[stormer]

So in other words he’s pandering to the subset of pro-lifers who don’t understand reproduction.

[Wayne07]

I disagree. Pro lifers in this case understand reproduction almost too well. IVF should be a great thing, but when you look at the details, while it doesn't inherently lead to involve abortion, in practice it does. I am not opposed to IVF, but it raises complicated issues that shouldn't be ignored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_reduction

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/reducing-twins-singles-womans-choice/story?id=14311243#.T2poumKok2Q

Increased use of in vitro fertilization techniques has made Ross's situation increasingly common. Given the high cost and failure rate of fertility treatments, some couples try to increase their chances of getting pregnant by using multiple embryos and end up facing an unexpected challenge of twins, triplets, or higher multiples -- a challenge some feel they cannot handle, emotionally or financially.

There is a way out of this challenge, but it is one that is seldom discussed among mommies-to-be: selective reduction.

In cases of high multiple pregnancies, doctors will often recommend selective reduction for purely medical reasons. Early in the pregnancy, one or more of the fetuses are aborted from within the womb to increase the likelihood that the remaining babies (and the mother) will survive and thrive. There are numerous health concerns to both mother and infants associated with carrying multiples. Thus for decades obstetricians have offered the option of reducing down to twins, which tend to have safer outcomes. This procedure can only be done with fraternal twins, as identical twins share a placenta and cannot easily be separated.