California octuplets case dismays fertility experts

Post Reply New Topic

But even in America there are medical standards, ethics and a requirement for physicians to adhere to minimum standards. Doctors have a duty to uphold standards, and reproductive choice does not absolve physicians of their obligations (to adhere to minimum standards of care) nor entitle patients to force doctors to carry out dubious practices or procedures.

Carrying and birthing 8 children simultaneously, is very high risk to mother and off-spring both, and it seems unlikely to me that it would be ethical for a physician to intentionally bring about such a result.

Are you serious? How can that be good for anyone?

"Reproductive Rights" need to stay witihn the bounds of reason.

1. I am serious.
2. I never said that it was good for anyone.
3. Tell it to "Family Planning" and the "National Organization of Women."

What are those standards? How specific are they? Who established them? Where are they written? How are they enforced?


Abortion is also a high-risk procedure to the mother, and is always fatal to the baby, yet you raise no objection to any woman chosing to have an abortion. This seems hypocritical.

Either women have reproductive rights or they don't - which is it?

There's nothing personal about it. Either women have reproductive freedom or they don't. Which is it?


What limits? There are no legal limits to the number of abortions a woman can have, nor are there legal limits to the number of live births she can have. It's called "Reproductive Freedom"!


Evidence, Please? A link to a reputable article would suffice.


That's your opinion. Another opinion would be to declare abortions as unethical and dangerous - none of the babies survive, after all!


If what you say is true, then it's a legal issue. The police should be involved, and eventually the courts and Child Protective Services, as well.


Pure speculation. She did not die, and there are now 14 children, one mother, and several other family members as well.


"Quite likely" isn't proof, although I wouldn't rule it out. Let's wait for the final run-down before getting all in a dither over it.


Neighbors will say anything to get their faces on TV, although I would rule this out either.


No matter what the rules are, there are ways to play the System for persono matter what your status.


You're right about feminism, but since "Reproductive Freedom" is also a major issue of the Feminist organizations, it is appropriate to mention them here.


I see you've met my ex.


Tell that to Ms. "I have 14 kids that I expect the State to pay for!" I'm sure she's just dying to hear it one more time ... NOT!

I'm not saying that I agree with her choices and actions. I am saying that as long as women have reproductive freedom, you can expect this type of thing to happen.

What gets me is that people are all up in arms over 14 kids being raised at government / taxpayer expense, when millions of babies per year are aborted - also at governmental / taxpayer expense.

8 live children is un-ethical and a crime, while 1,000,000+ aborted lives are a mere statistic.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

In several European countries there are legal regulations or strict guidelines (that could get them struck of medical register) for the number of embryos implanted at one time.

Sexual freedom is one thing. The number of embryos implanted is not to do with sexual freedom. It is about the doctor's responsibility to the patient’s health and wellbeing.

She could have had three implanted, then if that failed another three, etc.

Fnord, why do you give a damn about this at all? Since when do you care about womens' reproductive freedoms?

FYI: just some links to articles on this subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/healt ... ref=health

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 627531.ece

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485924,00.html

oh and dumb question, the news keeps saying this is only the second live birth in the us of octuplets, but here is a website http://members.tripod.com/topangela/index.htm for the matthews octuplets that were born in 1984 and all are also living. anyone know who the media messed that up? the other set the media is talking about right now were born in TX and are 10 yrs old but only 7 survived. Unless I cant do my math these matthews octuplets are at least 25???

Do you have a problem with my interest, or with my being right?


Since so many people seem to object that a woman has exercised her reproductive rights to have children, instead of having an abortion (or eight, in this case).

It's all about "Freedom of Choice," and people - especially those in the media - seem to have forgotten this.

You didn't answer my question. That was just a bit of verbal ju jitsu, a la Gregory House. Why do you give a damn about this at all?

One more time...




... or do you need a specific date?

I don't understand why my interest should matter to you, even if you are my biggest fan (Sorry, Orwell!). You'll just have to deal with the fact that I do care about women's reproductive freedoms; and in this particular case, about one woman's right to choose life instead of abortion, AND her right to do so in private without challenge, interference, or media hype.

i just cant care bout peoples reproduction..i jate shows about families cause they had like 8 kids..that doesnt make me interested in you at all.

Abortion in the first trimester (when the vast majority are performed) is statistically less dangerous to the mother than natural childbirth. If, as I stated earlier, this story was about a serial abortionist (remember that woman a year or so ago who 'impregnated' herself and then took abortificant herbs for several months in a row, as an "art" project? Not a lot of flattering views buzzing around about her, either), you would be hearing similar levels of censure.

In either case, it's about balance. This woman is out of balance.


That is a false dichotomy.

Adults with driver's licenses have a right to drive in the United States, but they do not have the right to drive on the sidewalk.

Okay, but I think eight simultaneous births is freakish. The Dionne Quints were almost a sideshow act in their day, and they were just five.

For one, abortion in the first trimester (when the vast majority are performed) is statistically less dangerous to the mother than natural childbirth. For another, abortion in the first trimester does not affect a baby. It affects a zygote or an embryo.
If, as I stated earlier, this story was about a serial abortionist (remember that woman a year or so ago who 'impregnated' herself and then took abortificant herbs for several months in a row, as an "art" project? Not a lot of flattering views buzzing around about her, either), you would be hearing similar levels of censure.

In either case, it's about balance. This woman is out of balance.


That is a false dichotomy, and (again) having the right to do something does not mean that you are immune from criticism when you take it to extremes.

Adults with driver's licenses have a right to drive in the United States, but they do not have the right to drive as fast as they want to or wherever they want to.



That is disingenuous and factually false. The government of the United States does not currently pay for 'on-demand' abortions. Ever hear of the Hyde ammendment?
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/ ... 40721.html

The only abortions that the U.S. government pays for are those occuring from rape or incest or those causing maternal endangerment - of which there are not millions per year. Do you honestly have a problem with that? If so, it's kind of sick.

Even the (minority of) states that fund abortions often have restrictions on the types of abortions that they will fund, and do so only for low-income women - again, not adding up to millions per year.

At least we can be pretty certain that taxpayer money did not fund this woman being implanted with six embryos, even if California is going to be stuck with the bill for raising the kids.

^ All valid arguments, to be sure.

Now, to address your driving analogy, the law sets speed limits on drivers. What law sets limits on how many babies a woman may have in any given time period?

Granted, there is this naturally-occurring minimum limit of one baby per 9 to 12 months for a human female, and certainly there must be practical limits on how many viable babies a woman may carry in her womb, but where is there any law regarding the maximum number of children a woman may have in a given amount of time?

And in the absence of such a law, why is it any concern of anybody to criticise a woman for wanting to have children (or not) in the first place?

There is no false dichotomy in wanting to know "Rights or No Rights," it is merely a lack of definition for all the possibilities ("What ifs").