it is their choice, but I honestly feel that they are not getting the whole picture.
They HAD to know these babies were all going to be born extremely premature because there's no chance of reaching anywhere near full term with triplets and quadruplets, let alone sextuplets. Other couples have given birth to less children and still lost all of them. As a result, because of the extreme prematurity, chances of death go up. They had to know that the odds of keeping all of their children were practically 0 (tbh, more like the odds of any one of them surviving were practically 0 too..). I am frankly surprised that 3 are still alive right now, and it hasn't even been two weeks.
Which means that they had to be ready for the almost inevitable death of at least one. And aborting even one may have made a difference. Had they aborted three - and right now, three have died, and although a "natural" death may be more acceptable than abortion, death is still death - the other three would probably still not be born and have higher rates of survival and lower risk of health issues stemming from the premature birth. And at 20-30 weeks gestation? Even a couple of DAYS make a big difference. So a baby dies, EITHER WAY. Why not use the death to help out the remaining siblings so they can live, instead of die as well because the parents believe it's morally wrong or whatever.
I mean I understand if you do not support abortions, but sometimes there is a case for one due to extreme medical circumstances, and IMO this was one. But it was their choice. Choice is a good thing. Even though I hate it when people make questionable decisions such as this one, I can't force them to do anything about it. :\
it is their choice, but I honestly feel that they are not getting the whole picture.
They HAD to know these babies were all going to be born extremely premature because there's no chance of reaching anywhere near full term with triplets and quadruplets, let alone sextuplets. Other couples have given birth to less children and still lost all of them. As a result, because of the extreme prematurity, chances of death go up. They had to know that the odds of keeping all of their children were practically 0 (tbh, more like the odds of any one of them surviving were practically 0 too..). I am frankly surprised that 3 are still alive right now, and it hasn't even been two weeks.
Which means that they had to be ready for the almost inevitable death of at least one. And aborting even one may have made a difference. Had they aborted three - and right now, three have died, and although a "natural" death may be more acceptable than abortion, death is still death - the other three would probably still not be born and have higher rates of survival and lower risk of health issues stemming from the premature birth. And at 20-30 weeks gestation? Even a couple of DAYS make a big difference. So a baby dies, EITHER WAY. Why not use the death to help out the remaining siblings so they can live, instead of die as well because the parents believe it's morally wrong or whatever.
I mean I understand if you do not support abortions, but sometimes there is a case for one due to extreme medical circumstances, and IMO this was one. But it was their choice. Choice is a good thing. Even though I hate it when people make questionable decisions such as this one, I can't force them to do anything about it. :\
Reply
Leave a comment