How Dare She? How Irresponsible...

Nadya Suleman has become a reference point for much that contemporary pundits think is wrong with the world. The story of the world-breaking octupulets was speedily transformed from a celebratory reflection to a condemnation of "irresponsibility" and "greed."

It seems that whatever we discuss these days, the moralistic tone that inevitably emerges is one of disdain towards what we assume to be ignorant and selfish humans. In this instance, everyone from Green Crusaders to parenting "experts" have chimed in to warn of the dangers of Suleman's desires.

For sure many people, parents and otherwise, will be overwhelmed with even the thought of having 14 children -- but the principle of choice and decision making that each woman should have should not play second fiddle to a discussion about overpopulation, humanity's carbon footprint and ecological destruction.

Far too often these days, the morality police present us with Armageddon-like visions of destruction and then super-impose them on our everyday decisions as a way of preventing and shaping our behavior. The broader implication is that we need to stop, slow down, "sustain" our development, lower our horizons.

Inevitably this discussion has become sadly a rehash of who are the "correct type" of people to have children. Are only the organic-eating, recycling-attentive wealthy fit to be parents? Those that do not adhere to our temperance-like outlook are cast out as a new "great unwashed." "Those" people, when will they ever learn?

The demeaning nature of this outlook reflects our unfortunate decline in to recasting problems we see in society in the guise of the bad behavior of individuals. That is something that needs to be challenged -- alongside reminding ourselves that it is always a woman's choice, whether to have no children, 2 or twenty.

Comments

[Alan Miller - Huffpost Blogger]

It is interesting that so many of the comments have pointed to the burden to society for this particular decision and reiterated the issue of responsibility. It tends to reinforce the point that this incredible story of technology and a history making event has been transformed in to a parable of our miserabilist times. How dare she indeed! Regardless of whether she makes money from publicity (which numerous celebrities have chosen to do with the births of their own children) the tendency to present this as a story about resources and our finite amount of them underlines the point I am making.

We are dominated now by a perspective that humans are ravaging the planet - that perhaps there are too many of us, that the Reverend Thomas Malthus was right after all - and we should be limited and restrained. As Theodore Roszak wrote in the New Scientist in August 2002: “There isn’t a single ecological problem that won’t be ameliorated by a smaller population­.” Now Jonathan Porrit in the UK is arguing curbing population is one of our most important tasks.

Nadya Suleman's story has become a flashpoint within the backdrop of this broader disgust and sense of outrage that humans are over-consuming parasites.

We should support the right of any woman to make the decisions she sees fit within her own circumstances and not project the broader social issues of our time on to the situation - or be honest about what we are stating.

[KKojei]

In a society that spend untold billions of dollars to create epic cinema fantasies, inane televisions shows and any number of other mindless entertainments, to complain about a burden on society that children produce, no matter how many, no matter what the circumstance, is disingenuous. Let's face it. Hospitals and their suppliers and providers rape our society by charging far too much for services rendered. Most won't render an asperin's worth of service without proof of insurance. The problem is that our society refuses to create a base level of pure human service without counting cost. Did we or did we not come from grand and great grand parents who had their babies without all this prenatal care spoofery? Without a health plan? The ultimate issue here is whether we abandon the model that makes money the ultimate judge of whether somebody lives or dies or whether we become human beings again, valuing and protecting life no matter the cost. If every single word written or spoken, every criticism, every opinion offered on and offline were accompanied with one dollar for every word, that woman would have no problem taking care of those kids for the rest of her life. Talk is cheap. Doesn't cost a thing to run your mouth. If the quality of the lives of this woman and these children really matter, send her one dollar for every word you have to say about her choice to have these children.

[sickupandfed]

Then subsequently, it should be our right to demand that she get work to feed and clothe them.

[patianneb]

The writer is a man.
Enough said.

[K-Dog76]

really? you're right he was totally wrong when he said...

"that it is always a woman's choice, whether to have no children, 2 or twenty. "

you read the headline, not the article
enough said

[Dennim]

".........­. in 2006, the average cost for a premature baby's hospital stay in California was $164,273, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services." Multiply that figure by eight and the hospital stay could cost $1.3 million. Additionally, premature babies medical costs in the first year of life can equal $40,000 per child!

Is it any wonder California cannot solve its budget crisis!

Yes, it is every woman's freedom of choice to have children but not at the expense of everyone else.

When Nadya pays her hospital bill and refuses all aid being currently received, she will no longer be subject to the condemnation of the public who are being forced to accept responsibility for her premature babies as well as her three disabled children.

Here is a snapshot of California's budget woes:

"Hundreds of infrastructure projects - road repairs, water maintenance, etc - have been shelved, along with the thousands of jobs they promised;

counties and state suppliers have not been paid for services they provide;

thousands of Californians who were looking forward to tax refunds, have not received them and will not do so in the foreseeable future. "

So, everyone is suffering -- while Nadya expects and receives more aid from taxpayers.

Further, how many of the premature babies will be diagnosed as disabled? Three of Nadya's children are presently classified as disabled to some degree. In California, the cost to the taxpayer in disability payments for each disabled child can run over $700.00!

[K-Dog76]

Yes, it is every woman's freedom of choice to have children but not at the expense of everyone else.

which is why we need to eliminate welfare then...

you get freedom or you get to be told what to do if you want the state to pay...

[melmoid]

The author has clearly never taken a course in basic ecology. The concept of carrying capacity is important to all of us. People do not have a right to do irresponsible things that everyone else will pay for. Society at large will end up raising and educating these kids one way or another.

[K-Dog76]

"People do not have a right to do irresponsible things that everyone else will pay for."

Tell that to the millions of Americans on the dole...

Say no to big government. Say no to the nanny state. Say no to welfare programs. Lets get the country back on track.

[Zilla7228]

Say no to welfare? I get as angry as the next gainfully employed person when I see someone taking advantage of government aid, but there are many people who just need a leg up as they deal with unforeseen crises in their lives. Sweeping statements like "say no to welfare programs" are tragically flawed.

The one point that makes this particular circumstance so abhorrent to so many people is how much effort this woman put into this pregnancy. It wasn't unplanned - it was painstakingly arranged to occur, by someone who knew she had no hope of providing for these children, she professes to love so much, on her own.

[TheBlackCat]

I just hate these slippery slope articles. It makes no sense, and it is an insult to intelligence.

It's just assenine to say that if you don't think someone on welfare who has passed all chilcare responsibility to an elderly mother should have 14 kids, the logical conclusion to that mentality is that you MUST think that only Rich vegetarians deserve to breed. That just doesn't make any sense.

You're like those people who keep pot illegal because you assume that hey, if we legalize pot, everyone will be smoking crack within the month.

[K-Dog76]

good argument.

Legalize it.
Prevent single moms on welfare from getting artifically inseminated. She wants more kids, she can go find a man. Thats choice

[ChelseaC]

This woman loves children. She could have just had 1-2 then adopted more after she finished school so she could afford to feed them.
I think people have demonized her as being a bad person but she's probably a good person-- just not thinking about the consequences. Kids cost money, too many people without enough jobs to go around and creating more pollution then we can manage is not a good thing.
Both rich and poor should be equally responsible when it comes to having children.

[ParaplegicNomad]

"...alongs­ide reminding ourselves that it is always a woman's choice, whether to have no children, 2 or twenty." Sorry, but any extreme devolves into hypocrisy.

If Ms. Suleman had the resources to raise and care for her children by herself, then it would be nobody's business but her own how many children she had. The moment she has to reach outside for help, she must then defend her choices to those she is reaching out to. And, no, in that case she doesn't get to decide what constitutes a valid defense.

Her right to choose how many children she has SADDLES HER WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CHOOSING WISELY. If she chooses irresponsibly - and, in so doing, harms others (one can look to how her 14 children are going to survive as easily as looking to the people who are going to actually be paying for their upbringing) - then she can expect criticism, and not just for criticism's sake, but also for the sake of showing OTHERS who will face similar choices what NOT to do.

The overall point that you've ignored is that the world is small and all of our lives intersect. As such, there will always be a balancing act between the rights of the individual and the individual's responsibilities to a functional society. Going to the extreme in the direction of the individual (as you are advocating) is just as destructive in the long run as going to the extreme in the direction of society.

[K-Dog76]

Which is why government shouldn't support people.

Government should protect us from foreign threats and each other, protect our environment and maintain our infrastructure and educational system. It should not give paychecks to a segment of the population for any reason other than a government job.

Say no to welfare

[Evenie]

Women deserve to have as many children as they can afford, not as many as they want. Too many of us are forced to wait until we are well past our prime to have children because we can't afford it, yet we have to pay taxes to support irresponsible mothers like this? I fully support reproductive rights for women, not happiness rights for lunatics.

[RuffNReddy]

Best said, thank you both Evenie & Para-Nomad!

It's cases like these that are clearly a step backward in the fight for women's reproductive rights.
Selfish and abusive behavior should not be rewarded. Unfortunately, there are children involved and this is the very sad Catch 22.

Where'd the doctor slip off to??

[K-Dog76]

great point

and just right of center

[The Ghost]

Word.

[aj1972]

Sorry I was not finish. I am a devoted Catholic and I do not believe in abortion. For her to say she did not want to get rid of the extra embryos is absurd. They were not even implanted in her body. How selfish of person she is. She endangered each one of those innocent babies due to her obsession. She is now going to obviously neglect the other 6 children because there was no way she can be equally devoted to each child some who already have special needs. I actually pity her and feel very sad for those children. I pray they will be taken care with God's grace. However I thank God I do not live in California because I would not pay one penny of taxes to support her stupidly. God Help those poor children.

[salty000333]

As a devoted Catholic you should be familiar with the story of Jesus and Mary Magdelene: "Let he who had not sinned cast the first stone".

How would Jesus treat Nadya?

[newkidontheblock]

Jesus would refer her for a psych eval.

[baci]

I think that she should be allowed to do this as long as she can afford to take care of them.

[Clovie]

She already can't afford to take care of them-- she gets almost $500 a month in food stamps. The woman simply doesn't have the resources to care for 14 children. She doesn't work and her elderly parents seem to bear most of the burden for the care of these poor kids. I'm all for someone using IVF to help them conceive-- single or not. But, this is definitely a unique case and those kids are going to pay dearly for their mother's obsession.

[Ron Lajoie]

You need to read up on this sad situation -- she can't take of the six she has -- her parents are carrying most of the burden and are fixing to lose their home because they are 10 months behind on their mortgage payment. She is getting federal aid -- and that is what is "frying" alot of people. She had in vitro with intention of having another baby (but ended up with eight). Many are wondering how she was able to afford this because she is unemployed and receiving federal assistance. Her parents are helping her by paying the bills with their retirement check and Nadya's dad is going back to work to help with expenses. Anyway you look at this situation, it's tragically sad, especially for all of the kids.

[K-Dog76]

sounding republican

[indy girl]

"Inevitably this discussion has become sadly a rehash of who are the "correct type" of people to have children. Are only the organic-eating, recycling-attentive wealthy fit to be parents?"

How about anyone, of any income level, sexual preference, race, religion or political opinion,
except for the terminally stupid?

[K-Dog76]

When you pay the government to provide welfare they make the calls. Choose freedom not nanny-state welfare. Government handouts create slaves out of all of us.

[ma888]

The point of all the anger is not the exercise of a person's right to choice but the IRRESPONSIBLE choice that burdens the rest of society with the consequences. Most liberal (small L) responsible people, even the angry ones, aren't seriously proposing legislation to control a woman's reproductive freedom to have more kids (the freedom to have less kids is another matter).
Suleman is clearly emotionally self-serving and mentally ill and/or criminally negligent. She deliberately and systematically set out to have these kids regardless of the consequences to anyone else, including the kids.
I grew up in a large family surrounded by other large families. As far as I know, none of these families relied on government assistance. It wasn't easy, glamorous, and no one had commercial deals but we all lived and most became responsible adults. Our parents and extended family were capable, responsible and resourceful.
Finally, I haven't been following this fiasco is detail, but Iwhere is the Right's support of Suleman's actions? Isn't she the poster girl for their stand against stem cell research? Hasn't she done EXACTLY what they claim is the ultimate outcome for a fertilized embryo? Didn't she treat every one of her embryos like an unborn person? WHY aren't these guardians of morality pouring money into trust funds for these children, having diaper-drives and having Suleman appear on Fox? Or is the ultimate manifestation of their vision for all of America just a LITTLE too uncomfortable for them?

[h0tr0d]

It's a woman's choice as long as she has a way to support her children. Having 8 children she knows she can neither take care of emotionally or financially IS irresponsible and your failure to see this is shockingly ignorant.

[Ron Lajoie]

It is a woman's choice -- and it must be a well thought out choice because not only is it expensive to raise children but also involves emotional stability and lots of patience. She is going to have 14 kids -- all with demanding needs, wants and personalities. I just don't see this woman being able to successfully do that, with or without her parents.

The right choice she could make in this situation would be to let the eight children be adopted to loving families so that she can focus on raising the six she has now. They would all be better off in the long run.

[K-Dog76]

hotrod,

if you had an (R) next your name you'd probably get ripped for saying that. but that is very much the stance of the right on a whole host of issues (right to lifers aside... freedom should include freedom of choice for women as far as I am concerned)

[h0tr0d]

She had the right to make the choice. I said the choice was irresponsible. The bottom line is, as long as I don't have to pay for her bad choices through government sponsored healthcare or aid, I really don't care. The problem is, if women make bad choices and expect the government to bail them out....I have to pay.