December 18, 2010 7:37 AM
Selective Reduction: aborting one twin
Heartbreaking.
When Is Twins Too Many?
Tom Blackwell, National Post
Friday, Dec. 10, 2010Like so many other couples these days, the Toronto-area business executive and her husband put off having children for years as they built successful careers. Both parents were in their 40s -- and their first son just over a year old -- when this spring the woman became pregnant a second time. Seven weeks in, an ultrasound revealed the Burlington, Ont., resident was carrying twins. "It came as a complete shock," said the mother, who asked not to be named. "We're both career people. If we were going to have three children two years apart, someone else was going to be raising our kids. ... All of a sudden our lives as we know them and as we like to lead them, are not going to happen."
She soon discovered another option: Doctors could "reduce" the pregnancy from twins to a singleton through a little-known procedure that eliminates selected fetuses -- and has become increasingly common in the past two decades amid a boom in the number of multiple pregnancies.
Selective reductions are typically carried out for women pregnant with triplets or greater, where the risk of harm or death climbs sharply with each additional fetus. The Ontario couple is part of what some experts say is a growing demand for reducing twins to one, fuelled more by socio-economic imperatives than medical need, and raising vexing new ethical questions.
Experts question whether parents should choose to terminate a fetus just because of the impact the child would have on their lives, and note that even more medically necessary reductions can trigger lifelong angst and even threaten marriages.
The mother said the Toronto doctor who eventually did her reduction performs several a month.
Lynda Haddon, who counsels couples over fetal losses for the support group Multiple Births Canada, said she has heard from a number of people in the past several months who were seeking twin reductions to lessen their burden as parents, something she had never encountered before. Though she strives to help them in a nonjudgmental way, she admits the trend "saddens and scares" her. "Is this a healthy thing? We have to ask these questions: Where does it stop? When do children become a commodity?"
The Burlington woman, however, says she has no regrets, and believes the option should be openly available to all parents expecting twins.
"I'm absolutely sure I did the right thing," she said. "I had read some online forums, people were speaking of grieving, feeling a sense of loss. I didn't feel any of that. Not that I'm a cruel, bitter person ... I just didn't feel I would be able to care for (twins) in a way that I wanted to."
A New York City obstetrician and leading specialist in the field confirmed that the demand for twin reductions has increased and likely will continue to do so, especially among 40-somethings. Twins make up about 5% to 7% of the total reductions, said Dr. Mark Evans, who sometimes performs the procedure on Canadians.
While he once believed reductions were ethically warranted only for triplets or higher-order multiple pregnancies, he said the evidence now suggests that reducing twins to a singleton leads, on average, to better outcomes.
The classic twin-reduction case, however, involves a couple on their second marriage who have children and want just one more addition -- and might end the whole pregnancy otherwise, Dr. Evans said. "In North America, couples can choose to have an abortion for any reason," he noted.
Fetal reductions are most commonly conducted by inserting an ultrasound-guided needle through the mother's abdomen and into the uterus, injecting a potassium chloride solution into the chosen fetus or fetuses, stopping their hearts. They are typically performed between the ninth and 12th week, often with the most accessible or smallest fetuses marked for reduction, unless one is abnormal.
Read more at National Post
HT: andie
Posted in Pro-Life Issues | Permalink
Comments
I have heard of selective reduction in multiple births when there are 5 or more babies...and excuse me, that IS what they are...calling them fetuses doesn't make them any less human. Doing it in a case of twins is something I've not previously heard of. This woman is just selfish. As a Catholic, I believe reduction is wrong. Abortion is abortion, no matter how you try to make the horror of it less by giving it a different name. And abortion is murder.
Posted by: Chrissy | December 18, 2010 8:28 AM
gut wrenching. That's all I can think about this. How horrid! Does this woman NOT understand that twins have this innate ability to sense their twin? That surviving child will be so confused and possibly feel as if there is someone missing.
How selfish. This is why I can't stand IVF. It's a selfish act. I'm not heartless and cold about people that suffer with infertility. I truly can understand the pain and suffering they go through. But to spend so much money on IVF, have their babies created in a petri dish as if it's some type of science experiment in the high school science lab, and then to turn around and kill a child just because it survived the transfer and now she thinks the baby will negatively impact her life?
I'll be quiet now. My heart breaks for the lost baby and the surviving twin. What joy they both could have added to her obviously joyless life.
Posted by: Dirtdartwife | December 18, 2010 8:43 AM
It's the whole idea that children are a consumer good. She ordered ONE baby. She does a "return to Sender" with the "surplus" baby.
Posted by: Christina | December 18, 2010 9:32 AM
This is one of the most disturbing topics I've encountered in recent years. I don't condone or accept abortion in any circumstance, but in my mind there is something extra evil about these "reductions". Incredibly selfish and heartbreaking behavior from my generation.
Posted by: cam | December 18, 2010 10:02 AM
i feel a bit sick to my stomach...
Posted by: michelle | December 18, 2010 11:22 AM
Vomit.
Posted by: gretchen from lifenut | December 18, 2010 12:15 PM
I read this article off of Spirit Daily yesterday. It is extremely disturbing. I know "selective reduction" is done when there are many babies to ensure that all of them don't die or the mother's life is not endangered, which to me is still abortion and murder, but at least there is some twisted logic for survival of the many babies and/or the mom. But in this case, it seems it is just pure selfishness. I was amazed that this mom already had one child and she could still feel no regret in killing one of her twins. Her conscience is truly dead!
Posted by: Julie | December 18, 2010 12:43 PM
Having experienced infertility myself, I can not say that IVF is completely a selfish act. God is still the Author & Creator of life regardless of if that life is created in the womb or in a petri dish.
There are many Christian women (couples) in the world who prayed and considered options and believe whole-heartedly that God brought them to IVF. Others were blessed by a couple who placed their embryos for adoption. And still others were blessed through an embryo donation. Now they are holding their miracle children.
Yes, there are those who choose IVF with selfish intentions and there are those who choose to end a life because it would prove inconvienent to their lifestyle. The ones who do not cherish the gift of their children are the selfish ones.
I absolutely can not condone anyone choosing to kill their child whether born or in the womb. Abortion is abortion no matter what guilt-soothing label may be placed on it.
It is heartbreaking and this woman and others will one day know the full extent of their actions.
Posted by: j dan | December 18, 2010 12:58 PM
It really is horrifying, isn't it? God have mercy on their souls. How can you hold the surviving child and not realize what you purposefully destroyed? The mother says she is not cruel, but her heart seems like stone to me, walled in by her own selfishness. We human beings are capable of such horrid, horrid rationalization.
Oh, Jesus, please forgive us for allowing such abominable acts to exist in this fallen world, and give us the strength and resources to continue fighting it!
Posted by: Denise | December 18, 2010 1:24 PM
HOW LOW CAN WE GO??!!! Why can't we call murder by its name?
I have mentioned this here before, but I am really enjoying Mary Pride's book: " The Way Home". It's a 1985 book about what feminism has done to our society...( She just published the 2010 edition of the book) It is amazing how selfish women have become as a result of feminism.
Barbara,I think the sheer size of your family is a testimony in itself. I appreciated your thoughts ( when you posted Samantha's family picture) about what matters to older people in their older years... How family is what matters to them. I wonder what these selective reduction people will be thinking and feeling in their golden years? Why aren't they willing to sacrifice a few (fast) years to raise an extra blessing? I am baffled...
Posted by: Lisa | December 18, 2010 1:55 PM
As the mother of twins, I find this heartwrenching. I cannot imagine depriving one of my daughters of her twin.
Posted by: Sarah | December 18, 2010 2:13 PM
As a mom of twins I can not even imagine thinking of such a thing. How do you choose? It's choosing between your children. My children are each special and unique and I couldn't imagine not having any of them. Yes parenting twins is harder. It has challenges and often twins begin life a bit more fragile than single born babies. But my twins and most other twins (based on my Ph.D. research into twins) share a very special bond and attachment. The mother in the article may not currently feel remorse about her choice but she may down the road. The surviving twin may also feel both remorse and some type of survivor’s guilt. Children are not a commodity they are people, but our society has grown so selfish and cold to life. I also would worry what would happen if the surviving twin did not live up to these parent's expectations...what then? A very sad story.
Posted by: Diane | December 18, 2010 2:35 PM
Notice how it's all about the mother. "I couldn't care for them the way I'd want to."
And I wonder how many doctors bother to explain that aborting one child can lead to serious consequences - even death - for the other baby (babies).
Posted by: Kristina | December 18, 2010 3:26 PM
My heart hurts. That is so very sad!
Posted by: Linda | December 18, 2010 4:05 PM
How do you explain, and you WILL have to explain someday, that the only reason your child is alive is because he/she wasn't the twin easiest to reach with the needle? Your child could just have easily been targeted for destruction, and you, as parents, would have been just as satisfied with the other twin.
I have a son who is 14, and we have reasons to believe that we lost his twin in the first trimester. His whole life he has felt incomplete and alone, even in a family with eight siblings. There is something so sad about multiples that are denied the chance to be together.
I agree wholeheartedly with the second comment - such parents will never know what joy really is.
Posted by: MicheleMomof9 | December 18, 2010 4:46 PM
"All of a sudden our lives as we know them and as we like to lead them, are not going to happen...I just didn't feel I would be able to care for (twins) in a way that I wanted to."
I just re-read the post and the above sentences jumped out at me. Me, me, me, I, I, I. Living the lives we want to lead, the way we WANT to lead them. That's what it's all about, isn't it?
If I was living the life I WANTED to lead, I'd be a single, childless sign-language interpreter. I'm sure I would have been perfectly satisfied. But if I'd been given even a five-minute glimpse of the future God had in store for me, that life would have been drained of contentment and meaning, forever.
I feel so sorry for those parents. They just don't get it.
Sorry for the second comment.
PS- using that Burlington woman's reasoning, then I should give my disabled mother a shot of potassium chloride to the heart, too. I just can't take care of her the way I want to, but I don't want the guilt and expense of having to send her to a nursing home. Having her live with us suddenly means our lives as we know them and as we like to lead them are not going to happen.
(I hope my sarcasm is obvious here)
Posted by: MicheleMomof9 | December 18, 2010 5:02 PM
This article is from my "local" paper. The comments that followed may have been an education for the mother had she read them all. She would have learned that her selfish world view is not something shared by anyone who read the article. I had asked how she would explain her actions to the surviving sibling. I would dare her to tell us that she would not tell the sibling. That act alone makes her admit that it was wrong.
Posted by: kelly | December 18, 2010 5:08 PM
As an adoptive mother of twins, this article sickens me. My husband and I were so blessed by an unselfish, mature and honorable woman who knew she couldn't raise the two lives growing inside her. The Lord saw fit to place these miracles in our family and for this we are eternally grateful. The bond these two share is so tight and beautiful. It is a bond that has been obvious from the first time they slept together in their little basinet. How horrible for this mother to tear her two apart all because it doesn't fit into her schedule. The fact that she admits she feels no sadness, no remorse, that is just too scary for words. What are we becoming?
Posted by: Trina | December 18, 2010 10:13 PM
As a mother to twin boys...dear Lord, have mercy (on me, and her/her husband). Between wanting to vomit, and wanting to go find her and give her a shot of potassium chloride in the heart...this is just so patheticly repellent. Sad, disgusting, horrifying--is there an end to the negative adjectives describing this?
I'm not going to say anymore. What she did, was murder. Sophie's Choice would be easy for her, wouldn't it? Just take one. Either one, doesn't really matter.
Posted by: Rachel | December 19, 2010 6:34 PM
This convicted me. I've said several times that we love babies, would take as many as God would give us. *Then* I've turned around and said that the thought of having twins scares me and I'd rather not have twins. I was WRONG to say so. If God blesses my womb with twins, triplets, or even more, then HE will give me the strength to handle it. I was wrong to think otherwise. May God forbid I be as selfish and vile as that woman. I hope she turns to God and repents. What a sad life she must have.
Samantha (not Barbara's dd, just fortunate enough to have a smart mother who named me the same beautiful name. ;) )
Posted by: Samantha | December 19, 2010 10:23 PM
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
II Tim. 3:1-3
This is what came to my mind upon reading this. Natural affection would the category you'd find "mother love", something clearly lacking with this poor lost soul.
Posted by: republicanmother | December 20, 2010 4:26 PM
Another mother to twins here... and I had them in my mid-40's. This makes me feel physically ill. I can't even begin to imagine not having both of them. They are some of my greatest blessings.
Posted by: Elizabeth | December 20, 2010 7:54 PM
As a mother of twins #4 and #5 this article brought tears to my eyes. I can't imagine life without both of my precious girls. It's just so sad. I just can't believe that people would do this to their child!
Posted by: Stephanie | December 21, 2010 11:26 PM
