Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Setting the record straight

I am certainly no stranger to comments ranging anywhere from idiotic to hateful, and most all of the time, it doesn't phase me in the least.

Today, however, something came to my attention that I feel I must publicly refute. An article published on the day Boaz was born on a site called alternet.org is making the slanderous and horrendous claim that rather than Jachin passing away due to circumstances outside of our control, we actually intentionally killed him by way of selective reduction. You can find that article here.

In case you have missed it, I have blogged on abortion and selective reduction in the past. Of course, we vehemently oppose both since they are just murder by another name.

The article on AlterNet claims that:
Christian patriarchs like Anderson pound the pulpit about women thwarting God’s perfect plan, but when push comes to shove in the pregnancy and delivery process, normal human emotions often win out: fear, love and the yearning for children who are healthy and happy. Anderson and his wife did their homework and she underwent a series of procedures aimed at maximizing the likelihood of a healthy outcome. The procedure that ultimately saved one twin — a laser ablation that severed their connection — also killed the weaker one, which was left with insufficient blood flow.

Not only is this a ridiculous and slanderous accusation, it is entirely inaccurate from a medical standpoint.

Untreated, TTTS will kill both twins in 95% of cases. In the other 5% of cases, one twin may survive, but face serious, life-long complications. Until just a couple of decades ago, this was the bleak outlook for twin pregnancies affected by TTTS. Sadly, this is still true today in most countries around the world that cannot offer anything in the way of treating TTTS.

Thanks to modern medical advances, there are now several treatment approaches. All this information can be found and verified on the TTTS Foundation website.

1. Laser ablation of the connected blood vessels in the placenta. These blood vessels were never supposed to be connected to begin with.
2. Draining excess amniotic fluid in the recipient baby

3. In mild cases, a doctor may choose to just "wait and see", as about 10% of TTTS cases resolve on their own. 
Besides these three treatment options, there are two other possible, but unethical ways to proceed:
a. Terminate the pregnancy altogether
b. Terminate one twin (whichever one is the weaker one), typically by severing or cauterizing his umbilical cord. This is often referred to as a "cord ablation", likewise carried out by laser.
As far as survival rates go, option 1 offers the greatest chances of survival for both twins individually, as well as the pregnancy overall. It is the preferred, standard recommended course of action in an attempt to give both twins the best shot at survival.
That is the route we chose to go with our babies. The surgery was a complete success, as the surgeon assured me before I even got to the recovery room. Both twins were healed of TTTS the moment their connected blood vessels in the placenta were severed by way of laser. Without the surgery, both of our babies would most likely have passed away within the next week, one from severe anemia causing brain damage, the other from the excess blood volume causing heart failure.
Unlikely as it was, even just 24 hours after the surgery, Jachin for the first time had a visible bladder on ultrasound (meaning he was no longer so anemic that his body had shut down his urine output), and had even built up some amniotic fluid rather than being "shrink wrapped" in his amniotic membrane. It was as ideal of an outcome as we could have hoped for.
Still, the surgeon warned us that he was only giving Jachin a 50% chance of survival, based on the fact that he had a very small share of the placenta, and that his umbilical cord was not attached to the placenta properly (known as a "velamentous cord insertion"). The doctor was not basing this information just on ultrasound, but rather real-life images from the camera used during the surgery.
Sadly, three weeks after the laser surgery, Jachin did, indeed, pass away. This was not a result of TTTS, or the surgery, but rather the fact that he simply was not receiving enough nutrition through his cord to sustain his ever increasing needs.
What AlterNet is falsely accusing us of, instead, is that we chose option (b) above - cutting off one baby to save the other. Besides being murderous, this option could not have been possible for two simple reasons:
1. Cord ablation results in the death of the unborn within a matter of minutes, not weeks, as the child cannot live without his life-line, the cord.
2. The surgeon I was treated by does not perform cord ablations, as he considers them to be unethical.

I wonder just what kind of person would write such a lying, misinformed article simply out of hatred for our way of life, and then publish it on the long-anticipated birth day of our surviving twin. We honored our baby Jachin in an actual burial just a few days ago, when we were not even legally required to do so (he passed away right before the legal threshold), and in spite of the fact that the vast majority of parents in our situation choose cremation instead. Baby Jachin was loved every moment of his brief life. We never would have chosen a treatment method that favored the survival of one child over the other, even if it had increased our chances of having at least one baby survive. We fought very hard for both, spent over $50,000 in cash doing so, and have no regrets about any aspect of our medical care. 

AlterNet ought to rescind their slanderous article, and issue a public apology. Which would require a minimal amount of decency and human nature, neither of which they possess.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. ~ Matthew 5:11


  1. I read both the article and the comments, both extremely pathetic. First that twisted composition of pure hatred, which came out right after a healthy baby was born, then those comments. I read it with indifference, some petty towards them, a mild disgust - that's about it. I really hope you are done arguing with them. They intentionally turned your story inside out, even though every important milestone in your pregnancy had been available for reading and comprehending. In some instances, comprehending is not only too much to ask, it's something they'll never do. They'll spice it up with lies and horrific misinterpretation according to taste. Hurtful as it is I wouldn't mind them much, wouldn't stoop down to their level, all they wanna do is p**p all over your happiness. People that were all over your story is like that one old woman from the netherlands who claims to be proudly and miserably single, an abortionist, the one that came to you whining after her thirty-something single kid died of drunk driving. You didn't offer her a shoulder to cry on, and ever since that, which is four years, she keeps dragging out this sob story of you cruelly "mistreating" her every time she's chugged down a significant amount of alcohol, always looking for new preys on that forum to introduce her mistreatment to new people and harvest attention, petty and any form of energy that she can drain them of. Then, she passes out drunk and mumbling. Now, if you want to stoop down to that level it's really up to you, but I wouldn't. You really are done explaining the situation. Miserable people like that wine-bibber will always be buzzing around your forum and dig for more, then talk some more. You responding to them just allows single drunk abortionists to have more material to chew on, and spend more of their time on the internet talking about you. Starve them of attention, for they are the most dangerous when they are drunk or on drugs, and the things they imagine in their heads, they'll believe that the things they hallucinated are actually true. Enjoy your family. I would laugh in their faces holding my healthy, beautiful baby boy close to my heart. They cannot rob you of your happiness, unless allow them to.

    1. Zsuzsanna, you come on here complaining of people lying about you. Does that justify your allowing your readers to lie about others? What Anonymous (5/13 at 4:52) has said about this other woman is completely false. It is libelous. People have taken note of her hateful lies about a deceased person and are considering legal action. I believe it is a real possibility they can track this person and pursue this legal action. You might warn your friend to be more careful.

    2. To Anonymous: Don't be ridiculous, she did not even mention the name of that dutch woman. How can she be sued then?

  2. I agree that the writer gave misinformation about Jachin's death, and I am sorry that is hurtful to you. However, the point of the article is that you did not leave it to God to handle, but sought treatment. You have consistently condemned those who use reproductive technologies, male gynecologists, and the academic elite. Then you sought treatment from a highly-educated male gynecologist who used some of that technology on you. Your actions are counter to your message.

    I do think you did the right thing; furthermore, you do not need to justify your choices to anyone. But maybe you can reexamine your condemnation of other women who have walked a similar road?

    1. I'm sure they prayed constantly over making the "right" decision in regards to procedures…..Are they in err here? That's between them and God. I'm sure ZsuZsuana and Pastor Anderson did what they thought was the right thing. And for people to try to attack them over their decision……well, it's pretty mean. Pastor Anderson and his wife are human and will be tested and grow and even make mistakes. (I'm not saying they made a mistake in this situation, as I'm sure they did what they felt was right)…..There is none perfect. This is why we need Jesus.

    2. Anon,

      We have never been against medical treatment. The Bible is very clear that "They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick." This has always been our stand. We have often in the past sought ought medical treatment for anything outside our scope of home remedies for mild illnesses. We strongly believe in and support measures that restore and maintain health.

      However, that does not mean that we condone of any and all available medical procedures. Just because we believe in trying to save the life of the unborn, does not mean we also embrace artificial reproductive technology that is cavalier about creating and destroying life. Any technological advances can be used for evil, or for good. Other times, medicine can be used ignorantly, and cause more harm than good without trying to do so.

      In America, we have the greatest and worst medical advances available to us. As consumers, we need to learn to use these "a la carte" - choosing the good and refusing the bad - rather than to just swallow it all hook, line, and sinker.

      Contrary to what has been claimed online, the only gynecologist I saw this entire pregnancy was a female. Other than that, I have been seen by an MFM specialist, and a fetal surgeon. Both were fully respectful of my concerns regarding modesty, though it really was not an issue to begin with as every ultrasound and procedure they carried out was done on my abdomen.

      Besides that, though this was not the case here, in an urgent life-and-death situation (such as a car accident, etc.) where there is no time to accommodate modesty concerns, survival trumps modesty. If a person's life is at stake, the goal is to save the life at all cost. If someone is drowning, we don't care who pulls them out of the water, or what sort of private life they live. But that does not mean we have to agree with any and all life style choices.

    3. But isn't your stance that women should stay home and have children rather than go to college? In which case, why not see a male ob/gyn? I understand the issue of modesty, but you also don't seem to support the idea of females going to college to become an ob/gyn.

    4. Zsu -- I am a female physician. Your male MFM physician IS a gynecologist - he just happened to do more training after his OB/GYN residency in maternal-fetal medicine. I think what feels so uncomfortable to many of us is how derogatory you have been towards male gynecologists in the past but when you needed one, you saw one. I am glad you did, but I hope your rhetoric about them changes.

  3. I think you are such a great gift from God and all your exsamples of a strong loveing women. God bless you and I pray women see how wrong abortion is and know that is not what you did.

  4. Not to nitpick, but slander refers to something said to disparage your character. Remember like this: slander=saliva=spoken word.

    Libel is something written to disparage your character. Remember like this: libel=library=written word.

    Those comments are libelous, not slanderous.

    Sorry about your baby. That is a very sad thing to endure. God be with you.

  5. Oh my, how they would lie about this heart wrenching ordeal your family went through. We, who know you, know you did EVERYTHING in your power to ensure the survival of both of your twins. Because you love God so much, and you treasure his blessings. I guess it's no surprise how someone truly wicked would falsely accuse and try to hurt you and yours in your moment of mixed joy and heartbreak. Please sue these false accusers, so they refrain from future attacks on good people.

  6. @ you, at 6:59 am. There's a slight difference between advising women against contraception, natural or hormonal, also advising people against medical procedures that will make them infertile or end the life of a fetus, and insisting on the implementation of a very necessary medical procedure that will brighten up the outlook of difficult twin pregnancies.
    @Laura Fritz, me and my partner (both childless after all those years of following the Andersons) also think that they should sue them... alongside with the vilest commenters. If you can't show them by example, you'll teach them some other way. A well-worded mail from a lawyer might result in an accurate correction and a public apology for attempted defamation. One single mail from a professional can do wonders. Otherwise:
    I really hope Mrs Anderson will be strong and smart enough to let articles like that fizz out. Since all the necessary information is available, everyone's more than welcome to read this blog for themselves before spewing out dumb and ignorant comments. I wouldn't waste a keystroke on them anymore.
    Reading the Andersons' blog never offended us in any way, no matter how harshly put it was whatever we read on here. Interestingly (just asked my partner) we both think of this site as a full-of-life, useful site that provides readers with neverending fun and it's a good source to homesteaders that look for life hacks. I would pop my pill right before Zsuzsanna in the middle of a conversation about everything else, and continue talking. Sometimes, you know, you just don't look for a fight with everyone around you. You appreciate them the way you are, and let them live. We were both given our chance to choose what we believe in and how we wanted to live.

  7. My heart goes out to you and your family. What a horrid thing to say (well, write) about anyone, regardless of beliefs or way of life. The loss of a child is something that is private and personal. I'm so sorry that you're having to endure this pain on top of mourning the loss on one baby while being joyous about the birth of the other. I wouldn't have even linked the article-- the site doesn't deserve the traffic! My prayers go out to you and your family. God bless.

  8. I checked out TTTS, I've never done that before. I've seen a few total success stories... very little, this area of the modern medicine has a LOT of growing up to do yet! Zsuzsanna has practically volunteed to be one of the pioneer parents. I wish that the pregnancy had been complication-free, but it wasn't. They are among the first parents who's cases the surgery resulted in a 50% success, which is a huge success since it resulted in one life saved. As to condemning doctors: I myself cannot imagine being either a dentist, or an ob-gyn, or a plastic surgeon, an urologist or a physician of any sort. They have to deal with yucky diseases every day, most of the times the perversion of the human body, and fix it. I cannot imagine looking into people's ears, noses, mouth, stomachs, any other body parts for a living, but it pays well. I don't see how a male ob-gyn is any more perverted than someone who will look into anyone's mouth 20 times a day. Yuck. But somebody does have to do these jobs, rid our teeth of tartar, check out the bottom of our stomachs, perform surgeries, etc, and most doctors make very good money being private practitioners. It has nothing to do with peeking under ladies undies! Ladies of all age do need medical assistance. Little to old. There is nothing sexual about being an ob-gyn. The doctor who checks up the 120th woman that week if everything's okay with them (and most of the time, it isn't...) cannot be accused of lusting after his patients. No. Other than re-thinking the theory about male ob-gyns, I would drop the subject already. This family has contributed to volunteering in modern medicine, allowing doctors to learn more about twin transfusion cases and raise the number of success rates, moving humanity towards a world where this compartment of laser surgeries are slowly being refined into routine surgeries, hopefully very soon.

  9. I posted a comment in response to Alternet's article, my name is Pink. Frankly, I am disgusted that anyone would spend their time writing this gossip and I think they should be ashamed of themselves for using your personal and private tragic circumstances to garner readers. And the commentors? Seriously, they seem to have plenty of time to gossip, but can't seem to take any time to research the facts of this matter. You have shared the facts with us all along, and it has always been clear to me that your goal was to do your best to save the life of both of your children. As a reader of your blog, I know that your belief system would not allow you to do anything less.

    I hope that during this time in your life, one of simultaneous incredible grief and incredible joy, that you are able to let this issue and the gossip-mongers go. It is a complete waste of your time.

    I am so very sorry for the loss of Jachin. I am so happy that Boaz is doing so well. Take care <3

  10. So sorry that people need to spew such hatred after all you and the family have been through. You did the right thing and you don't need to answer these accusations.God bless this precious baby.I pray for you as you grieve your precious, perfect baby who is with the Lord.

  11. So sorry that you have to deal with these lies against you and your family during this emotional time. Anyone who has actually followed the story of your twin pregnancy could see that this article written about you is 100% false and written out of their own hatred of God and the teachings of the bible. I hope at the very least, they retract the article and give the apology you deserve. God Bless!

  12. Some people are just repulsive aren't they? One of the miserable bunch on FJ I bet. No one worth anything would ever believe the article. Blessings to you all.

  13. I must say that it is incredibly hurtful that you think less of a parent who chose cremation. Our dear little Talitha passed at 17 weeks. We were not able to have her buried as she was not legally considered a person, but rather medical waste. We were renting at the time and I did not want to bury her in a garden we would leave Instead she was cremated, her ashes made into a diamond and her remains sit over my heart in a pendant every day. True you did not legally have to have Jachin buried, but choosing to do so does not make you a better mother than I am. At least you were given that opportunity. That is a very hurtful and spiteful comment on your behalf, and I am shocked, given that you have experienced a loss of your own that you would try and compare the different ways parents choose to handle the loss of their deceased infant.

    1. Anon,

      I do not at all think less of parents who chose cremation, but I see why my post makes it sounds like that. I apologize for my insensitive wording, and hurting your feelings more.

      What I meant to convey was that the fact that we chose to deal with our child's remains at all when we were not legally required to do so, especially in the most uncommon of ways, should serve as proof that we did not selective abort him in utero just to save us some trouble. Does that make sense.

      I hope you are able to heal well from the loss of your daughter.

  14. I'm so sorry you have to deal with that at what should be a happy time and, unfortunately, a time of mourning your loss. It's obvious by your writings here that you are thoroughly well read in your research. Thank you for sharing.

  15. What a horrible piece of libelous garbage!!! Oh my gosh, that article made me so, so angry. How can they get away with writing such outright lies? Can you file a lawsuit? I am thoroughly disgusted with what that "author" spewed and I will most certainly be emailing them about this!

  16. I thought that there were parts to the article that offered some very helpful commentary. The point that, in an era of advanced medical intervention, it is very difficult to know how and when to let God be God and when we humans are trespassing on God's jurisdiction was an excellent point. As someone who professes to be a liberal Christian I realize that my views will diverge greatly to most on the site, but I am also naive enough to think dialogue might be helpful.

    It does appear that the article gave incorrect information about the treatment offered and that ought to be corrected with both haste and an apology to Ms. Anderson.

    However I did find the ultimate conclusion very helpful and thought provoking. In an era of advanced medical technology that is not well addressed by the Bible, one is often left with making decisions as wisely as they feel they are able, and that hopefully, love and concern for the other hold the trump card as we work through such difficult decisions. For many of us who fall in the more liberal camp of Christianity that is our paradigm. That, in the end, we are called by Jesus to love and care for one another and sometimes that means we look beyond the apparent black and white rules and understand there is room for nuance, and even more importantly, compassion for the one another as we all struggle to make wise and loving decisions in a complicated world.

    As someone who has also lived through a very traumatic birth, though not TTTS, I was relieved to hear that your baby was born safely. I was also sorry to hear that you lost his twin. I cannot imagine living through such a difficult ordeal only to have it misrepresented in the media.

  17. Those who fill the world with love will receive love back in return. Those who fill the world with hate and judgment will receive that back in return.

    I hope that both sides learn from this experience.

    I am very sorry for your loss and also happy for your blessing of a healthy baby boy.

  18. I am so sorry you had to read that terrible article! Every moment of life for some is just so miserable they feel they need to publish evil articles like this to make themselves feel better about their continual affliction. Proverbs 15:15
    "All the days of the afflicted are evil: but he that is of a merry heart hath a continual feast." Baby Boaz is so cute and praise the Lord that you guys fought for the lives of each baby despite the financial costs which would have been enough reason for most people just to end the pregnancy all together, but God is faithful!

  19. Ich hab jetzt erst zeit gehabt diesen Artikel zu lesen, und ich stimme mit der Dame ueberein, die sagte, das obwohl Artikel viele Fehler hat, brachte er doch viele DInge hervor die du, auf deiner eigenen Seite geschrieben hast, wie die medizinische versorgung durch einen maennlichen Frauenarzt und auch den Eingriff. Du selber hast alle diese Dinge angeprangert, und jetzt jedoch selbst in kauf genomen. Dein Zeugniss hat damit gelitten. Nur um ein beispiel zu geben, es waere das selbe als wuerde dein Mann ein Ehepaar, in eurer Gemeinde aufnehmen, wo eine Ehepartner geschieden war. Ich werde weiterhin fuer eure Familie beten, und hoffe auf Heilung in deinem Leib, damit es bei der naechsten Schwangerschaft keine Komplikationen gibt.

    Eine Schwester aus Bayern

  20. I've been trying for a couple of days now to find a way to respond to this, and I am trying my best to remain tactful and graceful in my wording.

    I find it incredibly hurtful that you have compared the way you chose to have a burial for Jachin to parents who choose to cremate. You may not know me well, given the number of comments you get, but I have posted a few times recently, I am Annabelle, a fellow mother of 9 earthside babies - Alana, Ruby, Lucy and Isaiah, Byron, Adam, Caitlin and Jackson and Emily. What I haven't mentioned is before Alana there was Micah, and before him Hannah - both were losses at 15-16 weeks. I chose not to mention them when I began commenting here as you were dealing with your own uncertainty regarding your pregnancy and you did not need the fear of another woman's losses preying on your mind. There is still no answer why Hannah's wee heart stopped beating, nor why Micah came so soon - or even why Gil and I went on to be safely blessed with 7 healthy pregnancies and 9 wonderful children after such a rough start.

    My babies were tiny, perfect and absolutely beautiful in every way in everyone's eyes but the cemetery. They were 'medical waste'... my precious, beloved, gone to soon children nothing more than a clump of cells to be discarded. We were declined when we asked about a burial as they were several weeks from counting as a stillbirth, instead a miscarriage. I had begun to feel Micah kick just days before my labour started, and Hannah was the little girl Gil and I had dreamed of since we first realised we were the ones for each other. Legally of course I could have buried them in the backyard, but we were young and still renting, our own house was 5 years away, I could not reconcile burying them in a place that I would no longer live in or be able to visit. We did not have the ability to pre-plan this as both Micah and Hannah's passing and births happened within 2 days, Gil and I were exhausted, sore and grieving, neither of us had it in us to fight the cemetery. To me, the only option remaining in order to say goodbye to our babies with dignity would be to cremate them. A local funeral home at least provided us with that service, as well as the use of their facilities for services - first for Hannah, and then 7 months later for Micah. Their ashes came with us when we moved and have been buried in our garden on what would have been sometime around their 6th birthdays. They now have a memorial plaque, flowers on special occasions, and are close to the love and laughter of their nine younger siblings.

    So that is Hannah and Micah's story, my first two babies before the 9 I would see grow up. I just wanted to let you know that not all parents who choose to cremate an early loss that is not legally a birth, are not doing it out of less love or less trouble. For some, it is a way to bring their baby home and let them stay close to the love of their family, for others it is a way to bide time until a burial can be arranged properly (a friend of mine unexpectedly lost her baby at 25 weeks, while overseas, cremating meant she could bring his ashes home and place them in the cemetery with his grandfather), and others like Gil and me just had no choice.

    The loss of a child and the subsequent grieving period, and funeral or memorial is not an opportunity for competition. There is no right, more loving or 'better' way in which to say goodbye to a baby. Holding a burial service for a baby that you were not legally required to does not place you any higher on the parenting stakes. You are simply lucky to have been given that option I, and I'm sure many other parents, were denied.

    1. Annabelle,

      as with the previous poster who pointed out the same, I would like to apologize for my insensitive wording, and hurting your feelings further. I will add an edit to the original blog post, explaining the point I was trying to get across, which was that the fact that we chose to deal with our child's remains at all when we were not legally required to do so, especially in the most uncommon of ways, should serve as proof that we did not selective abort him in utero just to save us some trouble.

      I am sorry for the loss of your children, and thankful to hear that God has blessed you with more children here on this earth.

    2. Thank you for addressing this and explaining the misunderstanding. I see now what you meant, it seems unlikely you would have gone to the trouble of naming and burial if you had never intended for Jachin's life to try and be saved. I hope I didn't cause you any hurt by explaining my story.


  21. Apparently I talk too much, here is the second part of my comment:

    I'm sorry this other site has said this. They clearly do not understand the medical implications of the procedure you underwent. Were I in your position I would not hesitate to have the surgery. I have seen first-hand how untreated TTTS affects live born children, the beautiful girls will never be independent, one will never walk, the other never see, and it is likely neither will speak. You fought hard for BOTH your children. Jachin's passing, though tragic, had nothing to do with the surgery, in fact it improved his chances, his status as the donor, cord insertion and share of the placenta were simply not in his favour. Hold that close to your heart, you did the best you could for both of your babies, do not let misinformation and nasty comments take that away from you.

    Blessings from one big family to another - Annabelle

  22. Mrs Anderson,
    We love and pray for you and your beautiful family, and the example of godliness that you all are. In looking at that website that attacked you, it appears to be totally atheistic and sodomite, not a hint of anything remotely moral, but God hating to the core. "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is the kingdom of heaven". Matt 5:10

  23. "People that were all over your story is like that one old woman from the netherlands who claims to be proudly and miserably single, an abortionist, the one that came to you whining after her thirty-something single kid died of drunk driving. You didn't offer her a shoulder to cry on, and ever since that, which is four years, she keeps dragging out this sob story of you cruelly "mistreating" her every time she's chugged down a significant amount of alcohol, always looking for new preys on that forum to introduce her mistreatment to new people and harvest attention, petty and any form of energy that she can drain them of. Then, she passes out drunk and mumbling."

    I guess, in this poster's opinion, "abortionist" and "psychologist" mean the same thing, and "dying of a chronic illness" is the same as "driving drunk and having a fatal collision."

    Unlike the Alternet writer, I do not put your TTTS procedure in the same category as selective reduction. Let us be honest here.

  24. If any of you think every child that dies goes to heaven automatically, you are delusioned. Yes, Davids child went to heaven, however, he had prophetic insights, which you don't have, so you cannot conclude from that that your child would have the same fate. Otherwise abortion would be a blessing in disguise, since there is nothing more horrible than ending up in hell for eternity. If your childs name was not written into the book of life in eternity past you have no reason to believe it went to heaven. You can hope that it was chosen by God, but you cannot know it. After all God hated Esau before he was even born. How do you know that God does not hate your child, too? Don't let humanism be the lense through which you read the bible. Also the bible never commands us to celebrate life, in fact it says we were all conceived and born in sin and in need of a saviour, that includes every child. Just the fact that children can get ill and die shows that they are stained by the results of Adams sin in our fallen world.

    1. "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

      God did not hate Esau and love Jacob while they were still in their mother's womb. He did choose Jacob over Esau as the inheritor of Abraham's blessing before they were born, but Esau could have walked with God and have been blessed by God if he had chosen to do so.

      Mal 1:2-3 says, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau." This was written in approximately 557-525 B.C., thousands of years after the birth of Esau and Jacob, so this is not speaking of God hating Esau at birth. There is no mention in Scripture that God hated the individual Esau. This reference to Esau was referring to the nation of Edom (Esau's descendants) in the same way that the term Israel often referred to the entire nation of Israel, not the individual (Ge 32:28). God was saying that He had rejected the nation of Edom and had chosen the nation of Israel.

      Paul quoted from Malachi, not to show that God hated Esau and loved Jacob while they were still in their mother's womb, but rather to confirm that the choice God made before they were born, based on His foreknowledge (see note 1 at Ro 8:29), was the right choice. Jacob went on to become a mighty man of God, and Esau despised the things of God. God's choice of Jacob didn't cause this to happen. This quotation from Malachi simply confirms that God's foreknowledge was accurate.

      Jacob was called to a higher position than his brother, Esau, before they were born, but that does not display any rejection of Esau on God's part. That is comparable to God choosing certain people to be pastors while others are called to be deacons. The deacons are not inferior to the pastors. They are simply called to different positions. Jacob and Esau were called to different positions before they had done any good or evil, to illustrate that election was not based on performance but choice."

      Bible Commentary - Andrew Wommack Ministries

    2. "Note 3 at Ro 9:11: Paul was citing these Old Testament examples to show that those who were considered the children of Abraham were not his physical descendants, but they were chosen by God, in this case, before they were born. This proves God's election is not based on birth or performance (see note 2 at Ro 9:8).

      However, some people have interpreted this verse and the quotation from Mal 1:2-3 in Ro 9:13 as an example of extreme predestination. They reason that Esau was hated by God before he was born (see note 5 at Ro 9:12). Therefore, some people are predestined by God for damnation, while some are elected to salvation before they are ever born. This means people have no choice in the matter. That is not what these verses are saying.

      As explained in note 2 at Ro 8:29, God's predestination is based on His foreknowledge (see note 1 at Ro 8:29). Only those whom God foreknew would accept Him have been elected and predestinated. God did not force Jacob and Esau to make the choices they made. But through His foreknowledge, He was able to foresee who would respond to Him, and that is the one He chose.

      Note 4 at Ro 9:11: The doctrine of election is based on God's foreknowledge (see note 1 at Ro 8:29) the same way that predestination is based on His foreknowledge (see note 2 at Ro 8:29). This can be clearly seen in 1Pe 1:2, which says we are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." God does not choose people independent of their free will. Instead, through His foreknowledge, He knows who will choose Him, and those are the individuals He elects to be His own."

      Bible Commentary - Andrew Wommack

    3. i always wondered about these things. like you wrote, i thought if we all died as infants wed all get a free trip to heaven. i have two siblings who died as babies. i guess they got a free trip straight to heaven, where i have been left here to wonder in torment many years as to if I'm going to spend eternity in hell………i still don't know how all this works. maybe she thinks bc she and her husband are "saved" that all her children will be also? idk? she also has written that all here children choose God for themselves as soon as they are old enough. i wonder why it all works so easy for her family? i think it all stinks…:(

    4. Going by this belief: why on earth would ANY believer have children at all and risk having one who was not pre-saved? Everyone does gets a free trip straight to heaven. It's your choice to believe on Jesus or not.

      2 Peter 3:9
      9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.

      (emphasis, mine)

    5. Why would anyone want to believe in a God that hates an innocent child?

    6. Kimmie....You also need to read Ephesians. There has to be a balance. Either way would not make sense if you go extreme Calvinism or Arminianism. You said " Going by this belief: why on earth would ANY believer have children at all and risk having one who was not pre-saved? ". The other idea may be " Why would any believer risk having children because we know that they inevitably will sin, and maybe not make the decision for Christ one day". Ultimately, salvation is a Free Gift, given to us by Grace ( Eph. 2:8-9). The LORD knows even long before anyone is born exactly what that person will do. We have children because we live by Faith and believe that motherhood is a high calling. We cannot be 100 percent sure of what our children do, but we continue to Pray and Trust God.

  25. I too have been through TTTS. I too chose the laser ablation in the hopes and prayers that BOTH of my daughters would one day be by my side. While I had both girls on earth for one month, my baby died in my arms when she was one month old. Clearly, her death was not an outcome we were hoping for when we learned of the procedure - though we were made aware of the risks of a very uneven placenta. After my placenta was dissected, it was found that my surviving twin carried 90% and her deceased sister 10%. While I am blessed that she was born to us alive (they said she wouldn't by the time I was 24 weeks), when she came out alive, red, and feisty at 27 weeks, I knew we had done all we could do, and for one month, I was the mother to two precious little girls. While I think the author of that article had a couple of motives, some of it was rather flattering, but I can see how you can get caught up in the slanderous piece of it - which is that those of us who chose to use the medicine available were 1) averting God's will and 2) choosing the health and life of one twin over the other. What they don't know, what they can't imagine, and unless they go through it themselves, is that the laser ablation is still the greatest odds of taking two babies home, and in many cases 1. The odds of taking home no children have gone down amazingly. To me it's like asking - if a man were having a heart attack at the side of the road, would I use my CPR training and call 911, or would I assume it's God's will? I think we know the obvious answer to that. Because my daughter was born alive, we were given additional pains, such as my husband having to stand in one line to register her birth to get a birth certificate, and then to switch lines, in order to get her a death certificate for the funeral home. I can't really describe why this makes me so angry to remember, but it does.

  26. So sorry that this lie is being spread about you and your husband. I've been lied about over small things and have always struggled with forgiving and forgetting about it. I can't imagine what it's like being falsely accused on this scale. I followed your story of the struggle you went through trying to save both babies and this type of article just.... I can't even find the appropriate words to describe how angry it makes me. If I ever hear anyone bring this article up and talk falsely about you guys, rest assured I'll straighten them out and let them know the truth of the matter.

  27. Greetings -
    It was certainly my intention to call out your husband's misogyny, and the misogyny of the tradition from which it derives, and the inconsistencies in your position, which I think are tremendously harmful writ large, (which is why I write about related topics.) But it was not my intention to spread false information. I misunderstood the medical implications of the procedure for the donor twin. I am sorry, and I have corrected the article at my own website and have requested that AlterNet do the same. Both the criticism and respect I conveyed in my article were sincere, and I hope the best for you and your children.


Your KINDLY WORDED, constructive comments are welcome, whether or not they express a differing opinion. All others will be deleted without second thought.