Octuplets... women are not meant to have litters
- Thread starter tracy
- Start date
Thats still a magic line drawn between nowhere. Science is just better understanding of the natural order. Technically a woman could have octuplets without IFV (at a rate of 1:80N-1 , N being the number in the "litter" so about 1 in 20 trillion) and without the knowledge (science) of female fertility one could sleep with a woman with zero chance of impregnating her (wrong time).
And some mammals raised in isolation from their kind, don't learn how to mate properly at all.
There is no magic line between science and nature. Science is nature, it is merely the better understanding of the natural world.
Drawing an arbitrary line and saying "thats natural" and "thats unnatural" is just an appeal to emotion rather than logic.
I'm not too sure about that. Lots of families go on social assistance from time to time (luckily I haven't had to so far) but I think it's regarded as a private issue. Maybe if you have to undergo open heart surgery maybe the whole world should know about it as it is funded with public money, unless of course you are paying by cheque from your own account.
According to a brief news report today she lives with her mom (or is it parents) and 6 kids in a 3 bedroom house. Where will she put 8 more kids?
By the way, if you want to check out the website of the IVF clinic who helped put her into this situation it is Site Temporarily Unavailable (note the site is down). The hospital NICU should send them the bill for this.
By the way, if you want to check out the website of the IVF clinic who helped put her into this situation it is Site Temporarily Unavailable (note the site is down). The hospital NICU should send them the bill for this.
Bull:lol:. Show me where this has happened in nature, and I'll believe that. It hasn't. That's not arbitrary, it's the basic meaning of the word "natural" (something that's present in or produced by nature).
I don't use the word "unnatural" to mean it's necessarily negative btw. It's unnatural to have surgery, take meds, etc. but often needed to make someone well. We try to improve on nature. This outcome is not an improvement. It's a train wreck.
She had a couple of options. As Unforgiven said, she could have donated them to someone else. She also could have simply not created so many in the first place. Or, she could have implanted them 2 or 3 at a time until they were used up. This woman is 33 years old I believe, so she was no where near the end of her fertile age as far as IVF goes. She probably wouldn't have gotten to do tv interviews or have any chance of getting a book deal that way, but her kids would have a MUCH better chance of being healthy.
For someone to say that killing embryos is murder and then use that as a justification for creating a scenario in which most of them were likely to die is just bassackwards.
33 is getting to the point where the odds of them having serious chances of mental handicap will skyrocket.
Better to give someone a chance to survive then mandating some must die.
Im not saying I agree with that, I think Embryo's are just lumps of matter, but im playing devil's advocate.
In all of this it is her mother you got to feel sorry for, most of the work will be dumped on her...
There is no way she can support (both financially or emotionally) for these 14 children on her own. She's soft in the head if she thinks she can.
She's in it for the money. Plain and simple. She believes those children are her vehicle to fame and fortune and if she'd actually thought about what was best for her children she'd have had a father for them BEFORE they were born for starters. She's selfish.
She's in it for the money. Plain and simple. She believes those children are her vehicle to fame and fortune and if she'd actually thought about what was best for her children she'd have had a father for them BEFORE they were born for starters. She's selfish.
No it's not. That happens at an older age, but it doesn't have anything to do with this case anyways since the issue in older women having children with problems is chromosomal anomalies. That risk increases because of the age of the eggs not the age of the woman carrying them. These frozen eggs are young eggs. She could have them implanted when she was 50 and they'd have no higher a chance of mental handicap than if she did it at 25.
What she did is what increases their odds of physical and mental problems. Implanting a bunch at once increases the risk of multiples, which increases the risk of prematurity. Prematurity is what causes all sorts of problems, mental and physical. That's my problem with what she did. The fact that she did it when she has no means of financial support makes it worse, but even if she had millions of dollars it was still wrong to put so many children at a high risk of developping health problems.