Saturday, January 31, 2009


This article on CNN quotes Robert George, professor at Princeton University and member of the Obama's Council on Bioethics as saying "selective reduction is not the same as traditional abortion because the goal is the healthiest possible birth rather than the termination of a pregnancy. ...The babies didn't put themselves there; it's not their fault."


As far as I know, no baby ever creates itself in the mother. It's never a baby's fault that the mother is pregnant.

Selective reduction isn't abortion? Umm.... yeah it is. Instead of being pregnant with X babies, you'd be pregnant with X-Y babies... you're terminating those members of the pregnancy.

Don't you just LOVE the wordsmithing and logic mangling that people do?

When I was in fertility treatments, the staff were panicked when there was a chance at triplets for me, and absolutely hysterical when there was a chance at quadruplets. Thus they gave me my money back and tossed me out of the clinic, saying I was too risky for them since I had moral problems with "selective reduction." Why on earth would I abort a baby that was so expensive and stressful to create in the first place? So here I am with not even one baby.

1 comment:

Gwynne said...

That's crazy! It's absolutely abortion.

I've only heard more about the woman with octuplets in the last day or two. I'm having trouble with the ethics of any medical "professional" who would implant 8 embryos in a single woman who already has 6 children. I understand the reason for implanting multiple embryos but to do so with the idea that any unwanted extras can just be "selectively reduced" is careless and sick.