# selective reduction **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 22, 2002, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136 "2002-08-22T21:59:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/21 "2002-08-23T15:27:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by WV\_Woman \* > \*\*Oh goody. Someone who can’t differentiate between a cow and a human baby! \*\* Yeah! Everybody knows that babies have a lighter flavor and are better served medium-well. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/22 "2002-08-23T18:00:28Z")
—I don’t think the OP was trying to start a debate on the relative worth of human fetuses and cows. The question was about the relative morality of different situations of abortion.— As I think I made clear, killing a nine week old fetus who happens to occupy a womb with another fetus is just as wrong, or just as trivial, as killing a lone fetus. WV\_Woman made a nasty remark about that woman’s priorities: so I noted that, in my opinion, her priorities in this case seemed at least way better than the vast majority of people who eat meat. I don’t necessarily expect anyone to agree with me on that, or even debate it in this thread: but I do think it provides a helpful counter-point to people who mistakenly think that they are the only ones on the planet who can look down on others for the truly nasty things they do for mere convience. —If you see nothing wrong with abortion in any scenario, presumably your answer to the OP would be “just the same.”— I see plenty wrong with abortion in various scenario’s: but that wrong needs some comparison and quantification. At nine weeks, I can’t see that killing the baby is much worse than killing a prawn (which could certainly be called wrong: but not wrong enough for other concerns and needs to outweigh it). All things equal, one shouldn’t kill it: but if one has a sufficiently good reason, then it could certainly be as justifiable. At eight or nine months, however, the only sort of moral reasons that could possibly stack up to the life of the baby are those that threaten the life of the mother, or something terribly wrong with the baby itself, and even with those one might choose to overcome them with heroism rather than abortion. —Personally, I think the problem in this is that it is likely to cause pain to the twin who does survive, if they ever find out. I would feel a great sense of loss if I found out I had a twin who was aborted. Then again, maybe the kid will be glad they are an only child.— Some might, though I would argue that such feelings are misplaced: relying as they do on imagining a fully grown and born twin in their lives with which they could form any sort of relationship or bond with, which that fetus never was in the first place. One might as well pine over any missed chance at having sibling, even the time when mommy almost forgot to wear her diaphragm. With imagination, we can turn almost anything into a tragedy: why, for instance I just killed thousands of people by making their heads explode with my mind. I feel a great sense of loss, and, daresay it, guilt, over doing this. Except for that it never happened. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/23 "2002-08-23T19:07:27Z")
I think that aborting one of your two twins is morally equivalent to aborting a single child. Either a fetus is disposable and subject to the whims of the mother, in which case she can do whatever she wants with them, or a fetus is a human life, in which case aborting one half of twins is just as bad as aborting a single baby. Unless, of course, the mother’s life is at risk if she carries both to full term, in which case it’s morally equivalent to aborting a single baby that would jeopardize the life of the mother. I don’t think you can have this kind of situational morality. “Well, abortion is wrong, unless it’s _really_ inconvenient, and then it’s okay.” Either it’s wrong or it’s right. This is the same as saying, “Well, murder is okay, if you’re murdering someone who’s always a pain in the butt, but otherwise it’s wrong.” Sorry, either murder is bad, or murder is fine, but it’s morality can’t be decided by matters of convenience. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Palo\_Verde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Palo\_Verde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palo_Verde)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/24 "2002-08-23T21:30:33Z")
It’s hard to say how this situation is different from aborting a single fetus, yet it _seems_ different. Maybe it’s because they got pregnant on purpose and want to be parents. But they just aren’t ready to accept all of the possible consequences of acheiving pregnancy (i.e. you might get more than 1). I’m very wishy washy on the whole issue of abortion. I have mixed feelings and can’t count myself as 100% pro-choice or 100% pro-life. But I guess I come down more on the pro-life side. I think if a married couple decides to get pregnant, they need to get ready for whatever they may get. Maybe a child with Down’s syndrom, maybe twins, maybe a boy when they wnated a girl. As the wise sage Mr. Jager once said, “You can’t always get what you want, but you get what you need.” ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/25 "2002-08-23T21:44:47Z")
—Either a fetus is disposable and subject to the whims of the mother, in which case she can do whatever she wants with them, or a fetus is a human life, in which case aborting one half of twins is just as bad as aborting a single baby.— Either it has no moral worth, or as much worth as a baby? No thanks. —I don’t think you can have this kind of situational morality.— Sometimes, interests conflict. —“Well, abortion is wrong, unless it’s _really_ inconvenient, and then it’s okay.” Either it’s wrong or it’s right. — At nine weeks, abortion, all other things equal, is a little bit wrong. But then, so is killing a prawn. In both cases, people seem to have interests that they think are more important than the life of the fetus or the prawn. —Sorry, either murder is bad, or murder is fine, but it’s morality can’t be decided by matters of convenience.— Not all killing is equally bad. Some are so inconsequential as to be trumped even by matters of convenience, which, however trivial, are moral matters too. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/26 "2002-08-23T22:54:16Z")
☹ My post got eaten…stupid hamsters. Anyway, as to what **jarbabyj** said: > [@](#): > > This example seems fishy to me. It just seems like autz perhaps concieved in his/her head a dispicable example of a cold, heartless woman simply giving birth for the purposes of ‘parental experience’. Yeah, the woman in question does appear to be a caricature of the cold heartless career woman, who suddenly becomes vulnerable to the ticking time bomb that is her biological clock. Plus the fact that she’s having a baby for the sake of society. Anyway, I still believe it’s morally okay for her to abort one. Not that it might not create issues for the surviving child, but in some ways, isn’t this better from a pro-life AND a pro-choice stance? She’s keeping one child and she’s recognizing that she isn’t able to take care of both. I see it as someone who is planning their family to the best of her ability, and realizing how much she is capable of. Yeah, one baby is a lot of work, but twins are even more. If she’s a single mother who’s also juggling work, having two babies at once may be just too much. And even if she does have a husband, perhaps they just want to bring up one chilc. ---
**Author:** ![Palo\_Verde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Palo\_Verde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palo_Verde)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2002, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/27 "2002-08-23T23:29:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoggie \* > \*\*☹ My post got eaten…stupid hamsters. > > Anyway, as to what **jarbabyj** said: > Yeah, the woman in question does appear to be a caricature of the cold heartless career woman, who suddenly becomes vulnerable to the ticking time bomb that is her biological clock. Plus the fact that she’s having a baby for the sake of society. > \*\* Well it’s supposed to be a real situation, but I can’t vouch for its accuracy since it’s a friend-of- a-friend type situation. ( Actually my step-sister’s husband’s sister) The truth could have gotten mangled in the telling. But to the best of my knowledge, that’s what’s going on (they live in Atlanta) ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/28 "2002-08-24T01:12:08Z")
Ah, well in that case, I retract my first paragraph, **autz**. I still stand by the decision that it’s all right for a woman to abort one of her twins. ---
**Author:** ![Palo\_Verde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Palo\_Verde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palo_Verde)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/29 "2002-08-24T03:48:40Z")
Don’t sweat it Zoggie. Like I said, I have no first hand knowledge that it’s true. But even if the version that has come to me is exagerated in some particular manner, it’s still an interesting question. And I have no reason to doubt that it is true. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/30 "2002-08-24T05:43:41Z")
I’m really not comfortable with aborting one of the foetus’s, even though I am almost rabidly pro-choice under other circumstances. I think this is partly because when a woman ‘chooses’ to have a (non-medically indicated) termination, it is really because all of her other options (re prospective parenthood) have been exhausted. In other words, you have a termination when you have no other choices left. ( I am NOT going to get into an argument about whether those choices are valid…as far as an individual woman is concerned, the other options are not appropriate for her. If they WERE, she would not be having a termination.) However, in this scenario, the parents have consciously decided to become pregnant and give birth to the results of that pregnancy. To make that choice on the one hand, to continue with a pregnancy, but to also choose to DIScontinue with ‘part’ of the pregnancy (for other than medical reasons) seems to challenge the ‘lack of options’ model. Having said all that, I realise that my ‘argument’ has more damn holes than a colander. But the idea of selective reduction (except when the lives of other babies in utero are at risk) seems awfully dodgy to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/31 "2002-08-24T10:33:01Z")
It’s perfectly okay to be skittish, and it’s perfectly okay to be outraged. I just dislike the notion that actual LAWS should be passed to discourage or prevent such activity. THAT bothers me far more than abortion itself, truth be told. ---
**Author:** ![Henry\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/d78d45/32.png) [@Henry\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henry_B)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/32 "2002-08-24T11:22:03Z")
**WV\_Woman** wrote: **"This woman doesn’t deserve to have even one child, much less two."** I am with **WV\_Woman** on this! The “fetuses and cows”-discussion was very funny. I do not know why, but I am still laughing! As one guy pointed out, “We have quite a bunch here!” (in SDMB), a nice bunch, I would say. Back to the OP: I think that this kind of woman should be digging ditches for a year or two, so that she would have time to think a little bit. How would she, if this is from real life, and already known by somebody else, think that the “pressure from society” would not change in character, if she would do it to one fetus? Change to a disaster in her social life? Secret or not, the moral is that there is no moral. ---
**Author:** ![WV\_Woman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e95f7d/32.png) [@WV\_Woman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WV_Woman)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/33 "2002-08-24T11:42:23Z")
**( I am NOT going to get into an argument about whether those choices are valid…as far as an individual woman is concerned, the other options are not appropriate for her. If they WERE, she would not be having a termination.)** Not to hijack, but I’m having a really hard time understanding why putting a baby up for adoption would be “inappropriate” — considering the alternative is having an abortion. Both are emotionally scarring, both come with guilt, but in one of the cases, the kid lives and some rich infertile couple out there has the chance to nurture and spoil the kid rotten. What’s “inappropriate” about that? ---
**Author:** ![AmbushBug](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ambushbug/32/4600_2.png) [@AmbushBug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AmbushBug)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/34 "2002-08-24T16:49:04Z")
This situation strikes me as analogous to a scene in the movie _ **Gattaca** _. While this is IMHO not a spoiler, I’ll use the box anyway. The doctor has a TV monitor, shows the nice couple four zygotes on which genetic testing has been done, and the couple selects one for sex and other desirable physical characteristics - the other three being discarded. Difference being, is that’s the rule rather than the exception, in the world of _Gattaca_. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/35 "2002-08-24T23:12:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by WV\_Woman \* > \*\***( I am NOT going to get into an argument about whether those choices are valid…as far as an individual woman is concerned, the other options are not appropriate for her. If they WERE, she would not be having a termination.)** > > Not to hijack, but I’m having a really hard time understanding why putting a baby up for adoption would be “inappropriate” — considering the alternative is having an abortion. > > Both are emotionally scarring, both come with guilt, but in one of the cases, the kid lives and some rich infertile couple out there has the chance to nurture and spoil the kid rotten. What’s “inappropriate” about that? \*\* What do you mean WV\_Woman, not to hijack? Didn’t you read what I said? I shall re-iterate, in nice big writing so it can be understood: As far as an individual woman is concerned, the other options are not appropriate for HER. If they WERE, she would not be having a termination. Now indeed, you might want to question the validity of her choices, but this is not a straightforward ‘abortion’ thread. This is about selective reduction, which throws a whole heap of other issues into the quandary. I understand that YOU are having a hard time understanding why some women would choose to have an abortion rather than put a baby up for adoption, but YOU ARE NOT THOSE WOMEN. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/36 "2002-08-24T23:16:13Z")
Oh, by the way, the stuff in brackets above was _my_ original quote, not WV\_Woman’s even though it appears to have been apportioned to her. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2002, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/37 "2002-08-24T23:42:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by autz \* > \*\*There is a woman I know who we’ll call C. . . . \*\* Sounds to me like she’s a vagina with a capital C, if you know what I mean and I think you do. She has every legal right to abort either or both foetus, and I hope that she will always have that right. But her reasons for thinning her litter are morally repugnant to me, and if she were my friend, well, she wouldn’t be. Sounds like a horrible person and I hope you don’t have to have much to do with her in the future. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2002, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/38 "2002-08-25T01:22:09Z")
Abortion arguments get all silly. Legally there should be no ramifications. Morality does not exist beyond where we create it. Socially, it’s pretty foul, but so is laying off 1000 people to increase stockholder dividends, and that’s not illegal either. Erek ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2002, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/39 "2002-08-25T14:41:27Z")
You both rock! Btw, what does WV stand for? ---
**Author:** ![WV\_Woman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e95f7d/32.png) [@WV\_Woman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WV_Woman)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2002, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136/40 "2002-08-25T15:17:43Z")
West Virginia. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-reduction/125136.md?page=3)