Thread: Fertility treatments

My question is, why did they implant so many embryos? This woan didn't simply take fertiliuty shots, if I understand correctly. I read they actually implanted multiple embryos. I have family that used IVF, and they implanted THREE embryos. One did not take, then there were twins, one of those twins failed inside 7 weeks. She is now a few months into what looks like a healthy pregnancy. Now, they are both very healthy people, but there were reasons why the traditional method couldn't work. I see nothing at all wrong with giving nature a helping hand in bringing a child into a loving family.

This woman already had SIX children. Why then implant so many? then, when given the option of "selectively reducing" she refused. If it is a moral concern, that destroying the embryo is murder (very very early abortion, is she not concerned with the fact that non-used embryos (those that they choose not to implant) are destroyed?

I don't get it. You are bringing children into the world with vastly increased chances of lifelong health issues. Why would you do that?

I dunno, it seems a lot more efficient. I mean, if you want 10 kids, why have 'em one at a time over a decade when you could have a litter of pups all at once and be done with it. Don't really see why human breeding should be held to different standards than every other animal.

Alright devil's advocate

I agree with smoke on this one. The increased health risks are incredible. Evidently they can have a lot of heart issues, especially as infants. Crazy stuff.

Why does it seem that the media is villanizing this woman? Has she done anything wrong?

The Los Angeles Times later carried an interview with a woman identified as the babies' grandmother, who said her daughter already had six young children and never expected the fertility treatment she had received would result in eight more babies.

Fertility shots are one thing, in-vitro fertilization is another. My understanding is that it is usually the case that multiple fertilized embryoes are implanted.


In this age of "abortion on demand", where people everyday choose to end the life within them, and it gets nary a second thought, then comes this woman, who chooses to take responsibility for all of the embryoes implanted within her, and it causes some sort of uproar?

"She already had 6 kids...tsk, tsk, tsk...."


So, who are we to say how many children someone should have? One? Two? Three? Four? Five? None?


And for the devil's advocate:

So, if the chance of health risk is there..., how much more so for that child's health if it were simply aborted?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

So, if the chance of health risk is there..., how much more so for that child's health if it were simply aborted?

Well, if an embryo is not a "child" (which if I recall correctly, we have debated and will likely never agree), then there is 0% risk of any adverse impact to a child if the embryo is "selectively reduced' (A euphamism of course).

If it IS, then at what point would the abortion be mercy? If the odds (I am making these up) are 90% that the child would be born to a short life of unimaginable pain? Is that the line? 50%? Pretty bad pain? Bad itchy feet? If there is a line...what is it? Or if life, no matter how miserable, is ALWAYS prefereable to termination of a 3 day old embryo, well...once again, we will never agree.


By the way....I found the article that states she had them all implanted, not simply using the shots...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/30...ef=mpstoryview
Second paragraph....now, is this accurate? What does this do for anyone's opinion?

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Well, if an embryo is not a "child" (which if I recall correctly, we have debated and will likely never agree), then there is 0% risk of any adverse impact to a child if the embryo is "selectively reduced' (A euphamism of course).

If it IS, then at what point would the abortion be mercy? If the odds (I am making these up) are 90% that the child would be born to a short life of unimaginable pain? Is that the line? 50%? Pretty bad pain? Bad itchy feet? If there is a line...what is it? Or if life, no matter how miserable, is ALWAYS prefereable to termination of a 3 day old embryo, well...once again, we will never agree.

Yes, I imagine that there is slim chance we can come to agreement on that. Have you been able to figure out at what point your child actually became your child? Was it only upon exit from the womb?

In the case of the woman here, she did not terminate any of the embryoes (non-children?), and guess what!?

They all became children!

Hmmm.......was it some type of alchemy? Did they change from one thing into another? Now THAT would make some news!



For the second portion, how about this (and please forgive me for any offense):
Some day that beautiful child of yours is going to die. It is inevitable, it happens to all of us. It may happen in a horrific, painful acident, injury, or disease. Should we therefore be "merciful" and end her life right now?, and get it over with?

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

By the way....I found the article that states she had them all implanted, not simply using the shots...
Mother of octuplets has six other children - CNN.com
Second paragraph....now, is this accurate? What does this do for anyone's opinion?

From my understanding that is the standard proceedure the fertility docs use. They implant a number of viable embryoes, assuming that not all will "take", and if multiples do occur, they can easily enough reduce the number. Implanting multiple embryoes greatly increases the fertility treatment success rate, which is why they do it.

Great questions
1) No, I have not figured that out yet. But I do, in my most deeply searched heart, believe that there was a point. I do believe she became a child, a human life (not a POTENTIAL human life) at some point inside the womb. That she eventually became a child does not mean she was a child when she was a couple of cells in early embryonic stages.
2) Of course she will die, as we all shall. She is NOW a human. Should we kill a non-suffering human because there will someday be suffering? I find that nonsensical. CURRENT HUMAN LIFE has value. I believe ALL current human life has value, and ought not be eliminated without its consent…hence my opposiiton to the death penalty. BUT, should a terminal ill person be allowed to MAKE THE CHOICE to end their own suffering? Of course! (though we might diagree about that as well!)
3) Yes, in IVF (as opposed to simply using fertility drugs) they implant multiples to increase the possibiltiy of success. Many people, however, will refuse to have more than two or three implanted, because they do not want to take those terrible health risks for their potential future children, or themselves. Or maybe they don’t want to have an unnaturally large litter of children. If one is categorically against the destruction of embryos, one must be against the practice of IVF, where many non-implanted embreyos are destroyed, no?

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

By the way....I found the article that states she had them all implanted, not simply using the shots...
Mother of octuplets has six other children - CNN.com
Second paragraph....now, is this accurate? What does this do for anyone's opinion?

The grandmother also said the mother didn't know she was pregnant with more than one baby? The grandmother sounds like she may not have had her coffee that morning, or maybe I am just misunderstanding. The woman hasn't been publicly identified and the hospital has refused to say how she got pregnant, so I only speculate.