I heard this story this morning on the radio and hoped it was just a hoax.
I’m curious if those who are against abortion for the sake of the mother would be okay (not overjoyed, obviously) with abortion to save the life of one of these fetuses?
The article doesn’t go into how this happened and I can’t even begin to guess, but I find the upping the ante nature of some of these stories grotesque. Did the Octomom’s notoriety contribute to this? Should we all ignore it as none of our business? If this was deliberate, is it still none of our business?
Is she committed to bringing them to term? Kind of a “God’s will” vs. modern science battle. Modern science says that the kids will die but God can do miracles, can’t he? At least that’s what I gathered they believed.
The parents seem convinced that they are going to have 12 children, when a far more likely scenario is they will have none. I wonder if anyone has been blunt with them and told them all their babies are going to die, or if they are just delusional.
So a tiny chance that some of them will survive is better than a much larger chance that some of them will survive, as the former is left to nature and not man?
They do miraculous things with micropreemies? Really? In Tunisia? How about micro-micro preemies, ie 5 months?
If his 20 week prediction is correct, it’s unlikely. A friend of mine delivered twins at 24 weeks (long story, but it was necessary) in one of the best neonate units in the world. Only one survived, and had several brain bleeds and other extreme difficulties.
She is a great little kid, (4 now I think) and very smart, but has an area in her brain which can’t drain properly, so there’s a shunt which has caused some trouble along the way.
A singleton at 24 weeks would have been slightly larger, and had fewer problems, so I think it’s safe to assume with 12 they will have no chance at all at 20 weeks. If she can make it to 30 weeks the chances are excellent, but, wow.
I wonder what the primary limiting factors are? Liver/Kidney waste removal? Providing enough oxygen for them? Simple space and ability to expand?
Hey, the OP asked what a pro-life person thinks. Generally speaking, not killing is preferable to killing. And letting nature work is preferable to stepping in and killing.
One of my coworkers has a daughter who gave birth a couple of weeks ago to 24 week twins. They’re both still alive, but not out of the woods. And my understanding is that they were unusually big for their age and that their size would be a huge boon. I don’t really know more than that about premature babies.
It sounds from the article I posted that these fetuses are not going to be viable. They’re all going to die.
I read this as saying that if 12 unconscious people are in a boat that will sink from the weight if ten people aren’t thrown out, then it’s better to let them all drown.
It’s still an interesting question though. I think I’d have to let nature takes it’s course. I’d go on immediate bed rest, eat whatever the doctor said, do anything possible to give them the best chance, but I can’t see myself deciding to take the life of my own child.
I’m pro-choice: I believe that its a choice between a woman, her medical provider, and in some cases her mate. I just happen to be one of the people who would never personally choose an abortion.
I’d probably terminate 10 (maybe 9 if doctors convinced me three would have a good chance for survival) so at least those remaining had a chance at life. It would be the most horrible choice to make though, and I’d second guess myself every step of the way. Which choice would leave me more guilt-ridden? Killing the majority selectively or killing them all through inaction? What would be worse for me than miscarrying them all would be having many (or all) of them survive, particularly if they were special needs (and babies as prem as those would likely be would have a high chance of being special needs). I don’t have the resources to support many babies, and definitely not many disabled babies. I suppose adoption could be a solution but how to choose who to keep and who to give away… and how to justify your choice to them someday?
True. I personally don’t believe in selective reduction. OTOH, I also think it’s beyond irresponsible to ever try to implant more than 4 embryos with IVF (or to create ones you never intend to use, but that’s another topic) or use fertility drugs that are known to cause superovulation. The two practices combined account for most very high order multiples, and by avoiding them very few people find themselves worrying about there being too many babies for viability to be a reasonable hope.
And one or two people hereabouts must have missed every abortion trainwreck on the Dope, too. Not really sure why we need another one. :rolleyes:
IMO implanting twelve embryos is just plain stupid, but if your *modus operandi *assumes from the outset that you’re going to be culling all but the two most viable then I understand why it might be most expedient to implant a dozen and be done with it. It would be beyond idiotic to then decide to try to carry them all to term or even “survivable preemie” stage, though.