Posted by
C-Hayes on Friday, June 01, 2007 4:28:10 PM
It's a question the Washington Post is posing as legitimate.
But the topic might not be what you would expect.
It's about being pregnant with two or more children at once, and then deciding to abort one or more in a process euphemized "selective reduction" - hence, "too much to carry."
"Selective reduction is one of the most unpleasant facts of fertility medicine, which has helped hundreds of thousands of couples have children but has also produced a sharp rise in high-risk multiple pregnancies. There is no way to know how many pregnancies achieved by fertility treatment start out as triplets or quadruplets and are quietly reduced to something more manageable. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which publishes an annual report on fertility clinic outcomes, does not include selective-reduction figures because of the reluctance to report them."
So, the Washington Post believes that abortion makes pregnancies more manageable - well, I guess by terminating them...yeah, that would be more manageable, right?
Dr. Mark Evans is considered a pioneer in "fetal therapy" - I'm not sure how therapeutic it is for a child to be killed, though...but, don't worry - his goal, apparently, is to deliver healthy babies. Even if it means "sacrificing the fetus in utero."
Sound like eugenics, Linda Chavez?
The sympathetic Post spins the facts:
"...Triplets pregnancies are far riskier than most people realize: Carrying three babies to term would more than double the woman's risk of developing the most severe diseases of pregnancy, such as preeclampsia. The average triplet is born two months premature, significantly raising the risk of disabilities such as cerebral palsy and of lifelong damage to the infant's lungs, eyes, brain and other organs. By reducing the pregnancy to twins, the woman and her husband would decrease the risk of severe prematurity. And the risk of losing her entire pregnancy would fall from 15 percent to 4 percent."
First off all, nothing is cited to back these facts up - a little pet peeve of mine.
I'm just waiting for the day when the following argument will be made: "By reducing the pregnancy to nothing, the woman and her husband would eliminate any risk of severe prematurity. And the risk of losing her entire pregnancy would fall from 4 percent to 0 percent."
Are we really that far off in this culture of death?
And does this not sound like an advocate of child-killing or what:
"...The fetuses were moving and waving their limbs; even at this point, approaching 12 weeks of gestation, they were clearly human, at that big-headed-could-be-an-alien-but-definitely-not-a-kitten stage of development. Evans has found this to be the best window of time in which to perform a reduction."
Read the whole thing and be outraged. E-mail the author (mundyl@washpost.com) to tell her you're not sympathetic to this procedure "not technically" an abortion.
Also, Michelle Malkin has blogged about this in the past - read her piece here.