I read in the news today that three of the children died this week. Does anyone know the life expectancy for babies at 22 weeks? Hopefully the remaining three (I think a boy and two girls) will survive.
Each one of them is a miracle given to us by God.
God, apparently, is an Indian giver.
actually i'm surprised that the hospital has tried to keep them alive at all. at our hospital, and every one i've worked at, we won't try to keep babies alive that are less than 23 weeks. the likelyhood of any of the babies making it are very very low, and even if any live, they will likely have brain damage. 22 weeks is just too soon.
Each was a "miracle" brought by Follistim and a misuse of modern technology.
Why would a reproductive endocrinologist ever agree to re-insert so many embryos into a woman who would not agree to selective reduction?
Survival of 22 weekers is under 5%, (probably under 1%; as the other commenter alluded to, many neonatal departments would not have expended the cost and effort and data is very limited) and the level of permanent disability is staggering.
If these two people truly trusted in God, perhaps they could have been more patient to conceive and waited until the time was right instead of unnaturally using hormones so she would have 6 eggs in a month, instead of the natural one or two. The work of God is seen nowhere in this story. This is mearly a story of ignorance and impatience.
So, fertility drugs = "blessing"?
Bringing to term sextuplets who have little to no chance of healthy lives, three of which have already died = "choosing life"?
Maybe God wanted them to be infertile. Why wouldn't they obey his will? Why would they allow science to meddle with nature?
And why do some Christianists support invasive medical procedures (unreliable fertility drugs) to dangerously tinker with reproduction, yet say this is God's will?
This is the Theology of Marriage and Family Studies?
Bizarre.
"He will bring the lives of these babies to full health and fruition and everyone will say, ‘Look, God has done something amazing!’”
So... what do they say now?
How is choosing to keep all six fetuses "choosing life" if that choice will inevitably lead to the deaths of all six? It seems to me like they chose death, instead.
If you believe that abortion is wrong, I don't believe that this is any different. In fact, it's much worse, because they are delivered infants and because all of the will probably die rather than just some of them.
Not to mention, that this outcome was entirely predictable. They shouldn't have been allowed to become pregnant with 6 in the first place; they can see how many follicles are developing using ovarian ultrasound. If the parents opted for sex and/or artificial insemination after having known that information, then they are the ones to blame. I highly doubt their doctors encouraged them to go ahead and conceive knowing that 6 ova would be released. These people are extraordinarily selfish.
This couple says they "chose life" and "God gave them a miracle"?
Baloney. Fertilized eggs are not a 'miracle'; they are a biological event -- in this case, the biological result of getting pumped full of hormones and concieving a litter of embryos.
That litter of six has now been winnowed down to three -- the result of the Morrison's failure to heed the advice of doctors who knew that there was little chance that six would survive. Due to the Morrison's folly, three of the pre-emies are dead and the other three have a poor prognosis for surviving, much less thriving.
This is a tragic farce -- not a "miracle".
my problem with catholics is they are aggresive and power hungry.
In America, they are fighting to take away a woman's choice to have or not to have a child.
Another family would have chosen selective birthing, and had two happy healthy babies.
God knows what these people are going to end up.
And why? Because of this archaic cult called the Catholic Church.
Millions of people live on the brink of starvation because the catholic church tells them they must breed and breed, and never use birth control.
Joe there is an old quote from Archbishop Fulton Sheen which goes "There are not over a hundred people...who hate the Roman Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church"...you Joe are unfortunately one of those millions through simple ignorance.
You speak of the abortion issue as if the Catholic Church somehow made it up. Use your intelligence and look into your heart. Life is alwasy precious and can never be taken. No one has a 'right' to kill a child just as no one has a 'right' to kill you.
You're sentance on millions living in starvation is just such a massive generalisation. It shows you have no knowledge at all about the situation in Africa of what the Church is teaching.
Firstly children are a good thing, not some sort of weed to be avoided.
Second no church document tells any couple to 'breed and breed', you shouldn't use the media to get your information Joe.
Third, don't play the ignorant card on the people of Africa. Unlike the west, many of them love families and see large families as a great blessing. It is only in 'modern' times where we think a barren couple is the bext way.
Fourth, Christianity has alway been against artificial birth control (even the protestants until they caved in 1930). The reason again is not because someoen made up a rule, the reason stems from who we are as people and what the sexual union means. Even if you understood the Church's view of the human person (which you don't) you may disagree but you would realise that it makes perfect sense even if you choose to view people as nothing more than animals which is essentially what you are doing.
Keep reading Joe before you let fly with all your ignorance
I agree that children are "a good thing." I love mine very much.
So how can creating six children who would not survive be a good thing or a loving thing to do? You still have not explained how that wasn't killing six children.
Try again.
Poor things, brought to life of short misery
Kay, the thing is they didn't deliberately attempt to have six children, that is what happened and for them as for many abortion is simply not an option. You have to try and put yourself into someone elses beliefs, it is not possible for many of us to have any desire to kill another person.
What about those couples who use IVF which produces thousands of excess embryos? These are human lives ready to roll so to speak. This is creating human life that is destined to live in a freezer or nowadays may even be experimented on before being allowed to die.
Perhaps some persepective Kay.
I have to question the intelligence behind remarks such as "why couldnt these people obey Gods will" and "maybe God wanted them to be infertile". I have no problem with the use of fertility drugs that help struggling couples fall pregnant. The idea that they should just "be more patient" or trust in God and not in science is ridiculous! Should a cancer sufferer just trust in God and not seek scientific treatments or should a mother who needs an emergency ceasarian trust in God and refuse the scientific procedure. God does not expect us to shun all scientific developments just those that are morally repugnant!
Dear Mr. Berns,
I was going to leave you a comment here, but I'm afraid it turned into a letter that was a little too wordy to be accommodated by your comment box. Therefore, I am going to print this as a diary on DKos and I'm asking you to please come and read it at the following URL:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonl...6/18/74117/
8899
Please understand that I am not trying to cause upset for anyone on either side of the debate about the pro-choice movement. I am merely stating the way I feel. I welcome your comments, either in my diary or here.
Thank you for your time, and peace to you.
Sincerely,
AndyLeigh
"He will bring the lives of these babies to full health and fruition and everyone will say, ‘Look, God has done something amazing!’”
God Pharmaceuticals, a division of God Industries N.A, and the subsidiaries therein, announced yesterday that the slight downturn in the share price of the common stock was due to investor concern over the recent news that they did something less than amazing. A spokesman for the company mentioned that something amazing might still happen in time for the quarterly report due out in three weeks.
Mister Berns it is obvious that God disagrees with you since he has sanctioned this poor result.
And i also know of the history of the Catholic church in Africa and the conversions at the point of the sword that has been the history of your church and faith in general.
Delver, death is only a poor result if you don't believe in eternal life.
In the book of Job when Job is tested and loses all his possesion he is able to say, 'The Lord gives and the Lord takes, blessed be the name of the Lord'.
As I keep saying to people if you don't put yourself in their faith position then none of what is happening will make any sense to you.
Ah so it is ok to kill if you first convert them. Sounds like that thing they had in Spain. What did they call it? Oh yea the inquisition.
And if you believed that you would see all those abortions you hate so much at a blessing because of all those pure souls that go straight to heaven without having a chance to sin.
I also have an aside question do you plan to financially help out the Morrison family since charity is a main tenant of your faith or are you just going to use them as a prop for your political arguments.
And I do understand your faith position and part of that faith position is to put everyone else in the same ‘faith’ position as yours even if they don’t want to be that way. So you push laws that control others lives and bodies and justify it with ‘faith’
Misterberns,
They may not have "deliberately" wanted to get pregnant with 6 children, but this outcome was a direct result of their lack of caution in the use of fertility drugs. I know that this wasn't IVF, but doctors can usually tell before ovulation how many ova are developing in the woman's ovaries. Cautious doctors will use ultrasound to check and make sure that too many aren't developing at once, before the couple tries to conceive (either naturally or through artificial insemination). If too many are, they will be warned not to engage in sex so that the risk of litters like this one is greatly reduced.
I want to know if this was done in this case. I also think that if you have a problem with abortion that you should also have a problem with fertility treatments that sometimes result in dead babies (like in this case). I personally don't think there is anything wrong with early-term abortions (because I don't believe that embryos are "people"), but I think this isn't abortion. This is setting up infants so that they have no chance to live. There's nothing "natural" about fertility treatment; God's will is not involved. It's just modern biological science, and it's being misused by all these couples that for some reason are desperate to have children from their own genes.
Delver I'm just a guy who put up a story about a couple who were having some babies. I'm not interested in politics and in your arguments even though they are flawed.
For example your understanding of the inquisition and exactly what that was and how that worked is wrong. You forget that back then the state and the Church worked on the same level, what was a threat to the faith was perceived to be a threat to the state.
If you actually look at the historical figures of the inquisition you will learn a lot, you will see that the idea of a tribunal to bring out people who were falsely converting and doing purposeful damage to Christinaity was thought up and promoted by Queen Isabella of Spain not the Church.
All guilty people were given 120 days to come forward and privately confess their guilt and receive private penance. Accusations had to made by atleast 2 witnesses of good repute. Anonymous complaints were not acted upon.
Here's some figures for you on the Spanish Inquisition, in 10 years there were 888 accusations, 400 were prosecuted, 300 were freed, 116 sentenced to prison, 23 were executed and 16 were killed before being burned at the stake. Those killed were not killed by the Church, they were killed in protection of the state by the state. There were fewer peope killed in the inquisition than in any other religious persecution of the time (compare this to the witch hunt in Europe in which 150 000 alleged witches were killed).
So Delver if you want to talk about the inquisition that's fine...bring it on. But if you just want to raise unsubstatiated claims which show your total ignorance don't waste my time. Go learn something about history and about the Catholic Church before you open your mouth again.
So if you
Well John the problem is we just don't the details of the Morrison case so I'm not about to get up there and criticise them. Perhaps if we all showed more compassion and less anger things would be a lot better.
BTW John, you may not 'think' that an embryo is a human person but keep in mind that scientific embryology would disagree with you. At the moment of conception there is scietifically a new life with its own DNA structure. All it needs is time and nourishment to grow. The embryo will not grow into a horse, or a cat or a carrot. It is a human being from day dot. What you 'believe' in this instance is up to you, but just keep in mind that the argument 'it's not a child' went out of fashion years ago now. With modern science we know it is a person. So if you want to say abortion should be allowed that's fine but don't try and pull our leg with that it's not a child rubbish.
Hi all
After reading your comments I thought I'd throw in one of my own too!
I think we need to consider where this couple have come from.
They wanted children
They found out they couldn't have children
They discovered they could hopefully have children through the help of science
They proceeded with this and fall pregnant with six babies
They choose not to abort for and pray for the safe arrival of all
They sadly lose 3 babies
But what about other people that have been in their situation and are now blessed with healthy sextuplets??? Should one or a few of those now healthy people have been aborted so the remaining babies are born 'healthier' Do we condem these couples for not aborting any of their now healthy grown children?? I bet if you ask their parents they wouldn't imagine life without any one of their six beautiful babies.
Some times pregnancies work out and sadly sometimes they dont. Whether it is multiple babies or even just the one.
Should we be the ones to choose who lives and who dies?? Surely that is best left in the hands of God.... ???
Sorry, no. It's not a "scientific" argument to say that an embryo is a "person". It's a philosophical statement. Yes, it's a clump of cells with human DNA, and that may develop into an adult human being. But it's not a scientific statement to say that it's a "person" that has all the same rights and qualities as an adult human being. The rights and qualities are what are at issue, not the facts about what is scientifically happening. Science has nothing to say about whether abortion is "wrong" or not or whether a fertilized egg is a "life". So don't conflate the two.
It's fine to say that you think abortion is wrong, but don't pretend that you have any objective basis for making that statement beyond philosophical and religious beliefs. We don't have any non-religious, non-philosophical evidence that it's "wrong", because science isn't meant to answer that kind of question. That's a question of values and beliefs rather than facts...so you can't make the statement that "abortion is wrong" and claim it's a fact. That is based on subjective beliefs.
I think that John, you are also just a clump of cells with human DNA then? Your philosophy doesn't carry through unless you also hold that those with no sentience etc are also not "persons" and we have the right to kill them as well. At least Peter Singer has the courage to say he believes infanticide is morally neutral. If you believe that abortion is morally neutral do you stand with Singer and go the whole hog? Or is it conditional?
Joey: I *never* said I think abortion is "morally neutral". Your post is a strawman argument, because I never argued for any of the things you just said.
I STRONGLY stand by my statement that it is misguided to say that biology or science lead inevitably to the conclusion that abortion is wrong. If you think that, you simply don't understand what questions science is asking and answering. It answers questions about the mechanisms of life, not what moral values we attach to various living things. The values are added by human beings.
Re: the ridiculous argument about infanticide and "sentience". I never said that "sentience" was the standard I use for whether I believe it to be morally permissible to kill a group of cells. You just made that up and ascribed it to me.
You're not going to like this answer, but I actually think that it's wrong to kill an embryo or fetus when the person carrying it believes it to be wrong. If the woman wants it, then it's wrong for someone to kill it in the process of murdering her (for example). If she doesn't want it, then I respect that belief (and I agree). It's not a person (in the sense that it has rights or that we value it as a human life) until either the woman decides it is or it is born.
Now, I agree that this is my subjective belief and that I don't have a basis for it other than my own beliefs. However, unlike religious people who are against abortion, I don't claim that I have an "objective" basis for my beliefs, with no evidence to back that up. Face it, the "life begins at conception" thing was arbitrarily made up, by human beings. God and the Bible are silent on this issue, and in fact human beliefs on it have varied wildly throughout history. There is no objective, evidence-based basis for this belief, because you can't make a statement of "fact" about a philosophical attribute. It's just a belief.
Now, since it's just a belief, can we agree that each individual should be free to make a decision about abortion on their own, in accordance with their own beliefs? Why should your arbitrarily chosen line in the sand (life begins at conception) trump someone else's arbitrarily chosen line in the sand? I only want freedom for everyone, while what you are advocating is oppressive conflation of religious beliefs and government power.
Hello John,
I actually asked you if you had similar beliefs to that of Peter Singer who holds sentience as a basic faculty of a "person" and therefore gives them the right to their own life as opposed to the others who should have the power to take it. The point of my post was that at least Singer's philosophy adds up, and he will himself tell you thot those who are pro choice fall down in their thorising if they suddenly believe that being born means a life is worth protecting. "Life" and "personhood" are completely different, life is scientific fact (that was proved and accepted long ago), whether the life is a person is philosophical. The Church and science are one on the life begins at conception, they just differ on the expendability of it.
PS, the ridiculous argument relating infanticide and abortion is Peter Singer's, if you have issue with that take it up with him, he's the Princeton ethic director, not me.
"The Church and science are one on the life begins at conception, they just differ on the expendability of it."
This is exactly what I said, in different words. The reason I made the argument I did about science vs. religion is that Mister Berns tried to argue that science provides evidence for his belief that abortion is wrong. I was just pointing out that his argument makes absolutely no sense, since science does not answer the same type of questions as ethics or morality. No one disputes that an embryo first gets its DNA at that moment; the only relevant question is whether it is "expendable" in your words or "not a person" in mine. I just want pro-lifers to stop claiming that there is scientific support for their beliefs; in reality, science in no way answers the question of whether abortion is wrong.
BTW, apparently God thinks a lot of embryos are "expendable" too, since so many of them naturally fail to implant and die. This fraction may be as high as 50%. I know that you think it's okay for God to do it but not for us, but I would just point that out since so many seem to think that a woman is "pregnant" even before implantation.
Also, the skin cells I shed every day are "human life" too; they have my unique DNA, and they are alive. And they die when I wash them off in the shower. How is an embryo so much more important? Just because it has the potential to develop into an adult human being? Well, in a few years it's quite scientifically likely that we will be able to "grow" new embryos out of other cells containing DNA. Will it then be "abortion" to kill any of those cells? Or only after they are "transformed"?
All I want is an honest acknowledgment from the pro-life community that a) their positions are just beliefs, with no basis in science, and b) that their dividing line between personhood is arbitrarily chosen by human beings just as much as any other line is.
Oh, and re: Singer's argument: I agree with him that the line being chosen is arbitrary. Ethically, it would be perfectly consistent to choose a line between person and non-person just about anywhere. And in fact, societies have varied widely historically on where they chose that line: some chose birth, some chose a certain number of days after a baby's birth (probably because infant mortality rates were very high, and this helped them deal with the grief), some chose the "quickening" (when the mother could feel the fetus moving in her body), etc. Only fairly recently have churches made the claim that "life begins at conception" (as an ethical premise, not a scientific one). So yes, I believe that the Church arbitrarily chose this line, probably motivated by concerns not directly related to abortion. But now they are making the astonishing claim that their line is universal and that everyone MUST agree with them and that their religious belief that life begins at conception needs to be enforced via the power of government worldwide.
Commenting by HaloScan
