Jump to content
Terminating Values? Reducing Twin Pregnancies to Singles.
130 replies to this topic
Posted 27 October 2011 - 02:54 PM
Nicely said Kylie. Things got heated as they always do when this sort of topic is raised.
But I agree with you. Debate is always a good thing.
Posted 27 October 2011 - 03:03 PM
I think this debate is making me think more about what "choice" really means. In some ways, I think "pro-choice" in this context actually reduces choice for some women.
We know that having amnio is a woman's "choice", but how often is it a true choice? For many women, not having an amnio (with a higher risk pregnancy) is seen as saying "I'm choosing to risk having a baby that will take more resources from my family when I have other options".
I worry that the increasing availability of selective reduction means a reduction in social support for the woman who says "I CHOOSE to carry and raise all of my babies, no matter how they are conceived".
The responsibility of raising a harder-to-raise family is devolved from a community activity to an individual woman's activity because she CHOSE that option.
Does that make sense?
Posted 31 October 2011 - 09:37 PM
[quote name='la di dah' date='18/10/2011, 02:23 PM' post='13863401']
I don't have to be comfortable with every choice. My not being able to do it is not a reason to say no one should.
I can think a reason is gross or lacking or yucky and still support their right to do it. I will defend womens' rights to pregnancy reduction, whether they are reducing to 6 or 0 or anywhere in between.
I don't have to DO it myself because I support their right to.
I don't think fetuses have any rights.
fetuses means offspring, are you saying our offspring or descendants have no rights?
Posted 01 November 2011 - 08:02 AM
Thats silly Up the ante - was obvious from the context that she didnt meant that
Posted 01 November 2011 - 08:50 AM
Is it really the case that we must never judge the actions of anyone else? Would not most of us judge a serial killer, who was perfectly sane and the product of an unremarkable upbringing, as a nasty piece of work? Is there some magic line in the sand beyond which, if the actions in question are at least morally ambiguous, they should not be called into question at all?
I find the idea of selective reductions, at least in the absence of any health risk to the mother, utterly repugnant. That's my gut reaction to them. Am I just being judgmental, failing properly to appreciate the position of parents who face potentially enormous challenges if they choose to carry to term all the foetuses in a multiple pregnancy? Or is my conscience telling me something? How many people have that gut feeling "selective reduction is WRONG" but then worry that they are appointing themselves God and betraying the sisterhood?
Posted 01 November 2011 - 01:29 PM
This is a really interesting topic. I'm not sure what I'd do; probably keep them and hope, but then I'm a bit baby mad!
In horses, crushing twins is very common. However, in horses, less than 1% of twins survive if left alone, so a vet crushing a twin gives the mare the safest chance to have a live foal. The process is also done very very early in the pregnancy, at around 30-42 days. Vets say that the foetus is about the size of a grape at this time.
In humans, a lost baby before 20 weeks is called a miscarriage and after 20 weeks is stillborn. To do a twin reduction at 14 weeks seems a bit close to still born for me. I prefer the horse timing.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
Top 5 Viewed Articles