- 15 May 2023 00:29
#15274098
Killing a baby to have a baby...
I recently saw an opinion article from USA Today, with the headline:
" IVF made me a mom. Abortion ban bills could take that option from others. "
I celebrate Mother's Day thanks to IVF. Abortion bills could change that (usatoday.com),
Kristin Dillensnyder, May 14, 2023
In it, the writer claims that abortion bans will -- and this is highly ironic -- prevent women who want to have babies from being able to have them.
"How would it do that?!?" was my first thought was.
This has to do with in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Some women have trouble being able to have a baby. So these women seek assistance from a fertility clinic, where an embryo is implanted into their uterus. (the so-called "test tube baby")
The issue is, however, that there's a high chance an embryo will not take. And it's kind of an expensive procedure to go in there. And I also a woman does not want to be waiting around for two months in case it didn't work the first time. So very often what they will do is implant TWO or THREE embryos.
Even though the woman was really only desiring one baby.
Now, what they expect will happen is that probably not all of those embryos will take. So the woman might end up with one baby growing in there, or sometimes twins.
But it is a possibility that all the embryos might take. And in that case, the woman could wind up with more babies in there than she wanted or was expecting.
So you know what they usually do? They ABORT one of them.
Except by that time it's not just an embryo any longer but has grown into a fetus, with arms and legs. (They don't know how many have actually taken until they are big enough to be seen on ultrasound)
It's a very common practice in IVF.
So what this is, it's a woman killing one of her babies in order to have another.
Highly ironic and paradoxical.
Now it's true, usually if a woman just has twins, she'll end up choosing to keep them. She might have preferred just a single baby, but most of these women are so desperate to have a baby that they view being able to have two as a blessing.
But with this reproductive technology seen as just "a choice", there are an increasing number of women these days who choose to terminate one of the twins because they only wanted one.
More common, however, are women who were implanted with three embryos, all of them took and started growing, and she doesn't want to end up with triplets. Which is kind of understandable. That's going to be a bit of a strain on her body with three babies growing inside there at once, and then it's going to be a lot of work to care for three babies at the same time. And a lot of women these days only want families with two children.
So very commonly in this situation she will decide to have a selective termination. And if they're going to knock off one of the fetuses while they're in there, why not two? Making the pregnancy go back down to one baby.
I found it amazing that this opinion article, appearing in a major U.S. magazine, had the audacity to publicly cite this as a REASON women "need" abortion.
Women are willing to kill one of their developing children in the womb to be able to have another child. They are CHOOSING this, knowing this could be a likely outcome.
Normally in the case of abortion a woman is choosing to kill because she DOES NOT want a baby and does not want a pregnancy. She never wanted to get pregnant in the first place.
But this in many ways is like the opposite of that.
It seems these days, a lot of women are about "ME, ME, ME".
They think motherhood and having a baby is all about THEM and what they want. They only choose it because they think they will enjoy having a baby and being a mother.
A woman who actually cared about her offspring would not choose to terminate one of her developing children to follow her dream of being a mother and bringing another child into existence.
They decide to terminate the fetus even though there is no indication there is anything wrong with it, and usually the fetus singled out for destruction is chosen completely randomly. It could easily have been one or the other.
I recently saw an opinion article from USA Today, with the headline:
" IVF made me a mom. Abortion ban bills could take that option from others. "
I celebrate Mother's Day thanks to IVF. Abortion bills could change that (usatoday.com),
Kristin Dillensnyder, May 14, 2023
In it, the writer claims that abortion bans will -- and this is highly ironic -- prevent women who want to have babies from being able to have them.
"How would it do that?!?" was my first thought was.
This has to do with in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Some women have trouble being able to have a baby. So these women seek assistance from a fertility clinic, where an embryo is implanted into their uterus. (the so-called "test tube baby")
The issue is, however, that there's a high chance an embryo will not take. And it's kind of an expensive procedure to go in there. And I also a woman does not want to be waiting around for two months in case it didn't work the first time. So very often what they will do is implant TWO or THREE embryos.
Even though the woman was really only desiring one baby.
Now, what they expect will happen is that probably not all of those embryos will take. So the woman might end up with one baby growing in there, or sometimes twins.
But it is a possibility that all the embryos might take. And in that case, the woman could wind up with more babies in there than she wanted or was expecting.
So you know what they usually do? They ABORT one of them.
Except by that time it's not just an embryo any longer but has grown into a fetus, with arms and legs. (They don't know how many have actually taken until they are big enough to be seen on ultrasound)
It's a very common practice in IVF.
So what this is, it's a woman killing one of her babies in order to have another.
Highly ironic and paradoxical.
Now it's true, usually if a woman just has twins, she'll end up choosing to keep them. She might have preferred just a single baby, but most of these women are so desperate to have a baby that they view being able to have two as a blessing.
But with this reproductive technology seen as just "a choice", there are an increasing number of women these days who choose to terminate one of the twins because they only wanted one.
More common, however, are women who were implanted with three embryos, all of them took and started growing, and she doesn't want to end up with triplets. Which is kind of understandable. That's going to be a bit of a strain on her body with three babies growing inside there at once, and then it's going to be a lot of work to care for three babies at the same time. And a lot of women these days only want families with two children.
So very commonly in this situation she will decide to have a selective termination. And if they're going to knock off one of the fetuses while they're in there, why not two? Making the pregnancy go back down to one baby.
I found it amazing that this opinion article, appearing in a major U.S. magazine, had the audacity to publicly cite this as a REASON women "need" abortion.
Women are willing to kill one of their developing children in the womb to be able to have another child. They are CHOOSING this, knowing this could be a likely outcome.
Normally in the case of abortion a woman is choosing to kill because she DOES NOT want a baby and does not want a pregnancy. She never wanted to get pregnant in the first place.
But this in many ways is like the opposite of that.
It seems these days, a lot of women are about "ME, ME, ME".
They think motherhood and having a baby is all about THEM and what they want. They only choose it because they think they will enjoy having a baby and being a mother.
A woman who actually cared about her offspring would not choose to terminate one of her developing children to follow her dream of being a mother and bringing another child into existence.
They decide to terminate the fetus even though there is no indication there is anything wrong with it, and usually the fetus singled out for destruction is chosen completely randomly. It could easily have been one or the other.
- By Skynet
- By Rancid
- By Tainari88
- By litwin