Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Medical Reduction

Posted by on Dec. 9, 2010 at 4:32 PM
  • 86 Replies

Let's say you got pregnant with 4 or more babies (and to make this so it's not about fertility treatments...you DIDN'T use fertility treatments...it's just a fluke).

Would you opt to reduce to ensure that you had one or two healthy babies or would you carry them all and hope for the best?

by on Dec. 9, 2010 at 4:32 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
MamaScorpio88
by on Dec. 9, 2010 at 4:34 PM

I would reduce. I would want to ensure I could carry at least a few of the babies, instead of risking losing them all. I wuld leave it to the Dr to decide whichever s/he thought had the best chance of survival, and I would go on with my day.

kara_thrace
by on Dec. 9, 2010 at 4:34 PM

carry them all and hope for the best

ISAIAHMOM632007
by on Dec. 9, 2010 at 4:36 PM
No its kinda like deciding which one of your kids live or dies, plus non fertilry quads are so rare. Rare like
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Beatlemama
by Bronze Member on Dec. 9, 2010 at 4:36 PM

I don't know.  I would have to think about it, research it, and discuss it with dh before making any kind of decision.

ISAIAHMOM632007
by on Dec. 9, 2010 at 4:37 PM
Rare like 1 in 729000
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
ecagle
by Kegel on Dec. 9, 2010 at 4:38 PM


Quoting ISAIAHMOM632007:

No its kinda like deciding which one of your kids live or dies, plus non fertilry quads are so rare. Rare like

They are rare, but not impossible...just like having a child with a birth defect many times is rare, but still possible.

At the same time, it might not be YOU deciding...the doctor would probably tell you which ones to reduce based on positioning etc.

I also wonder: would I feel guiltier about reducing or would if feel guiltier if I didn't do ANYTHING and they all died?

jessilin0113
by Ruby Member on Dec. 9, 2010 at 4:38 PM

I think I'd reduce because it's better to have one or two healthy babies rather than 4 or more sickly or stillborn ones, but I think I'd have a hard time doing that. 

ISAIAHMOM632007
by on Dec. 9, 2010 at 4:40 PM
Why not play God and if its meant to be then it will,.as a mother deciding which baby to kill seems inhumane.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
MamaScorpio88
by on Dec. 9, 2010 at 4:43 PM

I don't see it as playing god. I see it as being realistic, and trying to ensure some of your offspring make it. I could not imagine not reducing, and losing them all.

ecagle
by Kegel on Dec. 9, 2010 at 4:44 PM


Quoting ISAIAHMOM632007:

Why not play God and if its meant to be then it will,.as a mother deciding which baby to kill seems inhumane.

Or it could be seen that a mother deciding to kill ALL the babies (because of the likelihood of miscarriage or preterm labor is MUCH higher) is inhumane. 

OR...the mother COULD look at it as deciding which babies will LIVE instead of them all dying....it could be seen as a LIFESAVING technique.

If we are going to be opposed to lifesaving techniques...should a mother opt to not terminate if HER life is jeopardy?  Because she's deciding "who to kill" (her or the baby)??? 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)