Actually, there is no problem with Nadya Suleman's octuplets, they are beautiful gifts from God who need our prayers. There is something very wrong with Nadya and the fertility industry that certainly did not consider the babies well-being. There is something even more wrong with the society that allowed this to happen.
In case you haven't heard about Nadya, she is a single southern California woman with six children at home who just underwent in vitro fertilization and gave birth to octuplets. So, now she is a single mother of 14 children.
So what is wrong with this situation? We all know in our gut that something isn't right here. Is it all Nadya? Well, in her favor she did not selectively kill any of the eight babies growing inside her. She had made that bed and was going to lie in it. Her mother said she was "obsessed with children." When someone is obsessed with anything, it may seem like they want the best for the object of their obsession, but really they just want the object, regardless of the consequences. Clearly, Nadya let her obsession get the best of her, but she didn't get pregnant with octuplets on her own.
Enter the fertility industry. So what part of this situation falls on their shoulders? Doctors should know better than to implant that many embryos into a single woman who already has 6 children. But then again, they should know not to make human embryos in a dish to being with. This case has brought to light how unregulated the fertility industry is. Which reminds me of this great verbal gem:
"A woman gets more regulatory oversight when she gets a tattoo than when she gets IVF." --Brooks Keel, M.D., University of Kansas School of MedicineAnd why is the fertility industry so unregulated? Good old political correctness. Far be it from anyone to tell Nadya that creating multiple offspring in a dish and implanting them all is not such a good idea. Listen to the doctors from this article:
But Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg, who has fertility clinics in Los Angeles, Las Vegas and New York, countered: "Who am I to say that six is the limit? There are people who like to have big families."
"I am not a policeman for reproduction in the United States. My role is to educate patients," said Dr. James Grifo, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the New York University School of Medicine.
In the context of this case, these quotes seem callous. But apply them to regular reproduction, (you know the old-fashioned way), and they are right. I do not want to have some doctor telling me that my husband and I can only have a certain number of children. It seems so me more and more it is the "artificialness" of the reproduction that is the real problem here.
I have said repeatedly that Roe Vs. Wade created these very slippery rights called "reproductive rights" that started with not having a baby if you didn't want one, even if that meant riping a living fetus from your womb and has mushroomed into having as many babies as you want, anyway you want 'em. Even if you are too old or do not have anyone to make them with. In either case, "reproductive rights" has allowed the wants of the parents to trump any rights or needs of the resulting children.
Some people make a compelling case that "reproductive rights" should just mean abortion. Via BiopoliticalTimes I found this quote from Amy Tuter, The Skeptical OB:
"The "choice" is the decision to have an abortion, and it does not extend to any possible choice in reproductive ethics. That's why Nadya Suleman had a right to get pregnant, a right to terminate the pregnancy and a right to carry it to term. She had no right to deliberately conceive octuplets, however, and it is a misunderstanding of reproductive rights to claim that she did....
In the rush to protect abortion rights, people should not ignore the rest of medical ethics. The right to end a pregnancy does not confer the right to begin one using artificial means. The right to selectively reduce a multiple pregnancy does not confer the right to create a multiple pregnancy of any number of embryos. In fact, the right to control one's body does not confer the right to demand medical treatment of any kind if it is not medically indicated.
The "right to choose" is the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy; it does not confer a right to choose anything, even if it is a reproductive choice."
Unfortunately, Dr. Tuter, I think it is too late. When the Supreme Court pulled these "reproductive rights" out of thin air, all of this was bound to happen. We assume that the Founding Fathers did not speak directly to the issues of "reproductive rights" because women's issues were a non-issue to them. I think maybe, just maybe, the Founding Fathers did not put "reproductive rights" into the Constitution with the likes of the right to free speech and right to religious freedom because they knew it was folly.
They were smart enough to see that "reproductive rights" are not something given to us all by our Creator. Some people can't have children and want them and some people, who do not want children, are fertile anyway. Having "reproductive rights" assumes we can right these "wrongs" by any means necessary. We all know deep down that there is something very wrong with a society that allows innocent lives to be ripped from their mother's wombs for any reason on one hand, and then allows endless numbers of innocent lives to be created (by anyone's request) in a laboratory to uncertain ends on the other.
The real problem with the Nadya Suleman situation is the illusion that we all have "reproductive rights." Unfortunately, the folly of "reproductive rights" will continue. These rights have already begun to trump other rights specifically guaranteed in the Constitution like the right to religious freedom. They will continue to be used to justify eugenics, human reproductive cloning and human genetic engineering. The tragedy is that in the name of "reproductive rights", we continue to allow the wants of the parent or parents to outweigh any rights or needs of the resulting children and those that care for them. Ironically, it will be our children, and their children, and their children that will suffer from our "reproductive rights."
How hypocritical, you have the right to abort your unborn baby (you were a "fetus" once to ya know) paid for via the taxpayer but you don't have the right to have as many children as you want? That is laughable as well as sickening. Taxpayers money is used to abort children but it's bad to support children with taxpayer money. No wonder the youth of our day are insane angry and rebellious searching for acceptance and love from local street gangs and comfort from illegal drugs. They are being shown that they are a nuisance, unwanted a burden a drain on the environment etc... wow, amazing how people (claiming to be so intelligent) aren't able to connect the dots here. Blasting 1 woman for having 14 kids but then claiming woman's rights to help thousands of woman have an abortion(i.e rip her unborn baby from her womb so she don't have to deal with the responsibility of changing pampers lets tell it how it is) with taxpayers money. Wow how low has humanity fallen. I'm just in shock and awe how depraved people have shown themselves to be. If your worried about the "welfare" of children then people should be gathering around this woman's children to help them succeed in life you know the whole it takes a village to raise a child thing. I know, I know people you don't want to be bothered and it is easier to just pay for an abortion. Better to blast the woman as a nut case all the while putting yourself on the moral pedestal in order to clear your conscience so it is easier to sleep at night for not giving a damn. Such a depraved society. When it comes to population reduction and sustainability those who think it a good idea should be the first to volunteer to be euthanized and sterilized. I mean if you really are so "committed" to your cause you should lead by example.
Nina,
I do not think you understood the post. My point is that because of this mistaken notion that we have "reproductive rights" which includes abortion, cases like Nadya's and worse will continue. We shouldn't have the right to rip a baby from their mother's womb anymore than we should be able to manufacture masses of children in a laboratory.
Nina,
Yeah. That's why kids are joining gangs. Because abortion is legal. Are you retarded, or did you just not get your meds today? I think the reason kids join gangs is because it's their only economically viable option, given the blighted living and schooling conditions they were forced to grow up in, something that could easily be alleviated with a little free contraception education and free condoms (something i'm sure all of you pro-life twits are totally opposed to).
This woman is insane, and despite her claims to the contrary, she IS receiving help from the government, and subsequently, us, for the purpose of raising 14 CHILDREN. Consequently, her kids will be dysfunctional, and wind up being a burden on the system later.
Let's get one thing straight, children are not a gift from God, they are a biological eventuality that 99% of women in this country can reach with little or no effort. GOOD, FUNCTIONAL PARENTS ARE GOD'S GIFT, and we adults are the sole dispensers of that gift to children.
Cheers to you Rebecca for an excellent point! The taking and bringing forth of life through medical intervention should all be held to the same question: "Should we do this just because we can?"
More often then not the answer on both sides is a huge resounding NO!
And amazingly both sides can be helped by the other. Thousands of babies are killed and disposed of because they were unplanned or unwanted, and at the same time thousands of babies are farmed and marketed and literally sold by doctors to barren couples who dream of a child they can't produce on their own.
It's such a shame that common sense can't be a little more common. That the haves can't be more willing to help the have nots.
People think it is a God given right to have children, even if GOD decided that he would make you unable to. But they are live babies and they are hopefully loved and well cared for once they are here, so people overlook that fact and just assume that it is a good thing.
Nevermind that the baby could face horrible complications or disabilities.
Nevermind the risk to the women herself.
Nevermind the swarms of children who are abandoned, abused, and unwanted. Ones that are taxing our public resources, being shuffled about the foster care system.
Children who are already HERE and are wanting a family just as badly.
Is it fair for a child/ren to exist just because I wanted one that was MINE no matter the risk or cost?
Is it fair to the children who are killed by people who view abortion as just another means of birth control?
People need to stop dancing around these issues and address both sides EQUALLY for the sake of the children.
Did you notice that the people most irritated by the birth of these eight children would feel much better if she had killed them?
No Lj, people would feel much better if she had never put them in her belly in the first place. No one ever said she should kill them.
It is very expensive to get IVF so why would/how could someone do that if they cannot afford to support the children? If what was in the posts is true that she is a single woman and already has six children and is depending on government assistance, I see the point. Would such a person be permitted to adopt eight newborn babies? Maybe foster care would encourage a single person to take on the task? I don't know but single parent poverty stricken households have not proven to better our society in most cases.
"...people would feel much better if she had never put them in her belly in the first place. No one ever said she should kill them."
Will you tell them you wish they never existed when they're old enough to understand?
Selective reduction, that's the deceitful term that means a mother with more than one baby in her gets to pick which ones live and which must die. It's very routine and some doctors will refuse fertility treatment if the woman doesn't first agree to kill some of her little ones.
Yes, very nice how you twist my words to make it sound like I'm a baby hater and yet at the same time back me up on my point.
The point is that those 8 embryo should never have been put into her womb in the first place because of many reasons, and now the children are forced to suffer because of it. It's called responsibility. If she only wanted one child that's what she should have recieved, ONE embryo. Not 8. If that at all given her poor situtaion and the already overburdened household.
The point of the policy of refusing service if selective reduction is refused is not because doctors like killing babies and making women suffer with the choice of having to pick and choose which child lives and which one doesn't, it's because they don't want to risk #1- complications and a higher risk of prematurity/infant mortality, and #2 - overburdening the mother with children she can't care for. Again, it comes down to making a moral and responsible decision.
It's easy, if they don't want to have to cull some of the multiples, then they don't give them a chance to have multiples.
Ella, lj just pointed out that SOME ones probably did tell her she should have killed at least some of them. And certainly that is what many people are effectively saying NOW that she should have done. So it is not really accurate to say that "No one ever said she should kill them."
Many people, not necessarily here in this combox, are implying that she should have. So it is as bad as the same thing in this case, when you're the subject of an investigation.
If it's the case that the same doctor knew she already had six kids, I wonder what are the laws in that state about an IVF doctor refusing to do more implantations for the woman. Is there any law, does anyone know, that would prevent him from refusing her this next IVF implantation?
For instance, if a pharmacist refuses to sell someone PLAN B morning after pill (available without a prescription if you're an adult, while birth control pills, much weaker mixes of the same chemicals, still require a prescription, which makes no sense from a medical safety point of view), that pharmacist faces losing his or her license and getting their name smeared all over the press.
I wonder if a doctor is not allowed to refuse an IVF patient for similar fears or actual legal reasons. Anyone have real insight (like, you're an actual lawyer and can research this for us??)
And given how much in demand (and lucrative for the physician) IVF is, please, no one tell me that a doctor ISN'T going to be treated poorly, formally complained about or sued by a patient for refusing to do IVF for them.
When someone has the same ethical problem with the intense moneymaking lure of doing abortions, then you can complain about the intense lure of moneymaking from doing IVFs.
The truth is that IVF doctors routinely implant more than a few embryos in the expectation that only one will take, and that "a mother with more than one baby in her gets to pick which ones live and which must die. It's very routine and some doctors will refuse fertility treatment if the woman doesn't first agree to kill some of her little ones."
We have been contacted by such women, who are in anguish, now, over realizing what they've done: helping create many human beings, then either allowing them to die, be in limbo (frozen) or to have to abort some if more than one "take". One woman was in a court battle with her ex who refused to allow her to implant any of the embryos they'd allowed through IVF when they were together.
She was beside herself with remorse and grief over her lost children. She regretted having done IVF at all. She very much wanted children, and he was the one who changed his mind. SHE was willing to put it in court documents that he was absolved of any responsibility for any children that resulted. HE STILL REFUSED.
The court (and the ex boyfriend) were treating the embryos exactly like the children that they are.
Interesting points that Rebecca makes about the problems that Nadya Suleman personifies. I too have been disturbed by her story for multiple reasons.
There is a general air of irresponsibility in her story. She clearly appears financially unable to adequately provide for six children, let alone for 14 children (or even for the seven children that were her original intent). And any parent of a large family knows that giving the time and attention needed by each child is even more of a struggle that coming up with the money to meet the needs of each child.
There is some responsibility to be born by the fertility doctor who treated her, who seems to have followed the philosophy of "CAN we do this" rather than "SHOULD we do this".
(And again with the financial issues - I do not believe for a minute that this single woman supporting six children on a disability income could afford multiple rounds of IVF. I suspect there is more to her story.)
But I think what has bothered me the most is Nadya's total disregard for the role of the father in a child's life. While speaking of the value of each human life, and that children are a gift from God, she has chosen to deny a vital part of the process of growing and nurturing children. She has denied all of her children a relationship with a father. This is perhaps the greatest irresponsibility in her whole story.