Giving Birth To Twins Would Streamline Your Life
Posted by: Catherine Strawn
Filed in:
news
2:30PM, Monday February 2nd 2009
When we heard about a new procedure that can check a fertilized egg’s viability before it’s implanted, we thought there might be fewer multiple births in the future. Well, it’s not looking that way. Apparently women, especially career-oriented ones, are hoping more than one egg will take when they get in vitro, so they can get more than one pregnancy and child birth over with at the same time. An article in Page Six Magazine this weekend included interviews with mothers who happily gave birth to twins. After the jump, a few of our favorite quotes from ladies who loved getting “two for the price of one.”
“I have my body back,” says a Gramercy Park mom with 3-year-old twin girls (who asked to remain anonymous to protect her family’s privacy). “And while my friends are bracing themselves for baby number two and all the sleep deprivation and chaos that comes with it, we are planning a family trip to Hawaii.”
“I wanted three kids,” says the Tribeca mom, whose daughter Blaise, 4, was conceived via IVF. “My husband wanted two. So when we used IVF to try for a second child, I was thrilled when I found out we were pregnant with twins. It’s two for the price of one.”
“I was thrilled. I thought, ‘Now I have two kids, so if I never want to go through [IVF] again I don’t have to.’ ”
This is certainly not what would come to mind first when we think about having twins. No, our thoughts are more along the lines of how you’d get twice as huge, be in labor for longer, and have two babies to take care of. But, when you really think about it, as selfish as these women, they do have a point.
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
vanya
wrote on February 2 2009 @ 02:37 pm: [report]
Some of the couples I know that have done IVF have said that it’s so expensive they just can’t afford multiple rounds (insurance doesn’t usually cover IVF and so many couples have to pay completely out of pocket each time), so they’re happy to have the 2 kids they want, instead of having just one and trying to find the $$ to do IVF again and again, or being content with a smaller family than they’d hoped for.
Plus, I can imagine that if you’ve been trying to get pregnant for years & years, having 2 babies at once seems like a dream come true, especially if you thought you’d never get to have even 1 baby.
Taurwen
wrote on February 2 2009 @ 02:48 pm: [report]
I don’t really think I would have called those women selfish. What’s wrong with wanting twins?
Catherine
wrote on February 2 2009 @ 02:52 pm: [report]
@ Taurwen: I just meant that the comments they made didn’t make it seem as though they wanted twins because they wanted to have twins. It seemed like they wanted twins because it was going to make *their* lives easier, i.e., getting their bodies back quicker, being able to go on vacation.
CuteCora
wrote on February 2 2009 @ 02:57 pm: [report]
I would love to have Twins! I am next on the generation line in my family..wish me luck, However the ladies do have a point.. All I want is two more.. so therefore having twins would be ideal!
wittybitch
wrote on February 2 2009 @ 03:03 pm: [report]
I wouldn’t call that selfish so much as I would call it efficient. Its practical in its own way (I personally would like to have twins for similar reasons). I would rather have someone say they were happy to have twins to get it all done with in one shot versus wanting twins so they can dress them in horrible matching outfits.
Still, how you got selfish from their comments, I will never know.
SeattleMama
wrote on February 2 2009 @ 03:07 pm: [report]
FWIW, very few twins are born naturally these days, so the ‘longer labor’ point is kind of moot. And really, once one baby comes, the other is usually born pretty soon after. I have two friends that have had twins vaginally, but they had to really search for a doc willing to do it. OBs are so concerned about malpractice lawsuits that cesarean birth has become the new ‘standard’ for twin births.
My sister had a cesarean, and she was in pain for weeks after while she healed (and she healed up pretty fast!)- I can’t imagine looking after two babies while recovering from major surgery (though I know women who have), for me that would be the biggest concern here… although I can certainly understand the allure of getting your family ‘completed’ in one pregnancy so you can get your body back, and only have to deal with nursing, colic, potty-training all at once…
SeattleMama
wrote on February 2 2009 @ 03:17 pm: [report]
WB, I think the ‘selfish’ aspect would be from the fact that twin births DO carry higher risks then a singleton birth- of course, risk is all relative- but twin births are usually considered high-risk from the outset. Some of the precautions for high-risk pregnancies carry their own risks, and a woman has a lot less options to choose from regarding her birth once she’s being considered ‘high-risk’.
I remember wishing for twins after I lost our firstborn- I was on my second pregnancy and I wanted two babies to show for it! But then my son was so high-need that I was kind of glad he didn’t have a twin to keep me up even more then I already was, LOL. I don’t think that wanting twins in itself is selfish, but the “I can’t be bothered to do this twice” sentiment does make me pause. And for some, the idea of choosing a higher-risk pregnancy for your own convenience could be seen as selfish as well.
wittybitch
wrote on February 2 2009 @ 09:15 pm: [report]
If you will read the preface to the quotes again, I think you will see that the women who were interviewed gladly gave birth to twins and were remarking on the positive aspects of such. I didn’t see any woman stating that she purposely chose to have twins because she “couldnt be bothered to do it twice.” That is why I find it so strange that other women are seeing their responses as selfish. I don’t think its selfish to have a sense of humor and point out the positive aspects of having multiples. I have said this before on these forums and will say it again: lighten up!
and PS: It also makes me wonder if the writer never even suggested these women were selfish, if any of you would have thought these women were selfish in their remarks…
Alison Wonderland
wrote on February 3 2009 @ 11:28 am: [report]
If these women are capable of conceiving naturally but chose invetro for the convenience of having multiples then I have to agree the act comes of as selfish. My Brother and Sister-in-law were having trouble conceiving naturally and the fertility testing, and the actual realization that they needed to go down the IV path, and the journey itself was long and stressful. My beautiful neice and nephew will be 1 next Tuesday, and we’re all so happy because it took a lot to get them here. There are a lot of women/couples who have difficulties conceiving, and IV is a necessary choice for many if they want to have families. Women doing it by choice just seems patronizing. “Oh you want to have children but you can’t? Yeah, I could if I wanted to, I just don’t want to be bothered doing it one at a time.” So what if it’s efficient? It’s such an insult.
joyy
wrote on February 3 2009 @ 12:31 pm: [report]
IVF is not a NECESSARY choice for couples who want kids but can’t conceive, it’s just one option on a short list of options: there’s always adoption and fostering, though those are also long, stressful, expensive processes as well.
Alison Wonderland
wrote on February 3 2009 @ 01:27 pm: [report]
My post was in regards to birth. Many women wish to carry and bear their own children. For them, invetro MAY become a necessary step, if they’ve exhausted other methods like hormone therapy, and depending on how strongly the couple feels about their children sharing their genes. I didn’t purposely omit adoption or fostering as options to grow a family, conception was just the topic at hand.