Fertility drugs - God's will? Or subverting God's will? (third sextuplet dies.)

[Deja Q]

Poll question: Fertility drugs - God's will? Or subverting God's will? (third sextuplet dies.)

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1250380.html

Third newborn sextuplet in Minnesota dies; 3 others critical

Half of the sextuplets born prematurely to a Minnesota couple have now died, hospital officials said Saturday.

A third boy, Lincoln Sean Morrison, died Friday. Two of his brothers, Tryg and Bennet, died earlier.

The three remaining babies remained in critical condition Saturday in the neonatal intensive care unit at Children's Hospital in Minneapolis.

Another article is here.

Forgive me, the subject line. Many have said that anybody who criticizes fertility drugs is being harsh and unfeeling, and those same people always bring in God and how babies are miracles.

Funny how they don't consider the possibility that fertility drugs subvert God's idea of procreation, but while every other form of subversion is bad, apparently these drugs are good? What gives?

It's been said the couple took the drug because they couldn't make their own in over a year. Why not wait and keep trying, naturally? With that ADHD attitude, how to raise SIX children over an, at least, EIGHTEEN year period would really be a doozy.

It's been asked why they wouldn't go to an adoption center. They wanted their own. It's funny, everybody always wants their own. So how come we have adoption/foster centers in the first place?! (I know, that would start a tangential thread; the reasons aren't so simple, I will agree...)

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Other: God is a fiction, but if the young couple wants to take fertility drugs

I think that's their own business, just as it is their business if they want to use birth control.

[Deja Q]

3. In which case, you would also say nobody should be giving them assistance?

it's their own business, right? Which also means their own consequences?

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Define "assistance".

Who should be in charge of determining who "deserves" to use fertility drugs and who doesn't, if not doctors and individual patients?

[Deja Q]

11. It shouldn't need to be defined at all. It's none of our business. None of it is.

It's their life, their choice, therefore nobody else should have a say in it or even a dollar to help. or any other form of help. Because it's none of our business, period.

That statement probably qualifies as "freeperish", but also consider - if nobody cared, we wouldn't be a society at all.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. No, see, what we shouldn't be doing is picking and choosing WHICH so-called "bad decisions"

we want to pay for and which we don't. That's the bottom line, here.

I support a SPHC system- no one is going to accuse me of "not caring". But I also think it's a little disingenuous when people try to use the "it's your choice, it's your problem" logic to shoot down perfectly legitimate arguments about the right of people to make their own damn decisions about their own damn lives.

We ALL have bad habits, we've ALL done things that conceivably could land us in a hospital with medical bills- health nuts who ride motorcycles, regular churchgoers who eat fatty foods, non-smokers who drink booze, 12 steppers who have sex with multiple partners. And so on, and so on, and so on. Playing the "If you insist on the pesky right to run your own life, I don't want to have to pay for it" game is ridiculous.

Because in the end, we ALL pay for each other, and EVERYONE makes choices someone else may not approve of at some point.

[KittyWampus]

48. It isn't god that's a fiction. Reality itself is a fiction. It is totally invented using rules

dictated by the language each participant speaks.

sorry for the tangent :)

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Then "God" is a meta-fiction, a fiction of a fiction.

An imaginary explanation for something that isn't even there in the first place.

In my opinion.

[napi21]

2. I don't think I would ever undergo fertility treatments, partly

because multiple births are a REAL risk, and partly because I could never afford to get them anyway!

A woman who worked for me had them 3 times before she became pregnant...with 4 girls! They all lived, but one is mentaly disabled. THEN she did it again and had another girl. A year later, she got pregnant naturally and had a boy. They now have 5 children under the age of 4!!!!!!

I would never impose my views on someone else, I just hope SOMEBODY explaines all the risks to the future parents!

[Deja Q]

9. Don't get me wrong, people can do what they want.

But I will voice my opinions, saying what they are doing may indeed be harmful. Because, believe it or not, I really do care. Possibly more than what others believe my capacity to be, but they always seem to think my posts are 'just about me' anyway. Whatever.

But I digress. I think that's why most people voice their opinions on any given issue. If they didn't care, they'd not say a word, much less take notice of world events.

[blues90]

5. Forget god , it is playing with mother nature or playing god

if you believe in a god . I recall all the hype years ago when the one lady had 6 babies and everyone was sending her clothes and stuff to care for the babies then it all vanished and who knows what happened to her after this .

It was just the big headline of the week back then as it is now .

If I were still young I would have to really consider just what sort of a world I would be bringing any child into . I would rather adopt a child that is already born and has to face what we have left in this country .

[Liberal Veteran]

6. I don't really care about the "god" part one way or another.

I do wonder at people who have the money to spend on EXTREMELY expensive and maybe unsuccessful (or too successful) fertility treatments, but can't find a way to adopt a child.

And I will go out on a limb here and say I think people who will refuse to ever adopt a child while spending tens of thousands of dollars to get pregnant doesn't strike me as the kind of person that would be the ideal parent anyway.

[Deja Q]

10. I agree with you - utterly and completely.

I know the "God" argument has been used on other forums; hence my inclusion here. I've read others' viewpoints on other sites and wanted to get the consensus here.

Your logic to your response is absolutely and entirely correct. Now I know adoption isn't the easiest of processes, but people have been able to do it.

And thank you for going out on a limb. :thumbsup:

[dropkickpa]

15. Treatments that are denied

same sex couples and single women. Many health insurances will now pay a lot of the costs of fertility treatments for couples (mine does), but they deny this same benefit to same sex couples and single women that wish to use them.

I disagree with your assessment of whether they'd be good parents or not, you have no way of knowing that.

[Liberal Veteran]

17. I have no way of knowing other than a particular mindset...

...that can only raise a child that has their own genes.

That doesn't strike me as the best frame of mind for entering parenthood.

And you'll note, I did not say "good" or "adequate" parents, I said "ideal" parents and I stand by that.

[WindRavenX]

7. This isn't about God. This is about people making very foolish choices and perhaps being naive...

I'm not bashing those seeking fertility treatment, but I am very critical of those who think they CAN carry that many babies to term--it is common practice in many fertility treatments to reduce the number of viable fetuses after (if they take at all) are implanted; having so many fetuses develop often causes severe heath issues for both the mother and all the other fetuses.

The science is there to give couples who desperately want their own child, but that also means you have to realize that the human body is not designed to bring that many fetuses to term and survive...if I was in this position, I would adopt, but I realize for many couples this is not what they want. However, is the end goal--having your own flesh and blood--really worth this much money, human health issues, and now the death of some of the very fetuses they wanted to begin with?

[Warpy]

8. This is a pretty unusual situation

because I know docs are taking precautions to limit the number of multiple births. Women were never meant to have four to eight babies at a time. It's dangerous to the mom and incredibly dangerous to any infants who get born alive.

Many fertility clinics have contracts people sign agreeing to limit the number of fetuses should a large multiple pregnancy occur. That can be heartbreaking to people who have gone to extremes to produce their own children, but the alternative is having multiple low birth weight babies who go on to have multiple health problems if they survive infancy.

I hope this poor couple has the remaining children survive.

[Spinzonner]

12. Umm, at how many children does a multiple birth

from taking fertility drugs become 'subverting God's will' - whatever that is.

Such Multiple births are the result of implanation practices, not the drugs themselves.

And if only two, or three, or even one is implanted then is that NOT subverting God's will ?

And there have been multiple births without procreative technology. Anyone remember the Dionne Quintuplets, for example.

Was God subverting his own will there bu causing a high risk multiple birth ?

[My Good Babushka]

13. Since they'd already relied on science to get pregnant

They probably ought to have relied on scientific counsel, to reduce the number of fetuses to one or two, at the most three. It cracks me up that they take fertility treatments, and then think that "God" meant for them to carry all six or eight or whatever fetuses to term.

[Hekate]

35. I agree.Infertility is heartbreaking for many, but if they're going to talk about "God's Will" maybe

Maybe they should be wondering if "God" willed their infertility.

I am beginning to wonder how many fertility clinics are willing to tackle this issue head-on -- at this point I am sure that all clinics give good advice about how many fetuses it's safe to retain in the human uterus at one time, but some of the religious patients who have been brainwashed into believing that every fertilized ovum is a complete human being may not be up to absorbing the harsh realities.

With every baby past one, the incidence of birth defects, low birth weight, prematurity, and complications for the mother's health rise exponentially. Just because we can keep more premature babies alive doesn't mean they don't or won't have enduring health problems.

Very often not all implanted zygotes "take" -- actually, the reason for implanting as many as six is in hopes that a bare one or two will thrive. But if "too many" take hold, the mother and her doctor must face "selective reduction" -- difficult enough for someone who has spent so mich time, effort, money, and heart in trying to have a baby, and outright "abortion" to pro-lifers.

The current situation is just too sad.

Hekate

[Elspeth]

14. We are "subverting God's will" when we use birth control, spay and neuter our pets, use antibiotics

or get any kind of operation. Why should fertility treatment be singled out here? Most advances we make in human life are to mitigate the brutal effects of nature in its raw form. This is a never-ending quest because each advance eventually brings other natural reactions to mitigate. But it doesn't mean we should stop trying.

The answer to sextuplets (as a result of fertility treatment) is selective reduction (i.e. abortion). Some couples I know are uncomfortable with the thought of having to make a decision like that, and they have opted for adoption.

[Ilsa]

16. These babies are around what, 22-23 weeks gestation?

Singletons might make it, at that age, but with alot of hospital time.

Fertility drugs are available for reasonable use, just as other technology is available for reasonable use. If you want to believe that God is a part of development of these drugs, then that is a certainly a consideration a for couple.

I feel sorry for this couple, but they were badly counselled, IMO. There was too much at risk -- the mother's health, the babies' health, mental development, etc.

I feel sorry for these babies too. They should have been able to rest on their mommy's chest, feeling her warm skin and listening to her heart, like they should have done in utero for 9 months, not 5. Inside they were hooked up to machines, etc. I hope they didn't feel pain.

[dropkickpa]

18. The 2 girls have a much better chance

of surviving, a sad but true fact of ultra-preemies, the girls do better than the boys. I hope the rest survive, poor decision making or not, the parents hearts must be breaking.

[krispos42]

19. Belief in God and His Will is undermining sound science and reason

How about that?

[spoony]

20. Religion didn't develop these drugs.

Sound science and reason should have some more of the latter and less blind zeal for the former.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. That's right. Religion doesn't develop drugs- fertility drugs, birth control drugs, etc.

it just tries to dictate to people whether or not they can use them.

[spoony]

56. Way to miss the point.

Not that I'm not used to it when discussing anything with anti-religious zealots, but when you complain about a scientific development and the problems that go along with using it, you cannot blame religion. Science takes credit for its good works, so let it take the blame for its bad works. Not everything on earth has to be twisted to slam religion.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. I think the benefits of fertility treatments far outweigh any "bad works" associated with them.

I don't even think fertility treatments are terribly difficult to defend.

Now, how about you articulate a defense for the Catholic Church's anti-birth control dogma?

[spoony]

58. How is that in any way related to

the unintended consequences of fertility treatments? None of this is religion's problem. And once more, trying to turn everything into a slam on religion just makes you look like a fanatic.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. So. You cannot articulate a defense of the Catholic Church's dogma about birth control.

Didn't think so.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. One Who Would Say Such A Thing Would Be Blatantly Lacking In Understanding God Or His Will.

I'm not sure such a person would then have any legitimacy to even put forth any premise involving God or His will.

God and science can co-exist perfectly fine, and in fact can even compliment each other.

Ignorance undermines sound science and reason. Not God.

[rebecca_herman]

21. Other

I guess you could say fertilty drugs go against what nature intended. But so do birth control pills, pain medications, antibiotics, and various other drugs we use because we feel they improve our lives. I think it's a personal choice to use fertility drugs, but some people do use them irresponsibly. It is possible to monitor with these drugs and see via ultrasound how many eggs the woman is likely to ovulate... so it's possible that the doctor monitored her incorrectly, or if they knew the facts but went ahead with the cycle anyway. If they knew they were morally opposed to abortion and would not be able to reduce they should have adopted or gone with less riskier treatments, rather than have 6 babies with such a poor outcome. It's not my decision and I don't think such treatments should be illegal but they need to be done ethically and responsibly. I'm just rather sad for how it turned out for tehse babies. I hope the ones still alive aren't aware enough to be suffering.

[Az]

22. To those that believe it is God's will

What occurs in this world that is not God's will? Just curious.

[pansypoo53219]

23. call me a bitch

but do we REALLY need that many more humans?? and amerikans? course i don't have kids and do not want them.

[WinkyDink]

24. Right there with you.

[Chemical Bill]

41. You're a bitch!

Well, you told me to. :hide:

[theHandpuppet]

44. No name calling from me

I'm right there with ya.

[Firespirit]

27. I don't understand why this is anyone else's BUSINESS.

God has nothing to do with it.

The borderline gloating on DU about these babies' deaths is sickening. I'm as pro-CHOICE as it is humanly possible to be, and whether one personally agrees with this woman's decision, it was her right and her body. We're supposed to be the ones who rise above playing politics with people's private lives.

There was and is a risk to her. There was a risk to the babies and that risk extends to the surviving three. Well, there is a risk in ANY pregnancy and ANY abortion, hell, any medical procedure. They accepted the risks. It's deeply offensive to me to imply that there needs to be a ban on the procedure or a requirement of selective abortion if there are too many embryos that implant. This is what they wanted to do as a family, and I don't consider it my place to second-guess it. My mother carried my youngest sibling, her fourth child, to term at age 40, while living with fibroid cysts. It's a health risk for a small woman, or an older woman, to carry any pregnancy to term, but it's her right to do so without being mandated to do something else "for her health." That's not liberal; that's nanny statism. We live in a society where people have the right to do many things regarded as foolish and dangerous.

When pro-choice women say "OUT of my uterus," we mean it, no matter what we CHOOSE to do with that organ.

[NashVegas]

29. I'm Not Gloating

I think things like this are a tragedy, and tragically stupid & selfish.

[Pushed To The Left]

33. Excellent points! I would "K&R" your post if responses could be recommended!

Not allowing a woman to choose to have children is just as anti-choice as not allowing her to have an abortion. As I mentioned in my other post, I don't think these fertility drugs are the best idea due to the risks of having 6 or 7 kids at once, but I would never want the government to penalize those who choose this route.

[Pushed To The Left]

28. Is there a way to create less potent fertility drugs?

Can they fix these drugs so couples could end up with one or two children rather than 6 or 7? Even if a couple is very wealthy, it has to be incredibly difficult to care for that many newborn children all at once!

[NashVegas]

30. When "Science" and Profit Ride in the Same Cart

It's not much better than politics + religion.

What parent on earth can cope with the emotional needs of six children, especially all at once?

[hyphenate]

31. With intense sarcasm

I would say that any woman/family who uses fertility drugs deserves whatever they get.

The only ones I have heard using them are members of the radical religious right, and those who do often refuse to reduce the number of embryos that are conceived. That's one of the reasons they have so many multiples. They contend that they are just "assisting" god's will, but they are, as always with the RRR, simply changing the rationale to suit their own purpose.

If these on the extreme religious right were oh-so-concerned about the welfare of children in the world, including women who opt for abortion or other preventative contraception, they would adopt many of the orphans the world over instead of having their own, perfect little white babies in droves. (Do I really need to include the sarcasm emoticon?)

Still the one fundie I have known for over 7 years (whose father is a doctor who protests for the anti-choice regime) had twins as the result of a fertility drug, even despite the fact that she already had one perfect little child at home (who, ironically, was given a name reminiscent of India (the one across the ocean!) and who, of course, would have nothing to do with adoption of those "less than desirable." I find it so entirely despicable of these people to try to control the choices of others, and then don't give their future "children" a stronger chance of survival. For those who have had multiple, extensive births, there is a certain attraction to being the darling of the media for awhile. (sarcasm again!)

[Maru Kitteh]

36. You are wildly uninformed, at best. But thanks for your sentiment, I hope we do get what we deserve

For YEARS we kept *hoping* it would happen naturally, turns out my husband had a 0 sperm count. Zero.

Finally we have health insurance that will cover at least the drugs so I can produce more eggs and give us a better shot at the baby we still desperately long for. Frozen sperm don't live that long so we have to balance out that deficit with more eggs. If I should happen to have more than 3 implant we will do selective reduction.

We'd love to adopt, but when you get right down to it, only the RICH truly have that option, so we continue with the option available to us.

Screw anybody who doesn't like it. They can bite me.

[Nikia]

38. A relative of mine conceived through artificial insemination

With no fertility drugs on the second try.
I know that it is expensive and that having more eggs increasees the chances of it working on the first time. I am just saying that having lots of eggs is not necessary in order to conceive through artificial insemination.

[Maru Kitteh]

45. You're right, it's not strictly necessary - but we are fighting lost time

and so now age is a very relevant, looming, ominous factor. I'm in my late 30's.

First time? Our first try was seven tries ago. I dropped my doctor because I really think his treatment approach probably negated about 3 or 4 of those tries.

[moc]

64. Sometimes you need more than 1 egg though (speaking from experience)

I had fertility treatment for both pg #1 and pg #2. Dx was male factor (very low count, mobility, morphology).

For pg #1, I got pregnant on the first IUI (intrauterine insemination) with no ovulation induction (no drugs). I was 33yo, and dd was born when I was 34.

We started trying to conceive #2 when I was 38. Same approach but no luck for 1.5 years - that's 1.5 years of cycling with an RE (reproductive endogrinologist) at a university medical center. We even tried triggered IUIs (i.e., ovulation triggered with HCG shot). Nothing worked. Our dx was changed to unknown but my age was probably a factor. We added pergonal to the mix to help me generate more eggs, increasing probability of success. I was closely monitored, and because my dh was opposed to selective reduction, my cycle would have been canceled if I'd produced too many viable follicles. I produced 2-3 per cycle, and we successfully conceived ds on cycle #2. He will turn 5 next month.

Please don't presume you understand how fertility treatment work. Yes, sometimes ovulation induction is necessary for success in IUI. However, under proper monitoring, there is no reason for higher order multiples.

[madmom]

32. so what happens to the eggs they don't keep, isn't this akin to

what they claim happens in stem cell research. If every viable egg is not used and brought to fruition, would this not be murder too?

[Pushed To The Left]

34. The right wing considers it murder only if the eggs are used to help people

If the eggs are flushed down the toilet, the right wing doesn't seem to care. Isn't rightwing logic wonderful?:sarcasm:

[nonconformist]

37. This couple is only 24 years old...

They might have even been 23 when they "conceived". It is ridiculous to me that they were taking fertility drugs in the first place.

[yurbud]

39. OTHER: no god & tech not perfected. I don't like "fetal pruning" or half the litter dying but

they may figure out how to prevent that in the future.

[Chemical Bill]

40. Other - none of my business. n/t

[Mz Pip]

42. The desire to reproduce is strong

People will take all kinds of extreme means to have a child of their own. And I really don't have a problem with using whatever means are available to achieve that. What I DO have a problem with is when the person discovers she is carrying a litter, suddenly the science part flies out the window and God's Will kicks in. So you end up with six babies that probably will die or if any survive they will have serious problems

Or use science responsibly. Don't have more than a couple of embryos put in at one time. Or (and I know this would be hard) selective abortion. It can be done. The result would be a couple of healthy viable babies vs. a litter where all would die.

I just don't think it's wise to pick and choose what part of science you'll use or what part of religion you'll use. Pick one. Mix and match doesn't work well. If you want to use science to procreate then don't stop with the implantation. If you're religious, then accept that maybe God doesn't want you to have a kid.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Nikki Stone1]

46. Mz Pip, you and I are on the same page here

Thanks for stating it so well.

[pitohui]

43. nothing to do with god's will but yeah fertility drugs should be illegal

we have a badly overpopulated world where resources are more and more in short supply and jobs/futures are more and more in short supply


fertility drugs should be illegal and anyone using or selling them should be sterilized until such time as the world population is stablized at a sustainable level which will probably not be until we have killed off half or more of the world's species of plants and a quarter or more of the world's species of animals

i really don't care how sad it is that someone can't breed, we ALL have things we can't do in life, yet we are not allowed to do whatever we like at any cost in human and environmental suffering


when there is more than enough abundance for the people already here then tell me about some religious nut's need to procreate (somehow it is almost always a religious nut, isn't it, because normal people have other internal resources and are not completely dependent on having a child to have meaning in their lives)

[gollygee]

52. I know an awful lot of non-religious people who have used fertility drugs

None that have had sextuplets or anything like that, but I don't think the desire to reproduce is dependent at all on being religious.

[pitohui]

61. so what does that have to do w. right and wrong?

believe it or not, an atheist can be a selfish shithead too, it probably isn't as likely as a religious winger being a selfish shithead but yeah it happens

there are too many people in the world, if your drive to act by instinct is stronger than your ability to reason then you are pretty much by definition a sociopath who is just out for your own desires

[AZBlue]

47. Are you referring to those couples who try to have 6 babies claiming that's God's will?

Yeah, I'm with you there. I think fertility drugs in general are great and know quite a few babies that have come into this world due to them. And, two of them are twins - and one is a set of triplets. But beyond that it becomes a selfish thing. Carrying too many babies puts each of those babies at risk. And, saying that it's God's will to have 6 is pretty ironic since it wasn't God that made that person pregnant but drugs.

And then the parents of quintuplets and sextuplets will seek all sorts of media attention so that everyone can give them money and presents and homes and cars and college educations - that's the part that really really burns me up. If you can't afford to care for 6 babies, then don't have 6 babies.

[gollygee]

49. Oh that's too bad :(

If it were me I certainly would have done selective reduction and had two or three healthy newborns. It's sad. I guess they did what was right for them, but it certainly can't be said to be god's will that they had 6, or god's will that those 3 died even because if they would have followed god's will they wouldn't have had any kids apparently. And I don't see how they can argue that it's god's will that the other three are in critical condition. It's just tragic :(

About adoption - it isn't all that easy. I know two couples who have tried various routes - and not people who only want white babies with no health problems either - and from what I've seen, it seems to be harder than it sounds. This is not first person so all I can say is that they try one option after another and none seems to result in a child joining their families. Lots of heartbreak. I think having a baby by giving birth is definitely the easy way. Once I was past the first three months, I knew at the end of it, unless something horrible and statistically unlikely happened, I'd have a baby, and I even knew about when.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

50. "God" (or whatever other fictive being gets the credit or the blame)

hasn't a damn thing to do with it.

[SarahB]

51. If I were a physician, I'd not do this unless the couple agreed to selective reduction to 3 or less.

Too risky for humans to have litters. Our bodies weren't designed for this.

If that were not acceptable to the couple, adoption is always an option. Hard choice, but I'd bet they've never cared for severely disabled children either. Try CP, permanent trachs and vent dependency for such early term births... if they survive.

p.s. As the mom in a blended (by re-marriage) family of five. I'm all for families as big as people can afford and remain sane in. This is a medical issue.

[Madspirit]

54. "Other"

There is no god and if people want to use fertility drugs that's their business. It doesn't usually end this way.

I personally would prefer people adopt some of the millions of children of the world who need families but this is an area ...not my business.

...unless you want a complete diversion from the Idea of the Topic...environmental impact of people over-burdening the earth with kiddos but this is not the topic.

This is just a sad story. Nothing more. Nothing less. One family's tragedy.

Oh yeah and even if I did believe in god which I don't, it wouldn't be any of Her business either unless we're just Her meaningless little toys with no will of our own and no rights of our own.
Lee

[Breeze54]

59. What sad news for them. Gheesh....

It's their choice.

Gawd is a myth.

[Gormy Cuss]

62. Whether it's God's will or a subversion of God's will is a question of faith and dogma.

For those who have no belief in God, it's a moot question. For those that do, either their own religious training or the guidance of their clergy can help them address that question. To me it seems that choosing to undergo fertility treatments that have a proven history of resulting in high numbers of multiples places a burden on the doctors to explain just how dangerous the pregnancy is compared to a typical one and to explain at length, with pictures and real life stories, just how frequently the "miracle" doesn't turn out well. It also places a burden on the potential parents to make the hard choice between risking no success with methods that don't risk high count multiple pregnancies or having selective reduction with those that do, or pretending that they have no free will and that whatever happens, only God made the choice for them. In some faiths free will is not considered and for those patients there may be no moral dilemma -- anything that happens can be seen as God's will.

[MazeRat7]

63. Gods Will ? That makes no sense... if your "God"... then why would you have "will"...-nt

[pansypoo53219]

65. my great-aunt couldn't have kids

so she mothered the little baby boomers her siblings popped out. and probable any others who came close. i can't think of why she NEEDED to have her own. my cousin and my uncle have adopted from china.

i just glad i have no desire. rather have kittens.

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

66. Knowing the facts...

My DH and I aren't particularly religious, and are both very pro-choice. We had a miscarriage after our first son was born, and they weren't initially sure why. It turned out the issue was on my end. We had a very informed OB who would not start any kind of fertility drugs on ANYONE until they had tried to conceive naturally for a full year, under medical supervision, with no luck. Our year passed, and nothing had happened. He started a low dose of Clomid (50 mg), and warned us that there was a 10% higher chance of a twin pregnancy, which we were already aware of, and could deal with had it happened. Three months passed, and nothing, so he raised the dose to 100 mg. Finally, after two months on the increased dosage, we were pregnant, and went on to have a healthy son. A few years later, we had a daughter without the help of any fertility meds.

We had looked at adopting, and were seriously considering it, until the cost came up. Adoption through a reputable agency can easily run $10,000-15,000 and up, and this was before the tax credits were available. The health insurance would cover the treatment we needed if we tried to conceive a biological child, so that was the option we took.

For some of these parents who end up with high-order multiples, the desire is so strong to just have a baby, and they've been trying so long, that there might be a real sense of desperation. Sometimes the parents (and medical community) go beyond the bounds of ethics, and try to push the human body to do something it's not meant to do. It's so important to go into any kind of medical treatment informed, and knowing the risks and benefits. It's foolish and unethical for a doctor to try to implant a large number of embryos, because the more that are put in, the higher the risk. Many doctors WILL NOT implant more than three in an in-vitro procedure, because of the risk of high-order multiple pregnancies, and the higher incidence of miscarriage or life-threatening complications. Sadly, what has happened with these three babies is an example why. I hope that their legacy is that the scientific community (and prospective parents) take the time to become informed about the risks of these medical procedures.