Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet another couple with sextuplets is apparently splitting up. This might be one of those things that you can't answer unless you are in the situation, but I'm going to try anyway.
If you found out you were pregnant with sextuplets (or other high-order multiples) would you carry them all or would you reduce the pregnancy to a more manageable number?
Full disclosure-I never used fertility drugs or procedures, but I think if I had, I would have gone into it knowing that I'd reduce if this happened. The couples we see on TV give religious reasons for not reducing. I don't really understand that because if it was God's will to give you a baby, maybe you'd have been able to conceive naturally. If a person/couple is willing to mess with their fertility to try to conceive, it seems like they should be willing to mess with it the other direction in order to get the desired outcome, 1 or 2 healthy kids.
I have friends and family who've had fertility treatments, and I don't judge them for that at all. Like I said, I never had to, thankfully.
After watching Jon and Kate and now Brian and Jenny succumb to the pressures of caring for so many kids, I really think it would have been in the best interest of these families to have had just a couple of kids, and lived more "normal" lives.
I'm not trying to be judgmental, I would just like to see some opinions on this. We see these families on TV, but I wonder what the reality is. How many of these pregnancies end up being reduced, and I wonder how the parents end up feeling about it.
It seems that reducing the number of babies is in the best interests of both the remaining babies and the mother, both before and after birth.
Personally, I think that if a woman cannot conceive naturally, she should leave it at that.
I have no knowledge as to the reasons for this, but since it seems to be so wide spread perhaps it is genetic and it would be a good idea to not pass this defect on to subsequent generations.
Totally against a "reduction" as I am abortion, in general. I don't know that having sextuplets is the best scenario, but if it is a fait accompli, so to speak, then let it be so. I can't speak for the couples involved who decide not to reduce but as someone who is myself pro-life, I surmise they feel that while it's generally ok to use some artificial means to try to conceive, they don't feel it's ok to end a life that's already begun. The latter sorta crosses a moral line the way I see it.
The goal in the UK is to achieve a singleton pregnancy. One baby at time --- not three or more or even two. By 2007, 96% of IVF embryo transfers in the UK were one or two embryos, 4% were three.
A single embryo transfer will only result in a multiple if the ovum divides. Two embryo transfers could result in higher order multiples, but the likelihood is pretty small. The risk of identical twins is higher with IVF, though the reason is unknown, and triplets with two embryo transfers would be due to an identical pair from one of the implanted embryos.
This raises the question of the treatment of "leftover'" embryos. If six eggs successfully fertilize and divide, should the parents be allowed to demand that all of the embryos be implanted?
I would say no, because frozen embryos can be thawed and implanted successfully (just as successfully, perhaps more so, as fresh embryos.) This gives the option of trying again in another cycle if a one or two fresh embryo transfer does not "take" or using the frozen embryos for another try after a successful pregnancy. If there are religious reasons to demand that all embryos created be implanted at once, then perhaps those couples should not choose IVF at all, or all the ova produced in a single cycle should not be harvested --- only take two or three at most.
Adopting these policies in the US would essentially eliminate the need to consider selective reduction.
One child per couple may be too much in light of the situation of rising population working against lowered resource expectations. It would be a fitting irony that we place so much value on the lives of the unborn yet we may end up killing a hell of a lot of humans in the future wars over diminished resources. I'm no fan of abortion or the flippant attitude that life isn't to be valued but I've gotta be honest and say that a population that has lost control of that which insures their survival is doomed. I realize that these reality shows are definitely not the average families but nonetheless having babies has become a merit badge of sorts for too many people.
The goal in the UK is to achieve a singleton pregnancy. One baby at time --- not three or more or even two. By 2007, 96% of IVF embryo transfers in the UK were one or two embryos, 4% were three.
A single embryo transfer will only result in a multiple if the ovum divides. Two embryo transfers could result in higher order multiples, but the likelihood is pretty small. The risk of identical twins is higher with IVF, though the reason is unknown, and triplets with two embryo transfers would be due to an identical pair from one of the implanted embryos.
This raises the question of the treatment of "leftover'" embryos. If six eggs successfully fertilize and divide, should the parents be allowed to demand that all of the embryos be implanted?
I would say no, because frozen embryos can be thawed and implanted successfully (just as successfully, perhaps more so, as fresh embryos.) This gives the option of trying again in another cycle if a one or two fresh embryo transfer does not "take" or using the frozen embryos for another try after a successful pregnancy. If there are religious reasons to demand that all embryos created be implanted at once, then perhaps those couples should not choose IVF at all, or all the ova produced in a single cycle should not be harvested --- only take two or three at most.
Adopting these policies in the US would essentially eliminate the need to consider selective reduction.
I've wondered about identicals with IVF. I completely agree that the number of embryos transferred should be low. That doesn't help with IUI, though, which is how Jon and Kate ended up with 6.
I don't see how you could pick a couple out of the bunch in your belly any differently than lining up the kids you currently have and choosing only one to keep. How would parents do this?
Perhaps the real answer would be to find a way of fertilization that decreases the risk of giving birth to a litter at a minimum.
If I found out I couldn't have children, I would probably try to adopt. I might even adopt even if I can get pregnant. If for some reason adoption wasn't an option, I might try IVF/IUI but I would reduce if I found out I was pregnant with high order multiples. First, I doubt I would be able to afford five-eight kids at the same time. You have to think about clothes, food, a bigger house, college, holidays, etc. Even if I could afford that many kids, there are so many things that could go wrong. High order multiples are born prematurely which makes them at risk for problems such as cerebral palsy. The Gosselins are the exception to this since it seems their children do not have any disabilities.
The reason why all these families of multiples and running to get shows is because they can't afford to support that many children. Why do we get angry when someone in the inner city has 6 kids they can't support but are supportive of a white family who has 6 kids at once that they can't support? Both are irresponsible.
Totally against a "reduction" as I am abortion, in general. I don't know that having sextuplets is the best scenario, but if it is a fait accompli, so to speak, then let it be so. I can't speak for the couples involved who decide not to reduce but as someone who is myself pro-life, I surmise they feel that while it's generally ok to use some artificial means to try to conceive, they don't feel it's ok to end a life that's already begun. The latter sorta crosses a moral line the way I see it.
I agree. It may cost significantly more but I think a woman should not be allowed to have more eggs fertilized than she is willing to carry to term. If that means only fertilizing one or two at a time so that no innocent life is destroyed, so be it. Abortion and selective reduction should not be conveniences lives are at stake.
It stinks not to be able to have kids when you really want them. There are other ways than destroying innocent life.
It seems that reducing the number of babies is in the best interests of both the remaining babies and the mother, both before and after birth.
Personally, I think that if a woman cannot conceive naturally, she should leave it at that.
I have no knowledge as to the reasons for this, but since it seems to be so wide spread perhaps it is genetic and it would be a good idea to not pass this defect on to subsequent generations.
I had trouble getting pregnant, and it seemed it was always the ones who could get pregnant "at the drop of a hat" who said things like the above. Infertility is a couples issue; a woman may be able to get pregnant with one man but not another; a man may be able to get one woman pregnant but not another. It's just bad luck when a couple can't get pregnant, not some deficiency in the woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryB
I don't see how you could pick a couple out of the bunch in your belly any differently than lining up the kids you currently have and choosing only one to keep. How would parents do this?
Perhaps the real answer would be to find a way of fertilization that decreases the risk of giving birth to a litter at a minimum.
A friend of mine who is very pro-life did in-vitro. Her doctor told her that if she would not have a reduction, he would not implant more than two embryos. They made five embryos altogether; two died early, the strongest two were implanted and she had twins. She had the remaining embryo implanted later, near its expiration date, but it did not develop. From that experience, I would say that five is probably a good number of embryos to make.
A friend of my daughter's had natural quads. She was advised to have a reduction but she wouldn't. One died ten days after birth, and the other three were in the hospital for quite a while, and it was touch and go with at least two of them at times in the NICU. They all seem fine now at ~9 months, though a little behind, which is to be expected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
