Nicole Seymour Seymour is a fourth-year
American literature and culture student. She loves reruns of
“90210” on FX and hates physical exertion. E-mail
comments to saintblue@hotmail.com.
Three weeks ago, Mariella Mazzara Pirerra of Italy gave birth to
octuplets. One of them died shortly after birth and two others died
within a few days. This is only the most recent in high-profile
multiple-birth stories, such as that of Nkem Chukwu of Texas, who
gave birth to eight babies, seven of whom survived, and the
McCaughey septuplets of Iowa. All three of these women used
fertility drugs to conceive.
It may sound surprising that as an ardent pro-choice feminist, I
would condemn women for making choices regarding their own
fertility, but I find the parents’ actions in these cases to
be careless and unethical.
Using fertility drugs significantly risks the health of both
mother and child and creates multiple complications, all while
circumventing such worthy options as adoption and foster parenting.
And what’s almost as disturbing to me is the glaring lack of
criticism from both the left and the right of the practice of using
fertility drugs.
 Illustration by CASEY CROWE/Daily Bruin Feminists such as
Katha Pollitt have written extensively about the importance of
women being able to do whatever they want with their bodies and
their fertility, arguing against such measures as drug-testing and
incarcerating pregnant addicts because they, as she says,
“privilege the fetus” over women. While these sorts of
reductions of women’s rights are a very dangerous and very
real trend in the law, I find something lacking in Pollitt’s
logic.
Being a woman does mean that you should be afforded autonomy and
power over your own body, but not necessarily at the expense of
others. When your actions begin to harm others, then not only are
you being an irresponsible woman, but you are being a reproachable
human being as well. But the irresponsibility inherent in the use
of fertility drugs is rarely addressed, as the media gives glowing
hype to these “miracle” births (which are anything
but).
I consider Ms. Pirerra to be a child abuser at best, and a baby
killer at worst, leading three babies to die and five to survive in
questionable health. Such cases are not uncommon with fertility
drugs. When they do work, which is rare, they often result in
dangerous multiple births.
As fertility doctor Bradley Van Voorhis told the Iowa City
Gazette after the birth of the McCaughey babies, fertility drugs
make multiple births 15 times more likely. This means users are
willingly running the risk that instead of having one or two
healthy and normal kids, they will end up with several who will
have severe health problems for the rest of their lives. These
problems include malformed organs, developmental disabilities, and
frail immune systems ““ that is, if they survive.
In fact, according to the Web site “Facts About
Multiples”
(http://mypage.direct.ca/c/csamson/multiples.html), of the
McCaughey septuplets, who weighed an average of three pounds each
at birth, Nathan and Alexis have “special needs”
““ he suffers from spastic diplegia, while she has hypotonic
quadriplegia. But, it notes, they are “making progress thanks
to Botox injections and physical therapy.”
Meanwhile, both Alexis and Natalie continue to suffer from
reflux (chronic regurgitation of the stomach’s contents). All
seven are not yet even three-years old. People seem to gloss over
these facts; they forget that once you have an abortion, whether
that’s “murder” or not (that’s a whole
other column!), that’s the end of it. But in the case of
fertility drug pregnancies, the children can face a lifetime of
health problems.
Consider the fact that the one Italian baby who died was alive
for a while; it had a chance to live, and a reason to live, and
other peoples’ desires for it to live ““ unlike an
aborted fetus. But, ultimately, it couldn’t live, all because
of its parents’ decision. Right about now, it’s
probable that an anti-abortion person reading this is saying,
“what do you care? You think baby killing is okay
anyway.” Well, it’s a little more complicated than
that.
I think all children should be wanted ““ otherwise they
will most likely be neglected, abused, or left in orphanages or
foster homes for much of their lives. Therefore, if a pregnancy is
unwanted, I contend it should be aborted. But on the other hand, if
a child is wanted, she or he should be cared for. This means that
if you decide to have a baby, you should not neglect, abuse or
otherwise mistreat it ““ but this is just what this Italian
woman and other fertility drug-takers have done.
Knowing that these are the effects of fertility drugs
(insupportable or barely-supportable fetuses), these women went
ahead and risked the lives and health of seven or more fetuses, a
choice that seems to be quite “anti-life,” although
that label is only applied to pro-choice people or women who have
abortions. Apparently, giving birth or attempting to give birth
automatically makes you “pro-life” no matter what the
circumstances or outcome.
So, what is the benefit of all these risks and complications?
Why are such women taking fertility drugs? Is it because they are
too arrogant or selfish to accept the fact that they can’t
naturally or normally have kids, and that perhaps they should just
respect their bodies’ limitations and be happy without
children?
Or is it because they just couldn’t bring themselves to
actually save a child’s life and happiness by adopting one,
such as a child from an abusive background, or one who’s been
bounced from foster home to foster home for her or his whole life?
It seems as if some people believe that having their own flesh and
blood offspring, at any cost to themselves or to the offspring, is
somehow more valid.
Another infuriating aspect of such fertility drug cases is that
the parents often have the same self-righteous attitude about what
they could’ve done to help their children. Doctors asked the
McCaugheys if they would abort one or some of the fetuses so that
the other babies could end up healthier, but they refused.
According to the Associated Press, Kenny McCaughey explained
that neither his nor his wife’s religious beliefs would allow
any of the fetuses to be aborted. As he told reporters, “God
gave us those kids “¦ He wants us to raise them”
(www.gazetteonline.com/special/babies/seps001.htm). The hypocrisy
here is almost laughable. If you believe in God, and you believe
“He’s” the one that makes things happen, and that
they do so because he wants it that way, why would you take
fertility drugs in the first place?
It’s also a typically illogical anti-abortion stance to
rail against abortion, and then so pointedly ignore the opportunity
to promote other options ““ namely, adopting a child that
might otherwise have been aborted ““ to instead spend
incredible amounts of time, money and effort conceiving children
through drugs. I can respect that certain people think abortion is
a sin, but it’s hard to accept that some believe inflicting
pain on children, risking their lives, and not accepting what God
gave (or didn’t give) isn’t.
I would like to see more people from a religious standpoint (who
protest outside of abortion clinics, but not fertility
doctors’ clinics!) stop being so hypocritical and begin to
question the use of fertility drugs and the ethics of women like
Mariella Mazzara Pirerra.
And while it’s unlikely, I would also like to see
pro-choice women interrogate their conception of reproductive
rights. Maybe then, more will stand up and say that women should
have control over their bodies, but not necessarily the bodies of
the children they choose to bear ““ especially when the end
results are potentially so tragic.