In West Africa’s pre-colonial period, the Igbo people believed twins were a bad omen. Single births were considered “human,” but multiple births belonged to the realm of animals. When a mother delivered two healthy babies instead of one, the parents would leave one newborn to die in the ojoo ofia (“bad bush”) outside the town, or simply suffocate one.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Christian Europeans so lamented these barbaric twin killings that it became one of the great mission causes of the time. Every Christian denomination sent missionaries there until the late 1930s, including the famous Mary Slessor of Calabar. Eventually, the twin killings stopped.
But the practice is back — in America.
Ruth Padawer in the New York Times chronicles the surge of twin killings (or “reductions,” to use the clinical language of the abortion industry). Modern fertility treatments have created so many multi-infant pregnancies that the demand for abortions in high-risk situations has skyrocketed. As a result, women — who appear desperate to have children but to have those children completely on their own terms — are increasingly killing one baby in utero even if they are only carrying twins. Far from being deemed necessary for the health of the mother, these “twin reductions” are being performed for pure personal convenience.
All but one of the couples interviewed for the article asked for anonymity, for fear that their friends (and the surviving twin) would judge their decision. In fact, doctors frequently encourage the mothers not to tell others what they’ve done. Even to abortion providers, there’s something about terminating half a twin pregnancy that seems barbaric.
Some doctors have decided to discontinue the service, but others continue to quietly “reduce” twins in the privacy of their air-conditioned offices, serving coffee in the waiting room. Dr. Mark Evans, one of the first doctors to perform the procedure, used to believe “twin reduction” crossed “the line between doing a procedure for a medical indication versus one for a social indication.” Years later, however, he reversed his opinion and now advocates that everyone carrying twins should at least be given the option to “reduce” the pregnancy. “Ethics,” he said, “evolve with technology.”
And so America has “evolved” all the way back to the moral condition of the Igbo people during the late 19th century. We can only wait and see which country will send missionaries to America to save us from ourselves.
— Nancy French is the co-author of Bristol Palin’s Not Afraid of Life and Home and Away: A Story of Family in a Time of War.
It wasn't just the Igbos. The twin-killing business was -- and, post-colonially, once again became -- quite s.o.p. throughout West and Central Africa. (And it's not such a piece of cake for albinos, either.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLets create a new government department, it will need at least 50 staff per state, cars, admin support, pensions, medical- i reckon we could stop this practice at merely several billion $ per year.
Big government, lovely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, lets just get rid of the police dept altogether.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs usual, a non-answer to the problem at hand. How about a comment pertaining to the actual issue being discussed?
RECAPCHA phrase: "wrong end of the stick"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJoseph Mengele would be proud.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn the nosie.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVarious sorts of "twin studies" are, of course, a scientific staple, the "twinness" being part of the experimental design and not, generally, the phenomenon under investigation. I am not aware of studies that pursue such questions as, "Do you like being a twin? Does having a twin make you happy?" But I have a notion that being a twin is a profound and wonderful thing in human affairs. I'd be delighted to be a parent of twins and consider that my burdens in assuring a healthy emotional environment for my child were much lighter than otherwise. Aside from the tragedy inherent in any pointless abortion, the needless abortion of a twin seems to me particularly sad. And I will bet that the reaction of surviving children is uniform rage at the murder of their sibling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy understanding is that sharks, or perhaps just some types of sharks (I drink while watching documentaries) kill their siblings in the womb, rendering the survivor a Cain-marked murderer even at birth.
But that's still a moral mile above what these parents are doing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou must drink A LOT while watching documentaries.
Sharks are not mammals, they are fish. Fish to not have wombs, they lay eggs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEr, many sharks do give live birth.
External Link
"Viviparous species can be separated into two categories: placental (having a placenta, or true connection between maternal and embryonic tissue), or aplacental (lacking a placenta). Among the aplacental species, there are those whose embryos rely primarily on a yolk-sac for nutrition during gestation and those that consume yolk-filled, unfertilized egg capsules (oophagy). There is even one species, the sandtiger (Carcharias taurus), in which the two largest embryos that were fertilized first, consume the other embryos of the litter (adelphophagy)."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell OK then. Paint me stupid - ignorant anyway.
My sincere apologies to Mr. Abrams.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConversation of the future:
"So,I had a twin?"
"Yes, we let the doctor decide who would live. Aren't you grateful it was you?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWilliam Saletan, a progressive on many issues, has a rather devastating piece on why twin-reduction is causing so much concern amongst nominal pro-choicers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Wow, that Saletan piece is amazing in its selfishness.
"That's the anguish of reduction: watching the fetus you spared become what its twin will never be. And knowing that the only difference between them was your will."
Right there, the pain expressed is anguish FELT BY THE PARENT. Even then it's all "ME ME ME", not the dead child, not the living twin's pain.
And as is clear, there's absolutely no difference in this than abortion, except it's assumed that since there is NO LIVING REMINDER, then there won't be any anguish. Our of sight, out of mind is the premise. Sickening.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThese are not rhetorical questions - I'd genuinely like to know:
How does a mother or father who had a twin aborted, for the duration of their lives, ever look at the surviving twin without immediately thinking and wondering about the dead twin?
How and when does a parent explain to a child that they had his or her twin killed as a matter of finances and convenience?
If it is to be kept secret, how is that justified? Doesn't the need to keep it secret imply the act was wrong?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou must've not read down this this part: "Today, her daughter is 2½ years old. Shelby intends to tell her about the reduction someday, to teach her that women have choices, even if they’re sometimes difficult. “I am the mother of a very demanding toddler,” she says. “I can’t imagine this times two, and not ever knowing if I’d have another person here to help me. This is what I can handle. I’m good with this. But that’s all.”
Translation: "I can't be bothered to handle more than one baby and I can't wait to explain to my daughter that the nagging feeling she's had her whole life that something's missing is because you get to have choices."
I guess adoption wasn't an option. *cough* Is there a Hallmark card section with cards reading, "You're an only child! Here's why..." or "For My More Special Someone"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can also tell her that the only reason why she is alive and her sister is dead, is because your sister was easier to reach. That's how special you are too your mother.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOuch. Your little brother died instead of you because of a technical consideration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause we are supposed to have complete control over every aspect of our lives.
If it really must be just one child, than yes, why not adopt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI worry about how they will raise the surviving twin, and whether at some times in dark moments if they secretly wish/wonder if they had chosen the wrong twin.
This is just sick.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse