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.
"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."