When fertility and abortion collide
Re “And then there were two,” Opinion, May 6
Implanting five embryos to get one or two viable ones is really human farming. Dan Neil and his wife accepted the abortions as part of the fertility process. Neil acknowledges the need for killing fetuses later in his article, after the introductory lie claiming “we didn’t mean to.” With all the other issues here, this article really highlights how eugenics (the boys might have been autistic) is the driving philosophy.
The slippery slope of choice here is who gets to play God and who consciously decides who lives and who dies. Neil tries to preclude a judgment from the reader by telling us “we did everything right.” That is a self-serving lie, as the whole essay might be.
STEVE SZUMOWSKI
Northbrook, Ill.
*
I want to thank Neil for his personal and thoughtful essay on abortion. He clearly shows the difficult process that leads a couple to consider and accept terminating a pregnancy.
This is a most personal decision and is best left to the pregnant woman, her spouse and physician. My second child was born with Tay-Sachs disease, a genetic disorder that is fatal to babies (usually 2 to 6 years old). Without the possibility of prenatal testing to tell us whether a fetus was affected with Tay-Sachs, we would never have tried for another child. I never had to have an abortion, but the possibility of abortion gave me the chance to have another, healthy child.
It is easy to be “pro-life” when the issues don’t affect you personally. For people who are opposed to termination in any circumstance, they don’t have to use the procedure. But doctors shouldn’t be afraid to recommend or perform a procedure that can be in the best interest of their patients.
NANCY LEVY
La Jolla
*
Neil’s article was troubling on many levels. He seems to regard the termination of his children’s lives as the responsible thing to do, when perhaps the truly responsible thing to do would have been to decline fertility treatment in the first place. Interestingly, and sadly for him, Neil’s article reads like an apology for his decision.
If he truly didn’t feel guilty, as he states, would he have written the article at all? And if there is guilt, might that not imply that abortion is, at the very least, problematic?
Neil also reduces the diverse group of people who might view abortion with a cautious eye to “gun-toting antiabortion extremists.” Surely there is more diversity of opinion than that -- on both sides of the issue. It is absolutely imperative that we realize this if we are to have any kind of intelligent debate on this topic.
PATRICIA TURNER
Long Beach
*
Neil stated that he and his wife were not particularly sad after aborting their two unborn sons. How is this possible?
One would think that a couple trying to start a family would want to have, and raise, all of their children. And although Neil brings up a great statement regarding health requirements, abortion is still robbing the world of a life -- two in this case -- that could have made all the difference.
EMILY SCHLICTER
Dove Canyon
*
One word for this selfish couple, the other “a” word: “adoption.”
DONALD J. FLYNN
Seal Beach
