Nadya Suleman & Limits to human reproduction
This news story has captured national attention and I just thought I'd bring it up in our forum and see what everyone thinks.
On one hand, I think the mother personally made some irresponsible choices. No doubt.
On the other hand I think: How is this any of our business? who are we to tell anyone how many children they can or cannot have? I read an article where someone stated that "a woman's right to have children should be limited to the number of children she can afford." By whose standards? Is the government going to come in now and also tell us how many children we can have? That there are people in this country who believe that, is scary.
I don't think this woman's case is any different than any teen pregnancy or any pregnancy where the mother has no means. She was not planning on having 14. She was going for a 7th when she ended up with octuplets. It makes me upset to think that my tax dollars are financing her mess. But in reality my tax dollars are financing everybody's mess including the government. I don't think its fair to target her in our frustration with the system. My fear is that crying out against this woman is not going to get the welfare system revised, its just going to give liberals a base for limiting pregnancies and forcing abortions.
What do you think?
Syndicate
AddThis
I have to agree that using this case to revise or modify the states' involvement in family choices is a mistake. And your point that your (and my) tax money is financing all of the governments' mistakes is unfortunately correct as well. No doubt there will be people out there that will want to use this to pass legislation to limit pregnancies and/or force abortions - read give more power and control to our ever benevolent government. I do agree, however, with people that say that "a woman's right to have children should be limited to the number of children she can afford" though not in the way implicated in your statement. I think that if Nadya wants to have 20 kids, then fine, have 20 kids, just do not attempt to force me to help you pay the expenses. Meaning, I think that people ought not to be asking the government to fix their financial problems. As soon as we ask for the state to help, they assume control. If the banks and the car makers do not want the state to tell them how to run their businesses, they should not accept bailout money. The same goes for families. If you do not want the state telling you how to raise and educate your children, do not ask for the state's assistance. This does not mean that we should not be helping our neighbor or those in need. But it should be done at the community level and through churches and local groups. The state, including the federal government, does not have the ability to intelligently, efficiently or timely assist individuals.
I thought I might go and do a little peeking around to see the stir on limiting children and sadly people like to argue and demand that very thing. It is a sad time when we start asking to be dictated by a single power.
I agree with Debra, this mom made an irresponsible choice. She was not in a stable position to intentionally, or accidentally for that matter, have another child. But it was not her intent to have 8! In fact the doctor made a poor judgment by placing 6 embryo's in the first place, two of which led to twins. His practice is being investigated, and other IVF doctors disapprove of his actions with placing 6 embryos into a mother that has proven successful with conceiving. You can read more about it here:
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-me-octuplets10-2009fe...
In reality Nadya did not intend, nor make a bad judgment on conceiving 8 babies, her doctor did. Her responsibility lies in the decision to conceive another child when her circumstances were not stable and able to provide for it.
The next important topic Debra brings up is this situation giving the liberals for limiting pregnancies and forcing abortions. In my opinion it has done just that. After Nadya's doctor was found to have placed 6 embryos (although there are no regulations on the number aside from age of the women) the media placed him under attack as well and has already begun to attack another patient currently carrying quadruplets, even though this women is married and not receiving any state aid:
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-me-octuplets13-2009fe...
It is evident that any patient under this doctors care is now likely to fall under attack to further support the need to "limit" the number of embryos aloud to be placed at any given time, as well as age on the mother, and more. This will be step number 1 in limiting a parents right to choose how many children we will have.
Again, Nadya made an irresponsible choice, but the newest target, a woman who receives no assistance and simply wants to provide a child to her husband, his first and only child, has made a very responsible one yet succeeded in being another "reason" their should be limits.
Mikki Hogan
Publisher of UniqueParenting.com