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

[catzoned]

It's all very astonishing but it is absolutely crazy that the NICU nurses would let Ms. Suleman in NICU with those nails. Most hospitals ban nurses from wearing them and jewelry as well. Neonates have died from the pathogens from acrylic nails. Can you imagine her going from diaper to diaper, feeding to feeding with those nails? It's gross and negligent from the medical staff and from the Mom. The pursuit of beauty should not kill babies. The doctors and nurses are being negligent and should explain the hazards of those fingernails to Ms. Suleman. Never mind the morality police, bring on the science police.

"After handwashing, there were higher numbers of colony-forming units of gram-negative rods cultured from the fingertips of nurses with artificial nails than from those of nurses with natural nails. Because of the number of nosocomial (hospital acquired) infections caused by gram-negative rods, health care workers who wear artificial nails should consider the potential risk of increased carriage of gram-negative rods. Certain genera of bacteria, e.g. Serratia, Acinobacter and Pseudomonas, were recovered only from those nurses with artificial nails".

http://dermatology.cdlib.org/91/abstracts/nail/17D.html

[Julietjeske]

I am glad someone finally pointed this out. You are completely right! There was a huge study on this when it was discovered in one particular hospital after several unexplained infant deaths, the Artificial NAILS were to blame! They are simply too hard to keep clean.

[Shotgun Mary]

I am incredibly thankful for this article. All of the pro-choice liberals here at HuffPo always show their puritan outrage whenever a woman chooses to do something OUTSIDE of their realm of possibility. If a teenage girl chooses not to have an abortion they freak. She must be a religious zealot! If a family chooses to have more than one or two children they freak out again. They must be either religious zealots or completely unaware that even one extra child will tip the scales of global warming and their summer condo in Florida will sink because of rising ocean levels. Even though I may not personally agree with Suleman's choices its not my place to judge them. Provided the children a fed, clothed, and sheltered, its none of my business how many, when, how, or with whom she chooses to bear her children.

[catzoned]

"Provided the children a fed, clothed, and sheltered, its none of my business how many, when, how, or with whom she chooses to bear her children'.

It appears that you've just made provisional conditions when one can procreate and when one cannot. Join the club, I'm freaked out about her nails and have a repost to make soon.

[Bethab]

You act like global warming and rising seas are not a problem...or that the root causes of them should not be addressed because they are no one's business. I strongly disagree. Overpopulation is a problem just as greenhouse gas is a problem. We feel comfortable telling energy companies how to run their business so that the environment (that we all share...by the way) will be less negatively affected. Why can't we say the same thing about overpopulation and the people who contribute to it?

[K-Dog76]

Why can't we say the same thing about overpopulation and the people who contribute to it?

because that amounts to letting the government tell what women can and cannot do with their bodies...

[indy100]

Dear Shotgun,
Quit lumping everyone who thinks having FOURTEEN children that you cannot support or raise into the standard "pro-choice liberal" category. And "puritan outrage" is the domain of the far right, not the left.
While I believe abortion should be legal and is an option sometimes, I do not believe everyone should have one. I do not believe in multiple abortions. I also do not believe that adoption is always the answer either. I'm an adoptee myself and it's a complcated lifelong issue.
As a parent of four I believe all women should have the choice of having children or not. However, I do not believe ANYONE, married, single or otherwise, should be allowed to have 14 children. It is unconscionable and irresponsible. Society as a whole will pay the price for such families, even when the parents actually have jobs, insurance and home large enough for the family. None of which Angela Suleman has.

[picadeli]

WHAT? The use of the word “allowed” is what is unconscionable and irresponsible. If overpopulation were a problem then why do we spend trillions of dollars on medical research to save the lives of thousands upon thousands of newborns – newborns that are going to struggle with life-long medical conditions? We are talking about 14 children, not 50. So what exactly should be the maximum number, four? Two? How about make it just one since that’s what is working for China these days. No sense being unfair about it. Everyone gets ONE chance – so make it a good one! Free genetic testing and IVF for everyone to ensure no child is born with a condition!

The root of this controversy is not in the number of children this woman has but the fact that she intentionally created them when she is apparently under-supported which at its worst is just plain stupid. However, I gladly support this stupidity because it gives me the freedom to raise my own children without worrying about whether I meet some imposed criteria. Perhaps at 38 I am too old to produce a healthy child – should there be a law? Perhaps in this economic climate there should be a halt to ALL pregnancies until the economy is better and we can all afford a late model GM? Surely someone out there disagrees with decisions I have made regarding my family, but happily they are my decisions, no one else’s.

[maddie0001]

Jon and Kate's kids bring in enough money to support the entire family. Obviously they couldn't "afford to support them" without the donations, TV show and the speaking engagements. Who can "afford" 6-8 kids at one time? Most parents of multiples have websites where they accept donations. If she had aborted some she wouldn't have gotten publicity for having 8 at once, and no one would have heard of her.

Nadya's just a particularly unsympathetic person with a sordid story. It's easier to focus on her than on whatever happened to our 401Ks.

[uncsportsliberal]

All i want her to do is hire a good therapist because SHE NEEDS ONE.

[rbryanh]

Discussion of Suleman's ability to support her litter is as hypocritical as it is absurd.

First, no one is required to prove any ability to support children before conceiving them. It's the legal right of every American to reproduce with no regard for the consequences to the children or anyone else. Further, many Americans subscribe to religious beliefs that require them to produce as many babies as possible. Hence Suleman's choice is not only legal, but arguably Godly.

Second, she's likely to make a respectable fortune from the media circus. In fact, Suleman is a great American success story - a self made woman who"s invented a hot product no one can resist. In this, she"s no different from all the other celebrities who"ve turned their bodies, lives, and children into a circus and charged admission.

Her children's grotesque birth is a saleable commodity that she has created out of her own hard work and sweat, which she will now legally sell to the highest bidders. If she manages her business well, she and all fourteen of her products will enjoy profits that would be the envy of many entrepreneurs.

I can only assume we all approve of this, since we are of course supporting the entire process by reading this article and discussing it. After all, if we wanted to discourage this sort of behavior, we would avert our eyes and remain silent.

[picadeli]

Bravo

[iv64]

Besides the fact can not financially take care of these children. She keeps suggesting that her parents, the ones that are currently taking care of them, did not give her enough love during her childhood. She must have figured out after 3 children that eventhough you love all 3 it get harder to give each your full attention as the numbers increase. With 14 small children all you can do is keep them fed and clean. It really leaves very little time to be that doting parent she aspires to.

[LitDr2B]

I can agree with much of what the commentator here says, but this goes far beyond the classicism that he implies. I've bristled a bit at many comments on these threads suggesting that people should pass income or parenting skill guidelines in order to "be allowed" to have children, and I always want to ask: Who will decide? and Did -your- parents pass these guidelines when they conceived you? In many cases when couples (or single mothers) have an unplanned pregnancy, they may not be ready in the sense that some of these people have suggested, but they make do, and things work out.

The Suleman situation, though, goes far beyond this. With rights come responsibilities, and I don't see where she has taken any responsibility for her actions. Not fiscally (cosmetic surgery anyone?), nor regarding the health of her children (the number of embryos implanted and inflexibility about selective reduction such that many of the children could have severe disabilities ranging from bleeding of the brain, to learning disabilities, to cerebral palsy, which can render the child basically unable to speak, move, and have a normal life).

So while I really believe Nadya was influenced by the cult of the celebrity baby (Hollywood and e.g. Jon and Kate + 8, etc.), she is still ultimately responsible for the decisions she has made, and what I've seen so far (insofar as I can trust the media) is an abnegation of responsibility. "It all turned out perfectly."

[zanzig]

I agree with your comment. As a childless (by choice) adult, I don't understand WHY anyone would want to have 1 child let alone 14 children but I do accept that some people have this quirk. But, and this is a huge one for me, I do not accept that I, as a taxpayer, should have to pay for another woman's choice. Make your choices and live by them but don't ask me to contribute to your fantasies.

[FdeBear]

Well her "fantasies" are here and cannot go without care. Our tax dollars pay for thousands of children in this country through institutions and foster care. So what's the difference?

[Bethab]

Let's call childless by choice "childfree". It is not a medical condition...it is a choice. A fantastic one...by the way!!

[Ron Lajoie]

Thank you -- I love your response. I am also childless by choice and feel the same way.

[CognitoErgoSum]

Why is it that people aren't all up-in-arms about Ms. Suleman's boyfriend who supllied the man-chowder for her IVF? After all, these aren't immaculate conceptions.

While I think her actions are irresponsible and selfish, I have to think of Hester Prynne, from the book, "The Scarlet Letter." Herster was made to wear a scarlet letter for having conceived a child in adultery in Puritan New England and was subject to weekly Sabbath scrutiny on the hangman's scaffold, while the father of her child, Reverend Dimmesdale suffered no social punishment whatsoever. One night, Hester and her daughter Pearl crossed paths with Reverend Dimmesdale on night one of their town leaders died. Pearl asked her father why he did not stand with her and her mother each Sabbath on the scaffold, since he was also guilty of sin.

As much as Ms. Suleman's controversy has touched a nerve regarding a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions and whether the right should be limited in some cases, what's conspicuous by its absence is any discussion of the father. It's as though a man's right to spread his seed is by default, sacrosanct and inalienable, while a woman's sexuality must be controlled, restrained and directed down socially correct paths.

I think the father of her children needs to pony up some serious child support, since he had to be a willing party to IVF.

[AngelaQuattrano]

A generation ago there was a movement toward "Zero Population Growth", the idea that each person should replace him or herself and no more. When did we move to the idea that there is no number of children that is too many for a parent or for the world to absorb, that a single mother with no means of support to bear dozens of children or even more is somehow a virtue?

This is beyond an unhealthy fixation for her. Even with the millions that taxpayers have spent, it is "lucky" that all the babies are still alive and will probably only have lifelong disabilities. She wanted sextuplets, so the doctor implanted them. If she wants sextuplets again and again, will you still call it a responsible decision on her part?

Seriously, if she was a cutter, should he have sharpened the knife for her?

[Zilla7228]

Suleman's desires ARE dangerous. The notion of each individual's rights trumping the greater interest of society, and the planet itself, is a dangerous one that has already led our country down a dangerous path. Put a giant red S on my chest, call me a socialist, I don't mind. But don't tell me I'm being elitist when I say this woman was foolish and reckless to be impregnated with so many embryos when she's already proven herself incapable of coming close to caring for the children she already has.
The burden this woman and her children are and will continue to be for the rest of their lives is mind-boggling, and not something to be swept aside with murmurings about her rights to unlimited procreation. It's time all of us across the globe to take a little, not, a lot of responsibility for our actions.

[fairwitness]

OK, say YOU are one of those 14 children born to an indigent, partner-less, semingly pathologically narcissitic person (can you rightly assume she will be, even if she thinks she wants to, anything like what we think of as a "mother" to you?). Will you defend that person's neurotic, apparently limitless and unsatisfiable craving for more babies? Well, then, How about a few more, eh? Why not, it's really her choice, after all. Maybe 20 will do it for her--it's all about her choice, right?

This isn't "recasting problems we see in society", it's genuine, tragic, abominablly selfish "bad behavior" that will impact dozens (have you ever seen how much attention even ONE baby or child takes?!), even hundreds of other people for decades.

Jeeze, Alan...talk about "recasting"...you could rationalize any antisocial, criminal behavior with the solipsism you apply here. If her choice is that sacred, she should be able to choose to abuse all those kids if she so chooses, eh? "A woman's choice" my ass.

[BarryS]

Please exempt me from paying for this excess. She had childbearing OCD. don't allow any bailout money to go to her directly or indirectly. The same goes for polygamists. why do we have to pay to support the 100,000 of them in Utah?

However, you are right. she can have as many as she wants..on her dime.