Log In | Register
165 Comments
PrintEgypt septuplets stir debate on fertility drugs
Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:43 PM EDT
msnbc.com Newsadvertisement
ALEXANDRIA, Egypt - The 27-year-old woman and her husband already had three children — all girls. They badly wanted a boy, and she had not conceived in five years, so doctors gave her hormones.
The startling result was healthy septuplets — four boys and three girls — heralded by Egyptian doctors as a miracle. But debate persists about the ethics of fertility treatment in a nation where medical oversight is lax, incubators and neonatal respirators are rare, and many families face pressure to have a son.
In addition, Egypt faces concerns about overpopulation and cheap fertility drugs could lead to a wave of multiple births. President Hosni Mubarak warned in June that growth is hindering Egypt's economy, saying Egypt's population of 79 million — mostly crammed into the 3 percent of the country's area around the Nile River — will double by 2050.
For the mother, Ghazala Khamis, the most pressing question now is how her impoverished family is going to get by.
'I'm really scared'
"I'm really scared," she said, lying in her hospital bed in this Mediterranean coastal city. "We live in a mud hut with only two rooms. I don't know how we're going to afford 10 children now."
Khamis' husband Farag Mohammed Ali, a 31-year-old farm laborer, can find work only a few days a week, she said. "I'm really worried about what the future looks like."
Much about the Aug. 16 birth, by Caesarean section, was stunning. The babies are large for a multiple birth, weighing between 3 pounds 3 ounces and 4 pounds 10 ounces each. The duration of the pregnancy was also the longest ever for septuplets — 34 weeks.
By contrast, the world's first surviving septuplets, born to the McCaughey family in Iowa in 1997, came at 31 weeks and the biggest baby weighed about the same as Khamis' smallest. There are two other sets of surviving septuplets, both born to Saudi women.
Khamis' doctors waited so long to deliver the babies because Egypt has only a few respirators for newborns, and none were available. So for weeks, doctors kept Khamis in Alexandria's Shatby Maternity University Hospital, letting the fetuses develop enough that their lungs could function on their own after birth. But the wait also increased the risk to the mother.
"We were simply blessed by God that no complication happened ... If there had been a complication, Ghazala would have died," Dr. Mahmoud Meleis, who performed the Caesarean section, told The Associated Press.
After their birth, images on television showed the boys — Mohammad, Kareem, Bilal and Yassin — and girls — Israa, Habiba and Do'a — lying side-by-side in two makeshift incubators, oxygen hoods covering their heads. Four were then whisked by ambulance to two other hospitals because there were not enough incubators at Shatby.
Except for the television images, Khamis has not yet seen all her babies; she has been able to hold and breast-feed only the three at Shatby. Though she was ready to leave days after the birth, she remains hospitalized because she has nowhere to stay in Alexandria, a four-hour drive from her farming village of Ezbat Emara.
Last week, baby girl Habiba and boys Yassin and Mohammed were resting in incubators at Shatby, tiny caps on their heads — red for the boys and lime green for the girl. All were breathing on their own, though Habiba and Yassin wore protective eye patches.
Some Western medical ethicists have questioned the use of fertility drugs by a young woman who already has three children, considering the risk of multiple births.
"This is a medical failure," said Guido Pennings, a professor of fertility ethics at the University of Ghent in Belgium. "You cannot take this risk because of the complications to the mother and the babies."
Pennings, who was not involved in the case, said Khamis' doctors should have been more careful in prescribing fertility drugs to a woman who had already demonstrated she was capable of conceiving.
"Twenty-seven with three children: That woman is fertile," he said. "Even if she had a period of infertility, that's an indication that you should be careful when you stimulate" ovulation.
Some Egyptian doctors are worried that the mix of cheap fertility treatments and Egyptians' eagerness to have many children could lead to more risky multiple pregnancies — which the country's health system cannot handle. Locally made versions of the drugs are government-subsidized and only cost about $7.50 a shot.
Pressure to produce a son
There is also pressure on women to produce a son as a point of pride and for financial reasons. Boys help families by working and earning incomes — often at a young age — and they ensure inheritance, since daughters and wives can only inherit a portion of their father's money, and if there are no male children, the bulk goes to the fathers' brothers.
"The important question to ask is why did she want to become pregnant after already having three children," said Hassan Sallam, head of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Alexandria.
"It's because she had three daughters and didn't have a boy. In many parts of Egypt, if she doesn't have a boy, it's as if she didn't have children at all."
Khamis sought fertility treatment five years after her youngest daughter, 5-year-old Rahma, was born because she was having trouble conceiving and wanted a boy, said her doctor, Abdel-Rahim Moussa.
He said he prescribed fertility drugs to stimulate egg production. After five injections, he recommended Khamis and her husband have intercourse.
The doctor said he was stunned when he later found nine heartbeats; he said he couldn't remember whether he did a sonogram to see how many eggs had developed before recommending the couple try to conceive.
"It's just so rare that all the eggs would get fertilized with regular intercourse," he said.
The doctor said he strongly advised Khamis to undergo fetal reduction, in which some fetuses are terminated to ensure the safety of the others and the mother. But he also told her there was the possibility of losing all the fetuses, and Khamis refused. Later, two of the fetuses were lost during the course of the pregnancy.
Emad Darwish, the hospital director, said Khamis should have received more counseling about fetal reduction. "I have performed several reductions and have never had a case where I lost all the fetuses. She needed to know that," he said.
Religious decree on fetal reduction
Although Islam forbids abortion, Darwish said a recent religious decree by Islamic authorities at the country's main Sunni religious institution, Al Azhar mosque, allows fetal reductions due to the high risk to the mother and babies in a multiple pregnancy.
The real problem, doctors say, is a lack of guidelines in Egypt for fertility treatment and not enough facilities to deal with high-risk pregnancies. There are no restrictions on what fertility treatments or drugs can be given, and Egypt does little enforcement of pharmaceutical purity or standards.
Facilities for the septuplets' birth were poor. The Health Ministry sent incubators that were not sterile, there were not enough for all seven babies and there was no air conditioning in the operating room.
"There are just no rules or protocols for doctors to follow in this country," said Meleis. "Laws will be passed and they are not followed or implemented. No one had any idea what to do when it came to Ghazala's births — it sort of all just happened."
Sallam said he hoped the case would make doctors realize that "women can actually get pregnant with seven, eight or nine babies" and would open the way to discussion of fetal reduction.
"We need to tell people that it is safe and that it is OK religiously," he said.
Khamis, meanwhile, is pleading for help for her family. The Health Ministry has pledged milk and diapers for two years, but Khamis says what she really needs is an apartment in Alexandria to be closer to doctors.
In line with some Egyptian traditions, each of the septuplets was given a name on their birth certificates, then a second "nickname." The children were nicknamed after Mubarak and his family — in hopes of winning government help for the children, the mother's brother, Khamis Khamis said.
Surrounded by family in her sweltering room, a cockroach crawling on the ceiling above her head, Khamis raised her head from a pillow when news came that her husband had named the babies.
"They should have asked me first," she said after hearing the names. "I wanted one to be called Abdel-Rahim," after her doctor.
18 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: none
 | Egypt septuplets stir debate on fertility drugs | Associated Press | Tue Aug 26 | 1 |
- Public Discussion (165)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
3.5
2.0
0.4
{"commentId":2600424,"authorDomain":"cswelter"}
Why are you people thinking the world is overpopulated. Population works in a logistic fashion, meaning the population will so taper off. Now this woman felt an unconditional pressure to have a boy. Sad but true. I understand why she did it. She didn't know the science behind but the doctor did. Giving her 5 injections was plain irresponsible. If she doesn't her girls, I'm there are plenty of families who will.
{"commentId":2600424,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"cswelter"}
#51 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:45 PM EDT{"commentId":2600498,"authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
Well, because we are using up it's natural resources at an alarming rate? Or because there are millions of children who go to bed hungry every night? Or maybe it is because even Egypt's leaders recognize the growing population problem of their country? (see article)
Organisms that use up an areas resources without replenishing and then move on to the next area are not so much "stewards" of the earth as they are "viruses."
{"commentId":2600498,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
{"commentId":2600448,"authorDomain":"txchick"}
No US doctor would allow this. Its actually a total fluke. There needs to be guidelines set in their country like there is in ours. After 3 children she has proven fertility, she would of probably responded well to the most basic drug Clomid thus resulting in probably one child. It easily could of been a boy or a girl.
{"commentId":2600448,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"txchick"}
- 1 vote
#52 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:47 PM EDT{"commentId":2602042,"authorDomain":"eightbitgirl"}
Actually, a US doctor did allow this, and that is how the Gosselin sextuplets were conceived. Look it up, the mom went in for overstimulated ovaries, her original doctor said no way to fertility drugs.. so she went to another doctor. Some doctors are all about the money, don't kid yourself.
At least the Duggars did things the good old-fashioned way.
{"commentId":2602042,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"eightbitgirl"}
{"commentId":2600478,"authorDomain":"txchick"}
Please don't tell those who can't have children to "just adopt." MUCH easier said than done. I, personally don't want to go through all the red tape. You can call me selfish or whatever, but I can't imagine getting a child and being told the mother decided to keep it or I had to give him or her back to a crackwhore. This happens ALL the time. You marry your spouse to have children with them. We should all be given that right without being criticized. Infertility problems are not "flawed DNA."
{"commentId":2600478,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"txchick"}
- 1 vote
#53 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:51 PM EDT{"commentId":2600609,"authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
I am not critizing.. I am merely pointing out that your desire to procreate is a desire.. not a need.
And one could also say that they refuse to lock their car doors because people breaking into locked cars happens ALL THE TIME. But it will be your own damned fault when your car gets broken into. lol
In fact, if you look at the statistics, adoptions procede as planned in a great majority of the cases. If that "crackwhore" thing was so widespread, there would not have been enough interest to make a movie about it. lol It does not happen ALL the time.. if fact, it rarely happens.
You absolutely have the right to act on your own desire to procreate. I don't see anyone telling you otherwise. But given the expense of actually raising a child to 18, the cost of fertility treatments or adoption is only a drop in the bucket. And if you cannot afford those, then perhaps it is not financially ideal for you to raise a child.
If more people who could not afford children would stop having them, we wouldnt have all these unwanted children to begin with.
{"commentId":2600609,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
{"commentId":2600487,"authorDomain":"almwdj"}
My Thoughts: have you adopted? Why is it up to infertile couples to take over the kids of fertile couples? Maybe the fertile couples should be adopting all the kids in foster care. If we say the US should take care of US problems, and the Egyptians should take care of Egyptians, then the fertile couples should take care of other fertile couples' unwanted kids instead of telling infertile couples to not have procedures that will give them their own children. I agree with the earlier poster, if you say infertile couples shouldn't use any medical procedures to have children, then it should be applied to all aspects of medical care. No cancer treatments for those with cancer, no glasses for those with near-sightedness, no operations for those with cleft palates or club feet. And BTW, I have two children - and I didn't need any fertility treatments to get pregnant.
{"commentId":2600487,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"almwdj"}
- 2 votes
#54 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:52 PM EDT{"commentId":2600499,"authorDomain":"mommaeve1"}
The stupidity and total disregard for human conditions are appalling. A family has 3 daughters but are considered to be childless? They cannot feed or house, much less educate, the 3 they have but want to keep spewing out more unwanted children until they get some hypothetically important male? Even in the Dark Ages, a daughter was considered a human being! But in the 21 Century, a mere penis is, in some backwards countries, considered more important than the lives of millions of girl children. How horrifyingly BARBARIC!!! These countries do not deserve any help from the rest of the world until their leaders are educated in logic, biology, sociology and Humanity!!!
{"commentId":2600499,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"mommaeve1"}
#55 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:53 PM EDT{"commentId":2607285,"authorDomain":"Dijana17"}
I agree with you COMPLETELY !
Its ridiculous how sexist some people STILL are,
and the whole mass of a country sharing the same ignorant belief?
{"commentId":2607285,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"Dijana17"}
{"commentId":2600519,"authorDomain":"josieluvsu"}
Because this is a special family and by "special" I mean that they live below the poverty level, those little ones should be put up for adoption. I know several people that would gladly take those children and give them a life without struggle. I pray for those children, the ones at home and for the parents. What will probably happen is someone or some organization from the states will donate to them to help them. Which is fine and all but one thing I can't get over is when a family here in the states has multiples, how everything seems to be donated to them. Mini Vans, College Funds, Houses, Diapers for the next 3 years, etc...What is the difference with a family that has 6 babies at once or 6 babies a year or two apart. No one is helping those families. My personal opinion is that if you choose to have multiple babies, than it's your responsibility to take care of them. You wanted that many kids, find a way to make it work. You're dealing with lives here. And, as for the doctor...they probably just wanted their name in the paper so that other people from around the world would come to them for help. It really is a disgrace.
{"commentId":2600519,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"josieluvsu"}
- 1 vote
#56 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:55 PM EDT{"commentId":2600520,"authorDomain":"dvandervort384"}
She wasn't implanted with fertilized eggs. She was given drugs to stimulate egg production and overly ovulated. My Lord! A two room mud hut??? Maybe they could let some nice families adopt some of the kids and give them a decent place to live.
{"commentId":2600520,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"dvandervort384"}
- 1 vote
#57 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:55 PM EDT{"commentId":2600537,"authorDomain":"mommaeve1"}
Then she should have her tubes tied!
{"commentId":2600537,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"mommaeve1"}
#58 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:57 PM EDT{"commentId":2600538,"authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
Not having a child will not kill you.. cancer will. So, that analogy is fatally flawed.
And yes.. I have one adopted child. And three that are not. I make no apologies for giving birth.. It was a truly selfish act on my part.. But at least I am not trying to fool others into believing it is NOT a self-centered thing to do.
And as for the other ridiculous thing about who should be taken care of who's kids... I was unaware that "fertile" was a nationality.
{"commentId":2600538,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
#59 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:57 PM EDT{"commentId":2600566,"authorDomain":"josieluvsu"}
I love Maeve-453755! She rocks!
{"commentId":2600566,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"josieluvsu"}
#60 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:01 PM EDT{"commentId":2600581,"authorDomain":"txchick"}
No, really its not a flawed analogy as the diagnosis of infertility is JUST as devestating as the diagnosis of cancer. No, having a child of your own is NOT selfish. To me thats a flawed way of thinking.
{"commentId":2600581,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"txchick"}
#61 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:02 PM EDT{"commentId":2600635,"authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
Physically speaking, it is not. Cancer kills you.. infertility does not. Surely you can look past your personal bias to see that?
And having a child IS selfish.. a selfish act I committed myself 3 times. :D Having a child does not benefit society as a whole... only the parents of said child. Raising a child is different.. THAT is not selfish because it benefits the child as well as the society in which the child belongs. But you can raise a child without creating one.
Of course you would think I was "flawed" in that thinking. Because you are speaking from emotion rather than logic. But if you think logically for a moment, you will understand.
{"commentId":2600635,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
{"commentId":2601608,"authorDomain":"joyis1nchrist"}
I had the diagnosis of infertility and the diagnosis of cancer. I agree that not being able to have a child was more emotionally devastating. Nevertheless, today I am glad that God in His wisdom did not open my womb despite all the doctor's efforts. Today, I also know that a lot of mental anguish is caused by self-centered fear, greed, low-self esteem, grandiosity and on and on. Self-pity hurts tremendously and can kill you through the stress that leads to a heart attack or through the despair that leads to suicide. In short getting out of one's self and helping others is often a cure for mental pain.
I too found that adoption was beyond our means. We were told at ages 28 and 32 that we were too old, too fat and too poor. We didn't get into foster care in the legal sense but took in children all the rest of our young married lives. I have 5 godsons and countless "children" through my reaching out to others. I have had a rich and fulfilling life despite both the infertility and cancer! txgirl you can too.
{"commentId":2601608,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"joyis1nchrist"}
{"commentId":2600588,"authorDomain":"txchick"}
Amy-378398.. LOVE your comment!!!!
{"commentId":2600588,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"txchick"}
#62 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:03 PM EDT{"commentId":2600648,"authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
Regardless of the fact it doesnt make sense? lol
{"commentId":2600648,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
{"commentId":2600698,"authorDomain":"dave45"}
Fetal reduction should not be an option when couples choose to undergo fertility treatments, and couples should certainly never be pressured into making that choice. Every life is precious, whether it was conceived naturally or with medical help, and when people decide to undergo fertility treatment they should realize that there is the risk of conceiving more than one child. In this specific case I feel like it was unfortunate that these children were born into such extreme poverty, but I also think that each one was born for a purpose and should not have been "reduced" just because the doctors underestimated what the medication would do. I am glad the parents decided to stand their ground under pressure. The doctor said he had "done several reductions and had never had a case where he lost all of the fetuses", but that isn't the issue. Killing babies is wrong no matter what the circumstances are. It is especially horrible to think that the parents would be taking a life that they had specifically hoped to create.
{"commentId":2600698,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"dave45"}
- 2 votes
#63 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:16 PM EDT{"commentId":2601341,"authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
Killing babies is wrong no matter what the circumstances are. It is especially horrible to think that the parents would be taking a life that they had specifically hoped to create.
Right... they should be allowed to be born so they can suffer the painful death of starvation with the rest of their siblings. /sarcasm
{"commentId":2601341,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
{"commentId":2601676,"authorDomain":"sharatch"}
Its NOT killing a baby if a pregnancy is terminated in the womb, no matter how large a bullhorn the anti-choice wackos use to propogate their nonsense.
{"commentId":2601676,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"sharatch"}
{"commentId":2607516,"authorDomain":"countrygirl1971"}
You state that killing babies is wrong with alot of passion. How do you feel about killing adults because they are from another country/race/religion and don't think that foreign occupation of their country should be tolerated?
{"commentId":2607516,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"countrygirl1971"}
{"commentId":2615135,"authorDomain":"dave45"}
My Thoughts, at twelve weeks the baby has all of the nerves necessary to feel the pain of being aborted and I think having one's arms, legs, and head ripped off and then vacuumed out of a mother's body would probably be just as bad if not worse than starving to death, which is not a guarantee for these children.
Sharat, location doesn't matter when you take a life. A baby's first heartbeats begin at five weeks into the pregnancy and by week eleven nearly all structures and organs are formed and beginning to function. That sounds very much like a life to me.
LW, I feel that innocent children don't have the capabilities to defend themselves that adults do. I did not say that I feel that it is okay to kill anyone just because they have a different religion or race than me or because they are from a different country. I don't understand how your question pertains to abortion.
{"commentId":2615135,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"dave45"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2600715,"authorDomain":"chang14000"}
My Thoughts, quit lecturing other people about adoption. I'd be willing to bet anything you haven't adopted any children yourself. Start practicing what you preach! If you are so unselfish and so concerned about those third world orphans, then go out and adopt some yourself.
{"commentId":2600715,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"chang14000"}
- 1 vote
#64 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:17 PM EDT{"commentId":2601117,"authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
I'd be willing to bet anything you haven't adopted any children yourself.
Proof that you have not read the entire seed.
{"commentId":2601117,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
{"commentId":2600783,"authorDomain":"ladyfernm"}
This whole article disgusted me. To give fertility treatments to a couple with three children who live in a two room mud hut is bad enough. But then to find out that the Egyption government subsidizes these treatments when they don't even have the resources or facilities to provide proper medical care to all these babies is the worst part of all.
Then to say that as a result of these treatments, "fetal reduction" (read: killing live babies that they brought into existence in the first place) is morally and religiosly OK is just so so wrong. Their priorities are exactly backward! The decisions that were made by the supposedly intelligent and educated doctors and government officials that led to this mess only go to show exactly why Egypt is in for some serious trouble.
Lastly, being poor is not a crime. Having children is not a crime. But the minute you make the decision to purposly have children you would not otherwise be able to conceive without fertility treatments, you no longer have a right to appeal to the government for handouts. You wanted children, now you got them. Pay for your own diapers and milk!
{"commentId":2600783,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"ladyfernm"}
- 3 votes
#65 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:23 PM EDT{"commentId":2601166,"authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
But the minute you make the decision to purposly have children you would not otherwise be able to conceive without fertility treatments, you no longer have a right to appeal to the government for handouts.
:::thunderous applause:::: :-P
{"commentId":2601166,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2601637,"authorDomain":"suerodriguez1976"}
i completely agree with you. It seems that no one is benefiting from this fiasco.
{"commentId":2601637,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"suerodriguez1976"}
{"commentId":2608267,"authorDomain":"chang14000"}
People who pursue fertility treatments are probably the LAST people in the world to be seeking welfare or government handouts. Most people who can afford IUI and IVF, are well able to afford to support the resulting children. They are older, have good jobs, health insurance and money in the bank. Its the poor, jobless and uninsured, who are cranking out babies right and left - they are the ones seeking government handouts. Not wealthy people who can afford 3 or 4 rounds of in vitro. You really do lack intelligence. I am not saying that to be rude, either. I am serious.
{"commentId":2608267,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"chang14000"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2660955,"authorDomain":"justiceisserviced"}
fern you are right!
{"commentId":2660955,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"justiceisserviced"}
{"commentId":2601015,"authorDomain":"lengefeld"}
My gosh, have none of you angry and bitter people anything better to do with your time than be judgmental about something that is totally not your business and has nothing to do with you? Get a life! Yes, how unfortunate that things will probably be a lot worse for this family. Just thank God that it's not you. That goes for you atheists out there too!
{"commentId":2601015,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"lengefeld"}
#66 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:41 PM EDT{"commentId":2601137,"authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
Just thank God that it's not you.
I don't have to thank God it isn't me... I would have never been that irresponsible whether God told me to or not. lol
{"commentId":2601137,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
{"commentId":2601226,"authorDomain":"MaryM"}
Actually, catwmn, all of us do have access to medical care -- but with conditions, as I said earlier. If we don't want to pay the huge premiums for health insurance (nearly two-thirds of my monthly income, actually) we have to be willing to humiliate ourselves in a number of ways, but we can still get care. I, for example, go to a university medical center and get a very substantial discount because of my low income. The balance that I owe is budgeted in relatively small payments.
It is also a matter of priorities. If a family feels that they need two cars -- and payments -- and most of the latest gadgets purchased with charge cards, and more house than they actually need, well, then, they probably can't afford health insurance. Also, one reason health insurance is so expensive is the ridiculously high payouts for lawsuits. No, the payments don't come directly out of the insurer's pocket, but there is still impact because the cost of health care goes up because the doctor's malpractice insurance goes up and so on. Gone are the days when a doc could treat a patient for ten bucks and make a profit. The poor things have to cover their butts by ordering expensive tests instead of going on their experience and instinct so we all end up paying more. We still have extremely good medical care, if not the best in the world. It isn't free, by any means, but it is good and it can be accessed if we are willing to jump through the proper hoops.
Sharat, I can't say I'm not an atheist myself. By "God," I mean the governing force of the universe whether we think of it as a personage, the laws of science or the innate intelligence of all matter and energy. Frankly, I can't even imagine a God that would require one group of His children to kill another group. I think there has been a bit of misinterpretation somewhere along the way. I also can't imagine a God that requires a certain manner of dress or dictates what to eat and drink or forbids dancing or singing -- and I could go on and on.
Anyway, the only reason we women allow men to hold sway over us is because it is so convenient to have them do the breadwinning and worrying while we take care of the home and kids -- not that that goes on much in this country anymore. At least my daughters made every possible effort to live within their husbands' means so they could be stay at home moms. It requires sacrifice, but they have done remarkably well and I'm extremely proud of them.
Oh, and about Egyptians not being willing to help us if we needed it -- in what way do we need it when compared with their needs? Several years ago a family from Egypt lived next door to me for several months while the husband attended school. They would have done anything for us with no reservations. They often brought food for us to try, though they rarely ate what I gave them because it couldn't be eaten with fingers, for the most part -- and possibly because they weren't sure I knew their dietary restrictions. No, I never, ever tried to feed them pork! Their kids spent a lot of time at my place and my youngest daughter spent a lot of time at their place. It was a great experience.
Isn't a mud hut essentially the same thing as an adobe house? Very practical in an arid climate, ecologically friendly and inexpensive. It's a matter of what we choose to call it, perhaps. It would be nice if they could add a couple more rooms though. It will only be labor, no real cost otherwise.
{"commentId":2601226,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"MaryM"}
#67 - Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:56 PM EDT{"commentId":2601410,"authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
Have enjoyed chatting with you all. While I may not agree with everything said, please know that I do respect your opinions.
Have a nice evening, all and I do hope to run into y9ou again on the Vine. :-)
{"commentId":2601410,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"cjeralds0"}
#68 - Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:09 AM EDT{"commentId":2601465,"authorDomain":"suerodriguez1976"}
my thoughts. you have a sick and twisted way of expressing yourself. Wanting to have your own child is selfish? You are sick and need some help.
txgirl. i wish you all the best. I hope to God that you can one day give birth. You sound like you would be a great parent since you want a baby so badly. I also hope that if adoption is your only hope, that it comes through for you.
I have two children of my own and am hoping to adopt in a couple of years. I neither consider myself selfish or saving the world.
Egypt needs to rethink this whole giving fertility drugs to couples who already have children. Especially if the parents are poor.
{"commentId":2601465,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"suerodriguez1976"}
- 1 vote
#69 - Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:14 AM EDT{"commentId":2601726,"authorDomain":"joyis1nchrist"}
My Thoughts stayed pretty cool and logical, it seems to me.
God allows humans to pretty much do as they choose. Ever heard of the freedom of the will? In this case the humans in Egypt tampered with life in a disastrous way.
I agree with the others that all human life is sacred and none should be reduced (read: killed) just for selfishness. And this was certainly a selfish act all the way around: 1. On the part of a culture that hold men to be better than women. 2. On the part of a husband who wanted a son. 3. On the part of a woman who wanted to please her husband. 4. On the part of doctors who wanted the fame. 5. On the part of news people who wanted a story. 6. On the part of all of us on this board who just want to talk about anything to while away the hours of our boring lives. (I didn't originate this last though. Voltaire is reputed to have said that most men live lives of quiet desparation.)
Some people have children only because they have sex. Some people have sex to have children. Some people selfishly want children. Congratulations on your 2 children. I do hope you are also able to adopt soon. One person at a time is the only way to "save" the world.
{"commentId":2601726,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"joyis1nchrist"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2602836,"authorDomain":"Bev-33071"}
So it is better to risk the lives and future well-being of all of the babies and the mother, rather than reduce the pregnancy down to a healthy number of embryos who are likely to be born full term and without any physical or mental problems.
Interesting logic.
{"commentId":2602836,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"Bev-33071"}
{"commentId":2601785,"authorDomain":"lornapeterson3"}
A huge problem for all humans -all over the planet and in EVERY country , including the
US and Europe ..... is OVERPOPULATION !!! Affecting environment, food supply, traffic, crowding, sprawl, crime,
quality of education, health care etc etc etc.
Sooo why would any sane person in any country, encourage a drug that would explode an already
exploding world population and increase all of our human problems--worldwide??????
Of course the DRUG Companies want to keep making money on selling their drugs (with no concern of the global effect) and the medical personnel make big bucks as well.
If you live anywhere in the world and can't NATURALLY have children, then it was'nt meant to be.
Those are the cards you were handed. WE don't need folks making a greater population explostion
than we already have!! We have already fished out all the seas and destroyed most of our planets
natural habitat. IN ten years what will the world population be? Do these couples obsessed with
their own selfish desires to procreate even know the statistics? What quality of life can a child enjoy in an overcrowded , depleted etc etc planet??? If they want children so bad they can adopt, like I
have, or help other needy children everywhere. There are plenty of children out there NOW needing
attention from kind , thoughtful folks.
overcrowed planet.
{"commentId":2601785,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"lornapeterson3"}
#70 - Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:43 AM EDT{"commentId":2602735,"authorDomain":"Bev-33071"}
I think what happened to this family in Egypt is tragic. This family can't afford the three children they have - 7 more will overwhelm them. Her doctor should have done a better job of explaining the potential complications of having 9 babies vs having a reduction. She is very fortunate that she was able to carry those babies for 34 weeks and that she and all the babies lived. The fact that she did this so that she could have a son makes it all the more tragic. I pity them. Medical science has done them an enormous disservice.
Infertility treatments and IVF are fine for people who don't have any children and can afford to raise the children. My sister had two children via IVF - she and her husband paid for all of it - about 50K. It turns out that a lot of the women in our family went through menopause early - who knew? Even at 33 she had "low ovarian reserve" and she'll be fully menopausal in her early 40's. Not everyone can have babies into their mid thirties and early forties.
In this day and age, I think having more than 2 or 3 biological children is pretty selfish. I grew up in a family of 4 and that's really a lot of children for one mother to take care well and if my mother had been working, it would have been extremely difficult. There are 6.6 billion people on this planet - the human population has doubled since 1960. Replace yourself and your spouse - but don't add to the to the planet's human burden. We've destroyed enough of it - we need to slow down before its too late. If people want big families they should adopt older children - people seem to only want infants or toddlers - there are plenty of older children who need families - they're just not blank slates.
As a taxpayer who doesn't have children - I have to say it bothers me that my tax dollars have to finance the public educations and services of people who chose to have 10 kids instead of 2 or 3. My insurance premiums also have to cover the costs of extra large biological families because they don't get charged per kid. I have no problem paying in for the average family - but the king sized ones - no thanks. Maybe it's time that the government established a maximum number of biological children that can be deducted on tax returns or get free public school educations. And insurance started charging extra premium per child. They need to something to discourage people - it's just that most ways would hurt the kids more than the parents. There's got to be something they can do. And that's for the working families. I'm not even going to address the non-working families.
As far as that family in Iowa goes. I would love to know how much the pregnancy and all of the health care costs that those babies required after birth, as well as any special care they required as a result of their prematurity growing up were. I'll bet the hospital bills for the babies were probably in the millions. That was probably paid for by a health insurance company - who collects their premiums from employers and their employees like you and me. And raises the premiums when the expenses go up. I remember that her doctors suggested that she have a reduction and she refused on religious grounds. She could have had very tragic outcomes with that decision - she was very lucky.
For the people who bring God into the infertility issue. I would think for you people interfering with procreation would be quite problematic on all levels. After all if God meant for a man or woman to have children he would bless him or her with them - wouldn't he? And one should accept God's will and plan. And how do you feel about unused fertilized eggs in the IVF process - are they human? They could all be implanted and become people, in theory. What about when they are frozen? I would think that this interfering with God's work from the fundamentalist's perspective would all be viewed as wrong. And if you risk getting pregnant with 9 babies on purpose - that's almost comitting suicide - isn't it?
{"commentId":2602735,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"Bev-33071"}
#71 - Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:46 AM EDT{"commentId":2603965,"authorDomain":"stt105"}
Very frustrating when these stories are reported on and don't include a way for people to help.
{"commentId":2603965,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"stt105"}
#72 - Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:20 AM EDT{"commentId":2604028,"authorDomain":"killzum"}
"We live in a mud hut with only two rooms. I don't know how we're going to afford 10 children now."
People like this are just a burden on developing countries and unfortunately, the ones who will suffer the most are their children. They should be offering sterilization programs for money so they can afford to take care of the children they do have instead of handing out fertility drugs like candy to increase the problem.
{"commentId":2604028,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"killzum"}
#73 - Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:29 AM EDT{"commentId":2604038,"authorDomain":"killzum"}
"We live in a mud hut with only two rooms. I don't know how we're going to afford 10 children now."
People like this are just a burden on developing countries and unfortunately, the ones who will suffer the most are their children. They should be offering sterilization programs for money so they can afford to take care of the children they do have instead of handing out fertility drugs like candy to increase the problem.
{"commentId":2604038,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"killzum"}
#74 - Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:30 AM EDT{"commentId":2604587,"authorDomain":"sleeplessinoregon"}
What most of you have failed to notice is that the poor older girls may not get enough to eat or be cared for properly BECAUSE the parents now have their BOYS and all food may go to feed THE BOYS. Those older girls may be sent to work earlier because they need to support their BROTHERS. I read nothing in the article about either parent saying that the love their older children. That my friends is the real tragedy.
{"commentId":2604587,"threadId":"340485","contentId":"1788480","authorDomain":"sleeplessinoregon"}
- 1 vote
#75 - Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:25 AM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"340485","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
