Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

The Human Cost of ‘Selective Reduction’

Thirty years ago, I was in the ninth month of my second pregnancy when I received what was a very unsettling referral for a sonogram, which was not nearly as routine in those days. My eyes never once left the technician’s face as she studied the monitor. You can imagine my doubled apprehension as she left the room without offering me the small mercy of that nonchalant, “everything-is-normal-and-on-track” smile. When the OB-GYN followed her back into the room moments later, I really needed him to compensate for the technician’s serious breach of sonogram etiquette. Instead, he informed me that I was pregnant with twins.

I left that appointment just as frightened as every other woman who has ever received the same news. At the time, I already had a 23-month-old daughter; my financial resources, while not as limited as those of many new mothers, were light years away from reassuring; and my mental preparations had been for one baby, not two.

As the news began to sink in over the following few days, however, my fear got some competition from a growing awareness of my personal strength. I was still terrified, naturally, but on some level I made a decision to battle that fear, to refuse to let it take me without a fight. I remember throwing open the phone book (the Google of the ’80s), and aggressively tracking down the contact information for the local Twins & Multiples club.

In “The Two Minus One Pregnancy” article in The New York Times Magazine (Aug. 14), Ruth Padawer interviews women who, after becoming pregnant with twins using fertility drugs and procedures, decide to undergo a selective reduction. The women describe with illuminating candor their fears of the challenges of birthing two newborns at once; of not being the best mother they can be to all of their children, including those already born; of being spread too thin. And so they abort one of the twins.

The story begins:

As Jenny lay on the obstetrician’s examination table, she was grateful that the ultrasound tech had turned off the overhead screen. She didn’t want to see the two shadows floating inside her. Since making her decision, she had tried hard not to think about them, though she could often think of little else. She was 45 and pregnant after six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, donor eggs and disappointment — and yet here she was, 14 weeks into her pregnancy, choosing to extinguish one of two healthy fetuses, almost as if having half an abortion. As the doctor inserted the needle into Jenny’s abdomen, aiming at one of the fetuses, Jenny tried not to flinch, caught between intense relief and intense guilt.

The women’s honesty allows no confusion about what’s making their decision for them: fear.

It’s scary to be carrying twins; scarier to think about the labor that will bring these twins into the world; scarier still to contemplate “Now what?” Without these Orwellian choices open to mothers of this generation, we answered the question “Now what?” one sleepless night at a time.

So when I brought my twin girls home back in 1980, I took it one day at a time. Scratch that, I took it one action at a time. I made that nightly pilgrimage to the nursery with tired eyes and tired feet. Constant feedings and changings, yes, but accompanied all the while by the twins’ mutual gazes, touches, and gurgling “twin talk.” Exhausting days and nights, but ones that I would never trade away. I still look with personal pride on the technique I developed to feed the twins with two pillows — my home-grown version of Boppies. There were fun trips to the Mall to share my joys and accomplishments with the countless strangers who would smile and approach the twins and their beaming older sister. There were joyful milestones of birthday parties, school events, sports, and dancing lessons. My burdens grew easier with time, too, as the twins grew up entertaining and supporting each other, sharing experiences that only twins can share. And I got some unique life training that I could later bring to my career life: No one learns how to multitask with efficiency like a parent of twins.

Maybe our lives would have been easier had I “reduced” my pregnancy, but we would have missed the crazy magic of those early years.

I can’t put myself in the shoes of a woman who decided for a selective reduction, but I can imagine that her decision stays with her always, perhaps evoking one emotion one day, another the next. Decisions made out of personal powerlessness and lack of support are the decisions that no one wants to make. And they’re the decisions that refuse to let you rest, the puzzles that you try to solve and resolve for the rest of your life.

These decisions born of fear and powerlessness will probably always exist in one form or another, but does that mean we should all simply raise the white flag on this issue? That physicians should abandon their vow “to do no harm” because twins cost more money to raise?

I propose that all of us — the medical profession as well as society at large — make a collective decision to fight the fear. Let’s not abandon these women in the cynical belief that there’s not enough support for all of them.

— Janet Morana is the executive director of Priests for Life, co-founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, and co-host of The Catholic View for Women on EWTN.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   61

EXPAND  

   08/18/11 07:53

"almost as if having half an abortion" ????

Selective reduction is having half an abortion.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Leslie Palma-Simoncek
   08/18/11 09:22

Selective reduction is not half an abortion. It's the whole thing. A baby who was alive and growing has been killed. That's an abortion.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/18/11 09:31

Actually, it's having a whole abortion.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/18/11 11:22

If she had killed both twins, it would have been a double abortion.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/18/11 08:10

Thank you for sharing your experience Janet. At the time I was already a father of two boys and I can still vividly remember the shock as my wife handed me the grainy ultrasound from her (what we thought was a routine) early ultrasound for older high risk mothers. Staring at those grainy images and realizing that no those weren't two feet or hands I was looking at, but two heads.

I can also remember how dumfounded I was at the next appointment (which we now both attended) when the doctor suggested that we consider selective reduction. We could loose both babies and the pregnancy would be rough, we were told. We nodded our heads and walked out of the office. One look at each other and we both knew that selective reduction or whatever they wanted to call it was not an option nor even a consideration.

Well, the pregnancy was rough, but went one day shy of full term. My wife awoke to contractions in the dead of night. We raced out the door and into a giant snow storm (literally and figuratively) and have never looked back.

Raising twin infants is tough. No doubt. The first two years are still a bit fuzzy to my memory. The rewards, however, are many both great and small. As I write this my two oldest boys are already off to school and the twins are standing beside me debating who gets the window seat on the bus to take them to second grade. To think such a mundane child's argument might never have taken place, I shutter at the thought.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 Dave
   08/18/11 08:12

"And they’re the decisions that refuse to let you rest, the puzzles that you try to solve and resolve for the rest of your life."

No, they're not. Easy as taking care of a mole at the dermatologist. It's just a clump of cells, remember?

Wait... it's NOT that easy?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
wrightt
   08/18/11 08:34

"Selective Reduction" - the euphemistic assault continues.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Allison
   08/18/11 08:45

No, it's a full abortion. It's killing your own kid, and it's done for the same reasons as "normal" abortions are: fear, loss of control, and an unwillingness to bend personal expectations for how life "should" be to the reality of a new life.

There is no reason to be squeamish about this if you're not squeamish about abortion. The reason this is a problem is because these women are admittedly trying to get pregnant, wanting to have a child, but apparently not just any child they create, and now are choosing randomly which child gets to live. But we should be just as appalled when a woman kills the one child in her womb, too.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/18/11 08:56

How do you later explain to the "surviving" twin that he had a sibling who was "reduced"?

That's a ton of guilt to lay on someone but you can't keep something like that a secret forever.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/18/11 09:24

Shoot me, but I think this piece is over-dramatic. People have been having twins since there have been people, and most of the women in the original Times article seem more self-centered than fearful. I always hoped for twins. We never were so blessed, but we did have three under three and in diapers at the same time. It is really hard to have a toddler and an infant at the same time; in my opinion, two toddlers and an infant are a bit better, because the toddlers can entertain each other, making time for the parent and the infant. Two infants and a toddler would be worse, but at least the infants, unlike the toddler-infant combination, can be brought around to the same general schedule.

In any case, all honor, praise and glory to the effort to persuade these women not to do the deed -- whatever it takes. But I think "terrifying" is in fact too strong a word. Having twins is not the worst thing in the world. Lots of people manage. Many are thrilled.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/18/11 10:08

I'm sorry that you were not persuaded by this article because I certainly was.

o A woman pregnant with twins experiences real fear

o If a woman succumbs to that fear, we have grounds to empathize with that tragic decision

o Some women succumb to this fear who should not because they do not get the support that they need

I think this article is a real public service.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/18/11 10:30

I think it's a public service, too. As I said, whatever it takes. All pregnant women who are fearful or otherwise bothered by pregnancy should have our sympathy and encouragement, both because they are human beings with needs and because we want to help them decide against abortion. Nevertheless, being "terrified" about having twins, if meant literally, is a little precious, in my opinion. Not that I would say so to the woman I was trying to dissuade. Unless she were my own daughter, in which case I might tell her she was being a little precious.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Peter Dans
   08/18/11 09:25

We should all be grateful for the advent of ultrasound. In 1969, my pregnant wife was trying to keep her weight down by eating less. It wasn't until May that her doctor diagnosed twins. They were gaining weight at her expense. They were born on June 28, weighing a combined 14 pounds. My wife who was haggard after the birth, insisted on breast feeding them alternately with the other receiving a bottle. About 2 months into that, she woke me to say she was feeling poorly and to feed the other twin. The first had sucked so vigorously that her pulse rate had dropped to 32 and she almost had a stroke. We got her to the hospital and her pulse rate went up and she gave up nursing for two bottles of formula each which they wolfed down. What a blessing it would have been if ultrasonography had been available, not to add to worries but to help with her care and that of the babies who both are upstanding and productive citizens.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
david hyland
   08/18/11 09:44

the scene you decribed is exactly what my wife experienced. my wife was convinced that she was "losing" her baby becuase of the bleeding she was having. imagine the shock when the doctor came back in telling us she actually had twins. turns out they became high risk, she had to go on bed rest for 6 weeks, they were born tiny preemies and today they are the most hilarious 3 year olds and have made a joyful addition to our other 7 children. yes we have exhausted days and nights but we never let the fear drive our decisions.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Fleischen DePann
   08/18/11 09:49

My oldest daughter was two when my twins were born. There were some very long days those first few years, I can promise you. I simply can't imagine surviving without any of them, and never could, even when I was newly pregnant. The fact that anyone would even consider such a horrible procedure is just irretrievably sad.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/18/11 09:53

"And they’re the decisions that refuse to let you rest, the puzzles that you try to solve and resolve for the rest of your life."

The impact of abortion really depends on the mental strength of the woman- women who are more resilient will be able to deal with abortion and other issues in life way better than less resilient women.

In anycase, i dont think big goverment should be entering peoples homes and telling them what sort of medical procedures people can and cant have.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/18/11 10:05

That innocent little phrase - "medical procedures" - it's doing a lot of work in that sentence, no?

You are, of course, free to take whatever position youu want on the issue, but categorizing abortion as a mere "medical procedure" no different than a tonsillectomy reeks of cowardice.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/18/11 10:17

Im a fiscal, small government, low regulations conservative- i cant be one of those if i also want to have new laws, regulations, goverment staff to address 'pet' causes of gays and abortions where the goverment should not be intruding.

But i recognise that i am a minority on this site and a good number of people here are happy to have a bigger goverment to deal with abortions, gays. So i will say no more on the subject.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/18/11 10:24

Count me as glad that murder or assault are not considered "pet causes" insufficiently worthy of government "intrusion".

The role of government in the protection of property and persons is a core conservative belief.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/18/11 10:29

You delude yourself to think your views are conservative. You are a libertarian utopianist, which effectively makes you an anarchist. Under your ideal regime, the person with the most guns wins. Conservatives support the rule of law. You are no conservative.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact