Comments

1
I wonder if God is going to pay for the medical bill.
2
Awesome rant, Dan. You're totally right. People like this make me fucking sick.
3
I have been saying the same thing since the Mccaughy (sp?) sextuplets or octuplets or however many they popped out. If you are going to a fertility clinic, do NOT thank god for it, thank the godless, evolution preaching scientists.
4
My first two thoughts upon seeing their picture in the NY Times this morning:

1) Why are they smiling?

2) Gay rights march in D.C. of 150,000 people (more than any of the teabaggers!) gets bumped to page 11 for this?
5
I want to be a doctor when I grow up, purely so I can 'play God'. And by 'play God', I mean that I want to be an abortionist... just like Him! Yay!
6
Looks like you and I were both reading that story at the same time. Looks like we both had the same reaction to it, too.

We probably had different reactions to the story about the six-year-old with the Boy Scout knife, though.
7
This sounds like an episode of Southpark. The one where Kenny dies playing his PSP and they fight to keep his Brain-dead body on life support. An angel comes down to earth to see why Kenny's soul has been ripped back to earth and away from their plans to use him in heaven to command God's army and they overhear an argument where some people are protesting removing the feeding tube because it "is playing god". The angel screams "No, you were already playing god by reviving him from death and putting him on life-support!"

It's the same situation now. Religious idiots start out playing God- and yet for some reason use "you shouldn't play god" as an excuse to do something they SHOULD do just because it makes them or their community squeamish. These two idiots are monsters.
8
Seems like someone got up in a foul mood today. It's so early in the morning to be hating on Heterosexuals-nature itself and people of faith, Savage. Nature (procreation, not your strong subject) is a miraculous process that we as humans are never going to fully understand we can just admire it and let the process invented by the one who created us take its course. It has worked for millennia, its why you're here, you just have refused to take part of it and that's why you cannot understand it.
9
Loveschild- you are an idiot. An idiot who apparently didn't even read the article or the quotes Dan provided. Then again that's nothing new.
10
So nature should take its course where I'm concerned, but not where these two are concerned?

And I let it take its course where I'm concerned: homosexuality is a kind of infertility, and so... we adopted instead. Not that I don't inseminate the boyfriend at every opportunity, but so far... haven't gotten him pregnant. Statistics tell me that I'm unlikely to get him pregnant, but God doesn't work in statistics so I'm going to keep on trying.
11
Way to not address anything relevant to the article there, @8.

Gotta love the Christian "thought" process. The sooner the Earth is rid of this scourge of brainless zombie-worshippers, the better.
12
@8 Just because you do not understand nature does not mean nobody else does. This is a common argument again evolution. Just because a church going Wal-Mart greeter does not understand a complex and mature scientific theory does not mean it is false.

It was common knowledge that humans could never fly and would never fly for thousands of years. It was also well known that sickness was a demon inside you and an infection was a near death sentence. Look at where we are today and then tell me again what we cannot ever accomplish.
13
Proof positive that God is one cold hearted son-of-a-bitch with a dark and depraved sense of humor.
14
It is certainly important to the Left that women have Choice.
Unless they choose not to hire a doctor to kill their babies, that is...
15
My sister's daughter passed away after being born 16 or 17 weeks early, so I know (second-hand) the pain of losing a child you were so looking forward to, and being a woman, it would be hard for me to decide to "reduce" my pregnancy. That being said, if having children was that important to me, I would do everything in my power (short of meeting with batshitcrazy mormon morons) to ensure I had a safe pregnancy and at least one healthy infant. I'd also consider how many children my husband and I could afford to have. 3 healthy babies is MUCH better than 4 deceased and 2 hanging-on-by-a-thread ones. Choosing not to reduce was incredibly selfish of them.

I agree with Dan: you can't have it both ways. If you're going to seek out medical assistance for something, you need to listen to your doctors when they tell you what you need to consider to have healthy children.
16
This infuriates me. As someone who is physically incapable of carrying to term if I ever were to get pregnant, this is just incomprehensible.

They had a chance to have a healthy, full-term baby and now instead they have tiny baby coffins. I just don't get it.
17
Here is another good/funny link about the intervention of god into science and health care.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005…

Using the argument we should not "play god" is so full of logical and rhetorical fallacies it makes my head spin. If we should leave it all to god why don't I lay in bed all day being a good human being and expect god to either keep me fed or let me die as is his plan?
18
Oh God, these waiting-on-a-miracle people make me tired. How about using the miraculous brain She gave you to think critically? How about really listening to the Repro-Endo guy when he tells you that your fertility therapy carries a huge risk of multiples? How about thinking for yourself instead of consulting the church Elders?
19
@14 The "Left" here would want to save some of the Stansel fetuses, by actually giving them a medical chance of healthy survival, after the uncountable thousands of dollars the Stansels spent on fertility treatments. The doctors also wanted to allow the Stansels to have healthy children.

It was Mr. and Mrs. Stansel who chose to kill their babies. Literally and absolutely. They were told they had an extremely small chance of survival, and 0.0% chance of a healthy survival. They chose to bring 6 infants into the world just so they could watch them die in pain.

It's a choice, and I wouldn't try to bar them from doing it by law. But I can think that the choice they made was tragic.
20
Just goes to show you, dont fuck with God. If He decides you are not good parent material, he will kill off any babies you try to sneak in. He ain't no earthy-crunchy whitelighter, that christian god.
21
God "created" (and by "created" I mean made the spunk that we all evolved from) us with minds of our own. Free will is what it's all about. Why, then, if it's "God's plan" for someone to not have children, do they turn to Western medicine (those agnostic bastards!) for assistance and then turn around and balk at the same kind of medicine that helped them conceive a child and claim these doctors are "playing God" whenever they do something these batshitcrazy nutburgers don't like? Like I said before - you can't have it both ways! You either take the good with the bad or you get none at all. (Hey, wasn't that somewhere in the Book of Revelations?)
22
What I don't get is that they went a medical route (and were allowed to do so irresponsibly) when they could have just adopted had probably had a positive impact on the life of a needy child.

It seems like allowing people to try to carry unnaturally high numbers of embryos to term is a bad idea. Can't they allow them to divide, separate them, implant 1-2 and freeze the rest for do-overs if the first round doesn't take?
23
The sensible decison would be to reduce, but they were hoping for a miracle - and that's their choice (reproductive rights and all) to make.
24
14 - How is your comment relevant to the story? They chose to get pregnant using fertility treatments. They chose to ignore doctors who wanted to make sure they were left with at least one healthy child (which is what they wanted, right?). They chose to let nature take its course, so they chose the potential suffering of losing (probably) most, if not all, of their children. How does this have anything to do with abortion? If anything, reducing the pregnancy is the pro-life way to go, considering most of the children didn't live anyway.
25
10 There was a measure of irresponsibility here on the part of the prospective parents, there's no question about that. It could've been handled in a more measured way but trying to imply that since they were having fertility problems they should've avoided medical help is total nonsense. A man and a woman as a couple are equipped by nature to reproduce, that's the core purpose and basic fabric that allows the existence of humanity. In past times medicinal and other methods were employed to assist those couples having difficulties, now that science is more advanced why should people of faith not make us of them? They're not deviating from God's purpose (hint) and one can easily argue that it has been the Creator Himself who has allowed for the advancement of science in this realm to help those couples who nature has provided with the responsibility and joy of reproduction. You cannot fully understand this if you look at it thru the prism of your lifestyle mr Savage because not even with medical help like Mr and Mrs. Stansel are you or the man you're with can conceive and take part in the miracle of reproduction cause you as people of the same gender are not equipped to do that.
26
23 - agreed.
27
So who paid for the very expensive NICU for the still living and dead babies? (We're easily talking more than $1 million here - Google it if you don't believe me)

Who is going to pay for the costly lifelong health and developmental issues that the surviving infants will have (assuming that any survive) ?

No health care system can sustain costs such as these.

But hey, they did it for God, right? I read about this in Bible - the chapter that prescribes how one must go about their artificial insemination and embryo implants. Oh that's right- they read the Book of Mormon.
28
Losing four babies is a heartbreaking tragedy.
Aborting five would have been so much easier.
29
8) You mean you don't fully understand procreation, but for the rest of us, it's basic elementary school biology.
30
We should remove the tax exemption that churches receive and use the funds to pay for stuff like this...
31
Loveschild is composed of a bunch of college students trying to get everyone riled up. TROLL!
32
25, Your argument is fundamentally flawed. But the advancement of science also created abortion, which would have allowed them to have a healthy child. Now they have 4 dead ones, and 2 others that, if they survive, will be severely handicapped for life.
33
Since they are Mormons, they of course would want as many children as possible (those fancy churches and pastors' houses and luxury cars don't pay for themselves, you know). More people in the faith means more people tithing. Why wouldn't the church elders tell the couple to ignore sound medical advice in favor of having more church members?
34
Medical ethics in other countries do not allow for this kind of multiple birth scenario. I had a friend whose doctor would not give her fertility treatments unless she agreed to reduce if she had more than three implant successfully. I agree that the "parents" who conceived essentially just to watch babies die are idiots. Selfish, immoral, idiots; however, the medical profession needs to step up to the plate and stop these events from happening - for the sake of the children.
35
I thought the exact same thing when I read this article this morning. Aside from the body count, it's kinda comical.
36
@29
procreation.
and basic elementary school biology.
Bob, did they teach you in basic elementary school biology that butt fucking was part of procreation?
perhaps you could have a word with Dan @10.
37
John and Kate. Thom and Amanda. Proof that medical technology has far outpaced human intelligence and wisdom. When will these docs learn that implanting a human litter and hoping that most embryos don't take, is a recipe for disaster? Infertile couples like this are going to ensure reduced odds for all, due to their tragically ignorant view that implantation is "natural" and reduction is "murder." Give them a max of two embryos and fuck reality television.
38
33 mormons don't have pastors or a paid clergy or pastor's houses.
39
This is so messed up. Why doesn't the sanctity of life ever work in reverse? If you're so pro-life why would you put yourself in the circumstance where you're essentially going to have some of the children die?

As somebody whose watched their child die I can tell you that there is no god, and nothing proves it like watching children die. God didn't want these fucktards to do anything. These people just project their own desires all over the universe and then wear a sanctimonious shit eating grin when it goes wrong because it was part of 'god's' plan.

I hope their kids grow up to ask some very tough questions of mom and dad.
40
@29
During your basic elementary school biology classes on procreation where exactly did they tell you to stick your dick? By any chance did you sleep through that class? Where did you say you went to school?
41
Oh but that would never fly, 34, because we can't possibly tell people how many children to have! (insert gagging motion here) Why not have some kind of limits on fertility treatments so we don't end up with another Octomom situation?

Also, if they can afford it, why not have as many children as you want? But if you can't, my tax dollars should not be used to support their children. There should be a limit as to how much assistance a family can receive, as well. People can have as many children as they want, but they're only going to get assistance for up to 5 children. Any more than that, and it's their responsibility (as it should be) to take care of them. (MN tried this and it didn't pass. Maybe it's time to try again considering how our tax dollars could be better spent right now)
42
I'm so sorry for your loss, Donutspal.
43
38 - how about you enlighten me if you know so much.
44
All I can say is, thank god those dead babies had a mother and a father!
45
I know how hard it was watching my sister bury her daughter. No one should ever have to do that. My deepest sympathies, Donutspal.
46
In hindsight, it seems rather obvious why god/evolution would want to prevent these two brainiacs from procreating in the first place...
47
Dan, you may not realize it, but you are closer to the Catholic Church's position than Loveschild.

So many christians have a "if I want it, God must want it too" mentality, which is why so many people hate us.

If you are going to start fucking around with "God's plan" with fertility treatments, why not go all the way and make sure you'll have one healthy infant?
48
It's a pretty good illustration of why the "providence" model of faith (the kind favored by former president G.W. Bush, you'll recall) is so detrimental to good decision-making in general: Every time you reach a difficult juncture where a tough decision is called for, you punt by turning it over into "God's hands" and next thing you know you've path-of-least-resistanced your way into a full-blown crisis. When faced the disastrous results of your unwillingness to make a tough decision back when there were still options available to you, you simply shrug and say "Oh, well, it's God's will" and escape all culpability.

People who run their lives this way should never be trusted with any sort of authority.
49
I followed the link and looked at the photos, and I don't think they so much look happy, Dan, as they look just plain stupid.

Which pretty much explains everything if you ask me. Unfortunately, there is no IQ test required for parents.

One of the things I remember rather grimly from my training days was a lecture from an IVF guy on how to evaluate whether or not lesbian couples seeking IVF would make fit parents. I was incensed and asked the obvious question: what evaluation of his het couples was he doing? None, of course. Sounds like that standard still applies.
50
This story is disgusting, and I'm sure the "parents", though grieving, are at peace with their decision. After all, they were "consistent" and "pro-life" from beginning to the end, no matter the consequences.

What makes me FURIOUS is that doctors think it's ok to implant more than TWO eggs at a time. I'm sorry, this could have been prevented if we had some damned rules about this. How about ONLY IMPLANTING TWO EGGS??? I'm going to go all caps on everybody.

Of course it will take longer and it will be costlier (and since we're on the topic, how about LIMITING the number of tries to.. I don't know, let's pick a number after which the treatment is to be covered ENTIRELY by the parents), but at least we won't have disgusting repellent morally unacceptable results like this one.
51
@34: i think some amurkin fertility clinics insist on agreeing to selective reduction, but then the couples change their minds.

52
Loveschild, I hope you are a troll. Otherwise, you're the worst kind of fool--sanctimonious as all hell. Please open your eyes and embrace the concepts of reality, causality, and basic human decency at the earliest opportunity.
53
I'm very sorry for your loss Donutspal.

54
Here's the thing though: they didn't do IVF, they did intrauterine insemination (doc injects spunk into woman's uterus after taking fertility shots). Lots of times, this ends up with one or two healthy babies, but the downside to this procedure is that this procedure is the leading cause of quadruplets, quintuplets, and sextuplets out of all the fertility treatments (I think I read that right). No matter what, reducing the number of fetuses (whether conceived naturally or with help) is the best option for the mother and the child(ren). It's easier to cope with your active decision of reducing the fetuses for the overall health of the other children than to suffer the loss of a child or several.
55
43
i'm sorry i was rude.
perhaps you could enlighten yourself before making claims about others people's beliefs.
56
Skeptika @ 50, look at the NY Times link and Dan's post. This was not IVF. It was fertility drugs combined with insemination, the most common cause of multiples. It's cheaper than IVF, so done more than IVF.
57
The Catholic Church considers all these infertility techniques to be immoral: in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination or intrauterine insemination, intracytoplasmic sperm injection and surrogacy, because they replace the marital act. If you can't get pregnant without a turkey baster, you shouldn't try to get pregnant at all.

Had the Stencils followed Catholic doctrine, the question of reduction would not have come up at all.
58
http://stanseljourney.blogspot.com/2009/…
59
Ok, it wasn't IVF. Alright then. What they should do is not offer this treatment to those who have "moral" objections to reducing the pregnancy. Anyone against reducing should not have this treatment. I am seriously angry at this. But I bet they feel morally superior in their great devotion to their god. Tiny carcasses and all.
61
I just read the article and it's a pretty good one. @50 - in this care, the couple didn't have fertilized eggs implanted. They went the IUI route (injecting sperm into the uterus), which can cause the uterus to release more eggs. Apparently this method, where there is no control of how many fetuses develop is responsible for most of the litters, not IVF. I didn't know that. I also think it's interesting that insurance will often cover this method, because it's cheaper up front, but not the more expensive (but more successful and often ultimately less expensive when you count the repeat tretments and results of OTT multiples) IVF.

I'm torn on the idea of manufactured fertility. I think there should be better controls on who gets it and when (for instance I think if you have even one biological child you should be automatically disqualified), but I am completely non-maternal and have never wanted children.
62
(sorry it took me a long time to post and people had already pointed out that the Stansels used IUI instead of IVF)
63
55 - I've browsed a few sites and can't find anything to do with your previous comment
64
Oh, the mystery of life! Oh wait, we have microscopes now. Eggs. Sperm. It was in all the papers.

Every other mammal on the planet does it, too. Yawn.
65
This is why the Mormons pursue biotech as a career as a far higher percentage than any other religious sect. Their stated goal is to repopulate the planet in their image, by having as many babies as possible.

This fact is why we should all fear Mormonia, and do our best to restrict and deflect their plan.
66
well, sounds like from listening to Dan's podcast that lots of the dudes are turning out to be 'mos, so it might just die off naturally...
67
At the Stansel's blog, there's some chick going all apeshit defending the couple's "unnatural" choice for how to have a child:

"We ALL do things that are UNNATURAL. We eat UNNATURAL food, we drink UNNATURAL drinks, when we are sick we put UNNATURAL medications in our bodies..... much of the UNATURAL things we do contribute to the many diseases we have today."

I thought the Mormons were all into banning unnatural things? Hello, Prop 8? Consistency?
68
I'm totally pro-choice, but I'd never selectively reduce. I also think I'd avoid IUI, since it's so hard to predict. I only learned this after a friend underwent in-vitro (and only had two embryos implated, fyi), but selective reduction requires the parents to identify which embryos/fetuses to destroy and involves injecting them with chemicals to kill them off. I can understand how difficult it would be to look at your potential babies on an ultrasound and pick and choose which one(s) you'll carry to term. That said, I'm pro-CHOICE, so people can make their own decisions about these things.
69
I read on her blog that she lost twins before this. I understand the desire to have children and the pain of losing them. What I don't understand is why when she lost twins before, she didn't think that maybe she isn't built to carry more than one child to term? Perhaps she should have reduced to one or two fetuses. That would have given her a much larger chance of having a family.

Even people on their blog are asking them to not try again.
70
I totally agree. Why are so many infertile couples too selfish to consider adoption?
71
As far as I can tell, it's a good thing when six potential Mormons don't make it.

Allah Akbar!
72
Practically the only time the question "will you be a fit parent, emotionally and financially able to raise a child?" is asked is on an adoption questionnaire. If the pro-life people would make it easier and less costly to adopt (and people would not make so many babies in the first place), the need for abortion would be drastically reduced.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: why we need to buy a license to get married but don't have to do a damn thing to bring another human into this world is beyond me.
73
One hates to be cold about this, but...

The Stansels are proving that Darwin was right: the fit reproduce, and the unfit don't. At the rate the poor Stansel babes are going, this family won't have another generation, and that's not altogether a bad thing.
74
@72: "If the pro-life people would make it easier and less costly to adopt..."
It's not the pro-lifers that cause this.
It's the white heterosexual insistence that they only consider adopting healthy, white, Caucasian, newborn babies. It's a huge group of people being selected for a small pool of babies that (usually) force adoption agencies to utilize some sort of restrictive criteria: length of marriage, lack of divorces, minimum income, extravagant fees, etc.
When prospective adoptive families seriously consider children of differing ethnicities, or special needs kids, or non-newborns, they find they move to a much shorter line.
75
My heart always goes out for mother and child and so I read all articles on the Stansel Hp although being atheist. First thing I asked me: this woman yet lost several babies and suffers illnesses, how is it possible that they risk this pregnancy and that they are overjoyed by a birth in the 22th week? The father said, that all would be a problem of the first week only!! Second thing: why do they name their hp "journey"? They knew, it would be a very short experience, a trip in parenting, just for fun? And then: why are they grining at the coffin? If the two girls survive, these parents will have to realize, that game is over, that they will have to be real parents and this will be difficult without any sense of reality. I hope the girls will develop to individualist with critical minds.
76
73
So the Gays are all, in Darwinian terms, unfit to reproduce?
And it would be irresponsible to allow these evolutionary failures to adopt either, right?
77
Totally agree with very bad homo and motheroffive- why dont people just adopt?And why do they smile and look so happy standing by the coffin? If i didnt know it was a coffin i'd think that's a wedding anniversary present or something ,they are so happy!
78
@76 You jumped the rails when you assumed they were automatically unfit to adopt. From what I can tell of the comment @73, restriction of adoption was never mentioned.

I am of the belief (as I believe 73 was getting at) that nature was giving this couple a very clear sign that they should not have reproduced (and yes, I believe the same thing of gay couples who choose In vitro over adoption.)
79
GOD this makes me so angry.
80
I'm so sorry for your loss, Donutspal.
81
@39: "This is so messed up. Why doesn't the sanctity of life ever work in reverse? If you're so pro-life why would you put yourself in the circumstance where you're essentially going to have some of the children die?"

As a pro-lifer who's turned down vaginal intercourse with a pro-choice chick because I found the risk, even with a condom, to be morally unacceptable, I can assure you that some of us do think these things through. As for the others . . . what can I say? A lot of the people in my camp are morons and hypocrites because a lot of the people in virtually *any* camp are morons and hypocrites.
82
How? How are they smiling with 3 of their babies in a coffin? Jesus Christ... God did the right thing not letting them get pregnant and let's hope they don't go back and get more fertility treatments. Fucking assholes.
83
Loveschild, you completely undercut your arguments by defending exceedingly stupid and selfish people just because they're Christians (or pseudo-Christians if that's how you feel about the Mormon Church). Given the same "moral yardstick" (Christian or non-Christian, your choice), would you defend a moral atheist over an immoral Christian? If so, well, that's so nuts that I can't really react to it.
84
@8 (I'm late to the party. Forgive me all)

How is procreating so miraculous?

A penis enters a vagina and after a few seconds (or a few minutes, if the man is lucky), sperm is squirted out and one lucky little bastard gets through the cervix and attaches itself to the woman's egg and the woman gets fatter and fatter for around 9 months and then the melon-sized baby pops out of her tiny vagina and everyone goes AWWWW.

Or a man is not involved at all, beyond squirting some sperm out after a few seconds (or a few minutes, if the man is lucky) and the lesbians get it on with his vial of sperm and make their own shake & bake baby.

Or a single woman takes his little vial of sperm and has her very own kid. Tell me, do you also believe that the earth is 6,000 years old?
85
I have to confess, the "reducing" thing bothers me. You "cull a litter" with animals, not humans. I guess I might be a little bit pro-life. I know, that freaks me out, but it's how I feel.

While the couple are the ones ultimately responsible for this sad, sad mess, you can't completely excuse the medical professionals for not saying "NO!" at an early stage. I suspect that too many doctors today see everything that happens in a doctor's office or a hospital or a clinic as a "medical procedure" without an adequate examination of the ethical and, yes, moral issues involved.
86
@ 81 - Thank you for your perspective.
87
For all those who keep saying "Why don't you adopt" to infertile couples, other than Dan, how many of you actually tried adoption? Why expect someone else to do it? There's no law against fertile couples adopting, so why don't you just adopt?

Adoption is hard. Plenty of people would love to adopt but can't because adoption laws are very restrictive. Adoption is expensive: adoption costs $25-50,000 dollars while IVF costs about $8,500-12,000 and generally 3 tries are covered 80-100% by insurance. Adoption can be heartbreaking: 30% of domestic adoptions are disrupted in this country. In other words the bio parents change their mind and demand the kid back. Most children in foster care are not available for adoption. Foster care is supposed to be temporary. It doesn't matter if the bio parents fuck up a thousand times, the kids are probably going to go back to them or another family member. Kids in foster care who are available for adoption may have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or were exposed to drugs in the womb or traumatized by years of severe neglect abuse. Kids available in state care may have severe emotional, mental, and physical handicaps and all the expensive therapy and medical treatment that goes with them. They may never be able to live independently and medicaid runs out at age 18. How will their adoptive parents get medical coverage for their pre-existing conditions? Did you not think of that? Even if a prospective parent(s) have enough money to support those special needs children, what makes you think they have the training, skills, or temperament to handle a special needs child? Do you?

So kindly stuff your judgmental bullshit about "people who don't adopt are selfish". Chances are you haven't adopted and never will.

Kthnx.

p.s. The Stansel's doctor wasn't a complete tool. Before the treatment began he told them the risks and advised them that if the worst case scenario happened they should chose selective reduction. When it came time to inseminate he made sure their wasn't a litter of eggs, only two. When 6 embryos showed up on the ultrasound, he again tried to convince them to reduce. The Stansels chose to follow their religious leaders advice. Those same religious leaders who won't be picking up the medical bills for 4 dead babies and 2 living babies who will likely be vegetables for the rest of their lives. The Stansels are selfish fools but not every one who chooses assisted reproduction is foolish and selfish.
88
@ Chris in Vancouver,

Unless they're the Octomom's doc, most doctor's avoid multiples at all costs because they know they are extremely high risk and the outcome is likely to be bad. They know people can't/won't reduce when you get the Stansel's situation. Too many people see the "miracle litters" and think they'll get lucky too. From a doctor's perspective it's better to save 3 than kill 6...which is exactly what the Stansel's chose to do. Doctors do selective reduction before the embryos/fetus can feel pain...unlike the Stansel's babies who suffered quite a bit while "God's will" played out. There is nothing "pro-life" about the Stansel's choice.
89
So basically these people rejected God's apparent decision to make them infertile and turned to science to conceive, at which point they decided to ditch science and turn to God, and then once the babies were born 14 weeks premature with almost zero chance of surviving they then decided to tell God to fuck off again and ordered the doctors to do everything scientifically and medically possible to prolong the immense suffering of the poor little doomed creatures, instead of just letting them die in peace. And are turning to God to help them get through all of this.

I hate these people so fucking much.
90
Really, I don't care about this couple. It isn't against the law to be stupid in the United States. If it was, there would be a LOT more people in jail...probably everyone at some time or another. But, yes, Dan is right in that it is really difficult to have sympathy for people who choose to ignore reality and reality-based decision-making. But, again, I'm sure we are all quite prone to not make intelligent decisions. The world is fucked. We are fucked. The one good thing I see in all this is that people are allowed to be fucktards. The elimination of all fucktards, while tempting, is actually a bad thing.
91
Again, I'm going to preach: ectogenesis, people. We need to develop it. We need to make access available to everyone.

Allegedly, Loveschild, et. al. You might laugh now at Dan's inability to reproduce with his man, but we've already worked out how to develop male eggs from sperm (or female sperm from ova), so it won't be long before they'll be able to produce a genetically related little Dan Jr. with a little help from their friends.

Last I checked, incidentally, sex education was presented in middle school, not primary school. And it contained more of just say no! and boys are doctors, girls are nurses and whenever you get curious, remember to think of Jesus than it did anything about what boy parts go into what girl parts to make a baby.
92
I'm with you Dan.

I'm so sick of these churchy-types that believe God is the giver of life, yet turn to medical science to produce these litters of kids. The very science that now claims that being gay is not an abnormality.

Just like their Bible verses, they "pick-and-choose" what they want to follow. Be it science or God. If anyone is a human abnormality, it is them.
93
I'm sorry to say (sorry for myself, that is) that I dreamt about the Stansels last night. And I realized where I had seen that stupid smile Mrs. Stansel has before. And I finally found something like compassion for them (although nothing like the compassion I feel for Donutspal).

My experience with Mormon women is that mothering is about the only sanctioned role the church offers. The whole religion is a thinly disguised fertility cult. Family is so huge if you're Mormon that I'm not sure what else there is for this poor girl (and really, she is so childish that I must call her a girl) beyond these miserable pregnancies and their horrific outcomes. And weirdly enough, having had these babies and lost them may be all it takes for her---there's a cornerstone belief among Mormons, dating from the frontier when families were separated by distance, war, epidemics, that families are always reunited in the afterlife. So hey! she's still validated as a good Mormon wife and mother even though her children have died. And so she smiles.

You gotta admit it's pathetic. And I do feel sorry for her.

(Although I still feel sorrier for the kids, and the nursery staff at the hospital who have given their all to try to save them because the Stansels wanted "everything" done in spite of their prematurity, and the taxpayers who are footing the bill.....)

94
I paged through much of their blog last night and noticed the emphasis on the children having bodies. I don't know anything about Mormon theology but it seems that this notion of the souls having received bodies is all-important. Somehow it made the whole thing even more horrific that this issue particular to their religion (not just the same anti-abortion beliefs of a lot of Christian sects) caused these infants to live their short, painful lives.
95
@93 this is sick, but thank you for explaining,i had no idea what a dangerous cult Mormonism is in that regard. NOW i do feel terribly sorry for that woman and how they used her. Of course, she is an adult and is to blame, too, she has her own power of choice and doesnt have to idiotically follow her cult leaders...The whole situation makes one think of "Rosemary's Baby", doesnt it?
96
@ 87
you are not making any sense, sorry. So you are saying:
"people that don't adopt are not selfish - do you know how expensive those kids are? How often they have special needs? What if they get sick, do you have money for it?"

LOL This is BS, Sir!Your words precisely prove our point! Your own child can be very-very expensive! How do you know your own biological kids wont require all that special medical care, or wont be special needs children?

Adoption is difficult because most want healthy babies, caucasian, and infants only. There are plenty of black babies/kids that nobody wants to adopt.

So nice try, but..dont use pathetic excuses. The fact remains, many people dont want to bother with unwanted children, they want to be parents for selfish reasons and want bragging rights, not really to help a needy child, If they agree to go thru parenting, that'd be only for their own biological kids, that look like them.

I worked( volunteered) in a russian orphanage when i lived there, and worked for a short while for an adoption agency here in States. I know what i am talking about.
97
@87 - re: your ps. As has been pointed out a few times, the Stansels didn't have ANY embryos implanted. They went the IUI route, where there is no control over how many embryos there will be. Although 6 is rare, most of the litter-sized births from manufactured pregnancies is from IUI, so there was a reasonable expectation that there could be several.

I do agree with you that it asn't the doctor who was the complete tool, though.
98
infertility
is nature's way of saying
some folks should not breed
99
so the current body count is 4 really late term abortions and 2 profoundly disabled living children, so far
100
@98, thanks for that. even though i counted to make sure you had it right ;)

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.