WWYD if you had sextuplets? - Page 5

[Ruthla]

disclaimer: I've only read the OP, not the 77 replies since then.

If I conceived sextuplets, quintuplets, or quadruplets, I would have selective reduction. I simply would NOT continue a pg with 6 babies. I would reduce to 1 or 2 babies- the number would depend on medical factors and lots of talking with my drs.

I have 2 arms and 2 breasts so could hold and nurse 2 babies at once, have one on either side of me in bed, etc. I did this with my older 2 girls, born only 16m apart. Babywearing meant pushing the double stroller with the sling in the diaper bag, and wearing whichever baby needed it the most at the time.

I don't know what I would do if I conceived triplets. Whether or not I reduced the pg would depend on my health and their health. If I birthed 3, I'd provide them with as much breastmilk as possible, but wouldn't be too upset if I needed to supplement with formula. I'd probably need to make a lot of compromises in terms of "green living" and I'd probably have to be more structured in terms of daily schedules than I was with one newborn at a time.

[ZanZansMommy]

Originally Posted by Elowyn

Just for the record, it's not IVF that produces sextuplets. IVF transfers back 2-3 embryos the vast majority of the time (occasionally four in an "older" woman with many failures.) Never six

Not True. This so depends on where you have your IVF done, how old you are, what your embryos look like & what cycle # you are on. An RE working with someone on cycle #1 would probably only transfer 2, but of course it depends on the persons age & also what the embryos look like.

Originally Posted by Starr

Again, you do NOT implant (IVF) six embryos, IVF does not lead to high numbers. If your going to go down that road, questioning fertility treatments, please try to get things straight.

Sorry if I appear bitchy but we are starting fertility treatments and you can not imagine the number of people that tell me, just don't implant 6 babies. Thats not how it works...

Well IVF implants nothing. The RE *transfers* the embryos into your uterus & only the embryo can implant itself. If RE's could implant them, then everyone undergoing IVF would technically be pregnant. Doesn't happen that way. And some of us after yrs of IF have had 6-8 embryos transferred to improve our chances of having even one baby. In my last cycle (which happened to be my 5th & I was 34 at the time) the RE transferred 6 embryos. I ended up PG with a singleton. I did let my RE know that selective reduction was not something I'd shy away from should I end up pg with more than 3. Luckily I didn't have to make that decision. But it was my decision & my RE supported me & we transferred 6 embryos.

[Sonnenwende]

Have to also agree with the people who would selectively reduce. No thanks.

[Mama2J]

Wow interesting thing to think about! Makes me tired, I'm busy enough now!

Well, this is completely hypothetical for me, as I don't ever see it happening. As many of the others have said, I would practice AP the best I could.

I like the co-sleeping idea of putting them 3 to a crib, and when one wakes bring that one into bed to nurse. I also like the idea of using two beds together so they could all co-sleep with me, but I don't realistically think they would all sleep at the same time and would be constantly waking each other up.

For breastfeeding, I would bf as much as I could, get donated breastmilk if possible, and supplement with formula. I like routines/schedules now, so I would probably do that as they got older, but I know it's really not possible when they are tiny.

I would have a couple of slings, and wear one at a time when we go out, and have the rest in a stroller. If another adult was with me, we could wear two.

[Smokering]

As someone else already said, almost all HOM are IUI or fertility drugs with sex, not IVF. Also I just wanted to say (just FYI - not to be snarky) that unless you are also infertile (and your kids are all adopted) it IS offensive to say you don't 'believe' in IVF. It would be like a healthy person telling a cancer patient they don't "BELIEVE" in chemo or radiation and that they should just accept their diagnosis.

I mean, how can you not 'believe' in it? Suffering women and men desperate to have the ONE thing that even crack addicts and child abusers can easily obtain. DO you know what it's like to walk into a TARGET (or a million other places) and see baby bucket isle after isle and pregnant bellies at every turn? It's like a nightmare. To have doctors out there willing to HELP you have a child ... how can you "NOT BELIEVE" in that? Maybe you could help me understand how someone could "not believe in IVF"?

JavaFinch: I'm sorry, but this is not a good argument. It implies, rather offensively, that people who are anti-IVF are only anti-IVF because they can 'afford to be'--with the implication that if the issue affected them personally, they'd change their minds. This is simply not true--most people are anti-IVF for moral/ethical reasons, which are independent of personal circumstance.

By using the logic of your argument, one could argue that people shouldn't be 'anti'-anything until they'd been in the position of wanting/needing to do that thing. Are you prepared to say 'You can't possibly condemn stealing until you've been starving'? Okay, how about 'You can't condemn rapists until you know just how much they want to rape'? Or 'You've never really, really wanted to murder someone, so you shouldn't judge murderers'? Or 'You can't possibly be anti-circ, you haven't had a boy yet and had to deal with the comments'.

It is, in fact, offensive to assume that other posters are morally guided by what is convenient to them. There are many infertile couples who experience intense longing for their own children, yet refuse to go the IVF route because of personal beliefs.

[Jessy1019]

Originally Posted by Smokering

JavaFinch: I'm sorry, but this is not a good argument. It implies, rather offensively, that people who are anti-IVF are only anti-IVF because they can 'afford to be'--with the implication that if the issue affected them personally, they'd change their minds. This is simply not true--most people are anti-IVF for moral/ethical reasons, which are independent of personal circumstance.

By using the logic of your argument, one could argue that people shouldn't be 'anti'-anything until they'd been in the position of wanting/needing to do that thing. Are you prepared to say 'You can't possibly condemn stealing until you've been starving'? Okay, how about 'You can't condemn rapists until you know just how much they want to rape'? Or 'You've never really, really wanted to murder someone, so you shouldn't judge murderers'? Or 'You can't possibly be anti-circ, you haven't had a boy yet and had to deal with the comments'.

It is, in fact, offensive to assume that other posters are morally guided by what is convenient to them. There are many infertile couples who experience intense longing for their own children, yet refuse to go the IVF route because of personal beliefs.

I agree. I have gotten similar comments for years about an issue I'm passionate about, and it really irks me. I think you put it into words very well -- some things are ethical issues and many (hopefully most) people would not compromise their beliefs out of convenience.

[Brigianna]

Hire a few full-time nannies. I couldn't do 6 by myself or with just dh.

[wannabe]

Originally Posted by ZanZansMommy

Well IVF implants nothing. The RE *transfers* the embryos into your uterus & only the embryo can implant itself. If RE's could implant them, then everyone undergoing IVF would technically be pregnant.

I wish I knew where this RE the media keeps referring to who can implant embryos is, I'd have been there in a shot. Can you imagine being able to control implantation?

But I have to second the person you were responding to - transferring six is pretty much unheard of by 99% of RE with 99% of patients. It's also illegal in most of the world.

[wannabe]

Originally Posted by Smokering

JavaFinch: I'm sorry, but this is not a good argument. It implies, rather offensively, that people who are anti-IVF are only anti-IVF because they can 'afford to be'--with the implication that if the issue affected them personally, they'd change their minds. This is simply not true--most people are anti-IVF for moral/ethical reasons, which are independent of personal circumstance.

By using the logic of your argument, one could argue that people shouldn't be 'anti'-anything until they'd been in the position of wanting/needing to do that thing. Are you prepared to say 'You can't possibly condemn stealing until you've been starving'? Okay, how about 'You can't condemn rapists until you know just how much they want to rape'? Or 'You've never really, really wanted to murder someone, so you shouldn't judge murderers'? Or 'You can't possibly be anti-circ, you haven't had a boy yet and had to deal with the comments'.

It is, in fact, offensive to assume that other posters are morally guided by what is convenient to them. There are many infertile couples who experience intense longing for their own children, yet refuse to go the IVF route because of personal beliefs.

Actually, Smokering, most people who say they'll never do IVF say that because they think it reeks of desperation, or they don't want the drugs, or they think you need to create more than one embryo, or destroy embryos etc, etc. I'd say a good 50% of people on IVF message boards were once sure that IVF wasn't for them.

[kaylee18]

There seems to be a lack of awareness here of the danger of selective reduction. Selective reduction does not increase the chance of survival or health for the remaining babies, because it increases the chance of premature labor and subsequent stillbirth or prematurity, as well as placental abruption and intrauterine infection, for the remaining babies. It's not this altruistic, gotta-save-the-ones-we-can procedure.

It's something that fertility specialists have a conflict of interest about, because they are counted as failing if their patients give birth to higher-order multiples and succeeding if their patients have singletons or twins. Their career will suffer if their "success rate" goes down. Which means they literally get paid more for every patient that has a selective reduction.

Conversely, there seems to be a lack of awareness here of the advances that have been made in caring for HOM gestations so that the children end up healthy. HOMs have a higher risk of cerebral palsy, but no higher than the CP risk of survivors of selective reduction. Excellent nutrition, cerclage, prevention of premature labor, and bedrest have dramatically increased these babies' chances of being born uninjured.

And sextuplets are not "safer out than in" at 33 weeks. Rather, for some there comes a point after 30 weeks where the mother is just done, or where premature labor cannot be stopped. At this point the chance of survival for all the babies is high, so the section is performed. For those who are able to gestate longer, the babies' chances do improve the closer they get to 40 weeks inside.

The severe risks that have been associated with HOMs in the past were mainly the risks of prematurity. Prevent the prematurity, and you prevent the injury, just as with a singleton. There is no injury caused by "squeezing as the uterus expands," for heaven's sake.

Ditto to the previous posters who stated that IVF involves transfer, and implantation occurs afterwards if the patient is lucky. Also that HOMs are usually the result of fertility treatments other than IVF.

[JavaFinch]

Sorry to do this again - deleting post. I just need to leave this thread - it's too upsetting to me.

[NinaBruja]

so im thinking... you could totally have sextuplets vaginally right?
what are the birth options there?
at what week would out of hospital birth be an option?

gee i guess i would be that crazy woman on that website who fought to ubac her sextuplets

oh and.... where would you buy your clothes? would a 5'3 woman even be able to walk around at the end?

[NinaBruja]

oh and id have a placenta dinner party because i cant eat that much placenta...

[CookieMonsterMommy]

Originally Posted by poxybat

so im thinking... you could totally have sextuplets vaginally right?

I wouldn't....I'd be worried about the placenta separating before the other babies were done using it. Or cord accidents with all those cords.

Then again-like I said, I wouldn't have sextuplets.

[Softmama]

Originally Posted by poxybat

oh and.... where would you buy your clothes? would a 5'3 woman even be able to walk around at the end?

I'm thinking by the end I would just go nude
probably not getting out much anyway!

[Needle in the Hay]

I don't know what I would do if I was expecting that many! Since I'm not morally opposed to reduction I am sure I would consider that. I'm not sure we could handle more than 2 or 3. I would never think people should do that though if they prefer to have them all.

I really can't believe how cruel and insensitive people are about infertility. : Isn't it enough that you can conceive and carry babies? Do you really need to post your opinions that are sure to hurt others who are already in a lot of pain about this? : Oh and thanks for comparing undergoing fertility treatments to raping and murdering. :

[GuildJenn]

Originally Posted by wannabe

Actually, Smokering, most people who say they'll never do IVF say that because they think it reeks of desperation, or they don't want the drugs, or they think you need to create more than one embryo, or destroy embryos etc, etc. I'd say a good 50% of people on IVF message boards were once sure that IVF wasn't for them.

Okay, but those are the people on the message boards right?

I totally am fine with people choosing IVF, just wanted to put that out there at the start. I'll even pay for it via my tax dollars. I'm not morally opposed to SR for others either.

But we were a couple that decided not to do IVF during 7+ years of infertility struggles. It wasn't because fear of desperation, or not wanting the drugs, or being confused about IVF; we were very well educated about it and have a RE in the family.

We decided not to pursue ART at all. We perceived that there were other ways of building a family if we wanted to pursue them. I think I can best express it as FOR US we saw it as a spiritual call to open our lives in other ways; in our case at that time, to take on some responsibility for extended family members who needed that love.

That was intensely personal, but I do object to having my reasons characterized in the way you did above.

[Smokering]

I really can't believe how cruel and insensitive people are about infertility. Isn't it enough that you can conceive and carry babies? Do you really need to post your opinions that are sure to hurt others who are already in a lot of pain about this? Oh and thanks for comparing undergoing fertility treatments to raping and murdering.

Uh... I think you need to read my post again, as you are clearly missing the point. My intention is not to wound, but simply to point out that an argument given in this thread was logically flawed. Just because an issue is emotional does not mean that sloppy thinking which leads to offensive conclusions is OK. And as far as 'comparing undergoing fertility treatments to raping and murdering', again--you need to reread my post. Please don't mischaracterise what I wrote.

[wannabe]

Smokering, I wasn't saying anything about your specific reasons, but the reasons and concerns that people have who reach the IVF point and have questions. I could morally never participate in adoption, and I don't find your objections to IVF upsetting, because I'm certain of the morality of it.

Originally Posted by poxybat

so im thinking... you could totally have sextuplets vaginally right?
what are the birth options there?
at what week would out of hospital birth be an option?

gee i guess i would be that crazy woman on that website who fought to ubac her sextuplets

oh and.... where would you buy your clothes? would a 5'3 woman even be able to walk around at the end?

No way you'd be allowed to go vaginal. It's not common for docs to be OK with triplets vaginally (and even then everything needs to be perfect).

[JavaFinch]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Uh... I think you need to read my post again, as you are clearly missing the point. My intention is not to wound, but simply to point out that an argument given in this thread was logically flawed. Just because an issue is emotional does not mean that sloppy thinking which leads to offensive conclusions is OK. And as far as 'comparing undergoing fertility treatments to raping and murdering', again--you need to reread my post. Please don't mischaracterise what I wrote.

Oh, BTW, you clearly missed my point, too. I don't like fertile people who have birthed their own children coming down on IVF NOT because I think they would change their mind if in the situation (which, BTW, I'm sure MANY would once they realize a lot of assumptions they had about it were wrong - but of course some wouldn't) - but just that it's MEAN/CRUEL/HEARTLESS for them to even feel the need to entertain such opinions about something that, unlike all the examples you listed (theft, murder, mutilation and rape) HAS NO VICTIM. Who is the victim in IVF?

If you think in IVF embryos are just murdered as a matter of course, you're wrong. I'm not saying in some cases people don't have frozen embryos that get destroyed or 'left-over' embryos that are destroyed instead of being frozen. I can see being opposed to that. That doesn't HAVE to happen, though (and it sure never happened to me). You can freeze your eggs and only use as many as you would transfer. Or only fertilize the eggs you want and toss the rest.

I have lots of opinions, and some I haven't 'been in the position', but like the examples you listed, most of (or all) the things I feel are WRONG are wrong because someone gets hurt. I can't really think of any opinions I have that I would go around saying "I don't believe in" or "I feel strongly that...." that don't HARM others.