Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (18585)	7/18/2001 9:16:14 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm finding much to interest me in the news this ayem. Here's a question about why selective reduction hasn't drawn the attention of pro-lifers. There's an article in the Post today about how they're still trying to deny coverage of contraception for Federal workers. Why no outcry about selective reduction? Tucson, Arizona Wednesday, 18 July 2001 No protests over 'selective reduction' By Bonnie Erbe Pardon me, perhaps you can explain. Where's the outrage? The outrage, that is, over "selective reduction" of multiple births. The subject came to mind as the nation rejoiced over the birth of America's second set of surviving septuplets. The babies were born in a Washington, D.C., hospital last week. Both they and the Iowa septuplets were products of scientific advancement. The high tech fertility industry is now a multi-billion dollar business assisting thousands of infertile couples each year to create their own genetic replicas. But scientific advancement does not usually come without consequent moral dilemmas. The fertility industry is now relatively adept at stepping in where nature fails and creating human embryos for couples who could not do it alone. But a dilemma arises when the goal is to create just one or two babies. Science has not advanced to the point at which the number can be regulated with precision. In most cases of vitro fertilization, a greater number of fertilized eggs are implanted into the mother's womb than the number of children she is seeking to have. During the first trimester, doctors wait until they can confirm one or more of the embryos is healthy enough to survive. Occasionally, one or more of the implanted embryos naturally miscarry. If not, most couples elect to have the pregnancies "selectively reduced." The mother of the Washington septuplets said her faith in Islam would not allow her to undergo a "reduction." But she is unlike many women assisted by fertility treatments, who do not want to carry more than one or two fetuses to term. Most doctors also believe it is unsafe for the average woman to carry more than two or three babies to term. So the normal route is for the fertility specialist to "selectively reduce" (i.e., kill) one or more of the implanted embryos by injection. Here's where the outrage should come into play. Why is the right-to-life movement not protesting this procedure? It is, after all, tantamount to first trimester abortion. The answer is, the movement is nowhere to be found. The same group that turns out hundreds of thousands of protesters on the national Mall, condemning the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, has remained almost silent on selective reduction. Why aren't they at least demonstrating against it? Could it be they are too busy fighting other issues (to wit, stem-cell research) to expostulate simultaneously against selective reduction? That is highly unlikely. A quick visit to the National Right to Life Committee's Web site reveals the front page is awash in material about George W. Bush's pending decision on federal funding for stem-cell research. But adherents have been able to wage that war while still lobbying for a ban on late-term abortions. And they have been repeatedly able to mount several public relations campaigns at once in the past. Could it be pro-lifers have failed to notice that "selective reduction" is increasingly popular? Impossible - because some anti-abortion Web sites mention the practice in passing but do not dwell on it. No, something more premeditated seems to be going on. Perhaps the pro-life movement realizes that criticism of couples trying so valiantly to create life would turn off more people than it would turn on. If that's the case, pro-life leaders are allowing public relations to bollix up principle. If that's not the reason, it would be interesting to find out what is. * Bonnie Erbe, host of the PBS program "To the Contrary," writes for Scripps Howard News Service. azstarnet.com