Human Litter

Seven babies. Imagine. Seven. All at once. Well, perhaps "underdone fetuses" would be more accurate. Every so often you read about such unusual births. Those tiny 2-pound entities are somewhere between zygote and viable human being, but just where along that spectrum is hard to pinpoint. And, because of that, normal health is a rarity in such cases.

There must be a compassionate compromise between giving birth to seven premature babies and simply enduring infertility. Fertility drugs commonly result in multiple embryos for the obvious reason that they are designed to overstimulate the ovaries, which cooperate by disgorging eggs like a gumball machine. Those sperms must think, Bonanza!

This naturally creates the dilemma of implanting a human uterus with anywhere from four to nine embryos, which it was never intended to accommodate. As a rule, dogs and cats and pigs have litters, but humans have one baby at a time. Even twins are rare, and it is only medical advances, such as C-sections, that have made it possible for so many successful twin births. One generation ago it was not at all uncommon for only one twin to survive the rigors of full term pregnancy and childbirth. Today successful twinning is a happily frequent event.

But what do you do when your fierce desire for children results in a womb crammed full of hopefuls, which have zero chance of coming to full term? And there is no disagreement on this issue. All agree. No human female can carry six or so embryos to full term. It can never happen, and when the uterus finally decides enough is enough, it ejects its burdensome passengers long before they are ready for the light of day.

The tragic results are lungs, hearts, kidneys and so on that are not fully developed. One or two of these tiny creatures usually die at birth, and those remaining often require major surgery, long-term care, or both. They just aren't quite "done." So, is there a solution? Happily, there is. Unhappily, the powerful Roman Catholic Church is dead set against it. The term used by doctors is "selective reduction." The term used by the Catholic Church is murder. Here we go again.

(Reduction means just what it says. The number of embryos is reduced by means of injections, and those eliminated are resorbed back into the mother's body.)

I remember watching a poignant television documentary on this reduction procedure. Two married, childless couples were featured. They had both been faced with the same problem. They had used fertility drugs, resulting in eight embryos in one woman, and seven in the other. Children they wanted, but not like this!

The first woman stated clearly and unequivocally that she would play no part in what she called "murder." Her Church had spoken on the matter-it was just plain murder to "reduce" the number of embryos-and she obeyed. She allowed all eight embryos to work our their own destinies inside her. Her husband was in total agreement.

The second woman barely struggled at all with her decision. Knowing the impossibility of delivering seven healthy, full term babies, she opted to remove five of them and allow the remaining twins to grow inside her. Her husband was in total agreement.

The results were sadly predictable. Of the eight premature babies born to the first woman, three died the first day, and the other five were woefully malformed. One little girl had lungs that were not developed and would require a respirator, just to breathe at all, for the rest of her life. One of the boys had a brain only half the normal size, even for his tiny body, and one of his brothers had only a partial spine. And so on.

The second couple was thrilled to be parents of a healthy set of twins, a girl and a boy. At the time the documentary was filmed, the children in both families were one-and-a-half years old. There were scenes showing the twins giggling and being pushed in their swings in the backyard; then scenes as they played on a beach and splashed in the shallow water.

Then suddenly the scene shifted to a large "family" room that looked more like a hospital ward. One little girl was attached to a respirator by a lengthy hose, allowing her to walk at least that far. The tube in and around her neck, attached to the hose, made her look eerily like a dog tethered on a leash. She will have to use a respirator for as long as she lives.

One boy was slouched in a highchair, glassy-eyed and drooling. He had a drastically undersized brain and would never have a measurable I.Q. Another boy was lying in a crib, where, because of his spine, he would always remain. There were no surgeries available to allow him ever to walk or sit up.

The other two children had less serious problems, but one had a back brace and the other wore very thick glasses and could barely see. It was like a horror movie come true. And it was heart-wrenching to watch.

But when they cut back to the other family's twins, greedily eating their pudding, grinning, red-cheeked and obviously healthy, it was also impossible not to be angry. Both women had been offered the same options. They both could have ended up with one or two healthy children and neither needed to end up with a sick room full of permanently disabled babies. Once again, the Catholic Church's intractable, unreasonable stance had caused unimaginable suffering.

The martyred Mom gushed about how much she loved each and every one of her five babies, and how precious their lives were. She also said she wished the other three had survived as well. Somehow I doubt that. But what I found most maddening was her repeated references to abiding by "God's will." Over and over she prided herself on accepting "God's will." Her priest was interviewed and he too complimented her on obeying "God's will."

It occurs to me that "God's will" was that she remain childless. Taking those fertility drugs is as "unnatural" as is the process of reduction. Why was that first action deemed permissible under "God's will," while the second was not? The strained logic that fertility drugs help people to "be fruitful and multiply" while reduction has the opposite effect, is most unconvincing. Surely giving birth to twins in being fruitful. But of course if the Church approved aborting under any circumstances, even one as extremely unusual as this, it would find itself balanced precariously at the top of that famous slippery slope.

In order to be consistent about its insistence that all abortion is murder, the Church today is in a preposterous position. It must accuse a woman, who wants to give birth to healthy twins, of violating God's law about being fruitful and multiplying. This is a classic example of the kind of cruelly bizarre predicament created when archaic, inflexible laws are applied to the modern age. Those laws don't work any more, if they ever did. What could the writers of the Bible know about fertility drugs, embryo reduction, and C-sections?! But the bottom line remains. The Catholic Church is mired somewhere in the tenth century, refuses to acknowledge today's world, and millions of people suffer for it.

© 1999 Judith Hayes

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), February 03, 2001

Answers

I say that when a gal is carrying 7 embryos the best thing to do is to give them all a math test. The two who get the highest scores win, and the others get aborted.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 03, 2001.

Excellent article! I was raised Catholic and I totally agree with Judith Hayes conclusions. "This is a classic example of the kind of cruelly bizarre predicament created when archaic, inflexible laws are applied to the modern age."

I rarely read the abortion threads that are posted to this forum but I am really looking forward to seeing what the adamant anti- abortionists have to say about this.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), February 03, 2001.

"There must be a compassionate compromise between giving birth to seven premature babies and simply enduring infertility".

I do not know what the answer is to such a dilemma. I do know that executing a number of your children in utero so that the other(s) will have a better chance at surviving is not compassionate.

The attempt at a whimsical writing style by Judith Hayes, when considering the subject matter at hand, is wholly inappropriate. I can't help but to think of the Meryl Streep movie, Sophie's Choice.

I wonder, if some Nazi grabbed two of Judith Hayes' children and told her that she could have one of them as he was about to load the other into a boxcar headed for Treblinka or Dachau, what she would do? I wonder, if she would ask herself the question, "So is there a solution?". And I wonder, if she would look her two young children in the eyes and say, "Happily, there is".

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 03, 2001.

Yes, this is an ethical/moral dilemma but I think it will be a temporary one. Just as 25 years ago today's fertility drugs were science fiction, the fertility drugs of 25 years from now will make today's look primitive. My guess is that the technical problem of multiple births will be solved by then and the dilemma described above will be irrelevant.

In the mean time it is real. I oppose abortion as a form of birth control for the same reasons that I oppose infanticide as a form of population control. I do not oppose abortion when the life of the mother is at risk, when the health of multiple fetuses are at risk (such as this example), or in cases of rape and incest.

But I bet you are choosing this extremely rare example in order to make the more general case for abortion on demand appear reasonable. That is a debater's trick, akin to a death penalty advocate asking you to jusify mercy for Timothy McVeigh. BTW, do you think that the mass murderer of 200+ people deserves to be executed?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 03, 2001.

Having the technological ability to satisfy a "fierce desire for children" doesn't necessarily make it right. Perhaps an inability to conceive is a sign of an underlying biological incompatibility that should be given some consideration. I wonder if any studies have been done on the longevity and health of those who were conceived with the help of fertility drugs.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), February 03, 2001.

Lars, I've never known you to turn the discussion as you did here. You not only implied that Debra had a "hidden agenda" in posting this "extreme example", you then went on to include a question about McVeigh which has absolutely nothing to do with the post. Are you aware that this is a tactic used by people who are losing a debate?

What gives? This seems out of character for you.

The point of the post is to illustrate (quite effectively, IMO) the antiquated thinking of the R.C. church, as well as the "disconnect" inherent in its teaching that fertility treatments are "OK" even though they are "unnatural", but selective reduction is not BECAUSE it's "unnatural".

I was born and forced to grow up in the R.C. church. Didn't take me long to leave it behind. (Though the "guilt factor" stays with you pretty much all your life.)

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 04, 2001.

Thanks Pat.

Lars,

I saw your post last night. I have to tell you I felt some anger when I saw it and so didn't answer it. I get the feeling you think of me as some kind of feminist, she-devil. Rest assured that there are no 'debaters tricks' associated with this post. (I don't even think I've ever paid attention to learning these because they are dishonest and stop real communication.)

So the questions remain - one woman let the Church make the decision and one woman made her own decision. Who made the more intelligent, compassionate decision? Which woman's thinking would you choose for your children?

To me the ignorance and selfishness of the mother who chose to give birth to 8 children who could only have a lifetime of pain and suffering is hard to miss in this example. What is also hard to miss in this example is this kind of brain washing comes directly from the Church.

It also brings to mind all of the children on this earth who are born to neglect, poverty and disease because of this church.

Isn't there a case to be made that abortion can be the compassionate choice?

J doesn't know what the answer is to such a dilemma. But he is sure that condemning Romanian orphans to a life of suffering is better than not being born at all.

You don't oppose abortion under certain circumstances but what if your 'approved ' circumstances differ from that of an obviously compassionate and intelligent woman such as the mother of the twins in this example?

The Church doesn't approve of abortion EVER. But they bend the rules when it comes to fertility drugs. And then demand that innocent children suffer for it.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), February 04, 2001.

Excellent post Debra. I find the Catholic Church's policies repugnant and cruel -- really meanspirited. And their ban on birth control causes more death from AIDS. It is one sick little church.

-- Me (and@I.com), February 04, 2001.

It's not just the Catholic church,many hard right churches speak the same enigmatic dogma.But at least the Catholics like to do a little (ok,alot) of drinkin'- can't be all bad ; )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), February 04, 2001.

Debra (and Patricia)--

Sorry you were offended. I only meant to make the point that people who argue for choice often conjure the most dramatic examples when in fact what they really want is universally available abortion to females of any age primarily for the purpose of birth control. Like I said, I concede the abortion option in those extreme cases such as your example. I am opposed to abortion as a birth control conveniense. My apology to any women here who have had abortions for that reason, I am not picking on you.

I am not a Catholic and do not know much of what they teach in this area although I respect their opinions. Abortion is an emotional as well as an intellectual issue and I'm sure that my views are influenced by my regret for never having been a bio-dad.

What I called a "debaters trick" is a technique used by many people (including myself) on many issues. I once started a thread asking if anyone would argue against the death penalty for McVeigh knowing that there are people here who are strongly opposed to the death penalty. I deliberately raised the question to see if anyone would argue for mercy for a right-wing kook who blew-up 158 innocent people including children. No one did. Just as I would not oppose an abortion for a 13 year old girl who was impregnated by a brother who raped her, I doubt if many candles will be lit for the execution of McVeigh.

Yeah, I used to think you were a hard-case militant feminist a la Celia Thaxter who used to post here. If you're not, I'm sorry I misunderstood you. If you are, shout it loud and proud.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 04, 2001.

What makes you think Celia Thaxter is a hard-case militant feminist? She has some definite feministic leanings, as do I and probably most of the female population today. But, militant?

Could it be that what I consider 'feministic leanings' is the same thing that you consider hard-case militant feminism?

:^o

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), February 04, 2001.

Cecelia, yer breakin my heart.

My impression of the poster "Celia Thaxter" was of a dogmatic ideolog. I thought she had more than mere leanings---she sounded moderately militant to me.

She was also very bright and it would please me to see her return. She disappeared after the election, as did "just another feminist".

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 04, 2001.

Please forgive Lars, unfortunately he is just another judgemental right-winger. It comes with the territory.

-- (rightwingers@ignorant.judgemental.intolerant), February 05, 2001.

Lars, I wasn't offended (if you meant that part to me), I just couldn't understand why you turned the discussion (or attempted to) as you did (which was why I said it seemed out of character for you).

I don't remember your thread about McVeigh; I'm a bit uncertain about whether he should be executed. And before anyone goes off, it's not because of opposition to the death penalty.

I would be leery about executing him for one reason alone: It will make him a martyr to the "cause". Let him rot in jail for the rest of his years; he gets to think about why his sorry ass is sitting there every minute of every day of the rest of his miserable life.

OTOH, I can see how rotting in jail might ALSO make him a martyr, but as far as I'm concerned, it's justice and it's infinitely more "painful" because he gets to live with it.

No easy answer there, but not for the reasons you suspected.

As to the abortion question (I refuse to call it an issue), as I've said many, many times: Unless you have the ability to become pregnant or unless you are the other 50% responsible for the pregnancy, you have nothing to say about it. There is no "issue", no "discussion". Neither does the government. If people want to heed their church's teachings, that's their business. But they have **NO BUSINESS** forcing those teachings on anyone else.

For any man in this discussion, get back to me when you've fulfilled one of the two criteria I set above.

As to the example Debra posted, what right did those people have to bring those children into the world; into nothing but pain and suffering? You call that a life? I don't; I call it cruel and unusual punishment. I call that irresponsibility on the part of the "parents". I call that selfishness in forcing one's beliefs on another (in this case, many others).

So, do you suppose the church is helping these people financially?

"rightwinger", the one thing I believe you CAN'T say about Lars is that he's "just another judgemental right-winger". He has his beliefs and he argues for them, and when he doesn't understand something, he asks about it. He appears to listen to "the other side", and even when he disagrees, he's at least civil about it. I've never seen him publicly "judge" anyone else. You can't put him in the same category as some other "bible-thumper-types" on this board. They show no compassion, no reasoning, no real love for anyone but themselves (and I'd even doubt that), no understanding of anything beyond their tiny little personal "spheres", and no willingness TO understand anything beyond those bounds. They merely want a nation of Stepford People who all think, act and (most importantly) *believe* as they have dictated. This simply, IMO, does NOT describe Lars.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 05, 2001.

As to the abortion question... as I've said many, many times: Unless you have the ability to become pregnant or unless you are the other 50% responsible for the pregnancy, you have nothing to say about it. There is no "issue", no "discussion". Neither does the government. If people want to heed their church's teachings, that's their business. But they have **NO BUSINESS** forcing those teachings on anyone else.

I gotta agree with this. Well put, Patricia.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 05, 2001.

Patricia--

Thanks for your final paragraph. You are a scholar and a gentlebabe (uh, gentleperson). I have no interest in participating in another thread on abortion. Those always generate more heat than light. Probably the same applies to capital punishment.

How's the weather in LV in Oct or Nov? I might be visiting there at that time with my stepdaughter and her husband.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 05, 2001.

Oct/Nov is the best time to come here (just ask our good Capn). The weather is perfect -- moderate during the day (70s), a light jacket at night.

As to my last paragraph, I call 'em as I see 'em.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 05, 2001.