Posted on 05/08/2007 11:20:22 AM PDT by Scotswife
Read up on the complications associated with high order multiples. If there’s trouble — and there usually is — there’s a limited window in which to save any of the babies, at least without severe brain damage. Wait too long and there are often no survivors, and if any do survive it’s in very bad condition. Some women can carry quads successfully, with good outcomes for all 4 babies, but that’s the exception, not the rule.
Their motive was to have babies. Nobody has an unlimited supply of money, and many couples undergoing IVF run out of money before having a baby. And adoption is not an option for everyone — most adoption agencies, domestic and foreign, don’t accept parents over a certain age, usually 40 or 45. This father was 47 and the mother was quite likely over 40.
My husband & I were allowed in the NICU with my daughter & her husband...(no one else)
NICU worked at bonding my daughter & husband immediately, even though there were all those bells and whistles.
Every night, my daughter/her hubby talked, cooed and sang to her, and prayed with her before they left the hospital.
I got to hold her when she was teeny tiny :)
She's coming over tomorow to 'play with Grammy' ....
..I went to the market today and got frosted animal crackers, lunchables, chocolate milk, ice cream bars, fruit...
...and 64 crayons with a large coloring book ..
I found a pink plastic castle --with turrets!--at a garage sale...and we keep her Christmas tricycle here:)
while this particular situation has nothing to with pba, the author clearly sympathizes with people who “choose” pba.
He links his justification with justification for the other.
It doesn’t matter there isn’t any medical condition that necessitates pba...don’t let facts discourage the propoganda.
“Why didn’t they chose adoption?”
They weren’t expecting four embryos to survive - pregnancy with multiples is considered “dangerous”, and apparantly girls are more worthy of life than boys.
“Why do people like this say they want children, when it’s so obvious they don’t place value on the lives of children. Having kids for them is purely selfish.”
The have a “right” to have children which supersedes the consequences to the human fetuses.
Wow. He used his name and everything
I hope his daughters don’t read this column someday.
..allow the child to be adopted.
What other choice is there.?
“What do you think your friends will do?”
I have no idea.
They don’t want them destroyed.
They don’t want them adopted.
They cannot carry them to term.
They are just.....sitting there.
I think that snowflake embryo adoption program is wonderful! I wish more people would consider it.
I have friends who considered it and then rejected it. They didn't want to think about their child out their being raised by someone else. Selfish, isn't it? But then I wonder how I would feel.....I would hope that I would be bigger than that, but one never knows.
Now they contemplate whether to allow the embryos to be discarded/killed outright or whether to donate them to research potentially accomplishing something good. It's a new, mad world out there.
well...they cannot medically carry them to term.
They do not want them adopted out.
You are talking about couples willing to spend thousands of dollars to “have” children, and then asking them to “give up” children - I know intellectually it is easy to point out the obvious, but emotionally they don’t want to “give away” their own kids.
The embryos sit there where they are.
Have you all not seen the Snowflakes at the White House the past two years or moe?
President Bush has them... with their adoptive parents... come on stage....beautiful, beautiful children!
What you two are saying....about your friends...is abortion.
They would rather the embryo be aborted, killed, discarded...
..rather than let some parent desperate for a child, adopt it.
Yes, that’s what they are saying. It’s sad. In my perfect (yet, heartless, to some) world there would be no IVF. There are plenty of children to adopt.
The Mother was already hospitalized with complications,this may have been their only option. I like to think I would try to tough it out...bring all babies into the world, but if you were going to lose all the babies or perhaps die of complications yourself...I just don’t know. This reminds me of the book Sophies choice. I hate to tell this guy there is no guarantee any of the babies will make it to term. My daughter was hospitalized (twins) at 24 weeks and has been taking all kinds of meds in order to get to 34 weeks. I feel bad for the Mother. Maybe he feels ‘good about his decision’ but I bet she doesn’t. I don’t know anyone who ever had an abortion who doesn’t regret it bitterly. I have never heard one person say they did the right thing.
most adoption agencies, domestic and foreign, don’t accept parents over a certain age, usually 40 or 45. This father was 47 and the mother was quite likely over 40.
Not true. Most international agencies have limits, but it is not mid to late 40’s. Many programs, you can be in your 50s under certain conditions.
My daughter had been married 8 years and they had just gone to the adoption agency, when, the next week, she found out she was pregnant.
Also, if I was his wife, I would be mad that he even wrote this article. It should be a private matter-not used for political garbage.
to most people they don’t consider this abortion (I’m not saying this is my position)
When it comes to ivf - frozen embryos - it seems people remain....quiet.
I think it is because you are talking about people who have conceived or are trying to conceive, so people don’t like to think about what remains behind at the clinic.
“The Governor’s “Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act” would expand the current health clause to permit abortions late in pregnancies. The bill’s “re-in-vitro” section would give women the right to abort fetuses up to 30 days after “full emergence,” provided dilation of the birth canal sufficient to allow reinsertion of the fetus’ head could be achieved.
I am very confused - what are they talking about? Letting the baby actually crown and then shoving it back in to kill it??? This is infanticide plain and simple. If any “mother” is so ambivalent to go to near term and then want an abortion, what about just having the kid and giving it to someone who wants it? This is so sick ....The Dems are clearly over on the Dark side with Satan. This is way beyond evil.
Talk about a mixed-up personality. He has not concept of how stupid he sounds. He actually thinks he is being reasonable here. In the first place, just because boys are more likly to have autism, is that a reason to destroy these little boys? Also, he reacts to the possibility of having a child with handicaps as though it is an unthinkable idea. Who made him God, anyway?
Basically the article is all about me, me, me, or more about us, us, us and not about the entire family. Parents who decide to have children ought to do so out of love and a willingness to give unconditionaly love, not just to obtain trophy babies.
By-the-way, this type of situation is only one of the many reasons why the Catholic Church is against in-vitro fertilization. It’s a heart-wrenching thing to not be able to conceive to be sure, but then situations like this arise quite often. None of it is natural. It’s all very sad.
I noted your recent signup date and hope you realize that Scotswife is not the author of this article, merely the poster. Welcome to Free Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.