About Those Octuplets
Feb. 4th, 2009 03:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jhameiaThere's half a ton of debate out there (as well as a media circus) about the woman who had an IVF procedure with EIGHT embryos and all of them resulted in pregnancy.
Fishy things about this?
- She already has 6 children.
- One is a special-needs child.
- She's recently filed for bankruptcy.
- She's basically relying on the support of her family.
- She claims she didn't know that all eight embryos would take in this procedure, but having conceived several more times before through the same procedure, surely she would have realized it was possible to end up with eight babies?
I'm trying very hard not to pass judgement on what she's doing with herself: it IS her body, and it's her business what she does with her body. Just as every woman has a right to an abortion, so should every woman have a right to motherhood.
And then I think about Somel in Herland's response to Van's question about criminal types having children in that country, and when she replies that those women weren't allowed to raise their children, Van says, "I thought motherhood was for all of you."
"Yes, motherhood, maternity, the right to bear children. But raising children is left to our highest artists," comes the answer.
Which is how I feel in this case - a woman has the prerogrative to keep or dispose of an embryo as long as it is within her body and mostly a biological parasite. However, once it is OUT, a child is a life now (albeit a financial, psychological, emotional parasite until it becomes more independent), to which society must be responsible. (That's why pro-lifers are annoying... for them it's just the pregnancy that matters, and beyond that, they expect the woman to be on her own - or preferrably with a man - to raise the child.)
This woman's not exactly in a country where children are very highly regarded (except as methods of social control) - maybe if she was in a country more like Herland where each child could be guaranteed of the best possible start to life because the entire country is geared towards caring for the next generation, this situation wouldn't sound so awful as it does.
But as it stands, I find her incredibly irresponsible to have so many children without being completely capable of providing for them, short of publicity (similar to the Duggars) - not for what she's done with her body, but for her existing children. However, her choice has been made, and there will be eight more little children in the world to consider.
And the rest of the media and public stares a-goggle as if it were a freakshow, rather than a situation to be taken seriously, pointing fingers and blaming her for being the crazy one. And I want to know what crazy IVF clinic she went to that implants EIGHT embryos under the assumption that only ONE will take. Here I thought they implanted at most two or three, not EIGHT.
I think we forget how true the old adage "it takes a village to raise a single child" is.
I hope some kind people pitch in and help her out. I don't think it'll happen, seeing as she's a single, unmarried WoC. Still, I hope her kids grow up okay. It's really hard to raise children in today's world, much less a large family like that.
Fishy things about this?
- She already has 6 children.
- One is a special-needs child.
- She's recently filed for bankruptcy.
- She's basically relying on the support of her family.
- She claims she didn't know that all eight embryos would take in this procedure, but having conceived several more times before through the same procedure, surely she would have realized it was possible to end up with eight babies?
I'm trying very hard not to pass judgement on what she's doing with herself: it IS her body, and it's her business what she does with her body. Just as every woman has a right to an abortion, so should every woman have a right to motherhood.
And then I think about Somel in Herland's response to Van's question about criminal types having children in that country, and when she replies that those women weren't allowed to raise their children, Van says, "I thought motherhood was for all of you."
"Yes, motherhood, maternity, the right to bear children. But raising children is left to our highest artists," comes the answer.
Which is how I feel in this case - a woman has the prerogrative to keep or dispose of an embryo as long as it is within her body and mostly a biological parasite. However, once it is OUT, a child is a life now (albeit a financial, psychological, emotional parasite until it becomes more independent), to which society must be responsible. (That's why pro-lifers are annoying... for them it's just the pregnancy that matters, and beyond that, they expect the woman to be on her own - or preferrably with a man - to raise the child.)
This woman's not exactly in a country where children are very highly regarded (except as methods of social control) - maybe if she was in a country more like Herland where each child could be guaranteed of the best possible start to life because the entire country is geared towards caring for the next generation, this situation wouldn't sound so awful as it does.
But as it stands, I find her incredibly irresponsible to have so many children without being completely capable of providing for them, short of publicity (similar to the Duggars) - not for what she's done with her body, but for her existing children. However, her choice has been made, and there will be eight more little children in the world to consider.
And the rest of the media and public stares a-goggle as if it were a freakshow, rather than a situation to be taken seriously, pointing fingers and blaming her for being the crazy one. And I want to know what crazy IVF clinic she went to that implants EIGHT embryos under the assumption that only ONE will take. Here I thought they implanted at most two or three, not EIGHT.
I think we forget how true the old adage "it takes a village to raise a single child" is.
I hope some kind people pitch in and help her out. I don't think it'll happen, seeing as she's a single, unmarried WoC. Still, I hope her kids grow up okay. It's really hard to raise children in today's world, much less a large family like that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-04 03:31 pm (UTC)I'm a non-aggressive pro-lifer myself, not for religious reasons but because no one's been able to convince me why abortion is not infanticide. To kill a baby after it's born is unconscionable. But rewind the clock a day before it's born. Still unconscionable. Then a month. (Gray area? Only because it's gross?) Then seven months. It's all the exact same person. I am the same me whether I'm 90 years old, 9 years old, or still incubating for a few months before I face the world. (Just explaining where I'm coming from; you don't have to agree)
Anyhow, I'm pro-life and I have no expectation for the woman to raise the child. To the contrary, that sounds terrible. After my volunteer work with teens, I see the terrible effects it has on the kid to grow up knowing that their parents don't want them.
I think discrimination and marginalization of women while pregnant should be punished as strictly as hate crimes and it should be made extremely easy to give the child up for adoption. No one should be forced to raise an unwanted or unplanned child. But nor is infanticide a civilized solution.
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-04 05:18 pm (UTC)Do you think women who have abortions or healthcare staff who assist them should be charged and convicted? What should the range of penalties be, if so? Should it go down as a criminal record? In all cases or in some?
If you don't think there should be any charges laid, do you think that in a universal socialised healthcare system, all abortion services should be excluded from public funding?
Do you think medical and nursing students in public education should be offered training in performing/assisting abortions?
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-04 08:15 pm (UTC)I mean I see abortion as infanticide, indistinguishable morally from drowning an unwanted baby as soon as it's born. It's the same baby. It's killing it either way, just earlier. Abortion looks tidier on the outside and easier to rationalize since the baby doesn't have a cute recognizable face yet. (And because the babies have no voice to defend or represent themselves.)
I understand why women do it and I think the current culture is deplorable that women feel driven to kill their own child rather than face the shame and discrimination that come with unwanted pregnancy or giving a child up for adoption. That is why my best proposal is to protect these women and criminally charge the people who would discriminate against them. Pregnancy should be safe and protected, and women should be able to hand their child over to a respectable adoption system without fear of persecution.
Do you think women who have abortions... should be charged and convicted? ...abortion services should be excluded from public funding?
Yes, since I don't see how killing a baby before it's born is any different from killing a baby after it's born. If a woman should be criminally charged for smothering her baby with a pillow, she should be equally charged with killing her baby before it was born.
Abortions should not be publicly funded any more than we should pay trained professionals to euthanize unwanted newborns.
Do you think medical and nursing students in public education should be offered training in performing/assisting abortions?
No more than they should be trained in the proper way to euthanize babies after they're born.
I realize that abortion is currently legal, so I don't propose that women who have had abortions while it was legal should be charged and convicted. I just wish for this practice would be made illegal. Our culture should not allow legal infanticide, regardless of how young the baby. I don't see how it's any different from ancient Rome when women would leave unwanted babies on the side of the road to die. With plenty of public systems in place to feed, support, and adopt out unwanted children, the killing is simply unnecessary. There are homes for these babies and systems in place so that none of them need to die.
I am not aggressive about my beliefs. I realize it's a choice at this time and women can legally choose as they wish. I have friends who have had abortions and I don't treat them any differently from my friends who haven't. I strongly disagree with their decision, but I won't persecute them for it. I think the issue should be discussed civilly and on the political rather than personal front.
All this said, I'm just answering your questions, but not interested in getting in a debate with you. It seems we have different views on the humanity of an unborn child. I see a baby before it's born as the same person she is after she's born, while pro-choice people see the baby as a non-human (or not-yet human?) Until people see eye to eye on that front, it's impossible to discuss.
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-04 11:09 pm (UTC)With all this talk about current systems and training in place for AFTER the birth of a child, what about prevention in the first place? Why aren't people using birth control properly or having safe sex even though it's free irrespective of whether they are married or not? Sex is more than just pleasure; it's also about bringing new life into the world.
While it's all great that women are embracing the ability to choose for themselves, it's also sad to see them harming themselves in the long run because of their own stupidity AND to please a man.
I don't want to judge but most (not all) the cases of abortion I have seen so far stem from irresponsible attitude towards sex and conception. Abortion should never be seen as a form of birth control - it disgusts me to see women take that sort of frivolous attitude.
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-04 11:50 pm (UTC)My husband and I are positive we don't want kids. I've known all my life, but we waited until we felt we were adult enough to make the decision (age 22) for him to get a vasectomy. We tried to do it in California through Kaiser and it was incredible how many hoops we had to jump through. Doctors' consults, paperwork, and we even had to attend a class. (What?)
He didn't get the vasectomy until we moved to Washington in '06 at which point he needed a doctor's consult, which was a bit like hazing. The doctor "jokingly" hassled him saying things like, "getting neutered, huh?" and "getting the ol' snip." I wasn't there so I don't know exactly what was said, but my spouse thinks it was sort of a heckling mental health assessment, poking him with harsh words to make sure this was something he wanted to do. I can kind of see where he's coming from with that since it's a permanent procedure and all, but it still sounds harder to get a doctor to give a vasectomy than an abortion. There's something very wrong with that. (Even after he got the vasectomy, I still take oral contraceptives. I'm that careful.)
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-06 03:21 pm (UTC)You're pro-life only in the attitude that you can't approve of abortion, personally. The crazy pro-lifers on the political front, however, want to ban not only abortion, but also advocate lack of contraceptives. (According to one pro-life group, BC pills cause abortion, because it prevents embryos from attaching to the uterine wall.)
I can't see abortion as a regular method of birth control, but let's face it: how many women do? We only get abortions because we feel we have no other choice. Pregnancy is expensive in itself, even if we give up the child. Contraceptives are extremely hard to get.
If you're for contraceptives, comprehensive sex education and informed choices, which you are, you're pro-choice. ;) Abortion is only a small part of the pro-choice position; it just happens to get blown up because it's personally so contentious.
Wear a rubber, dude.
Date: 2009-02-06 08:01 pm (UTC)Urgh. Yes. I can't even say, "I don't want kids" without someone shoving the "You'll change your mind!" down my throat. I've finally found the best way to respond to that is to say, "Having kids isn't for everyone and I think I'm one of those people." That one's been hard for them to refute so far.
According to one pro-life group, BC pills cause abortion, because it prevents embryos from attaching to the uterine wall.
Isn't the controversy is over the 'morning after pill', not preventative oral contraceptives?
I can't see abortion as a regular method of birth control, but let's face it: how many women do?
No one, I'm sure. I don't think it's about women relying on abortions as birth control so much as women being more careless than they should be since they've got abortion as a backup plan. (Like how some students won't study as hard for a final if they know they have the chance for a make-up exam.) I think some people are more careless than they should be with contraception because they know they've got abortion as a Plan B. If abortion was illegal as infanticide, people would have to make sure they don't fuck up the first time. Two forms of protection (condom and pill, spermicide and condom, whatever) should be the standard for all heterosexual intercourse. I think oral contraceptives should be available over the counter, or at least permanently available after only one gynecologist visit (instead of needing yearly renewal visits.) The money that would be used to fund abortions should be funneled into free condoms and PSAs about safe sex.
If you're for contraceptives, comprehensive sex education and informed choices...
Definitely. All across the board, I'll approve of just about anything that will prevent pregnancy in the first place, but I don't think anything justifies aborting a baby once a woman's already pregnant.
I could still never describe myself as pro-choice because to most people that term is synonymous with pro-abortion rather than pro-contraceptive. I'm rabidly pro-women's rights, but only if no one is killed in the process.
Re: Wear a rubber, dude.
Date: 2009-02-06 08:25 pm (UTC)This experiment's been done. It continues to be done. What happens is that women still get pregnant, because contraception fails, because they are raped or coerced, because they're denied contraception, all sorts of other issues. Once pregnant, some women's circumstances change dramatically (from severe domestic violence to unexpected life upheavals of other kinds that require they focus their resources on the children they already have), they develop severe pregnancy complications, etc. Without safe abortion, these women don't shrug their shoulders and go "Oh well, happy baby-having time now!" They have unsafe abortions. As women have had since time immemorial. There is nothing new about any of this; I'm very surprised that you seem so very unfamiliar with the issues, preferring instead to cast all women seeking abortion in the "careless sophomores" mould, which is wildly inaccurate. Are you a college student, by any chance? Have you been pregnant?
Get back to me if I ever get pregnant again, eh? There's a good chance I would experience life-threatening complications, like last time, and could need an abortion, because I want to be around to see my son grow up.
From what I've read of you here, this should read "only if no embryo or fetus is killed in the process". You haven't shown any signs of giving a shit about women being injured or killed.
Re: Wear a rubber, dude.
Date: 2009-02-06 08:58 pm (UTC)Right. Accidents and rape will always happen. At that time, the right thing to do is tough out the nine months, then give up the child for adoption instead of killing the infant.
There's a good chance I would experience life-threatening complications, like last time.
This is the one case where I think abortion is justified. With a doctor's advice that the mother's life is at risk, then and only then do I feel abortion would be a fair decision. As long as a normal healthy pregnancy is predicted, the baby should be carried to term.
They have unsafe abortions. As women have had since time immemorial.
Right. But just because women want to erase the mistake doesn't make killing a justifiable solution. As I've said before, it's the same as killing an unwanted newborn (which has also been done since the beginning of time.) If you wouldn't protect and defend women who dump their newborns in Dumpsters, why protect the women who do the same thing but earlier? I realize that women may get hurt getting illegal abortions, but they shouldn't be killing their babies and getting the abortion in the first place. If she carried the baby to term as she should, a mother could save both their lives instead of risking both.
As I've said before, you don't have to agree with me and I don't expect you to. You seem happy to accuse anyone who feels differently from you of being less intelligent or "cognitively dissonant" without any consideration that maybe an intelligent, rational person could come to a different conclusion than you.
You seem to see yourself as some champion of justice protecting women, but you're blinded to the fact that the people on the other side of the fence from you are doing the exact same thing, but defending the cause of the babies instead of the parent. The difference is that in my scenario nobody has to die or complications leading to death are a rare occurance, but in an abortion scenario, there is a death. every. time. A mother's life is not worth more than her child's. They are both lives worth saving and defending.
By bolstering contraception methods and awareness, unwanted pregnancies could be severely reduced. What few mistakes still occur should be carried to term, the mothers staunchly protected during the pregnancy, and then the child should be given for adoption no questions asked if the mother chooses. No one needs to die.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-07 08:26 am (UTC)However, I can't agree with this statement : 'Rape will always happen. At that time, the right thing to do is tough out the nine months, then give up the child for adoption instead of killing the infant.'
No. Just no. Rape is a horrible act. Something that no one deserves to go through. As a woman, you never asked for that sex. You didn't even have a chance to protect yourself against the pregnancy. It's already a tramuatic enough experience. To force them to go through a pregnancy (that they never wanted nor had any chance to prevent) is beyond horrible IMO.
Also, I'd like to add that pregnancy is more than just 'toughing it out' for 9 months. It's an incredibly intense experience where you go through a lot of emotional, mental, physical and hormonal changes. Your whole life changes in ways that no one can imagine. It's NOT living your life like normal whilst a baby grows inside you.
If a woman chooses to go through that (in other words, wants to be pregnant), then that's fine. It was their choice. But no one should be forced to go through that. Especially not if they were forced to have sex in the first place.
I'm pro-choice, however I feel that abortion should only be used as a 'last resort' e.g. in cases of rape or when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman and child. It's always best to use protection to prevent pregnancy IMO.
Maybe we need to take a step back...
Date: 2009-02-07 06:26 pm (UTC)I think we should consider a number of factors when discussing this namely who we are talking about when we refer to abortions and people who go through it. Yes, not all women who opt for abortions are young teens who know next to nothing. And well, to be honest, most of us are not so much concerned about abortion alone. We want other things related to this to be addressed and tackled! (Or at least I do. I feel that abortions should be left as it is and instead of dividing people into pro-life or pro-choice, we should concentrate on the things that really count (like why birth control is hard to find, why people won't buy them even if they are easy to get, why this attitude towards sex, etc, and not the labels per se.)
For me, I have always felt that abortions should be a medical option open to women who NEED it for 1) health reasons and 2) rape/crime. Just to sidetrack a little - rape is often a tool used in wars and recently, the world has seen a flooding of war babies (a result of these rapes). No one wants them, not even their mothers or the community and the government is left with no other alternative but to care for them. Hardly a great environment to grow up in or with; and neither great to live with.
I know of a number of women who went through abortions for the reasons above - these are matured, responsible woman. Heck, one of them was my own mother who had a D&C because she got pregnant while she was on the IUD. The doc had recommended that she get an abortion because of the high risk of defects to the fetus. Was she irresponsible? Was she a murderer? When I was young, I felt so but as I started researching more on this, I began to feel differently.
This was a question that weighed heavily on my mind - what if my baby has severe genetic defect, would I want to still carry to full term knowing fully well what lies ahead for not only me but my child and my family? I'm not so courageous to say yes and neither is my husband. Call us selfish, call us immature but we feel that an abortion in this case would be best for everyone.
As for the young girls, to be fair, the fault isn't entirely theirs. Their story is all the same - they have been told the same junk as I have (see below), and they have been drilled to think that the only way to hold a man's love is to bow to his every whim. They have lopsided views of relationships, sex and intimacy, because no one ever spoke about what happens if and when you have sex. Society, the system and even parents are to blame for this. The system teaches crappy values which passes on to parents and society. Walk in to a store to buy a condom as a woman and people look at you funny. Walk in to see a doc for a prescription for Diana 35-ED and he gives you a funny look while telling you that it is not a birth control pill (WTH). Heck, my mother once told me that she felt so embarrassed even asking for lubricant and she was 45 at that time. It's like everyone doing it but no one wants to talk about it. WTF.
People should concentrate on 1) sex education, 2) public perception about sex and contraception (am I a slut for wanting to go on the Pill with the only man I slept in?) and 3) the right approach to sex-related issues. I remember how my mother threatened me with things like "a woman who isn't a virgin when she marries loses her value" or "if you're a virgin, your husband has no reason to divorce you". Contrast this with my husband's mother who when he hit puberty, casually told him that she has a box of condoms in a drawer somewhere at home and that he ought to use it at all times.
For those of us in the family way (married and all - don't know how many of you are), the best we can do is to learn and then spread the knowledge. You'd be surprised at how many married women out there who know absolutely shit nothing about family planning, sexual health or birth control.
For those of us who aren't in the family way, talking about it helps. Seriously, people NEED to talk about sex.
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-07 06:29 pm (UTC)This reminds me of Monty Phyton's Meaning of Life and how he pokes fun at the Catholics. XD
Oh, I like to think of myself as pro-education too. XD
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-05 01:54 am (UTC)Your last-para statement betrays a deep lack of knowledge of the pro-choice position. The pro-choice position retains its logical validity _even if_ a fetus is a "person". Pro-choice people see the rights of the mother not lesser than the rights of the embryo or fetus. No person can be forced into bodily slavery. No women can have her rights subsumed to that of an embryo or fetus. Every woman has bodily sovereignty. It's as simple as that. Women have the same rights as everyone else.
I hope I never, ever live in your world. My life would constantly be under threat for the next ten years, and my work would involve trying to save the lives of mothers half- or mostly-dead from illegal abortions, and counselling their surviving partners and children. A bleak world indeed.
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-05 05:32 pm (UTC)It's called forgiveness. ={ I don't believe anything is made better by persecuting women who have had abortions, so I refuse to treat them poorly for their decision. Also, I realize that they didn't make their decision out of malice or thinking it was murder, even though that's how I see it. I can still love and forgive someone even if they've done something I couldn't conceive of doing.
a deep lack of knowledge of the pro-choice position. The pro-choice position retains its logical validity _even if_ a fetus is a "person".
I understand your position, I just strongly disagree with it. If a baby is a person, then that person should have equal rights to every other person. If a mother isn't allowed to euthanize her newborn, why should be allowed to euthanize her not-yet-born? It should never be left to the hands of a private individual to decide one life is more worthy than another. If a person could somehow cure their cancer by murdering an elderly senior, would that make it an ethical choice? So why should a woman be allowed to "cure" her pregnancy by killing her own child? It's not up to us to choose who lives and who dies. Besides, we're talking about the difference of 9 months of unhappiness and outright death of someone else. It's not an even exchange by any means.
Also, it's not "bodily slavery", it's a consequence of natural cause and effect. Having sex means you might get pregnant. There's the risk; there's the consequence. Whether disease, mood change, or procreation, our actions have consequences. Murder of one person is not justification for removing a mistake made by someone else.
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-06 01:33 pm (UTC)When you're trying to conceive and eventually do, you won't see your baby as an embryo or fetus. Those are technical legal/medical terms. To a pregnant woman, it is a life.
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-06 02:16 pm (UTC)Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-06 03:32 pm (UTC)Some of us are actively trying NOT to conceive. If the pro-lifers would please stop with the anti-contraceptives and abstinence bullshit, we would all lead better, abortion-free lives.
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-07 06:03 pm (UTC)Fixed that for you.
Date: 2009-02-07 04:16 am (UTC)You are assuming an awful lot about others' "personal perspectives" in the expression of your own.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-04 08:29 pm (UTC)