Are the outcomes statistically better for twins vs triplets?
What is in the contract regarding selective reduction?
ETA: When does SR usually occur? Did the parents wait to find out the sex to decide to reduce?
I have lots of questions.
The outcome for twins is significantly better than trips. My friend was going to SR at 12 weeks. She could not go through with it. They did not know sex. They would reduce the easiest (safest) one to reach.
Are the outcomes statistically better for twins vs triplets?
What is in the contract regarding selective reduction?
ETA: When does SR usually occur? Did the parents wait to find out the sex to decide to reduce?
I have lots of questions.
The outcome for twins is significantly better than trips. My friend was going to SR at 12 weeks. She could not go through with it. They did not know sex. They would reduce the easiest (safest) one to reach.
And that's what I assumed. I wonder which one is the easiest to get to in this case.
I'm assuming they choose the girl because she's the easiest. I know with identical twins there can be placenta sharing issues and they're usually very close to each other physically so that is probably why one of them wasn't chosen. We're talking about this on my preemie board and one of the women just had a baby via surrogate and said that she and the surrogate had equal rights over all decisions, but I just can't imagine a judge forcing someone to reduce. It's so messy
Post by penguingrrl on Dec 17, 2015 20:06:27 GMT -5
This sounds very sticky. My understanding is that a triplet pregnancy is higher risk than twins by a significant amount. And if the boys are identical twins there may be concerns about being unable to selectively reduce just one without it impacting the other, which is likely why the girl was chosen.
I will be curious to see if the contract holds up. I'm also curious how much of the contract the surrogate read and understood before agreeing to surrogacy if this issue is now coming up.
This sounds very sticky. My understanding is that a triplet pregnancy is higher risk than twins by a significant amount. And if the boys are identical twins there may be concerns about being unable to selectively reduce just one without it impacting the other, which is likely why the girl was chosen.
I will be curious to see if the contract holds up. I'm also curious how much of the contract the surrogate read and understood before agreeing to surrogacy if this issue is now coming up.
This sounds very sticky. My understanding is that a triplet pregnancy is higher risk than twins by a significant amount. And if the boys are identical twins there may be concerns about being unable to selectively reduce just one without it impacting the other, which is likely why the girl was chosen.
I will be curious to see if the contract holds up. I'm also curious how much of the contract the surrogate read and understood before agreeing to surrogacy if this issue is now coming up.
Legally, the last sentence is totally irrelevant.
Oh, I realize that legally that's irrelevant. But are there ethical questions regarding ensuring surrogate mothers understand the contract they sign?
Um, huh. I feel like there should/would ABSOLUTELY be a contractual clause for this kind of situation, because... duh. It's something that comes up. IVF increases the chances of identical twins slightly. I'm also guessing the parents chose to use two embryos in the hope of getting twins and only having to go through surrogacy once. So this situation wasn't totally unpredictable.
I also feel... I don't know. Weird. Like, surrogacy is brought to us by the best advances in modern medicine. And modern medicine and modern legal theory and human rights also allow us to have safe and legal abortion for a variety of reasons. And I feel like the ability to use reproductive technology and the ability to use selective reduction/abortion go hand in hand, much like all of women's reproductive healthcare hinges on the availability of safe and legal abortion. I don't know. This woman's acquiescence to be a gestational carrier seems to go against her avoidance of abortion if abortion is, indeed, a moral issue. There's just a disconnect there, for me. It's hard to explain. I guess I liken it to anti-vaxxers who take advantage of certain modern medical advancements. And also herd immunity.
I do wonder about the exact wording of the contract, how this woman was found, and if a lawyer or someone went through it with her and she agreed, but has now changed her mind.
Post by Velar Fricative on Dec 17, 2015 20:25:58 GMT -5
But does the contract even hold legal muster in California? I thought only a few states recognize surrogacy (although CA could be one of them).
I understand the contract may say certain things but I am having a hard time coming around to the parents dictating that the surrogate get an abortion. One of the reasons I am vehemently pro-choice is because the pregnant woman deserves full bodily autonomy. I guess this is why I grapple with surrogacy in general because while I know it's a way for families to grow if they are battling infertility, I have a hard tome reconciling the rights of the parents versus the rights of the surrogate.
Are the outcomes statistically better for twins vs triplets?
What is in the contract regarding selective reduction?
ETA: When does SR usually occur? Did the parents wait to find out the sex to decide to reduce?
I have lots of questions.
Yes, triplets have a significantly higher risk than twins.There are many more risk factors involved including them being significantly premature. I believe they will not along a mother.to go beyond 33-34 weeks.
Additionally, since the twins are identical they are either mono-di or mono-mono twins which are also much riskier than fraternal twins. If the identical twins are mono mono, I believe there is a 50 percent survival rating. So, I wonder if their choice to reduce has nothing to do with the sex of the baby but that it would be the safest way and only way to proceed in a reduction. I don't think it is possible to reduce one identical twin while leaving the other twin in the womb. But, I could be wrong.
I don't know how I feel about this. The surrogate knows what she is in for and IMO has no right to go against the biological parents whether she agrees with them or not and think it is shitty of her make any decision against the biological parents.
But, I believe surrogates are illegal in the US and/or not recognized by the courts and think the contract won't hold up in court if it goes that far.
I feel like there is much more to this story and who knows if what this lady is claiming is accurate. Unless the biological parents say something I doubt she can back up her claims.
And, she is playing up the martyr and that does not sit right with me.
The outcome for twins is significantly better than trips. My friend was going to SR at 12 weeks. She could not go through with it. They did not know sex. They would reduce the easiest (safest) one to reach.
And that's what I assumed. I wonder which one is the easiest to get to in this case.
It would be the female. Identical twins share either a sac or a placenta and sac and am pretty sure they could never safelyrics reduce identicals.
So the fact this woman is suggesting the reduction is due to the sex makes me not believe a word she is saying. I feel horrible for those parents now.
But does the contract even hold legal muster in California? I thought only a few states recognize surrogacy (although CA could be one of them).
I understand the contract may say certain things but I am having a hard time coming around to the parents dictating that the surrogate get an abortion. One of the reasons I am vehemently pro-choice is because the pregnant woman deserves full bodily autonomy. I guess this is why I grapple with surrogacy in general because while I know it's a way for families to grow if they are battling infertility, I have a hard tome reconciling the rights of the parents versus the rights of the surrogate.
I don't believe CA recognizeso surrogacycle but that doesn't necessarily mean the contract wasn't written a certain way to ensure it would hold up in court.
To your second part, no, I am sorry but the biological parents have the last and only say. She knew what she was getting into and paid a very hefty fee. I am sure they spoke at great lengths prior about every different outcome and if she didn't feel comfortable having an abortion or understanding that she may not like their decisions she should have never agreed. Bottom line.
I don't believe this woman for one second after her making it seem it had to do with the sex when I highly doubt it was Therefore, I don't believe there are no medical reasons for the reduction.
Still, the couple she is carrying the child for claims to be concerned about developmental disabilities:
“I emailed my doctors. There were no abnormalities.”
They can't "scan" for most developmental disabilities. ASD, for instance, doesn't show up on u/s, CVS or amnio.
I know 5 families with trips in which at least one has ASD.
I feel like I am going on a rampage, lol, but what? She emailed the doctor? As judge Judy says, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. I don't believe her.
I Think surrogates must be amazing, selfless women. However, it's my personal feeling that they are only the carrier and any and all decisions related to the pregnancy should be up to the couple or person who will or would be the parent(s) of the baby
Post by imojoebunny on Dec 17, 2015 21:22:12 GMT -5
If I were the surrogate, I would be concerned about my own health. Triplet pregnancy is no joke, and carries a higher risk of everything, including risk to the birthing mother.
I think there is little chance of this woman being made to do anything, contract or not, because there are only a few weeks, where it is feasible. Don't know much about selective reduction, other than it is typically done much earlier, like 9-12 weeks, but by 17 weeks, I would think it gets much riskier.
I have a few friends who have used surrogates for their own biological children, and all of this was spelled out, even things like not leaving the state after a specific time because if the baby is born in another state, they would have to adopt their own biological child. These cases are basically creating case law, in a very painful/expensive way because there is no federal law and the states all vary.
But does the contract even hold legal muster in California? I thought only a few states recognize surrogacy (although CA could be one of them).
I understand the contract may say certain things but I am having a hard time coming around to the parents dictating that the surrogate get an abortion. One of the reasons I am vehemently pro-choice is because the pregnant woman deserves full bodily autonomy. I guess this is why I grapple with surrogacy in general because while I know it's a way for families to grow if they are battling infertility, I have a hard tome reconciling the rights of the parents versus the rights of the surrogate.
I don't believe CA recognizeso surrogacycle but that doesn't necessarily mean the contract wasn't written a certain way to ensure it would hold up in court.
To your second part, no, I am sorry but the biological parents have the last and only say. She knew what she was getting into and paid a very hefty fee. I am sure they spoke at great lengths prior about every different outcome and if she didn't feel comfortable having an abortion or understanding that she may not like their decisions she should have never agreed. Bottom line.
I don't believe this woman for one second after her making it seem it had to do with the sex when I highly doubt it was Therefore, I don't believe there are no medical reasons for the reduction.
I know. I want to say it's cut and dry and that the parents are the parents and they have full say, period. But...I'm still conflicted.
I don't believe CA recognizeso surrogacycle but that doesn't necessarily mean the contract wasn't written a certain way to ensure it would hold up in court.
To your second part, no, I am sorry but the biological parents have the last and only say. She knew what she was getting into and paid a very hefty fee. I am sure they spoke at great lengths prior about every different outcome and if she didn't feel comfortable having an abortion or understanding that she may not like their decisions she should have never agreed. Bottom line.
I don't believe this woman for one second after her making it seem it had to do with the sex when I highly doubt it was Therefore, I don't believe there are no medical reasons for the reduction.
I know. I want to say it's cut and dry and that the parents are the parents and they have full say, period. But...I'm still conflicted.
I'm here too. I mean is a judge going to order that she reduces? Are they going to hold her down or knock her out while that happens?
I know. I want to say it's cut and dry and that the parents are the parents and they have full say, period. But...I'm still conflicted.
I'm here too. I mean is a judge going to order that she reduces? Are they going to hold her down or knock her out while that happens?
I fell like they would have to. But then I also feel like it's like telling your waiter from the start that you don't tip. What's stopping her from engaging on risky behaviour or what have you to endanger the babies to teach the parents a lesson ? I am not saying she would because she seems to like babies and life and all but you never know.
If this site is correct, it leads me to believe that selective reduction was talked about and that, in fact, if they found this surrogate through an agency, that surrogacy agencies actively question surrogates on whether or not they would be willing to selectively reduce for triplets or greater.
:VELAR: ( I am failing at proboards today, lol, but my edit messed up your quote) I understand, but the parents ARE the couples not hers. Legally it may be considered 'hers' only because she is carrying them but as soon as they are born are not hers. You can't forget that this way a conscience, business decision for the surrogate. She is making quite a bit of money off this which is different than someone getting knocked up during a one night stand. It is a shitty situation and I think this probably is one of the only situations I would disagree with a woman's right to choice.