This is new to me! "Reducing" twins...

[shortbun]

Although it would not have been my choice unless my health was in severe danger, I can support it for another person. When I see people like the Octomom, I really see where it could be a real positive thing.

 

[Acklander]

My question is : if they only wanted 1 child, why not just adopt?! My opinion but if you're using infertility treaments but don't want multiples, that might not be the best idea for you. There are plenty of kids who need a good home - and if they are both working professionals, and paying for treaments, adoption costs wouldn't be an issue.

I don't think she used fertility treatment, but got pregnant with twins naturally. I know the older you get, the higher the risk for having twins

 

[wishspirit]

Interesting and disturbing at the same time. I guess if she really wants to and it's legal, then there's nothing to be done about it (yet). I understand, like in the article says, when it's many more multiples and the risk of death is increased,... but to reduce from 2 to 1 is very selfish. You're saying, well I only want one because well... the second one will be too inconvenient. At the least, put one of them up for adoption.

I kind of want to punch that woman.

I am confused as to why you believe you can call this woman selfish? She believes she is doing it for the best interests of herself and her family- I would not consider that selfish. Plus you know nothing more than has been said in that article, you do not know these people, yet seek to judge them for decisions they make in circumstances you intrinsically don't understand. You would never make that decision- therefore can never understand the emotional process behind it, therefore should not seek to judge.

You may not agree, you may not have made the same decision- that's up to you. I may not have made that decision, but this woman is doing what she believes is right.

I am pro-choice. I may not make the same choice, but I stand by the right of anyone to make their own choices in life.

Just feel privileged that you will never feel the way that she did in order to make that decision, especially as it makes you want to punch her!

 

[deegack]

My question is : if they only wanted 1 child, why not just adopt?! My opinion but if you're using infertility treaments but don't want multiples, that might not be the best idea for you. There are plenty of kids who need a good home - and if they are both working professionals, and paying for treaments, adoption costs wouldn't be an issue.

really you're going to use the just adopt argument.

Have you ever looked into adoption? I have. Its not like you can walk down to your local orphanage and get a kid like you get a puppy. Even if you are open to all races, don't need an infant and are willing to take a child with disabilities it can take years and thousands of dollars to adopt. I can pay for 3-4 IVF cycles for the same cost and trying to adopt privately either internationally or domestically. Adopting out of foster care is a whole separate animal. The cost in dollars is small but the emotional cost is exponentially higher. The children in foster care are not always "free" to be adopted so you can spend months or even years caring for a child in hopes of adopting only to have to give him up.

 

[Pigeon]

Her body, her decision, none of my business.

 

[ReneeA]

her body, her decision, none of my business.

mte

 

[TinklednPants]

I wonder if they could reduce uglies

 

[SaraJayne]

Her body, her decision, none of my business.

Yup. Abortion is legal.

 

[sparklynails23]

What would you tell the remaining twin? That would be a tough conversation.

People are waiting too long to have kids.

 

[skater]

I have no idea to be honest. I am here so I can't say how I would feel if I was not here because then I would not be here to feel . I right now in a hypothetical situation, yes I would rather never be born then separated from my siblings and to feel unwanted. For reasons I can't go into on the internet, it creates more than just basic hurt feelings to know your other siblings were chosen over you.

I think twins have a special bond and either keep them together or don't have them. I personally would feel worse as a mother separating them. It's something I could not live with doing.

It's a lot harder to hand over a baby then to reduce a fetus. It's just different, it's always going to be very different. For some handing over a baby is easier than reducing. For others reducing is easier.

I don't see how its easier to kill a baby than to give one to a loving couple, but I realize this choice is legal - and I respect your opinion (although I strongly disagree). One thought I did have was how this couple would explain this to the living twin one day. Its hard to keep a "secret" like that - and that could be even more disturbing to a child or an adult when he or she finds out what happened. What about the special bond at that point? Than, you might have a child or adult thinking the parents murdered his or her sibling. (I know not everybody looks at abortion as murder, but the child could very well feel that way one day).

I have two adopted boys and the most important consideration for us was to keep it all very morally right for them. I didn't want to explain any weird or borderline process to either one of them. Some of the agencies we looked at talked about carrying cash for bribes in certain countries. I wouldn't even consider those agencies or countries. I would think it would be the same in this case.

 

[Acklander]

What would you tell the remaining twin? That would be a tough conversation.

People are waiting too long to have kids.

Not everything needs to be a conversation with the kids. Some things are private between a couple and their Doctor.

With our youngest we had IVF. Before we started treatment we went over with the doctors what our intentions were on different situations (i.e. multiples, left over embryos etc...) One of the decisions that we made was that any left over embryos we wanted donated to a couple that needed them. I heard another woman, while we were in the waiting room, mention that she wanted her left over embryos disposed of, under supervision. I guess she was afraid they'd be sold/donated without her consent. Our first try ended in m/c, so instead of donating the left over embryos we used them for a 2nd attempt. I've never felt the need to share with my 11 year old that he spent 6 months on ice in a lab or that if the previous pregnancy had been successful he would be living with another family right now. The only thing he knows about it, is that DH and I had to work very hard and spend a lot of money to have him, and it was worth all the work & money. As a matter of fact it's the best money I ever spent.

 

[Magpie]

It's the same thing as abortion. Surely you've heard of that before.

A woman "decides" she doesn't want/need/can't afford/whatever a child. In this case, a woman "decides" she doesn't want/need/can't afford/whatever multiple children.

Same process, different circumstances.

I don't think it's the same thing at all, which is why I didn't bring up abortion in the original post. (Well, that, and I didn't want to trip over the whole politics/religion ban.)

In my opinion it's one thing to have an abortion in a crisis situation, or for an unplanned pregnancy. It's another thing to deliberately choose to get pregnant and then terminate a perfectly healthy fetus because you only wanted one, not two.

I'm actually okay with selective reduction in cases where the health of the mum or the other babies is at risk. I'm okay with abortion in most cases, because I know by and large women don't choose it lightly. It's not something I think I'd ever choose for myself, but I'm not going to judge anyone else.

However, I'm not okay with "we'll have to make financial sacrifices!" argument. What if the twin they ultimately chose turns out to have special needs? What if their children put an unexpected financial burden on them and they find they can't keep up the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed? Can they give them away, because they've become inconvenient? Children are financial burdens, by nature. If you can't accept that, maybe you shouldn't be having kids.

Something's really shady in the report of what actually happened... how does a Canadian get a procedure funded by Medicare in the US? Also, how does anyone get a non-medically-required pregnancy reduction like this funded by Medicare?

Oh well, the reporter may have gotten that part wrong.

I think this was a truly disgusting reason to seek a pregnancy reduction, but I don't think the law should ever try to make it illegal to do something based on WHY you want to do it. Because then people will just lie about why they want it, and you'll get doctors lying about whether it's medically necessary or not. ("medically necessary for the mother's mental health" will become the unprovable reason put on the paperwork.)

No, the reporter didn't get anything wrong. Sunnybrook is in Canada. Almost every ob-gyn they approached in Canada refused to have anything to do with them, so they thought they'd have to go to New York and pay more than 8,000 dollars to have the unwanted twin removed. But then they finally found someone in Canada to do it, so it was ultimately covered under the Canadian health care system. Whether it should have been or not is another issue.

I think you have a good point about the law, though. I think whenever we start basing our legal system on morality, we usually end up in trouble. The gov't doesn't belong in the minds of the nation, any more than it belongs in the bedrooms. When it comes to the legal system, less is more, imo.

However, that shouldn't stop society in general from saying, "This is wrong!"

I put it in the same category as abortion. It's between a woman, her doctor, and her partner.
For medical reasons, I wouldn't be able to carry twins so I would consider reduction as the lesser or 2 evils. I can't imagine anyone would be excited about having the procedure done and I would imagine it's a heartbreaking decision to make. But sometimes people have to make sad decisions. It's not my place to judge.

You'd think that, wouldn't you?

However here's what the woman in the article had to say about it:

***The Burlington woman, however, says she has no regrets, and believes the option should be openly available to all parents expecting twins.

"I'm absolutely sure I did the right thing," she said. "I had read some online forums, people were speaking of grieving, feeling a sense of loss. I didn't feel any of that. Not that I'm a cruel, bitter person ... I just didn't feel I would be able to care for (twins) in a way that I wanted to."***

She's a real piece of work, that's for sure!

 

[Acklander]

However here's what the woman in the article had to say about it:

***The Burlington woman, however, says she has no regrets, and believes the option should be openly available to all parents expecting twins.

"I'm absolutely sure I did the right thing," she said. "I had read some online forums, people were speaking of grieving, feeling a sense of loss. I didn't feel any of that. Not that I'm a cruel, bitter person ... I just didn't feel I would be able to care for (twins) in a way that I wanted to."***

She's a real piece of work, that's for sure!

Actually, her comments make a lot of sense, considering she had to go through so much effort for the reduction. I remember reading an article years ago, when interviewing woman who had previously had abortions, and what was interesting was the harder the woman had to work to get the abortion (i.e. no doctors available to perform abortion, having to travel out of state or out of country for abortion, had to go to extreme measures to finance the abortion and so on) felt very little grief about the abortion and instead felt overwhelming relief. Where as the women who had easy access to an abortion were the ones who went through a grieving process and emptiness. I'm not sure the reason why though.

 

[gate_pourri]

Can someone please tell me that I am reading this sentence wrong: "when they discovered a physician at Sunnybrook would do the reduction, funded by medicare"

So, a woman comes in from Canada to, basically abort one of her twins and the US taxpayers pay for it? Please tell me I am reading this wrong!

 

[Magpie]

Can someone please tell me that I am reading this sentence wrong: "when they discovered a physician at Sunnybrook would do the reduction, funded by medicare"

So, a woman comes in from Canada to, basically abort one of her twins and the US taxpayers pay for it? Please tell me I am reading this wrong!

Yes, you're reading that wrong.

She initially couldn't find an ob gyn in Canada to do the procedure. She THOUGHT she'd have to go the US and pay out of pocket for it. Then she found a Canadian doctor who would do it after all at Sunnybrook hospital in Toronto, Canada. So it was covered by Canadian health care (also called medicare).

 

[Northstar]

Can someone please tell me that I am reading this sentence wrong: "when they discovered a physician at Sunnybrook would do the reduction, funded by medicare"

So, a woman comes in from Canada to, basically abort one of her twins and the US taxpayers pay for it? Please tell me I am reading this wrong!

Magpie addressed this in her last post... the procedure was done in Canada under provincial medical coverage.

I am interested in the reporter's use of the word "medicare" (small m, not capital), too. It misled me. I've never heard a Canadian refer to our health care plans as "medicare." Wonder if the reporter was an American.

 

[jrmasm]

I put it in the same category as abortion. It's between a woman, her doctor, and her partner.

I agree.

 

[lacrosse_lady72]

I am confused as to why you believe you can call this woman selfish? She believes she is doing it for the best interests of herself and her family- I would not consider that selfish. Plus you know nothing more than has been said in that article, you do not know these people, yet seek to judge them for decisions they make in circumstances you intrinsically don't understand. You would never make that decision- therefore can never understand the emotional process behind it, therefore should not seek to judge.

You may not agree, you may not have made the same decision- that's up to you. I may not have made that decision, but this woman is doing what she believes is right.

I am pro-choice. I may not make the same choice, but I stand by the right of anyone to make their own choices in life.

Just feel privileged that you will never feel the way that she did in order to make that decision, especially as it makes you want to punch her!

I am pro-choice as well, in regards to abortions. But like others, I don't feel like this and abortions are the same thing. I think to have one baby, but not the other (by choice), with the excuse that it'll inconvenient, is very selfish. You're basically going through all the same things in a pregnancy with one child and two children. If she chose to have the baby and give it up, no big deal.

She has the right to do whatever she wants, and I think it's great she has that choice just as much as I have the right to think she's selfish for making this choice, with the circumstances and excuse she gave.

 

[FireDancer]

I think legally this is the same as an abortion and should be treated as one. As for morally, I could see what some of you are saying about choosing one child over another. I would never want my child aborted or my twins "reduced" if I were the father because I think morally it is wrong. That being said I am pro-choice because I don't push my morals on others and I think the procedure has to be legal (with some restrictions) for medical reasons and woman's safety.

Hopefully everyone stays civil because I could see this spiraling into a religious/political debate.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Must.bite.tongue.