![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
veronica_richI'm relatively certain I'm a Bad Feminist for thinking this, but it can't be helped. In a conversation yesterday with an online friend, we were talking about the woman who gave birth to the octuplets. Apparently she had six children already when she was getting the fertility treatments to get pregnant with these eight. Here are my questions:
1. We're all so conservation-minded and worried about global warming and climate change - but nobody wants to address that old bugaboo, the 800-pound gorilla squat in the middle of the discussion, of population control.
2. Was her insurance company paying for the fertility treatments?
3. At what point does a doctor (or somebody in the medical process) strenuously voice a limit on the number of fetuses the human body can support in one pregnancy?
Detail: 1. I do not propose telling women when they can and cannot get pregnant. That's not what I mean by population control. "Control" comes in educating boys and girls, men and women, as widely as possible about what the average human consumes in a lifetime in the way of energy and food, and of the cost in correctly raising a child to be ready for the world (I mean basic education, nutritious food and shelter, medical care, socialization opportunities; I don't mean a particular parenting philosophy). "Control" comes in NOT romanticizing the birthing and child-rearing process to unrealistic proportions and making girls and women feel inadequate or shamed if they are not inclined to give birth or raise children (which are two different things, as we know).
However, if somebody wants 14 children, so long as they can take care of them and I'm not tapped to help pay for anything beyond school taxes (which I'm willing to do), I'm not going to tell her she can't. That's not particularly my business. It doesn't mean I can't have a negative opinion about it, though.
2. I sure as hell hope not. There are people who already exist who are dying slowly from lack of preventive medical care or treatments when they get a disease, because they have insurance that won't cover those conditions. I have no problem for insurance that covers birth control or abortions or pre- and postnatal care. (I'm iffy on fertility treatments even for childless women, but so far I haven't strenuously argued against it. I feel sort of weird telling a woman she can't have a kid if there's some way she can and she wants it. However, not that weird, as we'll see in point #3.)
3. I'm all for choice to have, as well as to prevent or voluntarily terminate before the third trimester. But if you're going to go to the trouble of pregnancy and giving birth, you presumably want a healthy baby - or more, if it's a multiple birth - is that a safe assumption? What happens naturally in a woman's uterus is supposedly not more than she can naturally handle - if she gets pregnant with quadruplets or quintuplets, or even octuplets, with no help other than from her sperm donor, who am I to second-guess that? BUT - and I confess I do not know what the natural limit is on multiple fetuses without outside help - I think letting a patient gestate eight fetuses from in vitro is irresponsible, both on the doctor's and the patient's parts. How healthy do you think a human fetus is, born several weeks premature and weighing less than two pounds? Multiply that by several. ONE fetus drains vitamins and minerals out of even the most nutritiously-fed mother - not only will eight do more damage, they have to steal from each other as well.
There's a good chance the fertility doc didn't implant eight eggs, but only 3-4 in the hopes that at least one would grow to viability. What happens when it becomes clear some or all have split into twins or triplets? Shouldn't there be some understanding/clause on such treatment that the body can handle only so many fetuses, safely (and for their health), and abort the extras? Many women don't like abortion because they say it interferes with God's plan - but surely none of those would be getting fertility treatments, since their barrenness would suggest their God has already made that ruling.
Aren't opinions wonderful things?
1. We're all so conservation-minded and worried about global warming and climate change - but nobody wants to address that old bugaboo, the 800-pound gorilla squat in the middle of the discussion, of population control.
2. Was her insurance company paying for the fertility treatments?
3. At what point does a doctor (or somebody in the medical process) strenuously voice a limit on the number of fetuses the human body can support in one pregnancy?
Detail: 1. I do not propose telling women when they can and cannot get pregnant. That's not what I mean by population control. "Control" comes in educating boys and girls, men and women, as widely as possible about what the average human consumes in a lifetime in the way of energy and food, and of the cost in correctly raising a child to be ready for the world (I mean basic education, nutritious food and shelter, medical care, socialization opportunities; I don't mean a particular parenting philosophy). "Control" comes in NOT romanticizing the birthing and child-rearing process to unrealistic proportions and making girls and women feel inadequate or shamed if they are not inclined to give birth or raise children (which are two different things, as we know).
However, if somebody wants 14 children, so long as they can take care of them and I'm not tapped to help pay for anything beyond school taxes (which I'm willing to do), I'm not going to tell her she can't. That's not particularly my business. It doesn't mean I can't have a negative opinion about it, though.
2. I sure as hell hope not. There are people who already exist who are dying slowly from lack of preventive medical care or treatments when they get a disease, because they have insurance that won't cover those conditions. I have no problem for insurance that covers birth control or abortions or pre- and postnatal care. (I'm iffy on fertility treatments even for childless women, but so far I haven't strenuously argued against it. I feel sort of weird telling a woman she can't have a kid if there's some way she can and she wants it. However, not that weird, as we'll see in point #3.)
3. I'm all for choice to have, as well as to prevent or voluntarily terminate before the third trimester. But if you're going to go to the trouble of pregnancy and giving birth, you presumably want a healthy baby - or more, if it's a multiple birth - is that a safe assumption? What happens naturally in a woman's uterus is supposedly not more than she can naturally handle - if she gets pregnant with quadruplets or quintuplets, or even octuplets, with no help other than from her sperm donor, who am I to second-guess that? BUT - and I confess I do not know what the natural limit is on multiple fetuses without outside help - I think letting a patient gestate eight fetuses from in vitro is irresponsible, both on the doctor's and the patient's parts. How healthy do you think a human fetus is, born several weeks premature and weighing less than two pounds? Multiply that by several. ONE fetus drains vitamins and minerals out of even the most nutritiously-fed mother - not only will eight do more damage, they have to steal from each other as well.
There's a good chance the fertility doc didn't implant eight eggs, but only 3-4 in the hopes that at least one would grow to viability. What happens when it becomes clear some or all have split into twins or triplets? Shouldn't there be some understanding/clause on such treatment that the body can handle only so many fetuses, safely (and for their health), and abort the extras? Many women don't like abortion because they say it interferes with God's plan - but surely none of those would be getting fertility treatments, since their barrenness would suggest their God has already made that ruling.
Aren't opinions wonderful things?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-31 08:37 pm (UTC)Did you know her prior six kids were also the result of IVF? The eight embryos were "leftovers" from those previous procedures.
My heart goes out to the grandma. She did NOT support her daughter's decision in this, and yet now she gets to share her three-bedroom house with all fifteen of them, break her back helping care for the kids, while her hubby heads back to Iraq to hopefully stay alive long enough to pay for it all. What a nightmare.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-31 08:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-31 08:55 pm (UTC)children. Edit: Pardon me: six children, eight newborns. It's just not possible.I won't win popularity contests with my opinion but I think if this mother can't be persuaded to give up some of the kids for adoption, then CPS has to become involved. The woman is not mentally stable*. And I can't imagine grandma is going to be stable for long either.
Alternatively, the government (or community or church) can provide them a huge house to live in (with a nice big yard for all the kids to play in), provide several live-in nannies, provide some vans or SUVs for transportation... and on and on and on. Or is grandpa going to make that much in Iraq to provide all this? Assuming he, you know, LIVES.
Whatever happens next, no matter what it is, it's gonna piss a LOT of people off.
* re stability: According to her mom, she had all these kids because "she's always been obsessed with kids." And she had eight more because "she wanted another girl." And she plans to BREASTFEED ALL OF THEM. I rest my case. She's nuts.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-31 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-01 07:01 am (UTC)New mom has it all worked out, though: She plans to make a few million off interviews (Oprah, etc.), she's soliciting sponsorships, and then she plans a career as a television child care expert.
You can't make this stuff up.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-04 08:56 pm (UTC)What I want to know is how she afforded the fertility treatments in the first place and where she had the procedures done, if it was in this country.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-31 08:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-04 08:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-04 09:11 pm (UTC)Having children the natural way, or how I should put it, fine, go ahead. But I think it would be better to actually take care of the ones needing parents first instead of having a litter. (I'm sorry, I'm not coherent about this.)
I'm not the one to speak, you might argue, because I have to kids of my own. But! I was discarded once. And probably, if my adoptive parents had been able to get help having a child of their own I would have been without.
While this woman is playing dog house with eight babies, a bunch of others are stuck in an orphanage in Romania.
I'll be quiet now. I tend to get upset about things like this.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-31 09:27 pm (UTC)From what I read about it, the woman already has at least one special needs child in the house, and the article described seven of the newborns as "already breathing on their own" - meaning only one to go - but implying that maybe none of them were breathing on their own to start with.
It's like those people who get ridiculous amounts of cosmetic surgery - they have no regard for their own health because of their obsession with their appearance. This woman has no regard for the health of her children in her rush to have so many.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-04 08:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-31 10:19 pm (UTC)Invitro, is an invasive and traumatic procedure consisting of massive amounts of hormonal interference. After the first set of twins she was diagnosed with fibromyalgia and after the second, with rheumatoid arthritis, both of which she has been told are a direct result of her pregnancies. She is in so much pain that she is taking treatments and medication that are basically poison and shortening her life expectancy.
While she payed out of pocket for the invitro procedures, the resulting conditions are covered, mostly, by healthcare (she has done significant amounts of unfunded alternative care).
I love her and the resulting kids, (four girls, all ridiculously adorable), and I respect her decision to have them. But it frustrates me to no end that this decision is one that is revered, regardless of the damage. While I have consciously made a decision not to go there, at least partially in deference to not passing on some of the health issues I personally have (I know th guilt and heart ache my mother lives with over me and my sister), and I'm the freak.
Sorry for spooging all over your journal. I may have issues.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-04 08:51 pm (UTC)I don't get this. I realize I lack the Maternal Gene, but why should you base the number of children you want on the man you're with? Shouldn't you be finding a man who wants the same number of children you do, in the first place? And why go through sterilization procedures if you're really not finished, THUS MAKING IT HARDER FOR WOMEN WITH NO CHILDREN TO CONVINCE DOCTORS THAT THEY REALLY NEVER WANT CHILDREN?
I know I have issues.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-31 10:29 pm (UTC)It would seem to be quints, if one judges by the few example of natural multiple births without fertility treatments. The Dionne Quintuplets, born 2 months prematurely in 1934 in a tiny farmhouse in Ontario would seem to be an example of this. They were definitely born before the advent of fertility treatments and AFAIK survived infancy without recourse to anything remotely resembling a large hospital, let alone a neonatal unit. All 5 lived to adulthood, although 2 died prematurely from illness. (I knew about them before I even googled "quintuplets" since they are a famous part of Canadian history). However, the only other set of naturally conceived quints I could find were born in Texas in 1959 and died shortly thereafter. One set of quadruplets born in 1915 lived to adulthood; another set born in the 1920s died in infancy.
Sign me up for BadFeminist club (although due to misunderstanding of some of my posts elsewhere I'm sure that won't be necessary).
no subject
Date: 2009-01-31 10:43 pm (UTC)Oddly enough, I could not find anything much on triplets so I have no idea what survival rates were.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-04 08:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-04 09:52 pm (UTC)Another source claims that the modern record is held by someone from Chile who claims to be the mother of 64 children. Only 55 of them are documented.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-31 11:20 pm (UTC)Now 15 years later one daughter is diabetic(most likely a genetic thing) and the other daughter has Aspergers Syndrome. Both girls had ADD. Does this have anything to do with them being premies?? I'll never know for sure, but I can bet those 8 kids are going to have medical issues in the future.
My OB told me that a woman's body wasn't made for having a litter. There has to be a point where any doctor would tell a woman who already has 6 children, that invitro is not a good idea, and refuse to do it. I would be surprised if her insurance company paid for it, it seems lately more and more insurance companies don't pay for invitro for anyone.
I think that someone needs to step in and evaluate this woman. She has no husband, no income of her own(I read that she was a student, but they didn't mention if she had a job) and is living with her mother. If she's hoping for an outpouring of support, free loot, a reality deal and cash, I think she's in for a real shock.
Sorry I got a bit ramble-ish.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-04 08:47 pm (UTC)Actually, that's good to hear; my cynical brain figured it was still the other way around. It's one thing to pay for pre- and postnatal care, I don't have a problem with that. I don't even mind paying for birth control and abortion procedures. I suppose I have a problem with paying for fertility treatments because it's like most plastic surgery - it's not something you need to preserve or ensure your health.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-31 11:54 pm (UTC)Why the fuck have fertility treatments to get pregnant again when you already have six other kids age 7 and under? Who was the genius who helped her fund that? Because as a single mom of that many already, I can't see her having the money to do such a thing. And if she went into tremendous debt to do so, shame on her. Just fucking shame on her for being that inconsiderate of her other children that she put them in a position to be underprivileged. How will a single mother who is not a millionaire (and I saw no such reference in any story that she is) provide toys, clothes, even food, or a college fund for that many, especially if she's put herself in debt to have so many kids. She's fucking selfish and you can stick me in any bad feminist or anti-woman club you wish for saying it. She's a fucking selfish child.
Sorry for the rant, but this whole story has just pissed me right the fuck off.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-01 01:55 am (UTC)This wouldn't have anything to do with your job, would it? :-D
no subject
Date: 2009-01-31 11:56 pm (UTC)A woman gave birth toseptuplets in Iowa (http://www.incrediblebirths.com/McCaughey_Septuplets.html) in 1997 as a result of fertility treatments (not in vitro; the drugs that put your ovaries into hyperdrive). To quote the (rather glurgy) webpage I linked to,
"Kenny and Bobbi declined selective reduction to reduce the number of fetuses, saying that they would "put it in God's hands." "
I could never figure out why they left whether the 7 fetuses lived or died in God's hands (they were 9 mo premature, and 2 of them have cerebral palsy, BTW) but not whether she got pregnant in the first place. A Diety who could impregnate a virgin would surely have no probs nudging a few extra eggs out of an ovary at the right time, if said Diety wanted them to have 7 babies at once.
(No, that last para is not sarcasm. It's my opinion as a self-declared Christian who also believes God didn't give me a brain capable of logical thinking to see if I "had enough faith" to ignore what my God-given rationality told me was true.)
no subject
Date: 2009-02-04 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-01 12:22 am (UTC)I'm a practicing Catholic. As well as a mother of three, myself. So I really *do* respect and honor her choice not to selectively abort. HOWEVER - and this is huge - how does she plan on providing for these 14 children? Yes, she can breastfeed all 8 babies, but not all the babies all the feedings. She can maybe feed two of them a time and bottle feed the rest. Formula is expensive. Diapers are expensive.
Does she plan on "society" to feed them? Clothe them? Educate them? (Yes, I AM still bitter that the McCaughey septuplets are all going to get free Catholic college educations and I have to pay for my kids.)
What will she do when some of the children have birth defects? Genetic health issues?
I am a pro-choice woman. I am not comfortable with a doctor, or the government, dictating who may or may not have children, who is or is not entitled to a legal medical procedure (ask me about pharmacists that refuse to dispense legal medications sometime!) - but, seriously, *this* should never have happened. This is wrong - and yet how can we morally, legally, ethically, prevent it?
no subject
Date: 2009-02-04 07:53 pm (UTC)I'm not suggesting that anyone put me in charge of deciding who gets to have kids and who doesn't (I am saying that NOT having a child at all does not introduce another mouth to feed). I'm not even suggesting legal limits on number of children. I'm just being honest about what *I* think of the whole kit and caboodle, period.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-01 03:25 pm (UTC)I have extreme issue with this because of all the families who provide for their kids themselves and single moms raising a couple kids alone who works and may get government assistance but not hand-outs.
Where are their donations when they had the common sense to realize it is in their god's hands whether or not their sexual union produces children?????
I have friends who tried for almost 10 years to have a child, but knew that fertility treatments were nonsense and instead chose to adopt a child from a Russian orphanage. That little boy, now almost 5, has a lovely home with 2 doting parents. My friends brought an 18 month old home who could not speak, was claimed to have a heart murmur and now has a better vocabulary than probably 99% of his peers and is completely healthy.
Despite that, stories like this make me weep for people like them who NEED to have biological children because both parents have upper end IQs, have good paying jobs and are excellent parents.
Population control is one thing, but when you look at all the people in the world NOT having biological children who are smart, have steady employment, don't abuse drugs, alcohol or cigarettes, you may begin to realize that human civilization has a finite future. The more children the lesser intelligent people have, the less capable humans they will produce. Either that or there will become such a divide between the smart and the stupid that people will soon realize civil rights have to be sacrificed.
An advancing civilization cannot allow rampant freedoms for individuals. There are so many directionless youths out there now without any self-control or sense of responsibility.
This case is the perfect example - where was the personal responsibility from this woman? Follow that up with no one with the guts or forethought to say to this ignorant cunt "Don't you think you have enough kids," and you have the worst that a free-society produces - 8 kids which SOMEONE other than the parent has to provide for probably at least 16 years.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-04 07:40 pm (UTC)