Selective Reduction

[BlueChair]

The women over at MWOP are tearing apart a blogger who has scheduled a selective reduction of her triplet pregnancy. I went over to read her blog and see for myself what was going on rather than reading any more of their catty judgments on the subject (MURDER!!1!!!!1!).

I'm quite intrigued by this woman. She's made a rational decision based on her assessment of the risks and benefits that stays true to her values. The abortion rhetoric out there tells us that abortion can never be a rational, non-coerced decision, unless you are inherently selfish (which she is now being labeled).

I don't envy her position, to have to face this with a very wanted pregnancy, and admire her ability to stay rational and true to herself when I would probably be overcome by emotion. She's opening herself up for a shit storm of hate by being so public with her story.

babymakingmerrygoround.blogspot.no/2012/06/multifetal-reduction.html#comment-form

[FaeT]

While I do agree that what she is doing is wrong, that doesn't give me the right to tell her what she can and cannot do. I wish these so called "christians" would figure that out ..

Is this a natural pregnancy? Honestly, if a woman's doing IVF, and choses to transfer three embryos, she needs to realize that she could in fact end up with triplets. I remember one woman who transferred three embryos. They all took and then one split! She ended up with four babies, two being identical twins. She did end up miscarrying one of the singletons so I believe she ended up with three anyway.

Also, I hope she understands the risks to losing the whole pregnancy by doing selective reduction. Just imagine the hate mail she'll get from these so called "christians" if she ends up losing the whole thing ...

[BlueChair]

She transferred two, and one embryo split three times. She already miscarried one of the triplets and will be reducing the remaining two.

[Conuly]

I don't see how selective reduction is wrong. Every time you add a fetus to a pregnancy, you're increasing the risk of birth defects and complications. Working to reduce the odds of a miscarriage or of cerebral palsy and the like can only be good for your children.

Humans aren't really equipped to have more than two children at once, and even that is a stretch. We're very lucky that having triplets is no longer an almost guaranteed death sentence for all three (assuming you even carry to term), but that doesn't mean it's good or healthy. Trying to improve your kids' quality of life is only for the best.

If you're having fertility treatments, there's a chance you'll end up with multiples. The responsible individual has a plan in place to deal with this before it happens - whether that plan is "reduction" or "keep them all" or "reduction only after a certain number" of course varies according to the individual, but I don't see how having a reduction means she wasn't aware of the risks when she started the procedure.

[FaeT]

By risks I meant the risk that reducing the pregnancy could result in losing the whole thing. A lot of people don't think that far ahead. Hell, people using IVF are just are hoping to get pregnant at all. It's an ugly road for the most part. Sadly.

One egg split three times?! That's insanely crazy. So she's currently pregnant with twins and wants to reduce to one?

Still, though, all of this amounts to nothing. It's her body and it's her life, therefore it's her choice. And no one needs to agree with that outside of her and her partner. (And the doctor .. that general helps )

[OkToBeTakei]

I think it his her choice. But the one thing that does bother me is the use of the word 'reduction' and this I do not understand because I have no issue with abortion ...far from it. Maybe I am too literal. She gives all the well thought out reasons for 'reducing' quotes the medical odds, statistics quite analytically. Then uses a slightly less evocative term 'reduction.'

For some reason that makes me uncomfortable.

[BlueChair]

No, she's pregnant with three. One singleton and the two remaining from the three-way split.

[Minerva]

I think it his her choice. But the one thing that does bother me is the use of the word 'reduction' and this I do not understand because I have no issue with abortion ...far from it. Maybe I am too literal. She gives all the well thought out reasons for 'reducing' quotes the medical odds, statistics quite analytically. Then uses a slightly less evocative term 'reduction.'

For some reason that makes me uncomfortable.

This has definitely been discussed in other threads, but she may be using the term reduction to make it clear that she's not aborting the whole pregnancy.

I don't see how selective reduction is wrong. Every time you add a fetus to a pregnancy, you're increasing the risk of birth defects and complications. Working to reduce the odds of a miscarriage or of cerebral palsy and the like can only be good for your children.

Humans aren't really equipped to have more than two children at once, and even that is a stretch. We're very lucky that having triplets is no longer an almost guaranteed death sentence for all three (assuming you even carry to term), but that doesn't mean it's good or healthy. Trying to improve your kids' quality of life is only for the best.

If you're having fertility treatments, there's a chance you'll end up with multiples. The responsible individual has a plan in place to deal with this before it happens - whether that plan is "reduction" or "keep them all" or "reduction only after a certain number" of course varies according to the individual, but I don't see how having a reduction means she wasn't aware of the risks when she started the procedure.

All of this. There is literally nothing wrong with giving your children a better life.

ETA I will be following her blog. It is sure to make misogynist heads spin. Also, should this thread maybe be in Snark?

[Witsec7]

It's her choice. I'm glad she shared her decision making process, and I will follow her blog in the future. I'm sick of hearing the shriven cries of teh bayhbees every time a woman makes public her reproductive choices.

[Conuly]

By risks I meant the risk that reducing the pregnancy could result in losing the whole thing. A lot of people don't think that far ahead.

I don't know much about this subject, but I assume she does. She repeats several times on her entry and in the comments that the risk of miscarriage is slightly higher if she does NOT go through with the reduction. Triplets are not guaranteed to survive till the due date.

That with the risk of a premature birth, health problems for her, and birth defects? I'd say that not going along with the reduction solely because of the miscarriage risk (when it's HIGHER for those who do not reduce) is "not thinking far enough ahead".

Edit: I want to make sure I'm clear. I'm okay with people not reducing, and I'm okay with them reducing as well. Choice doesn't always mean "the choice I would make" or "the choice I like". I think making your decision based on the miscarriage risk of reduction is, however, not taking all the facts into account.

[OkToBeTakei]

I don't know much about this subject, but I assume she does. She repeats several times on her entry and in the comments that the risk of miscarriage is slightly higher if she does NOT go through with the reduction. Triplets are not guaranteed to survive till the due date.

That with the risk of a premature birth, health problems for her, and birth defects? I'd say that not going along with the reduction solely because of the miscarriage risk (when it's HIGHER for those who do not reduce) is "not thinking far enough ahead".

Edit: I want to make sure I'm clear. I'm okay with people not reducing, and I'm okay with them reducing as well. Choice doesn't always mean "the choice I would make" or "the choice I like". I think making your decision based on the miscarriage risk of reduction is, however, not taking all the facts into account.

The statistics are just that and never absolute. No human body reacts the same, environmental factors each fetus etc. Despite my misgivings at the terminology, the part of her reasoning that I did like is that she was open enough to say that she feels her life, her relationship and therefore probably the children's lives would be adversely effected. It does take guts to say...no way I will or want to cope with that.

As Minerva said it is probably just terminology 'We will probably reduce the twins' Just jarred me. And yes I am sure this has been hashed over before.

[Witsec7]

...

As Minerva said it is probably just terminology 'We will probably reduce the twins' Just jarred me. And yes I am sure this has been hashed over before.

So how would you have preferred she express this?

[OkToBeTakei]

Like I said literally. A friend was pregnant with twins one was diagnosed in vitro as suffering from 'Down's Syndrome' The way she expressed her decision was to say she aborted.

Maybe it is because of the way it reads. To be honest I have no idea why it jarred me so much. Trying to figure it in my head.

[kb2]

By risks I meant the risk that reducing the pregnancy could result in losing the whole thing. A lot of people don't think that far ahead. Hell, people using IVF are just are hoping to get pregnant at all. It's an ugly road for the most part. Sadly.

One egg split three times?! That's insanely crazy. So she's currently pregnant with twins and wants to reduce to one?

Still, though, all of this amounts to nothing. It's her body and it's her life, therefore it's her choice. And no one needs to agree with that outside of her and her partner. (And the doctor .. that general helps )

The risk of miscarrying after a selective reduction is less than the risk of miscarrying a triplet pregnancy.

You seem surprised at the info that embryos can split, but assert that "a lot of people don't think that far ahead" when it comes to multiple pregnancies after fertility treatment. I think it is odd that you seem so sure of what "a lot of people" going through fertility treatments know about what they're doing when you don't seem to know that much about it yourself. Octomom aside, the all of people I've known who have done fertility treatments were very much aiming for a singleton pregnancy and were aware of the risks of multiples.

I've enjoyed all your posts so far except for this one. I'm looking forward to reading more from you in the future...but about topics you know more about.

[aubrietta]

So how would you have preferred she express this?

Exactly. What alternative word choices could she have made that wouldn't have been jarring? I'm sure it's a "jarring" situation for her. And if the embryos are twins, and they are leaning towards reducing them...then what else should she have said?

I get pissed when people criticize how people talk about their own personal shitty situations - pregnancies specifically, because I have had two super shitty pregnancies, and have all sorts of medical oddities that make my pregnancies high risk, and both times there were chances that I thought I was going to lose the pregnancy in the second or third trimester and so I made dark jokes and spoke really matter of factly and was criticized for being detached or unemotional. Really, I was incredibly distraught, but didn't find that crying and gushing was that productive, so I coped the way that worked for me.

[Maul the Koala]

I agree that this should be in Snark.

What is bothering me is the amount of commenters that are telling her that she won't regret having triplets, that it'll all be worth it. What an interesting assumption.

[StarrieEyedKat]

I agree that this should be in Snark.

Your wish is my command.

[Minerva]

I'm reading back in time, and this is what she wrote in the comments section of a post:

[...] I always consider leaving terms out to avoid google searches, etc. but there is so little actual information on the issue that I'd like it to be out there.

babymakingmerrygoround.blogspot.no/2012/06/my-new-sunday.html#comment-form

So that could be why she's using that particular terminology.

[OkToBeTakei]

I'm reading back in time, and this is what she wrote in the comments section of a post:

babymakingmerrygoround.blogspot.no/2012/06/my-new-sunday.html#comment-form

So that could be why she's using that particular terminology.

That totally never occurred to me. She is pretty wise.

Culturally I just tend to be very literal. Scottish people are in general.

[Maul the Koala]

I'm trying to find the blogs that are discussing it and I came across this little gem of a blog

mychocolatehart.blogspot.de/2011/08/americas-shop-of-horrors-manufacturing.html

Lovely. I couldn't even make it through the first paragraph. I had to send in a comment after that. What a hateful wench.

[tigerchild]

Hi, long time lurker, first time poster.

I think this is one of those things that you will never understand until you are forced to make that decision.

During my twin pregnancy, we found out that our twins at Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome. This was in the early 2000s where there were two places in the the US that performed in utero surgery that was hopeful to save the life of at least one baby, and my insurance company would only pay for the surgery in FL (we live in Seattle), and still a majority of babies with that condition in a severe state died no matter what. At any moment, where my donor twin to die, he would bleed out into his brother, essentially, meaning brain damage and probably death for the surviving twin as well. We hovered on the edge of qualifying for the surgery (obviously, in utero laser surgery is highly risky, as is cross country travel afterwards, and my insurance would have permitted me to stay in the hospital no more than 36 hours after the surgery).

A lot of people cannot afford that kind of care. I was offered selective reduction of one twin (the donor) so that I could guarantee the life of my other one (who was stronger, not facing IUGR, ect.). In the end, I could not make that choice, and decided to do...nothing. So, happy ending, I should be crowing to the pro-life crowd what a heroine I am, right?

Wrong.

As it turns out, we were very lucky. My boys both lived, with no permanent damage to either one. Most TTTS cases as severe as ours do not turn out that way. But instead of feeling all smug, really for the longest time whenever I looked at my boys all I could think about is that I was fucking selfish and squeamish enough to KILL them *both* (or kill one and maim one) so that I wouldn't have to go against my fundie-raised sensibilities and dirty my hands. That was all about ME. Not about the babies. I'd roll rather the dice to kill both my kids than guarantee the safety of one. I don't see how I came out a heroine or smelling like a rose in that one. My boys are now 9 and to be honest, while it does not happen every day like it used to, it still haunts me. That I was willing to sacrifice one of my children to save myself discomfort and judgement from ignorant people.

People who judge other people having to make those kinds of decisions make me want to vomit. I hope to hell that they never have to face karmic retribution and find themselves in the position to KNOW what kind of hell that is. I was one of those lukewarm "oh, I suppose it's individual choice but I'd NEVER choose that!!" people before. Now I have nothing but the deepest respect and yes, admiration, for people who made different choices. I'll never know what kind of strength that took because I was a selfish wimp when I faced it. A lucky selfish wimp. Anyone who hasn't been there who thinks that they should judge those can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. When you are faced with that kind of decision, there IS no feel good choice, and there IS no happy choice. No matter what a woman chooses, she deserves to be supported and loved. No matter what you decide, you are probably going to feel pain and regret about the what-ifs for many years to come.

[aubrietta]

Hi, long time lurker, first time poster.

I think this is one of those things that you will never understand until you are forced to make that decision.

During my twin pregnancy, we found out that our twins at Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome. This was in the early 2000s where there were two places in the the US that performed in utero surgery that was hopeful to save the life of at least one baby, and my insurance company would only pay for the surgery in FL (we live in Seattle), and still a majority of babies with that condition in a severe state died no matter what. At any moment, where my donor twin to die, he would bleed out into his brother, essentially, meaning brain damage and probably death for the surviving twin as well. We hovered on the edge of qualifying for the surgery (obviously, in utero laser surgery is highly risky, as is cross country travel afterwards, and my insurance would have permitted me to stay in the hospital no more than 36 hours after the surgery).

A lot of people cannot afford that kind of care. I was offered selective reduction of one twin (the donor) so that I could guarantee the life of my other one (who was stronger, not facing IUGR, ect.). In the end, I could not make that choice, and decided to do...nothing. So, happy ending, I should be crowing to the pro-life crowd what a heroine I am, right?

Wrong.

As it turns out, we were very lucky. My boys both lived, with no permanent damage to either one. Most TTTS cases as severe as ours do not turn out that way. But instead of feeling all smug, really for the longest time whenever I looked at my boys all I could think about is that I was fucking selfish and squeamish enough to KILL them *both* (or kill one and maim one) so that I wouldn't have to go against my fundie-raised sensibilities and dirty my hands. That was all about ME. Not about the babies. I'd roll rather the dice to kill both my kids than guarantee the safety of one. I don't see how I came out a heroine or smelling like a rose in that one. My boys are now 9 and to be honest, while it does not happen every day like it used to, it still haunts me. That I was willing to sacrifice one of my children to save myself discomfort and judgement from ignorant people.

People who judge other people having to make those kinds of decisions make me want to vomit. I hope to hell that they never have to face karmic retribution and find themselves in the position to KNOW what kind of hell that is. I was one of those lukewarm "oh, I suppose it's individual choice but I'd NEVER choose that!!" people before. Now I have nothing but the deepest respect and yes, admiration, for people who made different choices. I'll never know what kind of strength that took because I was a selfish wimp when I faced it. A lucky selfish wimp. Anyone who hasn't been there who thinks that they should judge those can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. When you are faced with that kind of decision, there IS no feel good choice, and there IS no happy choice. No matter what a woman chooses, she deserves to be supported and loved. No matter what you decide, you are probably going to feel pain and regret about the what-ifs for many years to come.

Exactly. Anti-abortion people often use the looming threat of regretting your decision as a discouragement to aborting. Which is stupid. Because people regret all sorts of decisions and make them anyways. People regret all sorts of major life decisions. You did the thing that pro-lifers preach about, and had a happy ending and still have regret.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I don't see how selective reduction is wrong. Every time you add a fetus to a pregnancy, you're increasing the risk of birth defects and complications. Working to reduce the odds of a miscarriage or of cerebral palsy and the like can only be good for your children.

Humans aren't really equipped to have more than two children at once, and even that is a stretch. We're very lucky that having triplets is no longer an almost guaranteed death sentence for all three (assuming you even carry to term), but that doesn't mean it's good or healthy. Trying to improve your kids' quality of life is only for the best.

If you're having fertility treatments, there's a chance you'll end up with multiples. The responsible individual has a plan in place to deal with this before it happens - whether that plan is "reduction" or "keep them all" or "reduction only after a certain number" of course varies according to the individual, but I don't see how having a reduction means she wasn't aware of the risks when she started the procedure.

Speaking as someone who has gone through a multiple pregancy, this. Even with twins the normal risks associated with pregnancy skyrocket. Selective reproduction isn't even in the same category as abortions, IMO.

People like Kate Gosselin piss me off so much for making high-order multiples look like a fashion accessory.

[OkToBeTakei]

I don't see any difference in either term.

I do not think abortion is wrong. I do not think 'reduction' is wrong. I just do not see why one term is used to describe essentially the same thing.

If a woman cannot support one baby, does not wish it for whatever reason it is abortion. That comes with all the baggage that term brings. If a woman decides she cannot support more than one baby it is 'reduction' Does it matter that the reason maybe the same that the woman decides what is right for her?

[Oddeverything]

I don't even need to read the blog of the woman in question who is teh ebil for selectively aborting because if Michele S. is bringing it up, then there is a 99% chance something stupid is going on. Michele S., the woman who brought this up over on MWoP, used IVF herself and had multiples, either triplets or quads, and she's a person known to have "interesting" points of view. She posts on ZsuZsu's blog like a slavering little dog, begging for attention, bashing whatever issues it is ZsuZsu wants to demean that day. She does this AFTER ZsuZsu has made it clear IVF is the devil, but she magnanimously gives Michele slack because Michele clearly loves her children and didn't selectively rid herself of them.

In ZsuZsu's recent attack of attachment parenting, Michele S. told an unlikely story of a party in which a man sat for an hour begging his child to get out of a pool while the child defied him. She said this because ZsuZsu specifically made the point that children of Attachment Parents make them look like fools (as if a woman with a minimum of three newborns could have engaged in AP to any degree to know if it works well, but never mind that) and patting ZsZsu's back with her own bizarre notions of raising children. It's uncomfortable to watch as she tries to curry favor. IIRC, she actually said kids of Attachment Parenting will end up serial killers and had to have popped an e-woody when ZsuZsu specifically said that made her laugh..

Michele S. commented about the woman selectively aborting in order to be all, "Look at me, I did this right, I am moral, not like the bitches who use IVF and then selectively abort to avoid having more children than they want, can manage or may be healthy for them! See how moral and awesome I am? See? Tell me I'm a good Christian, tell me I'm a good girl!" She seeks validation online to a degree that is embarrassing to watch. Glad to see she's spreading her emotional needs over to the think tank on MWoP. It would be horrible for her if she only had ZsuZsu 's boots to lick.