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}
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.