Posted on 08/21/2011 4:17:04 PM PDT by jocon307
Everyone is discussing this piece, by Ruth Padawer, that ran in the New York Times, and, since it is infuriating, I figured I would too. Ms. Padawer has written a hard-hitting piece. I think it presents all views as fairly as can be expected and it does not mince words. Full disclosure, it took me three attempts to read it through.....the writer...[reveals] what has been, and continues to be, a somewhat hidden aspect of both abortion practice and artificial fertility treatments...
The article discusses women who have had fertility treatment(s) and who found themselves carrying twins (in one case triplets) as a result and who chose to “reduce their pregnancies” to only one fetus....
Why this subject is so charged is due to the fact that in vitro fertilization treatments (IVF) often involve the implantation of multiple fertilized eggs, in the hopes that at least one will implant in the uterus and grow to full term.
One of the side effects of this approach has been undesired multiple implantations....
Twins are uncommon, certainly, but they are often naturally occurring both in the fraternal and identical versions.
One woman is even quoted in the story as saying that had she conceived her twins “naturally” she would not have aborted one of them.
This article reveals that abortion has truly become an “on demand” procedure to be used as part of a range of on demand reproductive services. It is clear that to these folks it is no longer about “the children” it is about fulfilling their own, highly particularized needs.
(Excerpt) Read more at jocon307.wordpress.com ...
This piece is rather long, I don't know if FR or wordpress has rules, so I'm just doing the excerpt thing.
Here is the link to the full piece at the Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/magazine/the-two-minus-one-pregnancy.html?pagewanted=all
Thanks in advance for reading my piece.
I said I’d ping you if I blogged that Times article about “selective reduction”, I did, so here’s the ping as promised.
Not here it doesn't.
(Excerpt) Read more at jocon307.wordpress.com
Whatever is "revealed" is done someplace besides Free Republic.
Dragging a bit of traffic to your blog, eh? Got some advertisements there, eh?
No I don’t have any ads there. It’s a wordpress blog, I don’t think you CAN have ads there.
But....I do have a what I think is a cute post about Pres. Obama’s love of ice cream, and some of my fave fun videos.
Good post, thanks.
As for the blog police - who cares? Good info is good info
Of course I mean the original article reveals, etc. that is why I gave the link to it, so nobody would have to click through to my blog to to get to the hyperlink.
So I guess I’m helping the NY Times, which is pretty unforgivable.
(hangs head in shame)
Thanks!
I’ve been around since ‘98. It’s because of people like you and your nit-picky posts that i don’t bother reading here as much anymore.
Who CARES if this goes to a blog? the article is interesting.
Where has the civility gone at FR?
This is a sad aspect of infertility treatments. Far be it from me to tell others that they can’t have “natural” children, but I can’t help but wonder if we weren’t better off when these technologies weren’t available.
You know, the Left calls conservatives “anti-science” but it is really they who ignore/deny science.
If you read the whole times article, which is excruciating, (but it is well written, I gotta admit it) it has a lot of details about these procedures.
There’s a good deal to be questioned about them, just from a scientific point of view, leaving all morality aside.
(I’m no scientist, but I did very well on the NYC Biology Regents exam - I never tire of boasting about that grade - LOL)
Using donated eggs, donated sperm, you can have a baby via natural childbirth - but you’re not genetically related to the child at all, maybe neither parent is. That’s certainly the case with the lesbian couple discussed in the article.
I don’t know what the long term implications of these things may be, but it’s true that say, the little boy the lesbians had could grow up and marry his half-sister via either the egg donor or the sperm donor.
Now, this is probably unlikely to happen, but there are no safeguards against it, not that I’m aware of. The US is a very populous country, but what if you are having this done in Wyoming or someplace like that? Do they import eggs and sperm from NY or California? I don’t know.
And what concerns me is The Scientists don’t seem to care.
Look, they know the truth, they know a fetus is a unique person from the moment of conception; they understand that some of these children are not related by blood to their parents in any way (what’s the difference from adopting, really?); they know that women bond with their unborn children; they know that people who have had “sex change” operations are still genetically male or female.
But they let the public remain in kind of a fantasy land or denial about the truth of things.
My mother used to say a lot of doctors were really mad scientists, I thought that was pretty hysterical of her. But more and more it seems she is being proven right.
Many people seem to think this is wonderful that we can do all these things, but really it is just clumsy tinkering with God’s handiwork.
It never turns out well in the Sci Fi stories, that’s all I know!
Yes, I was going to mention adoption, which is what the infertile were counseled to do in earlier years. These procedures seem to make things worse for society as a whole.
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.