Joined: 13 Apr 2007 Posts: 1 Location: new england
Twins Posted: 04-13-07 00:34am
I am looking for some information or
advice that may help my wife and I as we
work through a difficult decision. My wife
38 and I are happily married and have a
beautiful healthy child thanks to years of
ivf, surgeries and even a miscarriage.
Needless to say, it has been a very long
road but we were overjoyed to find we were
once again pregnant after 2 more years of
ivf. The ultrasound at 6 weeks has showed
twins. I was very happy at first, but my
wife is overwhelmed. She felt that we
could have one more child, but is
completely sure that twins is not possible
for us to deal with. She is so scared that
there just won't be enough time or energy
to give all three children what they need.
She has a very successful (but very
stressful) corporate career and loves
everything about it except that she can
only spend a few hours a day at home with
our daughter. I stay home full time with
our daughter. I love being a stay at home
dad and think we could make twins work,
but truth be told I do wish my wife could
spend more time with our one daughter let
alone the addition of twins. I have always
been absolutely pro choice. My wife wants
to have a selective reduction on one of
the two embryos. My questions are
1) Is this a procedure that is done as an
elective procedure even in cases where
there doesn't appear to be any health
issues with either fetus? 2.) If so where
can I find reliable info on clinics and
doctors? I have done some basic research
on the web and have found some info
indicating that the remaining twin would
have at least as good chances or better of
being healthy at birth, not to mention
possible better life after birth because
of increased attention and time from us
parents. My last question is: 3) Are my
wifes feelings of being overwhelmed normal
in this case and have you or your readers
ever heard of this delimma? I guess I am
just looking for anyone to talk to about
this. I want to look at the positive side
of this, but I am genuinely concerened for
my wife and how overwhelmed she is
feeling.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-13-07 01:06am
It doesn't sound like a safe procedure to
have done. I'd be terrified the other
embryo would be harmed.
When women get pregnant naturally with
twins, the thought never crosses their
mind to kill one of them simply because
it's an inconvenience. It's the technology
that's making your wife even consider such
a thing.
Hopefully someone knows more about the
procedure and can give you some unbiased
information.
|
Carifairy
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Posts: 2610 Location: Charlotte n.c.
Thanks: 12
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-13-07 01:25am
Selective reduction is very common! They
also do it in such a way that the other
embryo is typically unharmed!
Many couples with multiple births will
consider selective reduction, and many
well trained physicians do this
procedure.
Have you spoken with your doc about it??
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3795 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 87
Thanked:71
Posted: 04-13-07 03:12am
Eiri
wrote:
When women get pregnant naturally with
twins, the thought never crosses their
mind to kill one of them simply because
it's an inconvenience. It's the technology
that's making your wife even consider such
a thing.
I agree totally. I can understand
aborting one of multiples when there is a
health risk involved to the mother or the
other babies but to kill one just for the
sake of convenience seems cold hearted.
It is a well known fact that multiples are
a 'risk' with ivf so this situation should
have been factored in when you considered
the procedure in the first place.
|
mc4ever02
Supporter
Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 3636 Location: Orlando, FL Usa
Thanks: 5
Thanked:2
Posted: 04-13-07 09:57am
Do you know if they are sharing an
amniotic sac or if they are in seperate
sacs?
|
sillyakchick
Supporter
Joined: 12 Apr 2007 Posts: 2697
Thanks: 6
Thanked:0
online
Twins Are Tough Posted: 04-13-07 10:07am
Havaing twins is a lot of work, but since
you do most of the childcare, and you
sound up for it, perhaps you should take
some time to speak with your wife at
length. I think people make the amount of
time necessary, no matter how many kids
they have. It sounds like her career is
important to her. Can you afford to hire
someone to cook or clean? Even if it once
a week or so? That may free her up to
spend more time with the children. There
is always a risk to the other fetus when
the environment of the womb is invaded.
Early pregnancy is a time of hormonal
upheaval. Many women panic and think
"there is no way I can do this!" Before I
found out I was pregnant with my second
child, I freaked out thinking there was no
way I could possibly give attention to two
children adn how unfair it was to my other
child, etc. Then i found out I was
actually already pregnant. Even though i
was happy, a part of me wanted to get of
the roller coaster before it climbed up
the first hill. This is a normal reaction
to the situation she is in. Only the two
of you can come to a decision that is best
for you, regardless of what any other
people say. i will tell you this,
though-twins share an amazingly special
bond with each other, even if they do not
get along all of the time. My hubby has
twin sisters, and I am somewhat envious of
their closeness. Admittedly, I would not
want my own sister for a twin! I hope you
can both come to a decision that is
peaceful for you.
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 04-13-07 11:21am
Eiri
wrote:
When women get pregnant
naturally with twins, the thought never
crosses their mind to kill one of them
simply because it's an inconvenience. It's
the technology that's making your wife
even consider such a thing.
That's not always the
typical response. I have known several
couples who were crushed and rather
heartbroken to find out that they were
having twins instead of just one child
(especially if it was their first
pregnancy). By the time they found out it
was twins, they had just become
comfortable with the idea of having .a
child. Then on top of that the
realization of the extra work, the extra
expense, the extra college education, etc,
caused them to become very stressed and
agitated. Where they felt prepared to
handle one, they felt helpless when
finding out two were expected. On top of
that it's not something they felt they
could discuss with anyone because everyone
around them was crooning, "twice the love"
or other such phrases and it made them
very uncomfortable because they knew they
didn't feel that way. One of them broke
out sobbing uncontrollably at her baby
shower because she just couldn't bottle it
up anymore. People can be very cruel when
you don't respond in the way they expect
you to or in a way that is socially
accepted.
The only advice I could give to this
particular situation would be to find out
whether or not there are some parent's of
multiples support groups in your area and
to sit down and speak with them. They may
be able to give you more information and
the reality of having multiples.
It doesn't sound like a safe
procedure to have done. I'd be terrified
the other embryo would be harmed.
When women get pregnant naturally with
twins, the thought never crosses their
mind to kill one of them simply because
it's an inconvenience. It's the technology
that's making your wife even consider such
a thing.
Hopefully someone knows more about the
procedure and can give you some unbiased
information.
Sorry, Eiri, but I completely disagree. I
would say that Cari and Jenn are much more
accurate. Selective reduction is quite
safe and harm to the other foetus is not
common, as far as I'm aware. I don't know
what the doctor will say and I do believe
that such an abortion can be obtained at
ease based on grounds like psychological
and economic difficulties.
My advice to the author of the thread:
talk things over with your wife and ask
her to give it some more time and thought
(whilst simulataneously contacting a
doctor and researching) and it might be
worth asking any families you know how
they cope(d) with twins and other
children. Be open with her about your
thoughts and hopes for the kid you already
have and hopefully you will be able to
come to a compromise about your current
daughter and also the pregnancy your wife
is currently in. Tell her what you're
thinking but make sure she knows you will
support her 100%.
Do you know if they are
sharing an amniotic sac or if they are in
seperate
sacs?
I was thinking the same thing mc4ever02.
The procedure can't be done if they share
a sac.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-15-07 22:29pm
Now that I know that it is a safe and
common procedure, I rescind the first part
of my post. The second half I still stand
by.
Jenn, even if the natural-twinned mother
was "devestated" - and remember that this
is a desperately wanted pregnancy, not a
maybe-wanted or accidental one - I don't
think the natural-twinned mother would
ever consider removing the
second fetus out of "convenience".
|
hopefulmjz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 Mar 2005 Posts: 4777 Location: , USA
Thanks: 3
Thanked:11
Posted: 04-15-07 22:41pm
What about adoption? This was after-all,
an ivf case...I'd think of it as a
blessing after going to such lengths to
concieve in the first place.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-15-07 22:42pm
hopefulmjz
wrote:
What about adoption? This
was after-all, an ivf case...I'd think of
it as a blessing after going to such
lengths to concieve in the first place.
Yes, that's my opinion.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4044 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Posted: 04-16-07 22:02pm
Who's gonna tell the born child that s/he
had a twin that was "selectively reduced"?
Abortion for unintended pregnancy is one
thing; "selectively reducing" twin embryos
after going to great lengths to get
pregnant is something else.
It's not like the normal arguments for
abortion can go into place here.
She purposely got pregnant, she's going to
remain pregnant, she's going to give
birth.
So she's going to have two kids instead of
one; a risk I'm sure she was educated
about before undergoing ivf tx.
*sigh*
Don't get me wrong; prochoice means
supporting her choice. I just don't agree
with this particular choice.
Do I have to fullfledgely agree with a
choice to support it? What does support
mean, exactly?
Meanderings after a late glass of merlot.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-16-07 22:35pm
Birch
wrote:
Who's gonna tell the born
child that s/he had a twin that was
"selectively reduced"? Abortion for
unintended pregnancy is one thing;
"selectively reducing" twin embryos after
going to great lengths to get pregnant is
something else.
It's not like the normal arguments for
abortion can go into place here.
She purposely got pregnant, she's going to
remain pregnant, she's going to give
birth.
So she's going to have two kids instead of
one; a risk I'm sure she was educated
about before undergoing ivf tx.
*sigh*
Don't get me wrong; prochoice means
supporting her choice. I just don't agree
with this particular choice.
Do I have to fullfledgely agree with a
choice to support it? What does support
mean, exactly?
Meanderings after a late glass of
merlot.
I agree with you birch.
And no; to be pro-choice, you don't have
to agree with every choice.
I quote voltaire because he said it best:
"I do not agree with what you say, but I
would defend to the death your right to
say it."
As far as my position is on pro-choice,
that's where I am. I believe that some
women abort for bad reasons, plain and
simple. However, they have the right to do
so and the right is more important than
their choices, as dumb as those choices
may be.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4044 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Posted: 04-17-07 15:35pm
Eiri
wrote:
I agree with you birch.
And no; to be pro-choice, you don't have
to agree with every choice.
I quote voltaire because he said it best:
"I do not agree with what you say, but I
would defend to the death your right to
say it."
As far as my position is on pro-choice,
that's where I am. I believe that some
women abort for bad reasons, plain and
simple. However, they have the right to do
so and the right is more important than
their choices, as dumb as those choices
may be.
Well...hmm.
I think Voltaire's quote might be more
about speech versus action. And I'm not
sure I necessarily agree with what he
said.
Anyways...
The question for me is; do I have to
support and agree with all choices to be
prochoice and not be hypocritical?
Am I prochoice only when it suits my
personal views?
For example, I am not opposed to current
legislation that disallows late term
abortions for nonmedically necessary
reasons. But does prochoice mean that if
she chooses at 7mos to abort, then I
support her decision?
What does 'support' mean?
And who am I to decide this for her?
Does that make me one of the dreaded
"conditionally prochoice"?
Am I not
a feminist?
I just think I lost a part of my identity.
|
Magical Logic
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 2248
Posted: 04-17-07 16:30pm
all i am gonna say is twins are a
blessing. twins are not that much harder
than having one child.
|
Sunflower_pie81
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 5041 Location: to hell with this crap
Posted: 04-17-07 20:57pm
chase4
wrote:
all i am gonna say is twins
are a blessing. twins are not that much
harder than having one
child.
not for you maybe, but for this lady it
might be overwhelming.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-18-07 00:15am
Birch
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
I agree with you birch.
And no; to be pro-choice, you don't have
to agree with every choice.
I quote voltaire because he said it best:
"I do not agree with what you say, but I
would defend to the death your right to
say it."
As far as my position is on pro-choice,
that's where I am. I believe that some
women abort for bad reasons, plain and
simple. However, they have the right to do
so and the right is more important than
their choices, as dumb as those choices
may be.
Well...hmm.
I think Voltaire's quote might be more
about speech versus action. And I'm not
sure I necessarily agree with what he
said.
Anyways...
The question for me is; do I have to
support and agree with all choices to be
prochoice and not be hypocritical?
Am I prochoice only when it suits my
personal views?
For example, I am not opposed to current
legislation that disallows late term
abortions for nonmedically necessary
reasons. But does prochoice mean that if
she chooses at 7mos to abort, then I
support her decision?
What does 'support' mean?
And who am I to decide this for her?
Does that make me one of the dreaded
"conditionally prochoice"?
Am I not
a feminist?
I just think I lost a part of my identity.
I don't care if voltaire was talking about
free speech. I think that his concepts are
how I view pro-choice, hell, life in
general. I simply used his quote because
he stated it so eloquently. I am not sayin
that voltaire was pro-choice.
You don't have to always agree
with what someone does to support their
right to do it.
People with freedom will
make stupid choices, but they have the
right to make those choices.
I see nothing hypocritical with telling
people they have made a dumb desicion
whilst supporting their freedom to make
it.
And no; to be pro-choice, you don't have
to agree with every choice.
I quote voltaire because he said it best:
"I do not agree with what you say, but I
would defend to the death your right to
say it."
As far as my position is on pro-choice,
that's where I am. I believe that some
women abort for bad reasons, plain and
simple. However, they have the right to do
so and the right is more important than
their choices, as dumb as those choices
may be.
Well...hmm.
I think Voltaire's quote might be more
about speech versus action. And I'm not
sure I necessarily agree with what he
said.
Anyways...
The question for me is; do I have to
support and agree with all choices to be
prochoice and not be hypocritical?
Am I prochoice only when it suits my
personal views?
For example, I am not opposed to current
legislation that disallows late term
abortions for nonmedically necessary
reasons. But does prochoice mean that if
she chooses at 7mos to abort, then I
support her decision?
What does 'support' mean?
And who am I to decide this for her?
Does that make me one of the dreaded
"conditionally prochoice"?
Am I not
a feminist?
I just think I lost a part of my identity.
You have to look at the literal meaning of
the term 'pro-choice'. It means 'for (in
the sense of agreeing with and supporting)
choice [terminating a pregnancy]'; it is a
euphemism for 'pro-abortion' or
'pro-foetal killings'. One can deduce that
even if s/he wholly disagrees with
abortion, s/he can support the choice.
I certainly believe that this extends to
law. For example, you said that you do not
agree with late-term non-medical abortions
and advocate the legislation which
prohibits them. The first part is
pro-choice (if, of course, you would still
support a woman to make that decision) all
though the latter isn't, since you are
backing a legislation which limits a
woman's choice. You are enforcing
your own view (that late-term non-medical
abortions are wrong, which is a pro-life
view at that) as law, which I totally
disagree with. Every person who shares
that opinion has failed to convince me or
give me a good reason why they should
support its illegality. As pro-choicers
very often say to pro-lifers: "Fair enough
if it's your opinion, but you don't have
the right to apply your opinion as law",
which is most certainly valid here too. As
pro-choicers, I think we should know
better. If you disagree with late-term
non-medical abortions, then that's your
opinion and I don't have anything against
your right to have one of those, but by
supporting an unequal law you are taking
away another person's rights. Woman's body,
woman's choice, no matter what
anybody else thinks. To be pro-choice in
this area, then I would say the itinery is
that you support such a female's choice
and a law which allows her
to make this choice (law must, in
my eyes, be open for women to be able to
do this).
Kypros.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4044 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Posted: 04-18-07 12:14pm
Kypros
wrote:
You have to look at the
literal meaning of the term 'pro-choice'.
It means 'for (in the sense of agreeing
with and supporting) choice [terminating a
pregnancy]'; it is a euphemism for
'pro-abortion' or 'pro-foetal killings'.
One can deduce that even if s/he wholly
disagrees with abortion, s/he can support
the choice. I certainly believe
that this extends to law. For example, you
said that you do not agree with late-term
non-medical abortions and advocate the
legislation which prohibits them. The
first part is pro-choice (if, of course,
you would still support a woman to make
that decision) all though the latter
isn't, since you are backing a legislation
which limits a woman's choice.
You are enforcing your own view (that
late-term non-medical abortions are wrong,
which is a pro-life view at that) as law,
which I totally disagree with. Every
person who shares that opinion has failed
to convince me or give me a good reason
why they should support its illegality. As
pro-choicers very often say to pro-lifers:
"Fair enough if it's your opinion, but you
don't have the right to apply your opinion
as law", which is most certainly valid
here too. As pro-choicers, I think we
should know better. If you disagree with
late-term non-medical abortions, then
that's your opinion and I don't have
anything against your right to have one of
those, but by supporting an unequal law
you are taking away another person's
rights. Woman's body, woman's
choice, no matter what anybody else
thinks. To be pro-choice in this area,
then I would say the itinery is that you
support such a female's choice and a
law which allows her to make this choice
(law must, in my eyes, be open for
women to be able to do this).
Kypros.
In my dealings in life, I try to live a
certain way to minimize suffering, pain,
and hatred. Animals through rescue work,
humans through social work. In keeping
consistant with that theme, I ask myself
when is the time where a womans autonomy
to her body can cause suffering and pain
for another. I'm no doctor so I have no
idea when physically this could happen,
except that when some premature babies are
born, they grow into healthy individuals.
When this is a possibility, I consider
that a woman's autonomy is compromised by
her own biology and the choices she's made
(if she's been aware). I don't understand
how a compassionate view of life, such as
what I try to have, can condone an 8th
month termination for reasons other than
the usual medically necessary situations.
I don't shut the door on that however; I
understand that I don't know everything,
and there might be situations in which I
would change my mind completely.
As I understand it, the current
legislation in the US is on par with this.
What would you like to see changed?
Maybe I will agree with you.
