Haunting pro-abortion piece in LA Times: aborting two of four fetuses

[yurbud]

This piece was meant to be some kind of rebuttal to the recent partial birth abortion decision in the Supreme Court, but it had a very different effect on me.

I support unfettered access to abortion in the first trimester and wouldn't lose any sleep if someone I was dating took the morning after pill. I also support women's right to an abortion up to viability.

But in this story, where the couple was doing fertility treatment and too many of the fetuses turned out to be viable, it just seemed wrong that they would off two, primarily because they kept two. I would always be worried that the two I kept would find out about the others and ask or have nightmares about being chosen instead of them. Worse, if one of the keepers turned out to be a trouble child, I'd be tempted to wonder if one of the ones we flushed wouldn't have been a better choice.

Someone in my family had suggested that I be aborted before I was born even though it was illegal at the time. I think it would be more unsettling to find out that I lived because of a Sophie's Choice rather than because my mom wanted to keep the kids she made in general.

I'm not implying that any policy should be made or unmade based on my reaction to this story. It just made me uneasy.

The abortion debate brought home
He and his wife have always been pro-choice; recently, they were forced to make the Choice.
By Dan Neil
May 6, 2007

MY WIFE AND I just had an abortion. Two, actually. We walked into a doctor's office in downtown Los Angeles with four thriving fetuses — two girls and two boys — and walked out an hour later with just the girls, whom we will name, if we're lucky enough to keep them, Rosalind and Vivian. Rosalind is my mother's name.

We didn't want to. We didn't mean to. We didn't do anything wrong, which is to say, we did everything right. Four years ago, when Tina and I set out on this journey to have children, such a circumstance was unimaginable. And yet there I was, holding her hand, watching the ultrasound as a needle with potassium chloride found its mark, stopping the heart of one male fetus, then the other, hidden in my wife's suffering belly.

***

I mean, my wife and I have always been pro-choice, but we never expected to actually confront the Choice. After all, we've been trying like crazy to have children. We had already undergone two in-vitro fertilization procedures before this last time, when we put back five embryos, despairing that any would take. Beforehand, the fertility specialist asked us if we were OK with "reduction" — also known as selective abortion — in the event that too many took hold. We said yes, not really appreciating what that meant.

***

Some wanted to know how we decided to keep the girls. Partly, it was a matter of how the fetuses were arranged. Partly, it had to do with other factors. Some studies show offspring of older fathers (I'm 47) run a higher risk of autism, and males are four times as likely to be autistic. Still, I had reservations about bringing girls into the world now, when forces seemed to be aligning to disenfranchise them (nine of 10 GOP presidential candidates favor reversing Roe vs. Wade). I hate to think my girls will have to fight the battles their mothers and grandmothers fought.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-neil6may06,0,2723837.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

[SoCalDem]

1. I'm sorry, but doctors should never implant more than 2

I know that IVF is expensive, but any more than two can end in tragedy..

If more than 2 are implanted, the doctors should pay for special insurance that covers the cost of caring for these often-impaired babies and for their lifetime care.

Everyone oohs & aahs over the cute llittle sextuplets or quints, but many of those kids will need speech therapy, eye surgery, treatment for cerebral palsy and a host of other learning disabilities..

2 embryos should be the upper limit and if the money runs out before one "takes", then that couple needs to explore other options

[colinmom71]

5. With IVF, it's a little different from other fertility treatments...

The standard protocol of late has been to implant only 2 blastocysts per cycle attempt. There have been a few instances of implanted blastocysts splitting causing identical twins or even triplets. But if the parents request more blastocysts to be implanted than is generally recommended (whatever their reasons might be), the doctor is duty bound to perform according to the patients' directives. Even if a multiple pregnancy results, there's only an increased *risk* of pregnancy complications. Not all multiple pregnancies end up with catastrophic results.

IVF is actually a good deal lower in percentages of multiple pregnancies than other fertility treatments. Most of the cases of higher order multiple pregnancies have actually been due to the use of follicle stimulating drugs like Clomid and the patient then going home to, er, conceive. Though it's also now become standard to try to use ultrasound to see how many follicles have erupted from the ovaries, some can be missed and a couple may not be told to cancel that cycle due to too many follicles being present for conception. A few couples have gone on to ignore the orders to skip a cycle and went ahead and conceived anyway. That is what the McCaughey's did and they wound up with premature septuplets, though luckily only two of their kids have had long term, albeit relatively moderate, disability issues.

And even if the parents choose to implant more or their prescribed fertility treatments result in a multiple pregnancy, the issues of the children's health needs is a matter of the kids having a right to appropriate medical care once they are born and of our societal promise to help fulfill those needs, regardless of the situation of their conception. Besides, the parents and the physician are tax payers who already contribute to the public programs that provide medical and therapeutic care for special needs kids.

An insurance rider that singles out OB's with fertility practices is unnecessary and frankly would only result in even fewer OB's providing reproductive care for women with fertility problems. We already have a shortage of obstetricians due to the ridiculously high rates for malpractice insurance. The only thing that would happen if such an insurance were required is that we'd lose a lot of fertility specialists who have practical experience and practice with strong ethical standards. Another separate type of required insurance would only be doubly punitive and counterproductive.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. That's pretty much the law in the UK - 2 for those under 40, 3 for those over

Why is there so much concern about having twins or triplets after fertility treatment?
Having a multiple birth (twins, triplets or more) is the single greatest health risk associated with fertility treatment. This is why the HFEA has imposed restrictions on the number of embryos that can be transferred in IVF to a maximum of two for women under the age of 40 and a maximum of three for women aged 40 or over who are using their own eggs (if you are using donated eggs, the maximum is two). Multiple births carry risks to both the health of the mother and to the health of the unborn babies. Twins or triplets are more likely to be premature and to have a below-normal birth weight. Studies show that the risk of death before birth, or within the first week of life, is more than four times greater for twins than for a single baby. For triplets, the risk is seven times greater than for a single baby. For more information, see our fact sheet Multiple Births and Pregnancies: considering the risks.

http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/979.html

And even with that, they say they want to reduce the number of twins births: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6524739.stm

[gollygee]

14. I can't judge people who implant more than 2

I got pregnant the old-fashioned way as soon as I started trying, so it would be easy for me to say what other people *should* do. But someone close to me has done 14 IVF cycles. And she has explored other options (like adoption) and none are open to her for various reasons which are irrelevant to this discussion. She has had 2 embryos implanted each time. She has used donor eggs. She tries and tries again and it's absolutely heartbreaking. After all she's gone through, I couldn't possibly judge her if she chose to implant more than 2 to increase her odds.

[Big Pappa]

55. If

your Dr. wants to implant more than two, find another Dr. Fertility clinics that have there crap together only use two.

[sandnsea]

2. It didn't say viable

They were 15 week fetuses, they weren't viable. In-vitro always ends up with blastocysts that are discarded, and can end up with too many fetuses that require aborting as well. The "snowflake" babies usually require discarded blastocysts too. This is what has always happened with in vitro, just another example of the hypocrisy around the issue.

"Tina's health would have been in jeopardy, according to her doctor. The fact is, multiple pregnancies are high risk, and they can go bad very suddenly. I wasn't going to allow that, though the fires of hell might beckon."

[yurbud]

17. yep, and I acknowledged what blastocysts are at start of post. I wouldn't hold a bill frist

fetus viewing for a blastocyst or something the size of a tadpole.

As the pregnancy progresses, we should at least be more uncomfortable even as we support a woman's legal right to choose.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Thank you for posting this...

It's heartbreaking, but this is the other side of choice...

People must be aware that this sort of thing happens, and try to be prepared.

Of course, Dan Neil and his wife have the right to do just as they did.

And we must make sure that everyone continues to have that right.

No-one said choice was going to be easy...

[yurbud]

15. I wouldn't ban them from doing this, but there is something kind of ugly about it

[Karenina]

29. Na Du... Direct but non-confontational question

Did the information that they aborted the male fetuses somehow influence your reaction? Had all 4 been female would your reaction have been different? No need to respond, just run it through your mental computer.

When I first saw your post I was aghast that anyone would put this in a public forum (I mean the writer). Then I realized after clicking the link that it was a first person journalistic piece. I was particularly touched by Dan's line, "IF we get to keep them..."

Our earth is overpopulated and having babies is a crap shoot in the BEST of circumstances. Dan, his wife and family and those two little buns in the oven have ALL the best energy, hopes and wishes I can muster.

[yurbud]

42. No. If I had kids, I'd be happier with girls--at least from 0 to puberty and 30 to death

those 17 or 18 years in between would be hell though.

If it would make you feel better, I'll say that I wouldn't care if they trashed two AND A HALF of the little parasites if they were girls.

I hope those people have a happy family. I wasn't wishing my hypotheticals on them, merely thinking out loud.

[Karenina]

48. I hope you weren't offended by my question.

When I second heard "IT'S A BOY!" for the second time I damn near whooped and hollered despite the incision in my gut, the reasons for which are much too complicated and personal to discuss publicly.

I got a slew of "goddaughters" and my pinch-hitting days are on the horizon. Rescuing their moms from the unending abuse of puberty. I relish the task and now get to do all the GIRL stuff with them, then TAKE THEM BACK HOME!!! :evilgrin:

I only asked cuz you editorialized the piece as "haunting." Reductions are part and parcel of IVF, for the benefit of the hoping-to-be mother, the expectant father and the buns in the oven. They're ROUTINE when one has good medical care in planning a family. I didn't understand what disturbed you so and just wondered aloud if you'd looked at it from all sides.

[yurbud]

49. it's hard to insult guys. Most of the time when guys say they are insulted, they're lying to give

you a hard time.

[Sadie4629]

4. I'm with you on this one . . .

I remember for a few years after the McCaughy septuplets were born Ann Curry interviewed the parents on the kids' birthday. She ALWAYS asked if they thought they ought to have "reduced the pregnancy." I always wanted Bobbie McCaughey to put her on the spot and ask her which of her children should not be there, or how many should not be there. Ann would have applauded the decision to abort probably as many as five of those kids, yet second guesses the parents' choice to bring them all to term. Upside down, IMHO.

[fasttense]

6. Well, better they make the choice

with the help of their doctors then letting the government make the choice. At least the parents made the choice with love and concern. The state would have made the choice with money and power in mind.

[Tesha]

8. "Selective reduction" is a standard feature of fertility treatments. (NT)

[Zomby Woof]

9. It was a pro-CHOICE piece

"Pro-abortion" is the rhetoric of anti-choicers. HAVING to do something and WANTING to do something are two very different things (although both fall under the rubric of choice, as well they should). If the procedure was not done, his wife would have died and ... end of story.

It was a powerful piece and I consider it required reading, although it isn't surprising its message is lost on those who still call intact D&E a 'partial-birth abortion' or use other code rhetoric for opposing womens' reproductive rights.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

13. Thank you! I was just going to say the same exact thing. eom

[yurbud]

16. I am pro-choice on smoking, alcohol, and pot, and anti-choice on handguns

the choice rhetoric is as much a verbal slight of hand as pro-life.

I support legal abortion for the same reasons I support legal alcohol, gambling, and smoking--because more harm would be done by making it illegal.

But to sell it in the terminology of rights makes the whole issue seem more idealistic than it is.

At best, it's women making a tough decision with her doctor that will save her life or save her a lot of grief in life. Those aren't the majority of cases. Most are about convenience. But if it was illegal, many would seek those illegal abortions or be really shitty parents, so it is better to let them do it.

That is not the same as something that should be elevated to the level of freedom of speech, assembly, and the press.

[iverglas]

79. "Most are about convenience."

Well, it's not hard to understand how anyone who could say something as utterly ignorant and offensive as that could say:

That is not the same as something that should be elevated to the level of freedom of speech, assembly, and the press.

I guess your exercising your freedom of speech by posting this torrent of tripe was, like, a matter of life and death ...


eek. spelling typo

[Sadie4629]

26. "his wife would have died and ... end of story."

Where does it say that? Lots of women have 3 or 4 babies at a time. Sometimes even more than that.

[Hekate]

62. She ended up in the hospital, very sick, because of this pregnancy

"Lots of women" have one baby at a time successfully, too, but my sister in law ended up with pre-eclampsia, other complications, and bed rest for months with each of her three kids. Two times were enough for her an my brother, but #3 was conceived just after he had his vasectomy -- they welcomed the little guy with open arms, but she got just as sick.

Each and every pregnancy is different, and multiples are always higher risk than singletons. Higher-order multiples are riskiest of all. Mother Nature didn't intend the human womb to hold so many babies -- but the number of twins has soared because of the availability of assisted reproductive technology and because its enormous expense makes repeated attempts prohibitive. When infertile couples go that route they often have three or more implanted simply in order to increase their chances of having just one survive. Those that find selective reduction repugnant should either have only two implanted (twins being safer than triplets or gods forbid quads) or simply accept "God's will" and remain childless.

Hekate

[Madspirit]

77. Thank-you ZombyWoof

I wish I could remain as calm and thoughtful and well-spoken as you when confronting all the anti-choice garbage at DU. You put it well.
Lee

[Skinner]

10. Put me down as someone who believes they did absolutely the right thing.

This is not some sort of dark underbelly of choice as some people here seem to think. On the contrary, this is yet another example of why choice is so vitally important.

Some of you seem to think that just transferring two is a perfect win-win solution to situations like this. It's not. Yes, in most cases the ideal is to transfer two embryos. But this couple had already been through two IVF cycles before, without success. For those of you who are unfamiliar with IVF, you should know that IVF cycles are not fun. The mother has to endure weeks of daily hormone injections that sometimes cause round-the-clock nausea, discomfort, and significant abdominal pain. And on top of it she has to undergo an invasive surgical procedure to take out the eggs, followed by another procedure to transfer embryos back. And after it's all done, there is a good chance that none of them will implant, at which point you are often back to square one and have to start the whole months-long process over again -- with no guarantee of success. And in some cases, the biological clock is ticking and each new cycle means an even lower chance of conceiving.

How many of you know firsthand -- either yourself or a close friend or family member -- the heartbreak of not being able to have a child after years of trying? If not, you should try it before you pass judgment on these parents. After two physically and emotionally painful IVF cycles, how do you know what you would do on the third try? If the doctor tells you that you could improve your chances of a live birth by transferring five, there is a good chance you might do it. After all, you haven't had a live birth yet after years of trying and two IVF cycles, so the idea that more than one will implant seems highly unlikely. And if more than two do implant, then a selective reduction is a painful choice, but a necessary one -- and a small price to pay for two healthy babies and a (relatively) healthy mother.

And trust me, by the third try you will already have ample experience with embryos dying. Through the fertilizing and the freezing and the thawing, you might lose a dozen embryos or more. Embryo death is an integral part of the process. The prospect of possibly losing two or three more (while increasing your chances of having a live birth) would not seem like such an awful thing. After all, you've already watched many embryos die.

If the doctor is a professional, he or she will discuss the possibility of multiples with the parents beforehand, and inform the parents of the difficult choice they will face if more than two embryos take. If the parent are unwilling to consider a reduction, then the doctor and the parents need to seriously consider whether they should ever transfer more than two. But if the parents understand the risks, and if they have already had two unsuccessful IVF cycles, transferring more than two in the hopes of getting one live birth might make sense.

Faced with the choice between putting the life and health of the mother and the babies at risk by continuing with such a high-risk pregnancy, or greatly increasing the chances that the mother and babies will be healthy by selectively reducing two, this seems like a no-brainer to me.

[yurbud]

18. all of that can be true, but the consequences of the choice could be what I imagined

my post here was subjective, and I'm not telling anyone to not get IVF because they might have to undergo fetal reduction, merely that it's a process that may have unintended consequences.

[moc]

20. As someone who has been through fertility treatment, thank you for your thoughtful post.

We did not do IVF (couldn't afford it; no insurance coverage). We did injectibles (same drugs as with IVF) and IUI (intrauterine insemination).

The risk of higher order multiples (HOM) is greater with inj/IUI because the number of viable eggs is much less precise. The number of mature follicles is estimated from sonogram, but it's imperfect.

We had a very good doctor who laid out the issues of risk of HOM before our first inj/IUI cycle and selective reduction (SR). Although I could have done SR, dh could not, so "no fetal reduction" was slapped across the top of all of my flow sheets. The dosage of drug I received was more modulated, and if more than three follies looked viable, I would have been canceled. Fortunately, on our second cycle we conceived a singleton, my dear son who will be five in a couple of months.

You are so right that there is no way to convey the heartbreak of infertility to someone who has not been through it. Unless we are willing to eliminate IF treatment completely, these issues will continue to arise. I have a dear friend who conceived quints on her third IVF cycle. One reduced naturally, and then she had SR to reduce to twins. Based on how the rest of her pregnancy transpired, I'm without a shadow of a doubt that if she hadn't reduced to twins, none of those babies would have survived. Her twins, who just turned 9, would not be here at all.

[RC Quake]

73. Congrats to you on your successful IUI!

Fellow fertility treatment patient here. Unfortunately, my attempts produced nothing but all of the heartache and pain you just described. My cousin became pg with quads from IVF and did not choose the selective reduction, which was completely against her Doctor's recommendation. She delivered them at 5 months and lost them all within 10 hours of birth.

To each his own. No judgment here.

[Hekate]

63. Bless you, Skinner, for your thoughtful input

Infertility is an enormous heartache, and assisted reproduction can seem like a godsend -- but one with a price, physically, emotionally, and financially. I know a couple who went through it with no success at all...

Hekate

[gollygee]

11. It's very high-risk to have quads or higher

The babies and/or mother could die. It's a very very risky pregnancy. That's why selective reduction is done in cases like this.

[GoneOffShore]

12. It was a pro-CHOICE piece and count me in as a supporter of their actions.

One has only to read the entire piece to see that they were absolutely right in their decision.

[yurbud]

19. maybe I seen this differently as a past candidate for fetal reduction from 1 to 0

[Hell Hath No Fury]

22. My mother attempted to terminate me...

back in the pre-Roe days -- it didn't take, here I am.

You'd think that I would see abortion differently considering my past, but I do not. I am 100% pro-choice -- every woman making her own medical decisions about her reproductive life according to her beliefs, in consultation with her MD and (hopefully) her partner.

My choice, based upon my beliefs and my experience, would be not to terminate a pregnancy.

I will not -- cannot -- tell another woman how she must feel/act towards this most personal of decisions. Having helped several of my girlfriends through abortions in the past, I know just how complex and difficult this issue can be for a woman.

[yurbud]

28. Jesus! which method did she try?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

47. She worked along with my father...

at the Presidio during the Korean war. According to my Mom, Jack knew a doctor from Letterman Army hospital on base who knew their situation (unmarried, not interested in getting married). This doctor gave them some sort of medication that was supposed to induce an abortion. Mom took it at three months, got good and sick, and had some bleeding, but it didn't work.

When I finally found about about what had happened when I was in my late 20s, I honestly understood exactly why she would have taken the steps she did, and I didn't blame her one bit. Being a single mom with two kids, caught with an unplanned pregnancy back in 1959 and a total asshat for a potential father is not a situation any woman wants to find herself in.

[yurbud]

51. a lot of problems could be avoided if women walked on by the asshats

instead of giving them an opportunity to reproduce--but that's something for another thread.

[sandnsea]

35. We all have egos and survival instincts

But seriously, the world wouldn't miss 99.99999% of us. 25% of pregnancies end. Fertilized eggs pass in menstrual cycles all the time. "You" could have been one of those too. You weren't. You could have been born with an illness and lost your life within days of birth. That didn't happen either. Lots of things could have been different for you. But you're here. You wouldn't say nobody should get pregnant just because infants sometimes die at birth. You can't say nobody should have an abortion because of how you perceive it to affect you personally.

[yurbud]

40. I didn't say ban it. pro-choice makes the mirror opposite mistake as pro-lifers

one side wants to claim that it's a human life at conception, and the other wants to say that that it's a clot until the doctor cuts the cord.

My position is that the further along in pregnancy the more we should be uneasy about abortion--NOT that we should outlaw it, which incidentally, is the position of the majority of Americans.

If you want to take the morning after pill, I don't care. If you're eight months pregnant because you procrastinated or didn't notice you're pregnant, I will at least try to talk you out of it.

[sandnsea]

43. Who did that?

I dare you to find one story in the last 20 years where a woman just waltzed into a clinic and got an abortion at eight months.

It's a flat out lie.

Why do you tell it?

You've been challenged on this before.

[yurbud]

50. read something besides bumper stickers. Like this New York Times piece or Guttmacher stats

It's too bad people on the right aren't the only ones who feel the need to see things in black and white.

An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He Lied About Procedure
David Stout. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Feb 26, 1997. pg. A.12

A prominent member of the abortion rights movement said today that he lied in earlier statements when he said a controversial form of late-term abortion is rare and performed primarily to save the lives or fertility of women bearing severely malformed babies.

He now says the procedure is performed far more often than his colleagues have acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses.

Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, said he intentionally misled in previous remarks about the procedure, called intact dilation and evacuation by those who believe it should remain legal and ''partial-birth abortion'' by those who believe it should be outlawed, because he feared that the truth would damage the cause of abortion rights.

But he is now convinced, he said, that the issue of whether the procedure remains legal, like the overall debate about abortion, must be based on the truth.

In an article in American Medical News, to be published March 3, and an interview today, Mr. Fitzsimmons recalled the night in November 1995, when he appeared on ''Nightline'' on ABC and ''lied through my teeth'' when he said the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.

''It made me physically ill,'' Mr. Fitzsimmons said in an interview. ''I told my wife the next day, 'I can't do this again.' ''

Mr. Fitzsmmons said that after that interview he stayed on the sidelines of the debate for a while, but with growing unease. As much as he disagreed with the National Right to Life Committee and others who oppose abortion under any circumstances, he said he knew they were accurate when they said the procedure was common.

In the procedure, a fetus is partly extracted from the birth canal, feet first, and the brain is then suctioned out.

Last fall, Congress failed to override a Presidential veto of a law that would have banned the procedure, which abortion opponents insist borders on infanticide and some abortion rights advocates also believe should be outlawed as particularly gruesome. Polls have shown that such a ban has popular support.

Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, has suggested a compromise that would prohibit all third-trimester abortions, except in cases involving the ''life of the mother and severe impairment of her health.''

The Right to Life Committee and its allies have complained repeatedly that abortion-rights supporters have misled politicians, journalists and the general public about the frequency and the usual circumstances of the procedure.

''The abortion lobby manufactures disinformation,'' Douglas Johnson, the committee's legislative director, said today. He said Mr. Fitzsimmon's account would clarify the debate on this procedure, which is expected to be renewed in Congress.

Mr. Fitzsimmons predicted today that the controversial procedure would be considered by the courts no matter what lawmakers decide.

Last April, President Clinton vetoed a bill that would have outlawed the controversial procedure. There were enough opponents in the House to override his veto but not in the Senate. In explaining the veto, Mr. Clinton echoed the argument of Mr. Fitzsimmons and his colleagues.

''There are a few hundred women every year who have personally agonizing situations where their children are born or are about to be born with terrible deformities, which will cause them to die either just before, during or just after childbirth,'' the President said. ''And these women, among other things, cannot preserve the ability to have further children unless the enormity -- the enormous size of the baby's head -- is reduced before being extracted from their bodies.'' A spokeswoman for Mr. Clinton said tonight that the White House knew nothing of Mr. Fitzsimmons's announcement and would not comment further.

In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Mr. Fitzsimmons said. ''The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else,'' he said in the article in the Medical News, an American Medical Association publication.

Mr. Fitzsimmons, whose Alexandria, Va., coalition represents about 200 independently owned clinics, said coalition members were being notified of his announcement.

One of the facts of abortion, he said, is that women enter abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. ''It is a form of killing,'' he said. ''You're ending a life.''

And while he said that troubled him, Mr. Fitzsimmons said he continued to support this procedure and abortion rights in general.

[sandnsea]

52. 20 weeks is not 8 months

Don't manipulate the facts. 99% of abortions happen before the first 20 weeks. Even considering what that doctor claimed, women are still not electing abortions at 8 months. Very few are even electing abortions at 20 weeks. The facts don't support his claims.

It really doesn't matter what you read if you don't know how to logically process the information.

[yurbud]

53. so you oppose abortion in the third trimester? That would seem to support my original point

about being uneasy the farther along the pregnancy is.

[sandnsea]

56. No I don't support women dying

20 weeks isn't the third trimester. It's done in the third trimester for health reasons. I do not oppose it.

Why do you continue lying and distorting? You've been proven wrong on an almost daily basis.

[yurbud]

58. daily? I post on this about once a year. Why do you need to say it's not done in third

if you don't think there's anything wrong with it being done in third?

What is it you think I'm lying about?



I hope you are right by the way. If you have some sources on third trimester abortions, feel free to post the links instead of just berating me, which isn't a very effective form of argument.

[sandnsea]

59. Once a year?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=yurbud+abortion&btnG=Google+Search

Seems to me you're obsessed with it, and like I said, no matter how many times you're given the facts - you keep posting the same gibberish, over and over again.

"On the other hand, once the kid is viable, it's hard to think of any justification for abortion about from severe deformity or danger to the mother's life, since the kid could be delivered live just as easily as aborted.

I would prefer that women who have unplanned pregnancies and procrastinate into the second and third trimester just have the kid and keep it or put it up for adoption."

How man times do you have to be told that viable infants are not being aborted, particularly due to "procastination", before you stop posting that shit?

[iverglas]

75. well ta for the link

It does seem that all this has been explained to yurbud before:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x3242

[yurbud]

76. post a link and don't just assert it. most of your google results have nothing to do with abortion

Did you read the article by the doctor who does the partial birth procedure, testified before congress, then admitted he lied?

And I will call it that because it's the layman's term and more comprehensible than the medical "intact dilation and extraction." The layman's term is based on a series of illustrations drawn by a doctor who does the procedure.

It is more accurate to call it partial birth abortion just as I would be fine with calling a morning after abortion a micro-pimple flush.

[iverglas]

78. "did you read ...

... the article by the doctor who does the partial birth procedure, testified before congress, then admitted he lied?"

... the information I posted refuting that whole pile of crap? Post 72, at your service.

I gave you a half hour after you posted this one, but still no indication you've read it. I guess maybe if you don't ... or don't acknowledge that you did ... you never have to acknowledge that what you posted was a pile of crap ... and you can just keep repeating it endlessly ... because obviously there are suckers born every minute who fall for shell games.

[iverglas]

74. just fyi

In case you miss my other post ...

Even considering what that doctor claimed

The claim wasn't what it is portrayed as being, and the person making it was so far from being a doctor as to be on the dark side of the moon.

He was a Washington lobbyist, hired by abortion clinic owners to represent their interests; they apparently felt snubbed by the pro-choice movement at the time.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n9_v61/ai_19732071
(long article, from 1997)

This quote not only brought Fitzsimmons more than his fifteen minutes of fame, it has tarred the credibility of pro-choice advocates. His comment implied that all of them had been deliberately dishonest about the frequency and reasons that procedures like intact dilation and extraction -- the medical terminology for what pro-lifers call "partial-birth abortions" -- are performed.

... His first chance at candor was an interview with AMA Medical News, so he told that reporter his informal estimates indicated the procedure was used between 3,000 to 5,000 times a year, based on talks he'd had with providers.

When asked if he'd ever discussed this before, he said yes, and blurted: "I lied through my teeth."

In retrospect, Fitzsimmons says he'd take away the words "I lied through my teeth," but would still offer the information.

... One only needs to log on to an Internet chat group on abortion to witness how anti-abortion advocates have used Fitzsimmons's statement as fuel for their fire with headlines like: Child Killing Promoter Confesses, or The Truth is Given by an Abortionist.

... Pro-choice advocates do have a plausible explanation for the differing number. The figure of 450 to 600 such abortions performed in the third trimester annually is backed by the Centers for Disease Control and the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

What was not included, which Fitzsimmons added, was second-trimester abortions.

I am always right and I never lie. (And I'm a Firesign Theatre fan, for anyone sputtering.) If you ever need an anti-choice myth exploded, don't hesitate to call.

[iverglas]

72. give this one up, will you?

There are just so many things that should be left on the right-wing sewer internet sites they came from.

He now says the procedure is performed far more often than his colleagues have acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses.

AND AT WHAT STAGE OF PREGNANCY?

ID&E is a PROCEDURE. Not a STAGE OF PREGNANCY.

Pretty much ALL abortions performed in the first trimester, for instance, are performed on "healthy women bearing healthy fetuses". So what?

The "partial-birth abortion" brouhaha created by the right wing has NOTHING to do with the STAGE OF PREGNANCY at which abortions are sought or performed. It is about a PROCEDURE.

... In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Mr. Fitzsimmons said.

And nothing here contradicts the fact that ID&E is MOST COMMONLY performed in the SECOND TRIMESTER and BEFORE HYPOTHETICAL FETAL VIABILITY, i.e. at 20-22 weeks. That is: at a point at which the US Sup Ct has held that the state MAY NOT INTERFERE in women's exercise of their rights except in the women's own interests.

Ron Fitzsimmons -- a hired lobbyist and nothing else -- may have fallen for the shell game. Intelligent people who are not eager to depict women and doctors as murdering monsters do not.

And people of good will do not repeat it endlessly. Certainly not at "progressive" internet sites.


It's too bad people on the right aren't the only ones who feel the need to see things in black and white.

It's too bad people allegedly on the left don't exercise a little more critical thinking or self-restraint when they feel the urge to misrepresent women and doctors and their colleagues on the left.

[Hobarticus]

21. Fully support their right to make this choice, which may not even be a "choice"

My sister's an OB-GYN nurse, and says this is very common indeed when dealing with in-vitro procedures.

She also says, more often than not, doctors will recommend this if they see potential trouble that could endanger the whole lot, including the mother. Really, they don't even recommend keeping more than one, if it can be helped. Tough as it is, they have to make a choice.

But, even knowing this, she says once in awhile a couple wants to try and carry ALL their fetuses to term. Their doctors will implore them not to, and they'll insist. Next thing you know, they've lost all their fetuses. They seem to forget that they're carrying multiple fetuses not by nature, but by the grace of medicine. And with the cost of these procedures, or the mother's advanced age, or other circumstances, they pretty much had one chance to get it right. She hasn't seen a mother carry a full load of in-vitro implants to term, yet.

As a medical professional, she says it's heartbreaking.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

23. Some people get truly overcome by...

"baby madness". :(

I watched a couple go through what can only be called heroic infertility treatments -- many, many times -- and at some point I found myself thinking, 'Maybe Mother Nature has a wisdom that we can't see about why this couple shouldn't be mixing their genetic codes together.'

As you said, these pregancies are by the grace of medicine...

[yurbud]

32. It's ironic that very educated women (and their spouses) ignore some basic biology

they wait to have kids until the last egg is rattling down the fallopian tube, then they can't understand why fertility doctors cant do a miracle for them.

Society doesn't help. Women seem to only have the choice now of having kids in high school or five seconds before menopause or they are marginalized in the workforce.

[stirlingsliver]

24. Stem Cells

This is a classic case where the parents ought to have the option to donate life by donating the stem cells of the fetuses they did not choose.

The only sadness anyone should feel about this is that we live in a land where stem cells are not routinely donated.

[yurbud]

41. I don't think the stem cell route is an option after implantation, otherwise, I'd agree.

[seabeyond]

25. pro choice piece, not a pro abortion. rw serves up pro abortion, not the issue

it is ALL about the choice. i couldnt be more anti abortion. i am for a woman making the choice, not me

[yurbud]

31. then you don't disagree with my original post.

[seabeyond]

34. i wouldnt make the same choices all the way around firstly. BUT i am

in no to make any kind of judgment what so ever on the right or wrong of this decision. i simply cannot do it. these types of decisions HAVE to be left to the individual experiencing and we cannot decide one position ok, one not, can do this, cannot do that in this issue

it is like people that say abortion ok for rape incest and mothers health. i hear this argument often, and certainly from my male repug family members. the argument makes no sense to me and when we discuss it they cannot make sense out of it, yet they continue the speel.

abortion is murder they say

but it is ok to murder if the woman is raped, or raped by her father? that is what it takes for muder to be ok? if it is murder then doesnt matter if the woman is raped, she must continue on with the preg. cannot argue that thre are times can murder and other times it is not

if so then this battle is all about moral punishment. because the female didnt have responsible sex she must be punished by having baby. but raped, she didnt ask for sex so she does not have to have baby

all about moral punishment.

what about the 15 yr old girl that wouldnt tell family ergo decides to kill herself. i think that is a pretty dangerous scenerio for a female. her risk having the baby may be as great as any experiencing rape.

i cannot decide for anyone in this issue. has to solely be left to the person experience

so no.... i do not agree with you. not mine to judge. not in their heart. do not, can not know what they feel and think

[yurbud]

37. did I say I judge them? I just said I had a reaction and I would be more uncomfortable in their

position than if I aborted ALL of them.

[truebrit71]

27. NO-ONE IS PRO-ABORTION. IT'S PRO-CHOICE.

You probably didn't mean it that way, but it irks me when the reich-wing's phrase of "pro-abortion" is used....

[yurbud]

30. I don't like either term myself. One is inaccurate and the other is a euphemism

pro-abortion choice would be the honest nomenclature.

[AuntPatsy]

33. it isn't my business.

[yurbud]

39. who said it was? I just said the story made me uncomfortable. a lot of people seem to be unable to

discuss issues without consulting their bumper stickers judging by this thread.

[uppityperson]

36. to OP: Judge not lest you be judged.

To the involved people, my best wishes during a difficult time, very difficult decision. As my aging mother said "I wish none of you ever had to have an abortion, but I will fight for your right to chose a safe, legal one" or something along that line. Peace and best wishes.

[yurbud]

38. I agree with your mom, but you seemed to not comprehend the first half of her statement

it's at best the best of bad options. If you say it's anything else, that's kind of fucked up, putting ideological purity ahead of honesty.

[uppityperson]

45. I did comprehend her whole statement

She wished no one ever got pregnant that didn't want to be. That is what she wished. If you think that is putting ideological purity ahead of honesty and is fucked up, well, I feel very differently.

[JerseygirlCT]

44. Personally, that was one of the reasons we didn't go so far

as IVF. That's simply not a choice *I* could have made.

Technology may be a help here; things are improving to the point that perhaps there will be a time soon when the chances of implanted embryos surviving are so good that only one or two are implanted.

But I do understand your lack of ease here.

At the same time, I still support the woman's right to make that decision. I do think more education about the downside to the process is a good thing, though.

[yurbud]

54. I didn't think nuance would be so controversial here

[sandnsea]

57. You appear to have been educated

Why do you presume other women who choose this option haven't been educated. Do you really believe people are going to spend the tens of thousands to have this done and the doctor isn't going to thoroughly educate them? If women are educated and making their own decisions about reproduction, then what do you have to be uneasy about? What if she had one embryo implanted and got sick and had to abort it? How is that so different then aborting two in-vitro babies for the mom's health?

[JerseygirlCT]

65. I think the medical community needs to be better educated

And I think many doctors are beginning to question the wisdom of implanting so many embryos. It's not healthy for the woman, it's not best choice -- and frankly, it's only made for financial reasons. Wouldn't it be nice if worrying about insurance didn't dictate such important decisions?

And I make that assumption from experience -- people I've known who have decided to selectively abort seem almost surprised to be faced with such a situation. It's not a rare circumstance -- it's an entirely possible one.

[sandnsea]

66. Well how do I know it's likely then

I've never known anybody who had in vitro, or even used hormones - and I know that aborting extra fetuses can realistically happen with either of these procedures.

People who are surprised at this decision were either fooling themselves or fooling you.

If you're worried about the little embryos, don't use in vitro. It's absolutely hypocritical to differentiate between the implants that don't take, oh maybe 10 of them - and 2 implants that have to be aborted.

[moc]

70. The move toward fewer embies in IVF transfer happened a number of

years ago (say, 7+ yrs). These days, typically no more than 2-3 are transferred. However, some of this decision is based on the quality of the embryos. If the quality is lower (i.e., implantation is less likely) they might be more likely to transfer an additional embie than if all are high quality

The issue comes up with an embryo transfer (i.e., a 3 day transfer) versus a blastocyst transfer (i.e., 5d transfer). Although there is a higher success rate with a blast transfer, there is also a higher rate of identical twinning. Therefore, a 2 embie transfer is at risk of becoming a quad pregnancy.

[moc]

69. Doctors aren't always upfront with patients about SR

I went through infertility treatment (see post above), and I was fortunate that my doctor was VERY candid about risks of higher order multiples (HOM) and selective reduction (SR).

(FWIW, the risk of HOM is much higher in injectible/IUI, the procedure I underwent, than IVF because the number of eggs fertilized is not controlled as tightly as in IVF.)

However, in my discussions with other IF patients, it appears my doctor's candor about SR was unusual, I hate to say. Also, there are doctors who "dabble" in infertility treatment. Those are the patients most at risk, imo.

[JerseygirlCT]

71. Yes, I agree. That was my experience, as well

Not to mention the information searching I did for myself at the time.

But even mine downplayed the risks a little. Finally he did admit that though multiples weren't common with older mothers, he was about to deliver quads to a 40-something patient...

We'd heard quite enough with that. Twins we could handle -- four? No, couldn't go there!

[undeterred]

46. unlimited implantation can be a kind of drug abuse

Look at the rare occasions when 8 are delivered alive. They aren't all healthy, they require lots of expensive care. The parents are put in an economically difficult position. Multiple pregnancies are extremely risky. I just don't think more than 2 or 3 at most should be implanted.

I worked on computers on an L and D unit where they did lots of High Risk pregnancies. One of the nurses warned me that there was a certain room used for photographing stillborn babies. When I was working on that unit, the room was used all the time, so I tried to stay away from there, even though I needed it. There are lots of lost babies with multiple births.

[jmowreader]

60. This, folks, is NOT a pro-choice/anti-choice issue

I find this rather interesting, actually, that someone would try to fit this into the pro/anti-choice debate.

Assume the pro-fetus crowd gets its way and gets abortion banned. The only way they'd ever get it through would be to have exceptions for rape, incest, and life and health of the mother. (Fetal death falls into "life of the mother" because it WILL take the mother with it if you don't remove it.) Selective reduction falls into "health of the mother" so it would be quite okay.

I'm a little uneasy about IVF, truth be told, and the multiple births it can produce are a very large reason why.

[Hekate]

61. Lessee: they tried & failed to get pregnant before; she ended up in the hospital; they would ALL die

...if she tried to keep them all; she might die, too, if she tried to keep them all; and the only reason 4 zygotes were implanted in the first place was because of her previous high failure rate. Even these two remaining fetuses might not make it.

Did you and I read the same article at all? Didn't sound like a "pro-abortion" article to me -- or to Mr. H, as we both read it on Sunday morning. It sounded like a plea to let doctors and patients choose their own medical care, which is what this is.

Oh, and in case you don't know: the morning-after pill is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- an abortifacient. It is not RU-486. It will NOT terminate a pregnancy if one already exists. It prevents sperm and egg from meeting in the first place.
You can read about it here at the Mayo Clinic site:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morning-after-pill/AN00592

Hekate

[rasputin1952]

64. This couple seems to be far more aware than most people

about their personal decision. They had apparently looked into many options and got to know what they were dealing with. It comes down to their decision, and theirs alone.

There might always be remorse for losing the other two, but that is not the point, the point is that they have an excellent chance of having two healthy girls, and for that, after all of the soul searching they went through, is what choice is all about. Rarely do we see people of of such depth bringing their personal situations into a public forum, for them, I think this was a way to assuage their thoughts about the decision they made, and I respect it, for it was done in an intelligent manner.

We all make decisions everyday that can be just as complicated as the one we just read about, for lives can and will be affected by those decisions. This couple showed that the art of knowledge is a powerful tool.

[RetroLounge]

67. This is a PRO-CHOICE article!

RL

[iverglas]

68. "it had a very different effect on me."

Yeah:

"Haunting pro-abortion piece in LA Times"

It apparently caused you to out yourself.

[Solon]

80. Look, we get it, you don't give a shit about woman's health...

Please stop this bullshit already, or are you just asking for a pizza delivery?