What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

"Twin Reduction" unsettling for even pro-choicer's...

handy

handy

Member
Perhaps a light will dawn on some....we can always hope:

Twin reduction abortions: Why do they trouble pro-choicers? - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine


Body of the article:


<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Across the pro-choice blogosphere, including Slate, the article has provoked discomfort. RH Reality Check, a website dedicated to abortion rights, ran an item voicing qualms with one woman's reduction decision. Jezebel, another pro-choice site, acknowledged the "complicated ethics" of reduction. Frances Kissling, a longtime reproductive rights leader, wrote a Washington Post essay asking whether women should forgo fertility treatment rather than risk a twin pregnancy they'd end up half-aborting.

In comments on these articles, pro-choice readers express similar misgivings. "Even as a woman who has terminated a pregnancy, I totally understand the author's apprehension … something about it just doesn't feel right," says a Slate reader. A commenter at Jezebel writes that "if I were put in the position and decided to/needed to abort a single fetus, I could. But if I knew that I was keeping the baby and it turned out to be twins, I don't think I could have a reduction."

To pro-lifers and hardcore pro-choicers, this queasiness seems odd. After all, a reduction is an abortion. If anything, reduction should be less problematic than ordinary abortion, since one life is deliberately being spared. Why, then, does reduction unsettle so many pro-choicers?

For some, the issue seems to be a consumer mentality in assisted reproduction. For others, it's the deliberateness of getting pregnant, especially by IVF, without being prepared to accept the consequences. But the main problem with reduction is that it breaches a wall at the center of pro-choice psychology. It exposes the equality between the offspring we raise and the offspring we abort.

Look up any abortion-related item in Jezebel, and you'll see the developing human referred to as a fetus or pregnancy. But when the same entity appears in a non-abortion item, it gets an upgrade. A blood test could help "women who are concerned that they may be carrying a child with Down's Syndrome." A TV character wonders whether she's "capable of carrying a child to term." Nuclear radiation in Japan "may put unborn children at risk."

This bifurcated mindset permeates pro-choice thinking. Embryos fertilized for procreation are embryos; embryos cloned for research are "activated eggs." A fetus you want is a baby; a fetus you don't want is a pregnancy. Under federal law, anyone who injures or kills a "child in utero" during a violent crime gets the same punishment as if he had injured or killed "the unborn child's mother," but no such penalty applies to "an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman … has been obtained."

Reduction destroys this distinction. It combines, in a single pregnancy, a wanted and an unwanted fetus. In the case of identical twins, even their genomes are indistinguishable. You can't pretend that one is precious and the other is just tissue. You're killing the same creature to which you're dedicating your life.


Read the rest of the article at Slate.

My thoughts...perhaps are beginning to see what should have been obvious all along.
 
that is some more sick garbage, many of mankind are a bunch of idiots. Twin Reduction, what more evil can they come up with. And when that twin finds out what his mother has done to his sister or brother. He or she will hate their mother.
 
And when that twin finds out what his mother has done to his sister or brother. He or she will hate their mother.
Click to expand...
I agree, Lewis. There are a number of twins in my family and the bond they share is something beyond human understanding. The idea of killing one and allowing the other to live...:shame

What really stood out to me in this article is the final admitting of something that has driven me nuts about "pro-choice" for years:

Look up any abortion-related item in Jezebel, and you'll see the developing human referred to as a fetus or pregnancy. But when the same entity appears in a non-abortion item, it gets an upgrade. A blood test could help "women who are concerned that they may be carrying a child with Down's Syndrome." A TV character wonders whether she's "capable of carrying a child to term." Nuclear radiation in Japan "may put unborn children at risk."

This bifurcated mindset permeates pro-choice thinking. Embryos fertilized for procreation are embryos; embryos cloned for research are "activated eggs." A fetus you want is a baby; a fetus you don't want is a pregnancy. Under federal law, anyone who injures or kills a "child in utero" during a violent crime gets the same punishment as if he had injured or killed "the unborn child's mother," but no such penalty applies to "an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman … has been obtained."

Reduction destroys this distinction. It combines, in a single pregnancy, a wanted and an unwanted fetus. In the case of identical twins, even their genomes are indistinguishable. You can't pretend that one is precious and the other is just tissue. You're killing the same creature to which you're dedicating your life.
 
I think the pro-choicers are starting to see holes in their arguments, but they're choosing to gloss over them. Twin reduction/selective abortion is one example. Another, I think, is the lack of females in many Asian countries where men are far more highly valued than women. Turns out, all that great baby killin' technology that was supposed to bring the population down to where the anti-lifers wanted it to be is being used to abort female babies at an alarming rate. Parents who can afford it will have a doctor check the gender of the baby and then keep or abort based on that information. So much for abortion "helping women."

But yeah, this "twin reduction" thing is particularly nauseating. I could understand--I wouldn't approve, but I'd understand--if the fertility treatments resulted in a crazy number of babies and the mother couldn't handle that many physically, like happened with Octo-Mom (although she, of course, kept the kids). But people who pursue IVF usually have resources to support the kid(s) and I think they're screened to make sure they're physically able to do it, so I really don't see anything but pure selfishness in this procedure.
 
I think pro choicers are misunderstood. While I agree the state should not have the power to make a woman get an abortion or not, that does not mean it is morally okay to abort babies. We who believe that morality cannot be legislated are drowned out by all those who claim being pro choice is being pro abortion. That concerning me personally is an outright lie. So either we are misunderstood or those who own the good guys club, and charge all who are not members with being bad guys, are wantonly divisive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
handy said:
I agree, Lewis. There are a number of twins in my family and the bond they share is something beyond human understanding. The idea of killing one and allowing the other to live...:shame

What really stood out to me in this article is the final admitting of something that has driven me nuts about "pro-choice" for years:

Look up any abortion-related item in Jezebel, and you'll see the developing human referred to as a fetus or pregnancy. But when the same entity appears in a non-abortion item, it gets an upgrade. A blood test could help "women who are concerned that they may be carrying a child with Down's Syndrome." A TV character wonders whether she's "capable of carrying a child to term." Nuclear radiation in Japan "may put unborn children at risk."

This bifurcated mindset permeates pro-choice thinking. Embryos fertilized for procreation are embryos; embryos cloned for research are "activated eggs." A fetus you want is a baby; a fetus you don't want is a pregnancy. Under federal law, anyone who injures or kills a "child in utero" during a violent crime gets the same punishment as if he had injured or killed "the unborn child's mother," but no such penalty applies to "an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman … has been obtained."

Reduction destroys this distinction. It combines, in a single pregnancy, a wanted and an unwanted fetus. In the case of identical twins, even their genomes are indistinguishable. You can't pretend that one is precious and the other is just tissue. You're killing the same creature to which you're dedicating your life.
Click to expand...


sick. on that note ,lewis is most correct yrs and i mean yrs after my wifes first child that was a misscarriage.the mother of the child in my avatar has a dream of a boy telling her why are you wearing my shirt!

monica was at the time wearing a boys shirt that unknowingly was bought as a gift for the future son at about her age. so yes that twin will somehow know the other side is missing.

the age tween the oldest boy and monica, bout seven yrs old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top