A different abortion hypothetical

[jayem]

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but it would be interesting to get opinions. And it's not far-fetched at all.

A woman, with a history of low fertility and miscarriage, takes ovulation inducing drugs to get pregnant. She conceives, but is found to have a high multiple pregnancy--septuplets. Because of her history, the consensus of her OB team is that she should reduce the pregnancy to twins. On moral gounds, she refuses to selectively terminate, and soon miscarries the whole lot.

So why couldn't her NOT having an abortion be considered as contributing to 7 lives being lost? Some women have been prosecuted for alcohol and drug use during pregnancy under a theory of child endangerment. Willfully refusing medical treatment, even on religious grounds, is no excuse where children are concerned. We don't allow a Jehovah's Witness to forbid blood tranfusions if her child is in shock. A Christian Scientist can be prosecuted if he doesn't obtain medical care and his child dies of treatable meningitis. Is this any different?

 

[loriersea]

That is a scenario I've wondered about myself. I know a woman whose daughter got pregnant through in-vitro fertilization, and she ended up with five embryos implanting. She choose to have a selective termination, aborted three of the embryos, and gave birth to healthy twins.

Personally, I think that people shouldn't be implanted with more than 3 embryos in any case, because some women are going to refuse a selective termination, and I don't a doctor can in good conscience put a woman in a position where she will be pregnant with six or seven fetuses.

I think that, apart from any question of the personhood of the fetus or the right to bodily integrity of the woman, this is also an issue of protection. In order to protect some of the fetuses, the parents may have to choose to abort others. The womb is not designed to house six and seven fetuses (and, yes, I know it happens, but it is almost always artificial and in many cases it ends in miscarriage of all fetuses or severe disabilities or stillbirth for some or all of them), and in order to provide a womb environment that can protect and nurture some of the embryos, others must be removed.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but it would be interesting to get opinions. And it's not far-fetched at all.

A woman, with a history of low fertility and miscarriage, takes ovulation inducing drugs to get pregnant. She conceives, but is found to have a high multiple pregnancy--septuplets. Because of her history, the consensus of her OB team is that she should reduce the pregnancy to twins. On moral gounds, she refuses to selectively terminate, and soon miscarries the whole lot.

So why couldn't her NOT having an abortion be considered as contributing to 7 lives being lost? Some women have been prosecuted for alcohol and drug use during pregnancy under a theory of child endangerment. Willfully refusing medical treatment, even on religious grounds, is no excuse where children are concerned. We don't allow a Jehovah's Witness to forbid blood tranfusions if her child is in shock. A Christian Scientist can be prosecuted if he doesn't obtain medical care and his child dies of treatable meningitis. Is this any different?

No. It's not far-fetched.
I happen to know a dear sister in Christ that had a similar procedure done and the doctors belayed any concerns by declaring that the likelihood of multiple eggs dropping, being fertilized, much less attaching to the wall was low.
End result was sextuplets and a very trying time for the parents and church family.
End of story being that once labor started at around five or six months, it couldn't be stopped and all the children eventually died over a few days. And the children were loved by many.
Needless to say, I don't care much for a hypothetical formed that may be formed to promote abortion or give much credence in doctors making guesses that place people in such situations.

Obligatory link.

 

[MoonlessNight]

So why couldn't her NOT having an abortion be considered as contributing to 7 lives being lost?

It's all related to double effect. Did it contribute to it? Certainly. Did she intend it? Of course not. If she had instead killed five, then she would be intending to kill five to save two. It may be considered noble by some, but it is still intending to kill.

 

[judy]

Sort of off topic:

Why do people who have in vitro and end up with a greater number of embryos than nature ever intended a human uterus to hold, still insist on saying the multiple embryos are God's will and they don't want to tamper with God's will?

I think God's will may be for them not to have a baby. Going through in vitro in the first place is tampering with God's will.

 

[DieHappy]

You're trading the certainty of 5 deaths with the possibilty of 1-7 deaths. If she has 7 babies and decides to kill 5, they're dead. If she treis to carry to term, it's anyone's guess how many will live, maybe they all will.

I hate in vitro but I would like to see Loriersea's idea of 3 max put into effect if we can't end it altogether.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

You're trading the certainty of 5 deaths with the possibilty of 1-7 deaths. If she has 7 babies and decides to kill 5, they're dead. If she treis to carry to term, it's anyone's guess how many will live, maybe they all will.

I hate in vitro but I would like to see Loriersea's idea of 3 max put into effect if we can't end it altogether.

I would like a max too, but not regulated by government law.

It would be nice if the doctors that are granted authorities by the government and review themselves on ethics actually develop a spine and not cater to every whim from whomever has enough money to pay them to do a procedure.

If the government were to step in and say X amount of babies is the limit, that would be just as much a violation of privacy and alleged freedom that the abortion zealots say supports their argument. But since the abortion advocates don't fuss about exterminating a fetus, the likelihood of they being supportive of a limit in whole when they already have a solution doesn't seem logical.

It would be ideal if doctors restricted procedures to those that produce a known outcome rather than a craps shoot and required to FULLY educate people beforehand.

 

[loriersea]

If the government were to step in and say X amount of babies is the limit, that would be just as much a violation of privacy and alleged freedom that the abortion zealots say supports their argument. But since the abortion advocates don't fuss about exterminating a fetus, the likelihood of they being supportive of a limit in whole when they already have a solution doesn't seem logical.

That's not actually true. These are two entirely different issues. There is a book by Margaret Sanger's grandson called Beyond Choice that discusses why limitations on certain reproductive technologies is NOT limiting people's reproductive freedom, and in fact goes hand-in-hand with providing an environment where people can make their reproductive choices safely.

For reasons of safety, medical procedures, including abortion, are regulated. And, this is a safety issue. There are women who will refuse to have a selective termination even though they are putting themselves and numerous fetuses at risk. Sometimes, those risks won't develop until after viability, and there will be multiple dead viable fetuses, and possibly a dead woman, as well. In order to prevent that, and to make sure that women are provided with safe care, there is no reason to not put limits on how many embryos can be implanted at once.

If a woman is aborting, 95%+ of the time she is aborting an embryo that has no higher brain activity, no ability to feel pain, no consciousness of any kind, no ability to perceive or sense, no self at all. To me, that is not a tragedy. But, when a woman chooses to try to carry five or six embryos to term, and makes it to the point where the fetuses DO have higher brain activity and can feel and perceive, and then they either die or are born, live in severe pain for several days, and then die, that IS a tragedy. I think it is far more humane to have a selective termination, but since some women will refuse to do that, then limits need to be put on these procedures.

 

[Spinrad]

If people don't voluntarily stop behaving like monkeys and rutting for five and six children I say we eat them.

 

[jayem]

For reasons of safety, medical procedures, including abortion, are regulated. And, this is a safety issue.

Sure. Though in my case scenario, the mutiple pregnancy didn't result from IVF or any specific procedure. This patient was just treated with ovulatory inducing drugs, like Clomid, or Gonal-F. The risk of multiple pregnancy with all of these drugs is about 10%. High multiple is quite uncommon, but has happened. (The woman from Iowa, who had a successful septuplet pregnancy about 10 years ago, had been treated with fertility drugs, not IVF.) How do you regulate a drug effect? Should a non-invasive treatment that won't cause a difficult outcome in 90% of patients be banned?

In any case, if more control of fertility treatment is needed, it should not be by government. It has to be through reputable professional organizations, like the American Society of Reproductive Medicine or the ACOG. State legislatures cannot and should not be making medical decisions.

 

[comana]

Sure. Though in my case scenario, the mutiple pregnancy didn't result from IVF or any specific procedure. This patient was just treated with ovulatory inducing drugs, like Clomid, or Gonal-F. The risk of multiple pregnancy with all of these drugs is about 10%. High multiple is quite uncommon, but has happened. (The woman from Iowa, who had a successful septuplet pregnancy about 10 years ago, had been treated with fertility drugs, not IVF.) How do you regulate a drug effect? Should a non-invasive treatment that won't cause a difficult outcome in 90% of patients be banned?

In any case, if more control of fertility treatment is needed, it should not be by government. It has to be through reputable professional organizations, like the American Society of Reproductive Medicine or the ACOG. State legislatures cannot and should not be making medical decisions.

Pehaps those couples opposed to the possibility of reduction should not use this particular treatment.

 

[Monica02]

Sort of off topic:

Why do people who have in vitro and end up with a greater number of embryos than nature ever intended a human uterus to hold, still insist on saying the multiple embryos are God's will and they don't want to tamper with God's will?

I think God's will may be for them not to have a baby. Going through in vitro in the first place is tampering with God's will.

Quite true that invitro is tampering with god's will and the Church does teach that invitro is immoral. however once a human life exists, direct abortion is also wrong.