome of fertility treatments, it seems understandable why some might want to reduce down to one fetus in that situation.

You seem to want to simplify the article (and by extension the decisions it discusses) down to something very simple and straightforward. The problem is, these decisions are rarely simple and straightforward and no two are identical.

And no, to answer your question, I see no moral difference in going from 4 fetuses to 1 vs. going from 2 fetuses to 1, except that the first pregnancy ends with 3 dead fetuses and the second with only 1. The person going from 4-1 could have stopped at 3 or 2 and probably would have been fine, but chose to reduce to one for some collection of reasons: some medical reasons and some probably financial or social. The person going from 2-1 is confronting many of the same risks and reasons, only their risk at the start is lower. Is that fact alone enough to condemn their choice, more than you condemn the person who ended with 3 dead fetuses? I don’t think so.

Laugh. Out. Loud. I’m going to nominate that for comment of the year.