…some right-wing, right-to-life, so-called Christians can be?
Third Minnesota sextuplet dies;
others in critical condition
Have I mentioned that I have been a nurse for nearly 23 years? And that I worked 14 of those in a high-risk perinatal setting. In a hospital with a Level 3 designation, providing high-tech, high-quality obstetric care.
Here is the entire text of the brief piece, which CNN got from the AP. And I’m sure they paid the royalties to them, too.
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota (AP) — Half of the sextuplets born prematurely to a Minnesota couple have now died, while the others remained in critical condition, hospital officials said Saturday.
A third boy, Lincoln Sean Morrison, died Friday. Two of his brothers, Tryg and Bennet, died earlier in the week.
The four boys and two girls were born last Sunday about 4½ months early at a Minneapolis hospital. Doctors had advised the couple to selectively reduce the number of viable fetuses to two, but they declined.
Parents Ryan and Brianna Morrison released a statement saying it has been “a difficult week” for them, and they thanked everyone for their prayers and support.
“We continue to trust in the Lord and are hopeful for a good outcome for Cadence, Lucia and Sylas,” the statement said.
Hospital officials said no further information would be released.
Can I tell you how frustrating this is for an OB nurse?
When I worked in my last life, I worked with two women with fertility problems. Actually, I worked with quite a few with fertility problems but these two stand out in my mind particularly at the moment.
Linda was in her thirties, happily married and Christian. I can’t remember all the specifics but Linda underwent fertility treatments including drugs like Pergonal and Clomid, the use of which frequently gives rise to conception of serious multiples (quads or greater). Mary was in her twenties, married, Catholic and Italian. I have no idea of her fertility treatment but she conceived quads.
Linda was initially pregnant with four babies, selectively aborted one and carried three babies to over 35 weeks gestation before delivering them, all in the vicinity of five pounds. None of them needed assistance with breathing. They all fed. They may have had a few bumps but, pretty much, were as near a term pregnancy as any triplets are likely to get.
Mary, being from a staunch Catholic upbringing, opted not to selectively terminate and tried to bring her quads to term. I believe they delivered in the vicinity of 33 to 34 weeks, considerably earlier and lighter than Linda’s triplets. Mary required much intervention during her pregnancy, developing preterm labor necessitating medications. Some of those PTL meds are not the kindest or best things for even a relatively healthy, childbearing age woman.
I don’t think any of Mary’s babies was able to leave the hospital with her. If I remember correctly, they all required feeding tubes. Some of them may have had assisted ventilation (probably with nasal C-pap.) I think at least two of Linda’s three went home with Mom…it might have been all three.
I had the pleasure of taking care of Linda in the last few weeks of her pregnancy, when she was confined to the hospital. I also took care of her afterward and helped her to learn to breastfeed. Those are some of the fondest memories I have of my years as an OB nurse.
I never had to deal with Mary when she was hospitalized, thankfully. She was one of those nurses who claimed a moral and religious objection to caring for women during elective terminations. Frankly, I always thought she was just lazy and not really so morally offended, more of a selective Catholic, but that’s an even snarkier post for a really snarky day.
If the Minnesota couple had chosen to reduce the number of fetuses in the pregnancy to three, they might all have left with Mom. Had they reduced the number of babies to four, they would all probably still be alive.
As it stands, they delivered six babies at roughly 22 weeks. A 22-week singleton stands, at best, a 50-50 shot, in my estimation. And that’s a 22-weeker that didn’t have to spend those weeks sharing his environment with five siblings.
As it is, the six babies have required a tremendous amount of health care resources. I’m sure not one was able to breathe on his or her own at birth meaning 6 full teams of neonatal nurses, doctors and respiratory therapists needed to be present. Every effort is made to save any neonate, regardless of gestational age, after the point of potential viability (around 22 weeks when I left OB in 2001).
The three boys who’ve died were each treated by a team of those professionals along with all the ancillary departments necessary for a very sick infant. The three surviving babies, I’m sure, remain in a neonatal intensive care unit, fully ventilated, unable to eat, unable to see yet. Totally unprepared for survival in the environment into which they’ve been thrust.
I don’t begrudge them the medical care, which will run into millions of dollars if many more survive. God bless them that they were able to provide care for their children. I begrudge their parents’ complete lack of foresight via blind devotion to a religious ideology. It is my opinion their ideology is flawed, is too literal and basic and lacks any sense of nuance. I’m of the opinion that four of those babies might be alive today had two of them been selectively terminated early in the pregnancy.
Imagine that…abortion might have saved the life of a child that is now dead.
Theirs is a black and white world. Too bad most of the world comes at us in lovely and varied shades of grey.
What a waste.
Oh, I’ll link it up later…I’ve got a bath waiting…
82 comments
Comments feed for this article
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 11:11 am
chaos
I was on clomid and I think the stat for twin births is 11%. I had a singleton, just wanted to let you know clomid is not usually one of those “superovulatory” drugs.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 11:55 am
Cheryl
I stand corrected. I never dealt with them during the conception phase, only during the post-conception part. Thanks for setting me straight.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 2:00 pm
eltower
I can only agree with you in that the world is shades of grey. It’s sad to see people do damage unto themselves (and others) out of sheer lack of critical faculties.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 2:16 pm
Mike Seth
Hello IB,
This is a little off topic but perhaps you will answer anyway. The “abortion debate” is a road well travelled, and it’s no pleasure to rehash the old stuff over and over again. I’ve been thinking this: I believe it’s completely unacceptable to force a woman to carry a child against her wish. That is, modern science irreversibly gives a modern woman an opportunity to carry out an abortion, so preventing her from having one constitutes sexual slavery, and no argument against sexual slavery can be construed by opponents of abortion. For some reason though I’ve never seen anyone mention it in this way, and this one must agree is a very powerful argument. I’ve been thinking about organizing a little online campaign of my own on this point. What do you think?
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 3:27 pm
Cheryl
I couldn’t agree with you more on that one, eltower. Thanks for stopping by!
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 3:30 pm
Cheryl
Hi Mike,
That’s an interesting perspective. I think the main thrust of the women’s movement and choice advocates for decades now has been the enslavement of women’s bodies for the purpose of procreation. That’s where the privacy issue comes into abortion. Although I understand your point, I doubt you’d get too far with equating carrying a pregnancy to fruition with “sexual” slavery. Yes, sex is an issue at conception, but the main issue following that is the sanctity of a woman’s body and her right to self-determination and has little to do with sex, per se.
Hey, we could use all the good arguments we can get, though, so have at it and let me know how you’re doing with it!
Take care and thanks for dropping by!
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 4:19 pm
thethreepagans
My feelings on this issue are pretty strong. I have seen postings about the births on a forum I visit and it was all, “isn’t this wondeful’. I’m glad someone has the courage to speak out on this issue. Thank you for posting something on an issue that needs to be addressed more often.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 4:19 pm
Jonesy
At least it was a choice. What would be much much worse is if the government forced you to carry all the fetuses and not have any choice at all. And thats what the anti-abortion movement wants women to have to do.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 4:21 pm
Alanna
Thank you for writing this; I’ve been thinking something along the same lines since I read that the first baby had died. It is so selfish to condemn a child to suffer the way those infants are because instead of three, or four, you had to have all six. And it’s even more maddening that a religious ideology touts that sort of selfishness.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 4:31 pm
hedonisticpleasureseeker
Wow. I feel just awful for the mother, because Catholic or not she’ll be berating herself for the rest of her life. “Why didn’t I just . . .”
Sigh.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 4:33 pm
Dropping In
Wow, so many enthusiastic baby killing murderers here! How about you pretend the Iraqi terrorists are all unborn babies so we can send you over there and end the war for good? :-)
Since you murdering freaks are so adamant in gutting your own stomachs given half a chance to take a life, I propose sterilization for all proponents of kiddie slaughtering. You’ll never have to worry about being forced to bring one of those ghastly little ones into the world, and eventually your despicable kind will eventually die out.
See? Everybody wins. :-)
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 4:36 pm
bigrocco
Good post. It does make me wonder about people and their beliefs. For those that choose to compose their world view of black matter and white matter its hard for those us to understand who choose use our gray matter.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 4:39 pm
amyszoo
I can definitely see why you would call yourself a bitch. What a hateful thing to say.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 4:53 pm
Katie
Have you read The Mammoth Cheese by Sheri Holman? It’s a novel, but it addresses this issue quite well, if I remember correctly (It was a while ago that I read it).
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 4:54 pm
eltower
I’m somewhat confused on as to what exactly amyszoo is trying to say. Is she criticising the commenter above her? _Any_ of the commenters above her? Is she criticising the blog writer? If so, why? I am stuck in quite a poignant dilemma, as you might see.
I’ve banged my head recently, so my cerebral irony centres aren’t working all that well, you must excuse me.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 4:54 pm
thecrazypastor
Seems to me that many of you have everything black and white. Kill two of them and be done with it. Which two? How do you pick? Do you choose boys over girls, vice versa, or just go by relative size? Why not three or four as the hospital advised? What about asking these moral questions before taking the drugs that give rise to quads? Haven’t there been other successful pregnancies with quads or sextuplets? What are the odds for that? Sorry to throw all all those nuances. I forgot I’m the one who supposed to be so sure.
What if I’m not always right-wing? I probably am some of the time, admittedly, but not always. Can I still be a so-called Christian?
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 4:59 pm
eltower
hedonisticpleasureseeker (I love that alias): Being a Catholic with b&w beliefs, chances are she’ll take comfort in knowing she did the ‘right’ thing, although I wouldn’t dare venture any further into conjecture.
As happens every time I see someone dismissing science on a whim, I find this story excruciatingly painful. The mother was given the choice with well founded scientific and medical reasons supporting the idea (even if it was a tough one) and even to a very large extent good moral reasons (it’s an analogy of the typical “Choose which one should die” moral situation) – would she rather sacrifice three of her kids and let the rest live healthy or risk them all dying?
That superstition got the better of her is frustrating, to say the least.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:02 pm
eltower
crazypastor: It’s a classic moral situation based on choosing which one to sacrifice. Ultimately, the more moral choice rests in choosing for some to live healthily rather than put the lives of all in dire risk.
It’s not an easy choice, mind you. I’m not sure if I could stomach the courage of being a pregnant woman.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:12 pm
thecrazypastor
eltower: Well said. Definitely a classic moral situation, a question posed in many theoretical as well as real-life situations from literature to real life. You’re sooooo right about that. One reason why the answer seems less simplified to me. But the bottom line is just like you said, it ain’t easy to be in her shoes. I’m not sure if I have the courage either.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:19 pm
puddlehead
Hey, Dropping In. I don’t think there’s anything enthusiastic going on here. While IB’s tone is at times a bit abrasive, that’s a tone issue and not an “enthusiastic” call for abortions. This is a single example of a time and place where selective abortion might have prevented deaths. This is not an indictment on pro-life advocates, as you seem to think; rather; it is a commonsensical example of an instance where religious belief may have cost the couple dearly. I am uncomfortable with the polemics and savagery that both sides use, and your vehement sarcasm and dismissal of real discussion belies your insecurity and inability to defend your position with any sort of sound reasoning, with or without Biblical authority. I respect religious conviction, and I support your right to oppose abortion, but I cannot accept that you’d use this couple’s decision as a springboard to attack an informed opinion by an author who is clearly putting her own opinions into the matter. I have read the same comments here as you, and it doesn’t seem to me that anyone is celebrating anything. You should rethink your strategies if you truly wish to convince anyone of anything. I wouldn’t buy your kool-aid if I was dying of thirst.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:31 pm
“Just how stupid…” « Ahab’s Quest
[…] them because they almost always incense or bore me. This time, however I cannot help but comment on this post (warning: blog contains profanity and it looks like some obscene links) since the nurse who wrote […]
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:31 pm
readerly
Wow, the comments on this post sure come from a spectrum of attitudes. I expected differing opinions, but I was surprised firstly by the calm affirmation of your stance from the first few (there are that many people who are thinking about selective abortion?) and then those who I expected to condemn you, well they did, but the Iraqi terrorist thing took me aback. I’ll admit I had to read it a few times to ensure I really did not understand what they were saying.
I am a Christian that has struggled with the abortion issue a long time. I tend to enjoy logic and reason, and I believe that my God doesn’t make arbitrary rules, so trying to figure out why killing unborn babies is wrong has taken me on quite the journey. I have a lot of reasons to believe it is wrong, but for me, the strongest involves the recent revelation I’ve had that God is a God of life, not of death. Sin caused death to enter the world, not God. Creation is God’s thing; he made stuff, and it was good. He likes babies.
So the reality is that this world has bad stuff go on in it. Women are infertile, babies die all the time. And, of course, there is hate – that thing that puts us at odds with all things good – other people (our babies), ourselves (our bodies), and God.
I suspect this woman knows that ‘the Lord gives, and the Lord takes away.’ Which means for her, her children are going to be in God’s hands no matter how she has them, but she should never be in charge of whether they live or die. She is, as you pointed out, trusting the hand of God to save her kids, rather than the logic of aborting three to help the others. But for her, as a Christian, she knows she shouldn’t be the one ‘playing God,’ and deciding when her children should die. The argument about quality of life here is moot, I believe, as I’m sure you as a nurse know that the sick, disabled and dying are just as valuable as the healthy. At least, it is my belief, that people are made in the image of God, destroying that because it is inconvenient to us, or putting ourselves above other human beings because of criteria we have decided upon, is wrong.
I think a better question for that Christian woman would be whether or not fertility drugs were the answer. It seems like a lot of pain had to be gone through so she could get ‘her children.’ Why not adopt? Are fertility drugs, that risk the deaths of half your kids, a selfish solution to infertility? I don’t know. I plan to adopt.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:33 pm
Dr. Alice
IB – I can understand your frustration; this is definitely both a tragic and expensive situation. However, I agree with crazypastor that you’re also presenting a black-and-white view of the case. Perhaps a different decision should have been taken, not to use the fertility drugs, since, with good medical advice, the parents should have known that they would have a high chance of conceiving multiples, who would not have the best outcomes.
In any case, once the babies were conceived, it was the parents’ belief that each one was a unique human being (and I agree with them). To take another “hopeless ethical situation,” if there are three people stranded on a lifeboat, and only two can survive, I do not think it’s right to kill one of them. Leave it up to God, who is in control of all things; not even a sparrow falls to the ground without his care. Similarly, by carrying all the babies, who lives and who dies is in God’s hands, not the parents. It would not have been unknown for all or most of them to have done well.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:42 pm
Paul Knopfler
The most wasted of days is that on which one hasn’t cried… So I did it today while thinking how reactionaries and stupid these so-called Christians could be… Shit! Are we living in the Vatican or what!?
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:43 pm
Bacony Goodness
Who is the mom and dad to choose which baby is to live and which is to die? The babies still might have died even if they aborted some but we will never know because that is not the decision they chose to make.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:45 pm
hoverfrog
This would be a difficult decision to make for anyone without the dubious “benefit” of religious indoctrination. One would hope that a simple matter of mathematics would win out with doctor’s advice being to give the most foetuses the greatest chance of survival. It’s unfortunate that many doctors are unwilling or unable to press the point. Perhaps it is this respect for religious conviction that sways them.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:47 pm
Kelli
What an interesting post! Thank you for giving me another perspective to think about. It is hard to stand on the outside looking in and imagine making the kinds of decisions discussed here.
One question that I ponder is whether or not men and women who have never been pregnant have a right to determine a pregnant woman’s choices. I realize this is being rather judgmental of men and women who haven’t been pregnant, but without that lived experience to draw on, I can’t imagine being qualified to make that kind of decision. On the other hand, if we discount their opinions we have taken out much of the population, and most of the people who are already making decisions about this issue.
Perhaps a better thought is: until you have experienced or had direct contact with the issue at hand, reserve your judgement. Maybe that is a bit harsh, but at least think twice or thrice before making a decision and always be open to change.
Thanks for giving me something to think about this afternoon. I’m pondering many sides of this broader topic now.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:49 pm
Cade
Lots of issues covered in this post, but I’m not sure why there is so much emphasis on whether or not the person is Christian or Catholic. It’s like saying every Christian would make the same decision on these issues. I’m not Catholic, but if the woman was against elective termination to give the other babies a better chance, why would she go on fertility treatments knowing she may conceive quads or more?
I have no idea what it must be like for a woman that wants to conceive and can’t, but it seems she is molding her religion to fit what she wants. I certainly am not sitting in judgement of these people. I have done the same with my own beliefs, but I don’t see the religious under tones in this post which seem to point to a Christian or Catholic belief system as dangerous. These people made their choices reguardless of their religion, not because of it.
I don’t know much about these social issues like abortion, but I don’t get why religion is attached to so many of them. Now I’m getting into a sticky topic I don’t know much about, so I best stop here.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:50 pm
I Don’t Agree, but It’s an Important Question « The Crazy Pastor
[…] Don’t Agree, but It’s an Important Question I ran across this blog that brought to light a very tough question or three. I’m about to ask something that is so […]
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:51 pm
jana banana
I think this couple chose what was right for them. Maybe without the best results, but it probably would have been harder for them knowing they didn’t give all of their babies a chance.
I am pro-choice, but this post makes me sad.
There is no possible way to gaurantee health either way.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:51 pm
friendsofjustice
Why not be opposed to using drugs that cause multiple pregnancies in the first place? This seems to me to be the consistently pro-life position. Yet very few pro-life activists are opposed to fertility treatments that create these forced choices between terminating some pregnancies or letting all the pregnancies continue at the risk of many or all dying. Maybe we should all look deeper, not just right or left.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:57 pm
hedonisticpleasureseeker
Hey Inner Bitch! You’re the Blog of the Minute on WordPress, can you tell?
:-)
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 5:59 pm
thordora
What always picks at me is if someone’s god wants them to have children so bad, and the hand of “god” is always behind stuff, then while the hell are people infertile in the first place?
The arguments claiming “gods will” always seem to only support what feels right to the person in question. If it’s so wrong to selectively abort, or otherwise force the hand of god’s will so to speak, isn’t it equally as wrong to “take the place” of your god and force your body to do something it may not be able to do?
Or could there be a reason that you can’t have children?
I wonder what society will look like in 15 or 30 years with all of these premature children who kept alive for months on machines are adults. We worry incessantly about vaccines, and yet there seems to be little worry about the children who will results from fertility treatments, multiples or not, who are premature births (a number which is increasing http://www.marchofdimes.com/aboutus/10651_10763.asp)
Are these parents truly thinking about their children, or their personal quest for their “line” to be continued.
Food for thought, if nothing else…
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 6:02 pm
Mike Seth
IB,
The issue of bodily rights is a critical flaw in modern legal systems. Of course, because of its vast implications and direct conflict with the religious viewpoints it is today nearly impossible to apply such a change. None of the legal systems [that I am aware of] currently define one’s body as one’s property, albeit all of them to some degree establish minor related rights (e.g. right not to incur bodily harm). Ideally, body ownership would triumph over the religious nonsense of one’s body belonging to god but, alas, it’s a long way. Small battles need to be fought in order to win the war, and one of these battles is of course abortion rights.
Forced conception and labor is, indeed, sexual slavery. A woman’s body is being used without her consent as a reproductive mechanism. Worse yet, there are associated risks, however negligible, and the horrible pain of birth that men can not possibly fathom. Viewing prohibition of abortions in terms of enslavement of one’s body is valid, yet I feel that “sexual slavery” is equally as valid yet much stronger and provoking as it properly implies enslavement of one’s being as opposed to body. Look at the hate groups who invented the term “pro-life”: it’s “against abortions” renamed to carry a positive connotation. They didn’t mind making up a word to cover up for intellectual dishonesty; why should we hesitate using an exact term when defending our civil rights? Level playing field!
Those of you who call us “baby killers”: you people are disgusting. Your archaic, narrow minded “family values” that you try to impose on everyone else are repulsive. You think for some reason that other people are as much accountable to your fictional deity as yourselves, and that being “saved” you have some sort of responsibility to lead us sheep to the path of enlightenment. Thank you very much, but no. You are the people who would rather have everyone else suffer than violate your arbitrary morality. Your enlightenment appears to be an unusually dark place for a word that mentions light.
But I have a better idea. Any of you anti-abortionists wants to try and prove that forced labor is not sexual slavery? Bring it on. Note: mention god or bible and you’re out.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 6:13 pm
someone your not gonna like
I agree with thecrazypastor on, “What about asking these moral questions before taking the drugs that give rise to quads?”. If you really are religous, adopt or at least believe that God will or will not give you a baby based on his will and not what doctors say.
I may be missing something so correct me if I am, but doesn’t, “Doctors had advised the couple to selectively reduce the number of viable fetuses to two, but they declined,” mean that the doctors only wanted her to have two babies. After 3 babies have died does she not still have more babies alive right now than the doctors wanted her to? I’m not a proponent of taking the drugs and risking and ugly outcome like this, but I would like to know if I’m reading this right.
I also need clarification on another part of the post about Mary and Linda. Do I understand correctly that Mary’s children had more problems right after birth, but all lived and that maybe one of Linda’s children had problems at first, but lived as well? Or did all of Mary’s children die and one of Linda’s?
If your a proponent of abortion and you get angry at this lady because all of her neonates die, what about what happens a when there is a lady that only has one embryo in her and she terminates it. Do you get mad at her because she could of had one but now has none? Probably not, because she sees the world in shades of grey. Right?
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 6:23 pm
hedonisticpleasureseeker
I’ve been pregnant a few times, so I’m in a position to say: I would not do invitro, but let’s just say I’m in this woman’s position, and I’m NOT pro-life/anti-choice. What would I do?
I would let the little fetuses grow inside of me until it was clear which ones were most likely to survive outside the womb. Multiples tend to develop a different rates, and some don’t thrive at all. At that point I’d trust my doctor’s judgment on how many I could reasonably carry to term, and which ones were most likely to live. Then I’d tell him to go for it; take out the X number of fetuses least likely to make it.
I’d probably suffer a lot of anguish (what woman wouldn’t?), but I would be at peace believing that the fetuses who didn’t survive outside the womb would be whisked to the Otherworld/Heaven just like a baby or a child or a grownup does when s/he dies. I’m of the belief that just because I think living in THIS earthly realm is sooooo important (because I fear death and I’m selfish, just like most people) doesn’t mean that GOD feels the same way. Dead or alive, he OWNs my arse, and I’m “real” to Him either way. I really don’t think God has any investment in seeing every one of us die of old age in our sleep, or he would have designed this place differently.
But hey that’s just me.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 6:58 pm
Top Posts « WordPress.com
[…] Can I tell you how stupid… …some right-wing, right-to-life, so-called Christians can be? […]
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 7:59 pm
Can I tell you how stupid some right-wing, right-to-life, so-called Christians can be? « Veronica’s Lore
[…] June 18th, 2007 [link][more] […]
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 8:06 pm
Mr Angry
The problem is you’re applying logic to a really emotive issues, particularly when religion gets dragged in. I agree with you 100% but someone who ties themself to the “right to life” camp is never going to allow logic to sway a decision. Plus they have that precedent a couple of years ago when Bobbi McCaughey successfully gave birth to septuplets after declining doctor’s advice to terminate some fetuses to improve the odds for the others.
That story got saturation coverage but the 95% of cases that end badly don’t. Plus, I haven’t seen any follow up coverage that shows whether or not the septuplets are suffering any serious health problems.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 9:09 pm
amyszoo
Just to clarify, I think it’s interesting people who call themselves pro-choice but then bash the individual who makes a “CHOICE” that is not the decision that said person would choose. It sounds like pro-choice is becoming pro-abortion. When the masses feel that abortion is appropriate, and the individual makes a different choice why are we bashing that woman for using a right that we are fighting for?
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 9:12 pm
rebsue1
l’m so happy my new board (you guys)
it’s gonna take me weeks to catch up
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 9:13 pm
masonjars
I don’t think its quite fair to assume that this Minnesota couple is right-wing..and “so-called”Christians…it seems as though you’ve been around as an OB nurse..I respect your experience in the area..as I have none..
I just don’t think many of us can relate to such a grueling..exhausting situation..
nor can we judge this couple for their decisions.
I imagine that they are devastated at the loss of their children..
why bash them? put them down..or just lump them into a group with tons of others. it seems as though you are a bit black and white yourself..
I think what this couple needs now is not people to look down on them..but to come along side them..
who would listen to such hateful “advice”
I know I wouldnt..
just my thoughts..thanks for yours!
cheers.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 9:13 pm
mdvp
I would say that the mother was pretty much within her rights not to abort any of the babies. In fact, if the doctor advocated abortion of one, I would say that he/she is not really a great doctor. Any doctor should do what he/she can to save all of his or her patients, and I really don’t think that one life should be expendable for another.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 9:21 pm
masonjars
another thought..these ARE private decisions..this isnt really any of our business..
the only reason its getting so much press and we all get to sit here and critisize this couple is because there are six kids involved..
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 9:36 pm
S. Laurence Guzmán
You say that this mom lives in a black and white world of right and wrong, and yet you seem pretty convinced that she is wrong. Even if she is harming herself and others, why is that wrong? If you don’t have any black and whites, you have no basis to judge her or her desicion making. Stop hating Christians please.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 9:51 pm
S. Laurence Guzmán
Oh, I agree mason jars and readerly on your comments. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter what you say. The frustrating part about all this debate is that both sides already have their mind made up. What really bothers me is the hate that flies at Christians. Christianity is about selflessness, not selfishness. I think mothers who try to give their babies a chance, even if it results in the death of some, instead of killing them knowingly are not selfish. I’m not sure where the reasoning comes from that they are. I think the mothers choice was clear: try to give all the babies a chance by letting them go to term, or kill some for sure. If you had a chance to save all of them, why wouldn’t you? At any rate, I doubt my commenting will persuade anyone, I am just sharing my convictions.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 9:56 pm
abarclay12
Thinking about it logically, I have to agree with you. If four of the babies could have survived, then it would have been worth it. I know it must be an insanely hard call to make as a mother, but to raise the babies who made it because the mother and father made a very difficult call would be worth it.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 10:07 pm
canadiansaam
Interesting post and as usual, very differing opinions. I’d seriously have to think more about the issue BUT it brings to mind a patient I had (I’m a RN) who had a selective abortion, removing 5 or 6 fetuses, leaving only one which she miscarried. I remember thinking (I was yooung at the time, 22) that she shouldn’t have gotten rid of the others. 6 or 7 is way too many but she put them all in so it’s taking a chance.
I don’t think ANYTHING is black and white. Grey everywhere
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 10:12 pm
Meg
OK. Lots of good comments here on a difficult moral dilemna, which I will not re-hash. And, obviously some on the other side of the ‘argument’ which I will usually find irrational.
That said, I want to speak FROM EXPERIENCE — not my own experience, but from my sister’s and brother-in-law’s.
This is such a poignant post for Father’s Day. But, my brother-in-law does get to celebrate it today. Here’s the story.
After trying to conceive for a period of time (no pun intended!), they got tested. One or the other or both were the source of the infertility (people usually ‘think’ it’s the woman, automatically, but all those tight jeans and food and drink in plastic bottles are emasculating men in droves).
So, my sister was forced to undergo the drug treatment for ‘egg-harvesting’ and my brother-in-law’s sample was ‘concentrated’. The in vitro fertilization was done in the lab and the doctor decided how many of the successful eggs (embryos) to attempt to implant.
Here is EDUCATION POINT 1.
The Doctor decides how many to try to implant because many never are successful in attaching to the uterine wall. Then, even if they attach, it may not be a strong enough attachment etc. The whole pregnancy is fraught with such “moments” of the roll-of-the-dice. But, if all of the embryos attach, you have this 6 or 7 baby scenario.
EDUCATION POINT 2:
In our experience, the mother’s health is forever compromised, in some degree, by the use of these powerful drugs, and the husband gets ‘off’ with no personal health implications except for ‘dealing’ with whatever ‘happens’ to his wife and children. My sister’s health has never been as good as before the drugs.
EDUCATION POINT 3:
After a few weeks, I think it was, she found out she was carrying triplets. Then, a while later came the session with the perinatalogist (I think that was the specialty of the attending physician during her pregnancy), who sat down with the 2 of them and discussed how to have the healthiest, best outcome for the children and for my sister.
As someone mentioned before, many doctors don’t have the courage to follow through, but this physician did. Without religion or other social nuance entering into it, he gave them the cold, hard facts, as known at that time (1992).
If they kept all 3, there was x% chance that 1, 2 or all would die (3 separate statistics). If they kept 1, 2 all 3, there was x% chance of impairment and types of impairment. You get the picture. Ask questions. Have a real, compassionate but reality-based discussion with enough “time” to go home and talk it over before the legal time-line to “therapeutically” abort was over.
My sister and her husband did the thinking. I do not remember them asking us for our opinion, even though we are a VERY close family. In a way, that was good, because they were really the ones who had to LIVE by their decision.
They decided to follow the doctor’s advice, which again was based on EXPERIENCE. They chose to abort one child and give the other 2 the “best chance” to grow and thrive.
EDUCATION POINT 4:
The day arrived for the procedure. The therapeutic abortion was accomplished by injecting a somewhat concentrated saline solution into the chosen embryo. It simply dried-up, quickly.
How was the the embryo chosen? From EXPERIENCE, the physician knew the best one to keep the pregnancy secure by where they had implanted in the womb. He aborted the one which did not help to keep the womb as closed as possible. Ironically, it was the faster growing one, but if he had not taken it, the placement of the others would have created some jeopardy for the remaining twins. All three girls had to just go with where Fate had placed them.
EDUCATION POINT 5:
Even with all of this, this was still not a “normal twin pregnancy”. For the last many months my sister was confined to bed in the hospital, and at the 7th month, a common time for these occurrences, as I understand it, a fatal flaw finally appeared. One of the remaining twins died because its implantation placenta was just not strong enough to cope with feeding the fetus to the degree it requires at that stage. The fetus just starved and quietly died in the womb — a “miscarriage”.
EDUCATION POINT NUMBER 6:
You have to be incredibly strong to go through this whole process and neither of you can waver. As someone mentioned, those who have never had children or are still in their first pregnancy can NEVER know what will be expected of them. They are BABES, in the woods, themselves!
There are many points in time that tough decisions are required, as you get more worn-out or afraid or both.
I do not rememebr if they told my sister for quite some time that one twin had died, but I think she realised it, as their was no movement, and so it was a gradual ‘understanding’.
EDUCATION POINT 7:
They monitored both people Mom and baby, and their condition decided that this singleton birth was still NOT going to be FULL-TERM.
So, within a 24 hour window, the Caesarian section was performed and my still less than 5 pounds niece entered the world, at about 7.5 – 8 months. Things were not over, yet.
My sister went through hours of surgery on the table after the birth to remove the remains of the 7 month old twin and reconfigure her womb so she could safely go through another pregnancy with the remaining frozen embryos, if she so chose at a later date.
EDUCATION POINT 8:
SEVERELY DEBILITATED MOM AND VERY, VERY TINY BABY WERE FINALLY RELEASED FROM THE HOSPITAL AFTER ANOTHER LONG STAY.
Life started. Where has it ended up 14 years later? Well, my niece has the characteristic health problems of preemie babies, even though she did gain quite a bit of weight after her twin died in the short time she was still in utero on her own.
She’s fun, and basically a great kid, but some slight-but-definite learning disabliites are there. My sister’s health never recovered, and has since declined.
Both she and her husband love being parents, and considering all they went through, decided not to use the frozen embryos to start another pregnancy. They received a release from the hospital or wherever, and were told what they disposition of the embyos would be, I believe.
So, now you can know something more and extrapolate it to people who may or may not have wanted to listen to counsel. These things take their own course, but at least my sister delivered a basically healthy child at the end of all this, and if the others had been there, I’m not sure any of them would have been as healthy. It was hard enough for the one surviving triplet to make up ground, and she never did while a baby. She was born alone, but she was still a preemie triplet for all intents and purposes, for quite a while.
Now she’s 5′ 7″ and full of energy and is a wonderful, creative person … and strange to say, the next pregnancy in our family, a year or so later, was twin girls, in a family with no natural twins history. So, the “same” spirits were “born” anyway, and everything was as the Lord wished it, but as we have been granted Free Will, that decision-making was Respected and Expected, too.
Best to all — Em
PS Please visit my blog at http://diabetesdietdialogue.wordpress.com
“Everyone knows someone who needs this information!” (TM)
Use it for Prevention and for Sharing.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 10:16 pm
Zane Grey
If you have replied here, at any point, with a quote from the bible:
You don’t get it.
Nothing is going to move forward until your generation dies.
My generation is waiting.
Please hurry up.
Thanks.
Also, if you can take something like Pergonol without fully understanding that by taking it – you probably will have a multiple; and then calling that a “gift of God” is kind of like punching yourself in the balls, drinking some laudanum, and calling the dull in pain a “soothe from the Lord”.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 10:17 pm
Dave
I can’t believe how so many missed the obvious moral flaw.. the right to lifers (and absolute nut-jobs like Dropping In) choose life because they don’t feel it is their place to play God… so here’s a woman not listening to the Doctor (which isn’t in itself a bad thing) .. here she is not listening to the Doctor because he wants the to play God and “kill” her unborn child… one of the very kids that she created by letting the Doctor play God..
She can’t have it both ways.. she can’t claim the moral high ground after circumventing the infertility with medical intervention. That’s like saying it’s ok to use a condom if someone else puts it on… come on.
Yes .. it’s sad.. yes, she’ll regret this for a long time.. but she’ll just open her little black book and pat herself on her back at how well she did.. which is fine.. she’s alive.. the bible is for the living to keep living and not beat themselves up over the way they’ve screwed up their past.
But she has no moral high ground… at all.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 10:20 pm
ekkin
you are so wise. I am AMAZED that there are people with your level of intellegence left in this world. Using your logic, abortion could have saved my sister’s life. If only the stupid low life drunk asshole that ran the stop sign and killed my sister, grandmother and a five year old girl mother has only aborted him. Then three lives could have been saved. Thank you for the enlightenment… you stupid cunt.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 10:28 pm
Bacony Goodness
@ Zane Grey
Why do you say your generation is waiting for the Bible verses to go away? Not all of us want it to go away if what it says is wise like don’t murder. The people made the right decision because they have no right to decide which baby lives and which baby dies.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 10:29 pm
Cheryl
All I can say is, “Well, damn!” I thought it was spam when my gmail account said 39 messages.
I can’t possibly address every issue individually but would like to enter in a bit.
Re: the Christian thing. I am a Christian. I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior 31 years ago and have never let go. I attended services regularly at non-denominational, fundamentalist churches for a number of years. I haven’t regularly attended religious services in over twenty years, largely because of the lack of acceptance and forgiveness I began to find among many who identify themselves as “Christians,” starting in the late 1980’s. I worship God and Christ in my life and the way I live it.
Re: the “Christian/Catholic” thing, the point I was trying to make was this. I know Linda was a devoutly Christian woman, in a traditional marriage, church-going. A very “Bible-believing” woman. She was very much opposed to abortion on a personal level yet never withheld her wonderful care from any woman who needed her. Yet this woman made a choice to do something which was, I’m sure, very contrary to her personal morality.
Mary was Catholic and vocal about it. She was pro-life, objected to caring for women choosing to have genetic terminations and attended church regularly. She wasn’t out thumping across from the local Planned Parenthood office on Thursdays but she made her views known.
My impression of the contrast between the two women was that Linda was someone truly trying to live her life as a Christian whereas Mary was more vocal, contrary and far less accepting of others.
I wondered whether it was fair to characterize the women by their professed religious beliefs but I think it went to the heart of the matter that even someone who strongly believed in the Bible as the word of God could come to a decision that so many others who profess the same belief would immediately condemn. Linda was a Christian 24/7/365 yet made what many would consider a decidedly “un-Christian” choice.
Re: the use of fertility drugs. Hey, I’d love nothing more than to see zero population growth. Having given birth to a child and, for the record, had an elective termination, it’s difficult to put myself into the position of someone who cannot conceive. It’d be nice to think we might, before we landed a man on Mars, come up with some fertility treatments that don’t create these awful moral dilemmas.
And how about making adoption a more viable option to women with unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, more support, less stigma? That would have the added benefit of reducing the abortion rate, as well. Having not been in the position of concern about the continuation of my line, it’s really difficult to understand that Darwinian imperative. But I’d like to think I’d consider adoption.
Re: which ones to terminate. That’s usually a decision left to the obstetrician. The ones to be terminated would be determined by which could be destroyed while causing as little harm to the others and the pregnancy as possible. Believe it or not, the whole point is really to give life the best chance it has, not to kill babies or play Solomon.
Another thought crosses my mind as I write this. Did the parents make their decision based on how many fetuses the physician recommended terminating? Might they have made a different decision had they been offered the probability of keeping three or four of the six? If so, that’s shoddy medical care. All of this is pure speculation, anyway, since there’s so little known about the case.
Thanks (most) everyone for the comments. It’s been a fascinating discussion. I’ll try to look back over and address any specific questions I might have missed.
And, yes, the irony of my position is not lost on me. I am angry with the parents specifically for making their own choice. But it’s not so much anger as it is frustration at the loss of life when a far better outcome was likely if their choice had been different. Yes, they do have the right to make their choice and a lot of my conjectures about their reasoning have been just that…conjecture and intuition. I just wish things could have been different for these babies and their family.
Thanks for dropping by.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 10:31 pm
Jenni
gawd…you wrote out just exactly what I was thinking when I heard this on the news earlier. I dont understand how people can be so selfish sometimes-either you abort the fetus, or you let a premature BABY die in suffering. To me there is no question- to these people its just mindboggling. I dont understand how they think or reason, I mean is there even reasoning in their thoughts? It doesnt seem like it. Who else would put 6 babies in harms way but a crazy christian who uses the bible for a healthcare reference. Kudos to you sister beotch.
Jenni- Austin, TX
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 10:31 pm
lynlee
I’m in a rather unique position here. I was a gestational surrogate – carrying fetuses that were biologically no relation to me. I followed a specialist’s recommendation and allowed him to transfer 3 embryos. Got pregnant with all three, and chose to reduce to 2. This was after much research on the subject. I know, now, looking photos of two happy, healthy children that I made the right decision.
I’d like to answer a couple of thecrazypastor’s questions:
Kill two of them and be done with it. Which two? How do you pick?
The Maternal-Fetal Specialist will do a highly detailed scan of all fetuses. If there are any fetuses that have abnormalities, they will be chosen. In a case where there are no abnormalities among any of the fetuses, then the fetus(es) nearest the top of the uterus will be reduced. The closer the reduced fetus is to the cervix, the more likely it is to cause irritation and pre-term labor.
Do you choose boys over girls, vice versa, or just go by relative size?
Some people may choose to pick due to gender, *if* that information is available (reductions are usually done between 11 and 14 weeks gestation which is often far too early to tell at all, and certainly not definitively). Otherwise, as I stated above, it is due to presence of abnormalities or location.
Why not three or four as the hospital advised?
Some people seem to think they can beat the odds. Plain and simple.
What about asking these moral questions before taking the drugs that give rise to quads?
How about holding our Reproductive Endocrinologists responsible? In some countries, if a clinic has more than a certain number of multiple pregnancies (that are not identical multiples) per year, they will be fined and/or closed down. How about educating the American public that the cheapest route isn’t always the best (generally, cases of the extreme high-order multiples come from the use of Clomid and other similar drugs and not IVF, which is much more expensive). I certainly do not understand why some doctors and women/couples will take the gamble of inseminating when there are multiple follicles present. Why not wait and try again next month with a smaller dose of meds? Oh, right, because it isn’t cheap and insurance won’t cover it. I forgot.
Haven’t there been other successful pregnancies with quads or sextuplets? What are the odds for that?
Yes, there have. But do you know why they are sensationalized? Because the success stories are SO very rare. Anyone heard anything about the McCaughey Septuplets in the last 3 years or so? No? Oh, that’s because it’s depressing to see severely disabled children all over the media. —
I did research simply on TRIPLET pregnancies. NOT including any that choose to selectively reduce, only 32% of triplet pregnancies make it to the 32week “goal.” Now, maybe I’m just kidding myself here, but I would never celebrate making it to 32 weeks for an average singleton pregnancy. That is TWO WHOLE MONTHS early! Do you have any idea how many problems babies born two months early usually have?? Lots. And they only get worse the higher the number of fetuses they shared the womb with. So… Chances of having (live) triplets with no developmental or physical disability? Small. Also, maternal demise dramatically increases with the higher the number of the multiples. That is something they don’t advertise on teevee either. “Mother of Triplets/Quadruplets/Quintuples/Sextuplets/Septuplets Dies on Operating Table, Leaves Husband to Raise Three/Four/Five/Six/Seven Extremely Premature Infants Alone!”
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 10:33 pm
Drifter
“some right-wing, right-to-life, so-called Christians can be”
Where exactly in the articles does it state their religion, politics, and ideology? From reading the article, you can infer their “religious” but nothing more.
How do you know selective abortion was ruled out because of religion and not the love and hope the parents had for their yet to be born children?
Unless you’ve been asked to make that decision yourself for your own children, do not criticize or try to play monday morning quarterback. Religious or not, to be asked to make that type of decision would be terribly difficult. If it wasn’t… then I fear to think what type of society we have become.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 10:36 pm
elmo76544
I’m not gonna touch this one with a ten foot pole.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 10:42 pm
Graham
22 weeks a 50-50 chance? Uh, a 1993 NEJM study says 22 week chance of survival is 0%. Stats have only moderately improved since then 2005 stats are still well under your numbers. I believe only 1 twenty-three week neonate actually made it out of NICU. I think your estimate smacks of arrogance
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 10:53 pm
em
Wow!
I guess things are different if I post before logging-in. I can’t even track my post on my dashboard, so I am posting again, and I encourage people to read my original post above, at 10:12pm . It is based on EXPERIENCE.
Thanks LynLee for your experienced-based comments too. I think the more people do understand the realities, the more valuable and helpful societal discussion on this very personal Journey of Choices can be for the next group of want-to-be parents to choose this Option or to Adopt or to use a Surrogate or remain childless.
Best to all — Em
PS Please visit my blog at http://diabetesdietdialogue.wordpress.com
“Everyone knows someone who needs this information!” (TM)
Use it for Prevention and for Sharing.
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 10:59 pm
coheir
Cheryl,
I don’t have much to say on the abortion thing…it’s a confusing topic, to be sure. If you believe the Bible as you say you do, could you accept the proposal that it would fall into the category of liberty issues talked about in Romans 14 – that is, if one can act in good faith before God, then act, and if not, then don’t? Perhaps there is not a clear “good” and “bad” choice when it comes to these issues…
I am curious, however, how you combine these two statements: 1) “I haven’t regularly attended religious services in over twenty years, largely because of the lack of acceptance and forgiveness I began to find among many who identify themselves as “Christians,” starting in the late 1980’s.” and 2) “I worship God and Christ in my life and the way I live it.”
Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Perhaps it’d be a topic for a different post, but I’m just curious how that works – as a primary way of worshiping God is to meet with others who do the same, is it not?
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 11:24 pm
Blackdove
You say that Christians see things in black and white, yet you’re doing the same thing. How do you choose to kill your babies, NOT KNOWING what will happen in the future?
Are you even a mother?
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 11:26 pm
Starkers
I don’t understand this at all. If they’d left it up to God, they wouldn’t have any children, being that they were obviously using fertility as they couldn’t conceive on their own.
So I don’t see how people then turn around and say they can’t reduce the pregnancy as it’s not God’s way? Seems they were quite happy to skip God and get pregnant in the first place.
Who knows how these babies are suffering, because they were forced in a pregnancy that was always at higher odds, but those odds could have been greatly reduced. Seems that this predicament is a common one and would be explained before using the fertiility treatments – why not give a better chance to a few than a horrible chance to many?
K
Sunday 17 June 2007 at 11:46 pm
Tana
Thank you for saying “most” when mentioning stupid Christians. Not all of us are stupid (on most days). I honestly don’t know what I would do in this situation, just like I can’t tell you what I would do if I were in a hostage situation or in a bank being robbed or if I was offered pot. Oh, wait.
My brain tends to work in this way: if there are likely or obvious outcomes in certain situations that I don’t want to have to consider, then I probably shouldn’t consider entering into said situation in the first place. I also think, you know, if God wanted me to have a child naturally, He probably would have given me the ability to have a child naturally and that if I can’t, I should leave well enough alone and look to other alternatives which will inevitably better another’s life. But I have also had friends with secondary infertility issues and I’m here to tell you that it just isn’t ever that simple.
None of this is simple. I refuse to judge the parents who had to make that difficult decision – to decide whether or not to electively abort their child(ren). When you’ve had to fight so hard to conceive a child, the thought of aborting one or more of them would just be unbearable, I would think.
What I’ve learned recently, over the last couple of years, is that it’s just as easy to point fingers and judge as it is to see the world in black and white and guess what? Neither attitude gets us anywhere.
Monday 18 June 2007 at 12:00 am
floyd
Wow, no wonder you are blog of the minute with this post. I have to say at least there was a choice and I can not say whether it would be right or wrong, but at least it was a choice for the parents to make. If the right-wingers have their way there would be no choice for women, women would be back in the dark ages of the coat hangers.
Monday 18 June 2007 at 12:02 am
gwaltrip
Don’t be so hard on the parents. What parent could choose which of his or her children were to live and which to die? It is not a simple medical calculation. To insult the parents this way is pretty low down and mean. But then, feminist/pro-abortion ideologues are generally that way, aren’t they?
Monday 18 June 2007 at 12:07 am
Zane Grey
@Bacony Goodness
“Not all of us want it to go away if what it says is wise like don’t murder.”
I’m sorry, do you need this to be reiterated to you on a constant basis?
“The people made the right decision because they have no right to decide which baby lives and which baby dies.”
I’m pretty sure they do. It’s called “modern medicine”. Apparently, we are out of the Dark Ages. Some cool shit if you ask me.
Monday 18 June 2007 at 12:36 am
Mark
Out of curiosity, would you maintain the same stance towards a poor family that chose to malnourish all of their young for a winter rather than killing one so that the others could survive? If your answer is no, then why not?
What is it about the process of birth that confers value to a life? Arguments based upon cognitive abilities fail to confer much value on a newborn, seeing as how chimps out-perform humans even in those areas until the age of 2 or 3. If the value in a baby is its potential, then why wouldn’t a fetus represent the same potential? This issue isn’t as simple as you’re trying to make it.
As you said, “Too bad most of the world comes at us in lovely and varied shades of grey.”
Monday 18 June 2007 at 2:15 am
Dave
hmm.. isn’t that the definition of a gang? to hang out with those that think just like you do?.. a belief is personal.. religions are social.. if Christianity is a belief then you don’t need the social aspect of it to practice it… though, if you want to have your church make money and influence what other people think.. then you need them to follow your rules.
Monday 18 June 2007 at 2:23 am
teyc
There are commenters who believe God has a reason for doing things, and some believe God will give them a good afterlife. I’d like to know how this is different to people who believe God will give them 40 virgins in the afterlife? Or how different are these beliefs from people who believe that reciting a mantra will get them into heaven? Or people who believe that Easter bunny brings chocolate.
Even if God doesn’t exist, all living beings deserve to be treated with compassion.
Personally, in the case of the sextuplets, the decision would be a hard one to make, not only to a Christian, but to any parent. My heart goes out to them.
Monday 18 June 2007 at 2:35 am
belledame222
I’m pro-choice, but I’m kind of sympathetic toward the parents: it can’t be an easy decision in a case like that even if you aren’t particularly anti-abortion/pro-life. And hey: they made a choice. Several, I suppose. Maybe not the ones I would’ve made, but: well, I’m not them. i suppose they might have seen the various news spectaculars about people who have quints or more, all of which survived, and figured, why not them?
poor little half-cooked babies. :-( it’s amazing to me that 22 week-gestated babies can even live outside the womb -at all.-
Monday 18 June 2007 at 7:52 am
coheir
Dave, I’m not sure if you felt that I was suggesting an open discussion of Christianity/world religions/beliefs/etc, but if you did I’m sorry that I miscommunicated. My comment was a response based on Cheryl’s statement that she accepted Jesus Christ as her personal Savior, which I’m assuming means she believes at least some of the Bible, if not all of it – at least the parts about people making wrong choices, God sending (His son) Jesus to fix the situation, and the necessity of believing that. I wouldn’t have said anything had she not mentioned that. If you subscribe to the same beliefs as her, then by all means I would be interested in discussing the topic of “hanging out with those that think just like you do” with regard to Biblical statements, churches, and Christianity (though I’m not exactly sure what you mean when you say Christianity, as you say, “if Christianity is a belief” – it’s never been a single belief, so far as I know). However, I got the feeling from your post that you were just making a point, not really looking for discussion.
Monday 18 June 2007 at 9:07 am
Cheryl
Wow, some great comments and discussion. Unfortunately for me, duty calls and I need to go earn the family dollar. Check back in a couple of days when I’ll hopefully be able to address some of the issues/questions raised.
Thanks for visiting…6,045 of you yesterday! Wow!
Monday 18 June 2007 at 10:19 am
The nerve of some people « Miss effin Sunshine
[…] have died because of being born very early. Well, I was messing around yesterday and passed this blog that was just horrible. Talking about the mother being selfish because she refused to do a […]
Monday 18 June 2007 at 2:16 pm
Tana
I really can’t stand when people make ignorant comparisons of Christians to radical Islams.
What’s the difference between Christianity’s beliefs and those of radical Islams? Ummmmm, how about the fact that Christians don’t believe that killing people and killing oneself serves God? How about the fact that Christians don’t believe that anyone who doesn’t believe in God and Jesus should die? Please please please, whoever tried to pull this stunt in an earlier comment – just don’t. Just don’t.
Monday 18 June 2007 at 3:02 pm
Hey, Free Lawyer Semen | Prose Before Hos
[…] Other things worth checking out: Harbinger of War, In hindsight, Powell wouldn’t have supported Iraq war, 56% of Atheists Believe Christianity is Just as Dangerous to America as Islam, and Can I tell you how stupid some right-wing, right-to-life, so-called Christians can be? […]
Wednesday 20 June 2007 at 9:01 pm
belledame222
Um, Tana, allow me to introduce you to Randall Terry.
http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/hatred.htm
And then to Rousas J. Rushdoony,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.J._Rushdoony
oh yeah, and to Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A7124-2001Sep21
Yeah, -radical fundamentalist- Christians, Tana, are pretty much equivalent with -radical- i.e. fundamentalist Moslems. Most people don’t blow themselves up, no; but, too, you know what, if you were experiencing the equivalent of the terror of (/11 -every single damn day-, you know what it’s like to live in a country under siege? bombs on a daily basis, food and water shortages, friends and relatives disappearing in the middle of the night, loved ones turning up dead on a regular basis?–you, too, might start feeling a bit more sympathetic toward desperate measures.
And um, not believing in killing people–exactly what do you think the war in Iraq -is-, Tana? And no, for the last damn time, “they” didn’t start that particular little saga. -We did.- And–surprise!–a lot of good Christians out there on the battlefield, and a lot more cheering ’em on, and do you really think we’re so easily identified as the “good guys,” Tana? Do you?
And as per terrorists–no, that’s right, the radical Christian kind doesn’t tend to strap bombs to themselves so much.
They just plant them there and hope to die another day.
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/
Wednesday 20 June 2007 at 10:40 pm
Cheryl
BD…have I told you lately that I love you?
Saturday 30 June 2007 at 2:07 pm
Tana
BD – While I appreciate your attempt at enlightening me, I have to tell you that I think we’re talking about two very different groups of people. It is quite unfortunate that the word “Christian” is over-used and therefore, mis-used. It’s why, in most cases, I try to not even use the word and oops! I slipped up in this thread. Radical Christians are as bad as anything else “radical” – you and I agree on that. What would be really fabulous, is if “Radical Christianity” immediately meant to most of the world, a belief in feeding the hungry, clothing and housing the poor, and bringing about a general peace. But you’re right, that’s not what people think of – even when they hear the term “Christian”. There doesn’t even have to be an adjective in front of it. Just plain “Christian” gets people all riled up.
So okay, I get it – I get what you’re saying. All I was trying to say is that we need to choose our words more carefully when throwing around accusations. Plain old, regular, church-going Christians are in no way similar to Radical Islams. In no way. At all. And here, I’m talking about those people who have a set of beliefs and allows those beliefs to affect the way they live their lives – not everyone else’s lives.
I’m no fan of any of the Christian leaders who have politicized (sp?) the faith. It’s wrong. Period. And as for all these supposed Christians that are in strong support of the war – well, just know that this Christian wants our troops home yesterday. Grouping everyone together doesn’t do any of us any good. Gee, isn’t that the second time I’ve said something like that in this thread?
Wednesday 4 July 2007 at 10:25 pm
chosha
Actually my take on this is that if you feel so strongly about abortion that you know you would rather let your child or children die as one of six rather than abort any of them, then you should not have six possibilities implanted. Yes, the probability of success is decreased, but the probability of you having so much success that you need to make a decision about endangering (or ending) the life of one of your fetuses is also less.
Oh, and Mike Seth:
Slavery implies an absence of choice. A woman who chose to have sex (and my comment is ONLY directed at women who had sex BY CHOICE), knowing she could get pregnant as a result, had a choice…and used it. To then complain that the pregnancy is inconvenient for you is like driving off a bridge and then saying you didn’t ask to fall. And if it turns out that someone happens to be able to stop that fall, it doesn’t make it any less irresponsible of the person who drove the car off the bridge without accepting that they would need to deal with the consequences. You know, I don’t think abortion should be illegal, because there are very genuine and valid reasons why a woman might seek one. But when millions of women start turning abortion into some sick form of contraception, having abortions for no reason other than a refusal to face the consequences of their own choices, as if there were no viable life being ended in the process, then I can certainly empathise with the people who don’t want it to be legal. Being asked to face the foreseeable consequences of your own choices is not a form of sexual slavery. Save the term for true subjucation of women…it’s not like it’s not out there.
Monday 23 July 2007 at 5:11 pm
Wooly
The fifth sextuplet died on Sunday. The sixth is still in critical condition.
Maybe, this will persuade others to selectively abort the weaker fetuses in situations like this. Maybe it will dissuade people from using fertility drugs that put them in the position to have to choose. Maybe it will persuade others to adopt one of the millions of orphaned and unwanted kids already out there in the world.
Wednesday 29 July 2009 at 3:27 pm
jaimesmith
Great post, I 100% agree with you.