March 4th, 2009
06:00 PM ET

Should government limit embryo implants?

From CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The California woman who had octuplets to go with the six children she already had continues to stir debate around the country. The latest comes from Georgia, where lawmakers want to prevent the same thing from happening in their state.

Should government limit embryo implants?

A Georgia state senator has introduced a bill limiting the number of embryos that can be used during in-vitro fertilization.

A state senator has introduced a bill that would limit the number of embryos that can be implanted in a woman's uterus during in-vitro fertilization. He doesn't want taxpayers to have to end up paying for raising children that result from multiple births if the parents can't afford it.

The limits would be two embryos for a woman under 40 and 3 for a woman older than 40. These numbers are slightly lower than what's considered normal by most doctors. Breaking the law could result in a fine of up to one-thousand dollars.

And it's not just Georgia. Missouri is considering a similar bill and laws just like this are already on the books in England and Italy.

Some fertility doctors suggest the proposed legislation would hurt a woman's chance of getting pregnant, that there are special cases where they need more than 3 embryos.

Critics also suggest this bill is a backdoor effort to ban abortion. That's because the bill says "a living in vitro human embryo is a biological human being who is not the property of any person or entity."

It's not likely to pass in Georgia anytime soon because of a crowded legislative calendar, but the fact that it's being discussed at all is cause for alarm in some circles.

Here’s my question to you: Should the government limit the number of embryos a woman can have implanted?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Kat from Austin, Texas writes:
Implant as many as you want, as long as you can prove that you can provide for them without government assistance. If you expect the taxpayer to help you out then the taxpayer should get a say in this situation.

Derek from Grundy Center, Iowa writes:
The answer to almost every question starting with "Should the government..." is no. The states debating this issue would be better off changing their welfare programs to cover only 1 or 2 children in a family and let people deal with the consequences of their actions.

Kasey writes:
Yes. This woman is completely insane! She has burdened taxpayers with raising her children. To have one child through this process is one thing, raising a litter on the taxpayer's dime should be a crime!

Ray writes:
There should be zero in-vitro fertilizations. There are too many adoptable children out there who need a home and love. When that supply is exhausted, maybe IVF could be considered.

Kevin from Indiana writes:
Why not pre-qualify potential mothers similar to how we do adoption. Insure the ability to properly care for the child by the mother before moving forward with any fertility procedures!

Laura writes:
No, the government limiting the number of embryos would be the start of a slippery slope. At what point do we allow the government to make medical decisions for patients and for the medical profession? Where would the line be drawn and for whom?

Joy from Tennessee writes:
Jack, It's most difficult to say that the government should have control over a woman's body. However, when you have a "nut" like the octuplet mom and apparently a doctor with no scruples, it begs for intervention. Thus, my opinion is conflicted.

Cliff writes:
No, the government should not limit embryo implants. Doctors should.

Filed under: Health
soundoff (151 Responses)
  1. Edwinjoe from Maryland

    Absolutely. However, this should not be limited to fertility doctors of any state; the rules should apply to all the states in the US.

    March 4, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
  2. Don

    That's a question for the doctor... and if the doctor acts irresponsibly and/or endangers the mother, THEN it becomes a matter for the courts/government to deal with. Legislating an embryo limit is akin to the government telling us how many children we can have... and we definitely don't want that.

    Wilmington DE

    March 4, 2009 at 1:28 pm |
  3. Ron K

    Hi Jack:

    No, I do not feel it is the place of the government to do that. Although, I think the government should provide funding to educate people with regard to this matter. It is very clear that this lady with the now 14 kids has problems. That aside is a different issue. I think people that enter into this need to know what can happen. Now the media has amde this obvious. In any event, the fertility doctors should be responsible enough to recognize the potential of multiple birth senerio's. And the final call should be in the doctor's court.

    Ron San Diego

    March 4, 2009 at 1:36 pm |
  4. Kevin in Granby, MA

    Yes, there should be a limit to embryo insertions in the name of reckless endangerment. These children cannot grow to term if the womb is crowded by 7 other children. We are designed to carry one child at a time, twins and triplets are aberrations, not the lower limit of multiple babies!

    March 4, 2009 at 1:36 pm |
  5. Paulette,Dallas,PA

    Absolutely. Not even Wonder Woman could rise to this heavy responsibility. No one needs to have octuplets ever again. The Department of Children and Family Services is investigating this woman due to complaints about her not being a fit mother. If the hospital does not release these children to her,who is going to foot the bill to raise these innocent victims? I'm sure we all know the answer to that – the Octuplet Bailout. Lawmakers need to restrict how many number of embryos can be impanted so this travesty does not occur again.

    March 4, 2009 at 1:40 pm |
  6. Katiec Pekin, IL

    I do not like to see the government being involved in anything concerning a persons physical rights. I would hope the Medical Institution would step up and issue regulations and standards
    regarding this abuse and take away the licenses of those with
    no scruples.
    Unfortunately, they are not known for monitoring or punishing
    their own.

    March 4, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
  7. Terry from North Carolina

    Absolutely, how can a woman who can barely support herself and already has six children go ahead and have eight more ? This is insane and can only get worse if the federal government lets this continue. Who is going to support this woman and her fourteen children ? The already overburdoned taxpayers who else.

    March 4, 2009 at 1:43 pm |
  8. Joe in DE

    Yes, this is necessary because of lack of common sense.

    March 4, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
  9. Tom, Avon, Me, The Heart of Democracy

    The Hippocratic oath says, "First, do no harm." The more babies a woman carries the greater the threat to her life and those of the litter.

    March 4, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
  10. Ryan, Galesburg, IL

    No, but a psychiatric evaluation wouldn't hurt under these circumstances. The media should also get some counseling for its obsession of this insignificant story.

    March 4, 2009 at 1:52 pm |
  11. Frost

    maybe just run a credit check....

    March 4, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
  12. Paul Austin,Texas

    Maybe they should limit embryo's implanted to two at one time. If that does not work then adoption is always a way to insure you can have a child and so many are in need of parents and a home.

    March 4, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
  13. Jake, Oregon

    Absolutely. Along with limiting the number of assistance dollars she can receive for raising them.

    March 4, 2009 at 2:08 pm |
  14. Chuck from Gulf Shores, Alabama

    Please tell me the difference between having embryos implanted and abortion. To a real christian both are against the laws of God. Therefore the goverment should stay out.

    March 4, 2009 at 2:08 pm |
  15. Jason, Koloa, HI

    Hold on Jack, Hold on, okay, it's coming, here it comes....


    Overpopulation is probably the biggest problem this planet is facing. It makes it harder to maintain a sustainable economy. It leads to the proliferation of disease and epidemics. It adds to the problem of sustaining resources like food, water and energy. It compounds the world wide pollution situation. Just because we have the technology to allow selfish women to have eight babies for no good reason, does not mean we should be using it.

    March 4, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
  16. Michael "C" Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: Definitively not--–but I do believe that a line needs to be drawn by medical ethics. The government can't help themselves--how are they going to help others.

    March 4, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
  17. Charlie in Belen, New Mexico

    That question is one of Medical Ethics. I hesitate to impose my personal feelings, or anyone elses', on such a subject. And that is exactly what would be happening if the government were to get involved in such an issue. As I understand it, the Medical Boards are already addressing such an issue. Let us wait to learn what they have to say before we act.

    March 4, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
  18. JR in Norfolk VA

    Yes – it should be limited to zero. Playing God seems to be a favorite pastime of both the medical profession and the government. Stop it – you have no idea what you are messing with.

    March 4, 2009 at 2:24 pm |
  19. Tom in Desoto Texas

    Generally, most of us would rather the government stay out of our personal business as much as possible there are times when people go overboard. 8 children, my old Pez dispenser couldn't issue them that fast.

    March 4, 2009 at 2:25 pm |
  20. bonnie from NJ

    Please keep the government out of our bodies and concentrating on running the country. However, i do believe the AMA should have some guidelines for this type of thing. What has happened with the birth of 8 children to a single women with 6 children already should not have happened and this doctor should not be permitted to treat fertility patients any longer.

    March 4, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
  21. Adam from Philly

    Yes! The idea here is to have one baby not eight. In a developed nation it's irresponsible to give birth to more than a few children. Our world is overpopulated as it is. If you absolutely must have a large family then please, adopt.

    March 4, 2009 at 2:31 pm |
  22. Jane (Minnesota)

    If the AMA won't regulate their own by setting and then enforcing rules covering a reasonable maximum number to implant; then the government has too help them out by setting a limit. I do not think people understand the magnitude of the costs associated with these "litter" births because they are so desperate to have children. There are children already here that need homes - what is wrong with adoption??? Some see the adoption price tag, I imagine & may not qualify to adopt children- at least the adoption cost is a fixed one plus if they don't qualify to adopt, then they probably should be parents period.

    March 4, 2009 at 2:37 pm |
  23. Beth

    There are many other things the government should be worrying about placing limits on. They should find a way to limit terrorists from bombing our country. They should limit bridges and highways from falling in ruin and jeopordizing the safety of our citizens. And they should limit the amount of authority they feel they have over our own personal lives and decisions. I'll worry about my own body...you guys worry about public stuff.

    March 4, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
  24. Stacy from Leesburg, VA

    Jack, I don’t want the government interfering with any reproductive rights, be it with abortion or embryos. Once we jump on that train, then we really give up all control of our bodies and we are wards of the state, not individuals in a society.

    March 4, 2009 at 3:02 pm |
  25. Rae from Indiana

    I don't think we need to pass legislation because of one irresponsible fertility doctor. It is not cheap to get these treatments and it is too bad that her doctor made a greedy choice instead of an ethical choice.

    March 4, 2009 at 3:10 pm |
  26. Daniel, Indiana

    Why should the taxpayer be held responsible for a woman's decission to have a sports team by invitro? How did she get the doctor to fertilize her in her financial situation? This has been a blatant display of greed and inconsideration. Yes, states should enact laws limiting the number of embryos emplanted. This one case should be the poster child for such laws when she immediately began asking for assistance on the internet for her children. How irresponsible!

    March 4, 2009 at 3:15 pm |
  27. Karen - Nashville TN

    Absolutely, unless there is some way to guarantee that the government (meaning taxpayers) doesn't end up footing the bill for the likely ongoing medical and disability payments. It's sad that having children has become a path to notoriety or cash to some irresponsible parents, but why should we bear the burden?

    March 4, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
  28. Emerson in Mass.

    Wouldn't the privacy argument (between a woman and her doctor) which is at the heart of Roe v Wade also make this kind of law unconstitutional???

    March 4, 2009 at 3:18 pm |
  29. Tom in Dubuque Iowa

    How about holding the knuckle head doctors that implant that many embryos accountable; maybe they should pay for their mistakes, instead of the taxpayers? Problem is; it may create a shortage of physicians that are willing to provide this procedure for those truly in need of.

    March 4, 2009 at 3:36 pm |
  30. Chad from California

    No, just only allow one birth, mandate any extra embryos that get fertilized to be removed from the woman. Simple as that! And that is not even considered abortion. If you birth more than one child, pay $1 Million fee for each extra child.

    March 4, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
  31. Jenna Wade

    Should the government limit the number of embryos a woman can have implanted?

    Yes, because each fertilized egg can split.

    The problem that many couples face is that it is sooo expensive to do the implants so couples may only have 1 chance.

    Roseville CA

    March 4, 2009 at 3:45 pm |
  32. simon

    Common sense should limit the number of implants!! Of course, common sense is about as scarce as a good day on the Dow...

    March 4, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  33. Barb from Hazel Crest, IL

    You betcha, it should be limited. Especially if the woman is unemployed and can't take care of the children which means the taxpayer would have to foot the bill. I also think that they should have a mental assessment because a life is being brought into the world that needs proper care.

    March 4, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
  34. mitchell, arkansas

    yes. no more than 12 kids at a time. period.

    March 4, 2009 at 4:36 pm |
  35. Sally in PA

    Too many people are jumping the gun when it comes to legislation. This recent case of a woman giving birth to 8 children is not common and the fact that she has 6 other children really makes it uncommon. The doctor was completely unethical here and I believe that is where the problem lies. Doctors need to use some common sense in these things. Why in heavens name would any doctor agree to do what he did? Every woman or couple should have the right to make their own decisions in these matters. No one should tell any woman or couple what they can or can't do when it comes to having or not having children. Legislation, if any, needs to be directed to the doctors not the patients. They, like the bankers, have become quite irresponsible and think only of the monetary gain.

    March 4, 2009 at 4:36 pm |
  36. Cindy in Chilly Pennsylvania

    Rather than limiting embryos, they should require a means test of an income that can support the potential number of babies. It should take into consideration any living children who reside with the mother. If the mother lacks the income to support the children, then limit the implants.

    The real problem here is that this woman is unable to support her children. She is looking to society and charity to see her through this

    March 4, 2009 at 4:49 pm |
  37. sharon kitchen

    no. The "octomom" is the exception to the rule.

    There are alot of very responsible people that are just trying to have their 1st child.......congress should not dictate their family.
    After all the congress is not paying their bill.

    But.......as the laws have been going in the past.........who knows who will set what law......with what reason.

    Stop and think about this.........how many "Octomoms" are there in the U.S.?

    However.......I am very glad I had 3........now just grandchildren......yes.

    March 4, 2009 at 4:58 pm |
  38. deb in Colo

    No, that should be between a woman and her doctor, like all other reproductive decisions.

    But the doctor should have some ethical backbone of his/her own and "just say no".

    March 4, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  39. Griff...... The Truth

    What is an "embryo?" In animals it is continuation of a speciese.
    Human's have to stop playing Doctor. Life is whatever it takes, to create. Let them do their job, and you do yours..

    March 4, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  40. Christine, Thousand Oaks Ca

    No. Octomom does not represent the average couple trying to conceive a child. This is a thinly veiled effort to regulate a woman's reproductive rights. These social conservatives need to get their regulatory priorities straight. I am certain that if men were the child bearers of the planet, there would be no intrusion into their reproductive rights.

    March 4, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  41. Purnell Kankakee lL.

    Men love spending their time trying to rule over women, weak men I mean. I don't agree with abortion or anything close to it, but it is also not my or a group of peoples right to control everything that a person does, this sounds more like the actions of a police state, and we can not have that stuff, that is what Bush and his criminal buddies were working on, like bombing Americans homes and destroying our Constitution!!!

    Please do not go down this path!!!

    March 4, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  42. glenn andrew in Texas

    Originally, I misread this question. Nonetheless my humble opinion is that couples (or singles) shouldn't bring into this world more children than they can afford to raise and educate. Using this guideline, the Octomom would have had to cease and desist quite a few children ago.

    March 4, 2009 at 5:30 pm |

    No, I don't think that the government should impose a law about how many embryos a woman can have implanted through fertilization. The decision of having children is solely that of the parents and no one else.

    I'm a big fan of TLC's show "Jon and Kate plus 8". Kate Gosselin, the mother of these 8 children, said that they had to use fertility treatments to have children. However, only 14 sets of sextuplets exist in the United States and Kate said that the odds of having sextuplets through fertility treatments are very slim.

    March 4, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  44. E.J. in Tacoma

    I think the government should stay out of this very personal decision. It should be between a Dr. and his/her patient. The government has no business dictating who has babies how many and when. Some families like the Dugger family just had baby number 18 they work together and provide for their very large family! What this so called octomom did was very selfish she should have donated her embryos to the many couples who have no children. Couples who can give these babies a fighting chance! Her Dr. perhaps should have used better judgment before inseminating all those embryos but government should stay out of these matters!

    March 4, 2009 at 5:37 pm |
  45. Paula

    No, with the percentage that they implant it breaks down to 6 embroyos to 3 holding on to becoming pregnant . It usually takes at least 3 tries to make it happen. Unless you get lucky coming out of the gate. Just leave this woman alone. All you Upper class women are just Mad because it is a working Blue Collar woman that got pregnant. If she had a husband , all you folks would not be running thos Campaign, just the fact that is People ion Proverty (POOR) folks doing the procedure.

    March 4, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
  46. Christine, Edmeston NY

    The reason everyone knows immediately who you're talking about if you say "the octuplet mom" is because her story is so unusual, so extreme, so unlikely. Wasting taxpayers' money on deliberating over such legislation is obscene. Does anyone really think this Ripley's-Believe-It-or-Not case will become a social epidemic? How about some legislative focus on domestic things that truly are epidemic? Like poverty, the healthcare crisis, a failing educational system, a broken economy, a fragile environment, idiots on the radio, . . .

    March 4, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
  47. Kasey

    Yes!!!! This woman is completely insane! She has burdened taxpayers with raising her children. To have one child through this process is one thing, raising a litter on the taxpayer's dime should be a crime!

    March 4, 2009 at 5:47 pm |
  48. John, Fort Collins, CO

    If the Octo mom is any indication, the only state laws required would be a simple form signed by a psychiatrist and a social worker stating the embyo implant is going to a fit mother who can adequately care for the children.

    March 4, 2009 at 5:47 pm |
  49. Greg Ontario

    The tax payer will eventually end up paying for the raising of all of her children so it's hard to say the government shouldn't have a say. I would be looking at the way the people who do the implanting do things in general. Maybe they should be forced to pay for these children in some way and let that effect the way things are run. They would think twice about implanting 6 embryos if they new they might have to support them.

    March 4, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
  50. John, Fayetteville, NY

    Limit not exactly. How about we have the woman and her entire family sign documents that clearly states that the State and/or Federal Government will not provide ANY support, medical service, counseling, aftercare, prenatal, nursing, absolutely NOTHING......it's a personal decision, and with that comes responsibility........and accountability.

    The problem is everyone wants everything, we don't think about consequences.........responsibility.........and we don't hold people accountable for their actions.

    If you stop paying for all the services.........and they have to, then I would have no problem with their decision, because they now own it, lock, stock, and barrel.

    March 4, 2009 at 5:51 pm |
  51. Dan

    My home state is attempting to do it again! This is a terrible idea! How many places do you go to where the government tells you what you can and cannot do to your own body? Only in a place like Missouri where moral issues are hammered down the throat of every resident would this be an issue. Clearly it is just a step by the Republican dominated state legislature to make abortion an issue. Their goal is to start a legal fight that they hope will result in the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.
    St. Louis, MO

    March 4, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
  52. Marshall

    No, no, no, and let me add this once again, no. What right does the government, any government at any level have in telling a person what they can do with their reproductive rights? I'm a guy, I can't get pregnant, but I have a Grandmother, Mother, Sister, Wife and Daughter, I can't imagine the government telling any of them what to do with their own bodies. Personally I think abortion is morally repugnent but will defend with my last breath the right of a woman to decide her own reproductive rights. I'd go to war for that one, literally war, sign me up, give me a rifle (I'm also a pretty stallwart Republican, I voted for McCain) Government can not, now or ever have the right to decide a person's reproductive rights. It can never be allowed to tell you how or when to have a child. Should the medical community get involved here? Probably, should there be some serious medical issues about implanting that many embroys? Are there serious risks to the health of the mother and the children? Let's let the medical community deal with that side of it. They actually try pretty hard to get this right. This particular case, as obscene as it may be, will probably lead to some internal soul searching in the medical community regarding these issues. I'm sure most Dr.'s already take serious efforts to prevent multiple births such as this. Government regulation on reproductive rights, no, not now, not ever.

    March 4, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
  53. Joy from TN

    It's most difficult to say that the government should have control over a woman's body. However, when you have a "nut" like the octuplet mom and apparently a doctor with no scruples, it begs for intervention. Thus, my opinion is conflicted.

    I do have a question that I've never seen addressed in the media. The procedure the octuplet mom had for embryo implant (which I understand she had for all of her children) is very expensive–I've heard $8,000+ per procedure. As she's non-working, apparently on welfare and food stamps, who paid? Is there more to this story than we've heard?

    March 4, 2009 at 5:56 pm |
  54. Bruce

    Who cares?

    March 4, 2009 at 6:00 pm |
  55. Clif F

    No, the government should not limit embryo implants. Doctors should.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:02 pm |
  56. jim sharp sunrise beach missouri

    YES YES YES!!! And any Dr. that would implant 8 embryos knowing that the woman is not married, unemployed and has 6 kids already should not be fined. HE SOULD BE TRIED, FOUND GUILTY AND PUT IN PRISON. What ever happened to the old way of having kids? If you had them fine if you didn't then you weren't supposed to.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:02 pm |
  57. Frank C

    Why be responsible. Bail-out or Welfare. What is the difference?

    March 4, 2009 at 6:04 pm |
  58. Purnell Kankakee lL.

    Plain and Simple Hell No!

    My grandmother had 13 children, and no one treated her like garbage like they are treating the woman who had 14 children. Those who create laws to control other people will soon themselves no longer to be considered free! Now that sound so much like China and they pay fines, taxes and go to prison, and even get executed for have more then one child!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:07 pm |
  59. C. Martin-Wood, Alabama

    Absolutely. Human beings were not intended to birth litters. Octomom is a one-woman disaster. She has no wherewithal to care for the children - not emotionally and not financially. Yet this was permitted, risking permanent injuries to the children due to low birth weight. It was permitted even though there is no money to provide for them. It was permitted when this woman is clearly a nutcase. Technology once more outpaces law - and limitations must be set for the good of the potential mothers and babies and society at large.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:08 pm |
  60. Purnell Kankakee lL.

    Jason, Koloa, HI

    You must be into Eugenics people like you only want a population of 800 million on our planet, the rest of use would have to die! You are inhuman!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  61. Mike

    I think the fertility doctor should foot the bill for the mulitple births. That would stop the practice.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  62. Paul Rogers, Walker, Michigan

    Yes! No woman should ever have more than 6 kids. I feel 4 should be the max. That Nadia Suleman woman should have never had any more kids, she already had 6 and that is more than enough for anyone.

    Walker, Michigan

    March 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  63. Gretchen from Denver

    Silly me, I guess I thought doctors could make those judgements on their own. By the way who was the doctor and why did he implant 8 embryos in a woman who already had six kids?

    March 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  64. Deb from NYC

    Tricky question – but I'll have to say no. They should set a law and add into it that it's the Doctor's responsibility to support the babies should the physician break the law and implant over the number allowed. The physician that breaks the law should take responsibility for doing so.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  65. Pamela from Germany

    I believe there should be limitations on the number of embryos that could be implanted in a woman, however the particular part of the bill concerning the description of an embryo being a living being should not be included. American women should not be pushed backwards in their rights. The USA is not a 3rd world country and any effort to ban abortion should be thwarted.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  66. Richard Ragel Jr. Crown point IN

    obama talks wasteful spending....14 kids is a perfexct example of what he means. I say copy England's and Italy's lawe worsd for word. There problem solved! was it really that hard?

    March 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  67. tim blevins

    Yes, especially if the contributing father is a Wall Steet CEO.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  68. Gilbert

    More government telling us what we can and can't do with our lives, that's exactly what we need more of.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  69. VJ

    Yes. Why am I paying my tax dollars for someone who is irresponsible and wants to have 14kids which she cannot manage.I appreciate someone coming forward

    March 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  70. Ursula

    Why should responsible people have their rights infringed on because an irresponsible patient and her doctor decided to do something stupid? Leave the American families to plan their own lives without the interference of the government. After all, this not China. We live in a democracy. And that means we are trusted to make reasonable and sensible choices in our lives. Keep
    government out of our personal lives!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  71. The Obnoxious American


    How about the government doesn't limit the number of embryos, and the government doesn't have to pay for them either? Can't we have both, you know, good ole personal responsibility? What a novel concept. Unfortunately, such an option would never be considered in today's society.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  72. Joshua

    Hell no Jack. The last place the government needs to be is in a womans womb. It's rather amusing to me that the Republicans are for small government, just small enough to fit inside our doctors offices.

    Reseda, CA

    March 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  73. John in PA

    I think the gov't should stay out of a womans womb and out of our personal lives as much as possible. What's next, a couple has to pass a credit check to have a kid?

    Let the AMA pass a rule for doctors to follow.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  74. sallie

    yes, the number should be limited.

    I only have one child. But raising another human being is a big responsibility. I can't imagine having 14. It truely does seem unbelievable. It really would be like raising a liter of dogs, uh children.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  75. Cordele Rolle

    Are we in Germany? Isn't this how Hilter got started. We must alway heir on the side of Freedom. Even mentally challenged people, should have the right to be mentally challenged.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  76. Purnell Kankakee lL.


    Eugenics is about limiting the population to 800 million on our planet, the rest of use would have to die! And that is what Hitler tryed to do follow this path and you will soon be following Hilter! Sig Heil!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  77. Rob in Zihuatanejo

    Government shouldn't. But medical ethics should.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  78. Alex Berish

    The government absolutely should NOT impose any such restrictions. They only need to require that a woman is financially equipped to care for whatever number of embryos she recieves.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  79. Katherine F.

    I think that the government should step in. When there are doctors that put so many embryo's into a women that if all get fertilized, would be unhealthy for the babies and mother then something needs to change.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  80. Rose Knotts

    No, the government should make both people who donate DNA to an embryo responsible for the outcome. If both were held responsible for the future child, that would prevent many abortions, men who scatter their seeds carelessly, and women like the publicity hungry octo-mom.

    Rose in London

    March 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  81. lkinopfl

    Jack I don't really like the way you worded the question. Should government limit? Or maybe you mean.. Should there be a law that limits the number of embryos that can be implanted. You see our entire government system is made up of laws that protect the citizens of this nation in one way or another. So yes I do think there should be a law that limits the # of embryos.. and of course the mother can ask for less than that if she wants. But I do think there has to be some regulations put on this baby-making process. As seen with the octomom, how many snafus can be afforded like that in our Country? There are laws that do and always will protect our citizens.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  82. Elaine Jeter

    The problem becomes obvious. If the medical profession doesn't want the government to govern the number of embryos they are allowed to implant, they must limit it themselves, based on the abilities and needs of the prospective parents.

    The warning should be sufficient; but we should never forget that the principal need is that children should be protected.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  83. Gary

    The issue with OCTOMom isn't really the number of children she chose to bear, but the fact that she has no resources with which to support them.

    Had this been a billionaire woman, no one would have batted an eyelash.

    What's needed is a financial ability test before a woman gets pregnant or bears a child. If she cannot support the newborn, she has no right to bring it into the world.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  84. Ben H.

    Anyone who wants to have children that badly should prove they are financially stable enough to do so. If a person/couple is wealthy enough to have and take care of 14 children, more power to them. On the other hand, laws are meant to protect society from the psychos who have never heard of moderation.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  85. Karen

    The problem is constitutionality. This is as clear an intrusion by the states on the rights of citizens to make their own choices as those attempting to overthrow Roe v. Wade, or those that take away gay people's ability to marry.

    All citizens have a constitutional right to marry, to have kids, to use birth control, to abort–in other words, citizens have the constitutional right to be left alone. This is our constitutional right to privacy, and in 20th century decisions, our Supreme Court has ruled that state laws may not intrude upon that right.

    The Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and others of the Constitution, prohibit unfair discrimination. They authorize the Supreme Court to apply modern standards of fairness and decency, notwithstanding that such standards do not comport with the biases and prejudices of the 18th century, in which they were enacted. The constitution was expressly designed to protect individuals (especially unpopular minority people) FROM the 'Will of the People.'

    Colorado Springs, CO

    March 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  86. Katherine Bicicchi

    I think one of the major reasons for throwing out Republicans was the intrusion of the religious right into our bedrooms and reproductive decisions. I sincerely hope the tide is turning. If the Republicans truly believe in smaller government, they'd better be consistent across the board.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  87. Paula Bradford

    Government should limit what it has to pay for. Women like this psycho, octumom are in it for a free ride and attention. They need psychiatry (that we'll probably have to pay for as well). More than two children (when the public has to pay) is an issue that America will one day have to face. People that are irresponsible and too lazy to control themselves or their reproductive issues do not deserve our respect or our money.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  88. john

    of course they should be limited. why was this octupulet woamn impregnanted during a time when she already had 6 prior children, no job, losing her home, on state funding assistance, etc. i mean their should be a screening program in place so that responsible women who need medical assistance for thier pregnancy can get the help. women who are mentallly ill should not be having an unlimited amount of embryos inserted!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  89. Beth from NJ

    No; If the rationale underlying the proposed legislation is that the children will end up being on welfare, then what is next? Limiting the number of children a person/couple can have based on financial wealth?

    March 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  90. Kevin

    Why not pre-qualify potential mothers similar to how we do adoption. Insure the ability to properly care for the child by the mother before moving forward with any fertility procedures!


    March 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  91. Doug In PA

    I think it should depend on her financial situation. Its time to follow the Obama administrations lead of responsibility.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  92. Anna of Milton, Florida

    Absolutely not.
    England and Italy have socialized medicine. The Republicans insist they don't want socialized medicine. But when it comes to reproductive rights, they want total government control. They can't have it both ways. . They need to go away and huddle somewhere, figure out what it is they REALLY want, and then get back to us. In the meantime, medical care should be an issue between the patient and her doctor – oh yes, and her insurance company.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  93. Tristan

    No, and I don't think the taypayers should have to pay for bad decisions either.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  94. Barbara Traster

    When nature denies procreation, I believe it must be respected. By all means, limit, or end, this gross fertility practice. More maddening than OCTO-MON is the case of the woman who became pregant after the death of her husband and collects his benefits for the child. When does this become just nonesense?

    March 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  95. Carlain Alabama

    Invitro fertilization should be banned out right, at least until all children that are up for adoption have been placed into good homes.
    My mother used to tell me that if I didn't want the salad on my plate I wasn't hungry enough. Maybe all these infertile people aren't "hungry" enough to adopt!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  96. c.m. exton

    Absolutely ! Breeding is a choice not an illness and should not be covered under general health insurance which is being paid for by the rest of us...

    March 4, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  97. Michele New York

    No, it should be left to the doctors and if they can't act responsible then they should not be practicing medicine. The next step the government might want to tell me when to see my husband.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  98. DL

    Instead of a measly $1,000 fine for implanting an excess of embryos, (which is hardly a deterrent to fertility clinics which charge far more than that for the procedure), why not require that the clinic pay for the lifelong care for every infant above the legal number? That might give them pause.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  99. Bryan

    No. The doctor should be the one responsible for the safety of the patient. The bill in Georgia as it's worded is not intended to protect the mother. It is intended to protect the embryo with the ultimate goal of outlawing abortion later on. Georgia is one of those backwards confederate states that want to replace the constitution with their interpretation of the bible.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  100. Roland (St George, UT)

    No. Birth control is not the government’s job. But I thik if a person has more children than they can provide for adequately (and most people would agree that the unmarried, unemployed octo-mom on public assistance in California falls into that category), then Child Protective Services should have the right to remove them and place them in qualified, safe, nurturing foster homes.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
  101. matthew czajka

    Instead of limiting the number of embryos a doctor can implant in a woman's uterus, we should require that any woman seeking infertility treatment be able to demonstrate her financial capacity to care for the child or children. If we do it for people wishing to adopt , we can do it here to to.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  102. Karl from SF, CA

    Since the medical profession can’t stop stupid people from doing stupid things, both doctors and patients alike, the government has to. This last disaster is a sign there has to be some commonsense in the process. Freedom is one thing but irresponsibility is something else.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  103. Tristan

    No, and I don’t think the taypayers should have to pay for bad decisions either.

    Lockport, LA

    March 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  104. Tucker, Upstate NY

    No! It's a direct pathway toward becoming like China and its government's control of the number of children a family can have.

    No! It's a direct pathway toward having our government in control of individual human bodies.

    No! It's a direct pathway toward our government's control of science and medical decisions.

    No! Just plain no!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  105. Kate, Kalamazoo MI

    Government shouldn't be regulating this type of thing, the doctors and social workers should be dealing with this. Why is it that we have such strict guidelines and rules & regulations in place for adoption but not for invetro fertilization. Why is it that people who want to artificially inseminate receive a 'get out of jail' free card so to speak. These people should be held to the same standards that those who care to adopt are. This single mother of six with no income and no living situation of her own merrit would've never made it through the adoption process I can guarantee you this much! There's no way on this planet she would've gained approval for one adopted child, let alone eight! It's a total outrage Jack, a total outrage.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  106. Edson

    If the concern is one of finances, perhaps laws should be passed making it plain to women faced with the multi births, as a result of embro implantation, that no financial assistance will be given.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  107. Layne Alleman

    Jack, I guess Georgia feels they don't have enough prison inmates already. Seriously, don't they have anything better to do with their time in legislative session? Antioch, Il.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  108. Jean

    Yes some limits should apply. Women who are on welfare or government assistance should not be given that right for invitro due to the expense of it all.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  109. Sarah

    It's unfortunate that State or Federal government may need to pass laws regarding the number of embryos implanted in a woman. In a more perfect world the doctors would follow guidelines and mothers would be told that their health as well as the embroys are at risk. I blame the doctor and the mother of 14 children for what happened.

    I do hope that the eight babies will be happy and healthy but with a mother who appears to be unrealistic about her ability to care for so many children, it's doubtful.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  110. richard

    yes yes yes yes this is crazy and selfish, hundreds of thousands of adoptable children in need of a home are overlooked in an already overcrowded world that sits on the edge of collapse and people choose to do this strange procedure.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  111. David

    No. This is why we have medical boards. The case should and no doubt will prompt an investigation of the doctor, he will have to hire an attorney, and may be censured by the board. It will also increase the board's scrutiny of the invitro practices, perhaps lead to enhanced board rules and regulations, and perhaps stricter medical guidelines will be established to regulate these practices. How many embryos (and we call them embryos, not people) to emplant is a medical decision between patient and doctor. You can bet that this case will be reviewed by the medical community, which will be asking, " How did this happen? (i.e., "How did the doctor screw up?")

    March 4, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  112. PAT California

    It is my understanding that doctors already have guidelines in place as to the number of embryos that should be implanted according to the age of the mother. These guidelines not enough. ABILITY TO SUPPORT, and MENTAL EXAM, should be required. Since multiple babies are often the result of this procedure, anyone who has multples should have the means to support them. They do this for other procedures, why not IVF!!!! Since some doctors cannot abide by the rules, the government should be involved, because they may end up supporting these kids.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  113. Sandra

    Hey Jack, the lawmaker in Georgia has no right to decide how many embryos a woman should have implanted in her. First of all he is not a woman and furthermore he and the rest of the male gender should stay out of our uterus, once we start down this road, eventually women will be told how often they can go to bed with their husbands. The case of the 'Octomom' is an isolated incident and should be dealt with as such.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  114. Melvin from Germany

    Government should limit the embryo in implants. Otherwise they should put a plan in future for an economic stimulus package for such family with fourteen children.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  115. BC from Boston

    Jack –

    I think this issue touches on extremely sensitive subject matter. This particular legislation seems like a double-edged sword; damned if they do, damned if they don't. A public restriction could potentially intrude upon a woman's birth rights, along with the abortion and birth control. On the other hand, we must not forget the problems of world overpopulation and limited resources, wasted tax money and the increased health risks for multiples in child births.

    I personally wish the modern population would let nature run its course and accept human limitations as they are. Attempting to "beat the system" in health care and science sometimes proves too dangerous.

    The current case of the octuplets is indeed rare and hopefully is not a sign of times to come.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  116. Frances Segarra

    Yes, the government should limit the amount of embros a woman can have implanted. The health and life of the multiple birth children cna be very questionable. If the doctor and birth mother don't have enough common sense to practice this proceedure with safe health involved instead of looking for publicity, then the governent will have to control the proceedure.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  117. Mike Burns

    The government should not make a decision on the number of implants a woman should have. The doctors should be held responsible and if she goes against his medical advice, he should insist she see a psychiatrist and a social worker.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  118. Yogesh Patel

    This is absolutely absurd to have government dictate how many embryo should be implanted otherwise impose a fine, how bizarre is that . This should totally be decision between parents to be and their doctor based on medical condition, age and risk tolerance of the woman. Talk about government’s involvement in your personal life. There are hundreds and thousands of IVF done every year, just because of a single odd case you can’t make a law/policy out of that. Don’t these politicians have better things to do and solve real problems like economy ? What is an overall burden on society of one or two odd cases..? BTW, we have an IVF baby and we are very happy the way the system works today.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  119. lz

    i think people who have children should not be giving opinions because they have had it easy and have no idea what a person struggling to have children goes through. As a person (under 35 yrs) trying to have children for 6 years and having been through 2 failed IVF cycles (2 healthy embryos each time) i can tell you what a turmoil it is. Nadia Suleman and her physician displayed an unusual lack of judgement resulting in eight children who are now in a precarious situation. I do not think it is fair to regulate this to 2 embryos and punish the rest of us for someone else's irrational decision making. Also, most women who go through IVF, do not keep reattempting if it is successful as it is physically, financially and emotionally draining.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  120. Cory Gordon, Ontario California

    Yes! I believe that the government should regulate fertility. The world is already over-populated. The last thing we need is more women becoming octomoms. Taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for helping raise children that do not belong to them. Having that many kids is irresponsible and should be regulated before more women become octomoms.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  121. Charles L. Clarke

    Back door admendment's to any bill, should never be allowed. However doctors , not the patient, should be responsible if it's obvious that the public would likely end up paying for the infants.

    This was an obvious case of Doctor abusing, his judgement. The only likely reason I can think of, would be his feeling the woman would get money from the publicity, and in her doing so, he would get paid.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  122. Paula in the middle of America--Illinois

    No, but the American Medical Association should. Good ethics is needed in all areas, let's begin with this embryo subject!!!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  123. Aaron

    There are millions of children around the world who's parents have died and need a loving home to come to. Until we take care of these kids first, fertility clinics should be outlawed and violators sent to prison, or better yet, sent to the countries where these kids need someone to call mom.


    March 4, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  124. Marcelle

    Yes, there should be a limit on invitro.! There are so many children already alive because of so many people who give no thought or consideration to the childs health or education!

    Any DR who disregards. common sense, should lose their liscense.

    I think the current situation, is ALL about publicity! NO thought for the children.

    If this were a true occurance, I would say help, however the occurance in Calif. was PLANNED. Let the children be adopted!!!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  125. shela

    the government in Georgia the same republicans in georgia who want to profoundly limit the role of government find it okay to say how many babies a woman can have. but real reason they are trying to pass the legislation is the abortion thing all they want to do is give women less and less rights. it is unconstitutional.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  126. Kevin, Georgia

    I'm going to say no and hope that the next time this happens (and you know it will) we won't be bombarded with constant news stories about her. It is unfortunate that the octomom has brought us to this point. I'm glad that Georgia has a full calendar. It sounds like they have better things to worry about. The rest of the country should follow suit.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  127. Roy

    To start with this is supposed to be a free country and these kinds of decisions should be between her, the doctor and her beliefs. It's simply no one elses business although there will be no end to those who will always want to stick their noses in someone elses business.

    Olympia, Wa

    March 4, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  128. NB

    Yes it should. Europe has been doing it for years. The only ones benefiting from multiple implants are the fertility clinics, which deliver the offered pregnancy in one try. Three single embryo procedures yield as good a chance as one triple embryo procedure without the risk of facing the loose-loose scenario of selective abortion or traumatic lifestyle changes. There would also be less of those clumsy triple baby carriages going about the streets.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  129. Liz in Los Angeles, CA

    Since I live in California and will be contributing to the lifelong support of all 14 of these babies (and likely their mother and HER mother and God knows who else in their family), a resounding YES to your question. And her doctor's ability to keep practicing so irresponsibly should be brought under strict scrutiny. It's called losing his license. For shame!!!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  130. pat bryant

    NO! No one should be denied the joy of being a parent, because of an extraordinary case. America just needs to get over this. It's done, the babies are here, and we all need to get over our indignant outrage. However, this doctor should be made to answer for performing this procedure.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
  131. Bert

    Jack, is there difference between this woman and the foster care system, that takes your child and pay someone else to do a lousy job.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:32 pm |
  132. Mark Easton, PA

    Yes they should limit the implant to one child per event. Multiple births subject the children to a fraction of the Mothers time and attention.

    There is truth in the Nursary Rhyme; The woman who lived in a shoe, had so many children; she knew not what to do.

    Are the recipients of the multiple implants really thinking of the children? I think not.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:32 pm |
  133. minka

    If the woman and/or family is looking toward the State government to pay for raising the children then, yes, they do have the right. On the other hand, if the woman and/or family can afford to take care of their children without government assistance they should decide on the size of their family.
    At this time I am waiting for California to ask for stimulus money to pay for raising the Suleman children.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:32 pm |
  134. Mari Fernandez, Salt Lake City, Utah

    No, it should be left to the parents. I think its disturbing to have people want more than three or four, but that's between them & GOD.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:32 pm |
  135. Tim

    When is the last time anyone checked the world population count? Eventually the effects of an overburdened world will hit us… Oh wait, they already are!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:33 pm |
  136. Buster in Poughkeepsie, NY

    The government should limit the implantation of embryos to just a few, for everyone knows that there's nothing better than a womb with a few.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
  137. Theresa Denton


    People want the Government to limit the number of embryos a woman can have implanted into "her body",, but they don't want the government going to socalism or more control or wanting the government to govern more,,,, are they joking or smoking something, folks are more and more delusional!!!! PLEASE!!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
  138. Allen in Hartwell GA

    If the family can afford it and any children from the procedure then what business does the government have telling people what they can do?
    Georgia is a RED state and Conservatives doesn't want the government telling the people anything...except whether women can have abortions or not.
    Sounds to me like they are trying to back-door us.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:35 pm |
  139. Tony (Pittsburgh, Pa)

    How about making parents jump through the same hoops required to adopt children in order to keep the children they bring into this world. Adequate housing, clothing, diet, and schooling is certainly not too much to ask. Perhaps that's a better alternative than limiting the number of embryos one can have... I think that's a fair compromise.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:35 pm |
  140. Purnell Kankakee lL.


    We are spending 75 bucks for a wrench that cost less then 5 bucks, and 300 bucks for a rain suit that cost 25 bucks, and you people want to create laws to limit how many children a person can have. We are being robbed blind by these companies and because one mom has 14 children all families should be limited, this sounds like a Republican’s plan they love avoiding the stealing of money by their buddies by going after value issues!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
  141. SimpleTruth

    Just another back door to try and erode the rights women have over their body. Why do others think they have the "right" to dictate there opinion...yes it is an opinion, because not all of us believe in "your" God. Also men should step back on this issue, it does not affect there body, on the other hand does that mean we can force vasectomies so "Gods Seed" is not spilled. I doubt that would pass. The world may be overpopulated, but the U.S. is not. The fact that octuplets were born, is the exception not the rule. People also win the lottery but most will not. This is an issue for the person involved and their physician.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
  142. Loretta

    If the government were to limit embryo implants, wouldn't this be a direct affront to all the "Sarah Palin " pro-lifers out there? They are the advocates of all life being sacred and precious at conception. They've been mighty quiet where these octoplets are concerned.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
  143. Aaron

    Yes, the government should regulate fertility and prevent potential situations such as the one involving the octopolet mom. Fertility is not limited to the domain of privacy and has widespread social implications and costs to taxpayers. Unwanted or neglected children become wards of the state and thus become a costly burden to responsible taxpaying citizens.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:41 pm |
  144. Ron from Rochester, NY

    I think that if the government is going to step in and legislate this, it should do so only to protect taxpayers. My wife and I went through a decade of trying every imaginable manner of becoming pregnant to no avail, we are now working with a adoption agency to fufill our hopes. All things being equal, if the person or couple has the ability to support and love the embryos when they become a viable life, more power to them, I only wish my wife and I had been so fortunate.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:41 pm |
  145. Mike M - Toledo, OH

    Before we answer this question, we need to ask whether we should be planting embryos in the first place. Did we ever stop to ask that question along the way? Our foster care system is overburdened. Infertility is tragic, but to spend extraordinary sums of money to overcome it while you could provide a family for a child who will otherwise have none? Well, it seems a little selfish to me.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:48 pm |
  146. Wanda

    Absolutely – embryo implants should be restricted, i.e., "regulated" along with everything else that American tax payers are required to bail out.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:50 pm |
  147. Edyth

    The legislature should limit the number of embryos implanted on the same day that they fully fund women's birth control, which will NEVER happen. I hate it when a bunch of men think they have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies; they'd never think of telling men what to do with theirs because they know that if they did, men would burn the country down around their ears.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:50 pm |
  148. Purnell Kankakee lL.


    My grand mother had 13 children I and others should not be made to lose cousins or other family member because two people did one wrong act! People created thing in the past and will in the future, someone will cure some disease or create other wonderful items to help all of our people across the world, it is dumb to take away the possibility by abortion and buy over control, people lives. It was not to long ago in Russia that people were born into a certain job I do not want to so that stuff here in America! Also women benefit from the increased numbers in our population from social security!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:51 pm |
  149. paul in MN

    I think it's a dangerous idea to get the government involved with reproductive rights. But, I really believe that anyone who is currently or has recently been receiving any type of government supplements should not be allowed the option of fertilization. I don't know the process of how someone gets approval to have fertilization but I would certainly hope that if one is 'playing god' (as some people call it) that you can prove that you can support the possibility for multiple births.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:51 pm |
  150. ptricia

    YES, Its time we wake up and stop messing with nature. I am a pro choice woman, but when it comes to implanted embroys....I draw the line.

    March 4, 2009 at 6:52 pm |
  151. Purnell Kankakee lL.


    It cost 50k to implant them any way it's not cheap in any way!

    March 4, 2009 at 6:52 pm |