Redefining the Question of Choice

A single mother caring for multiple children on government assistance is facing possible foreclosure and homelessness. She wants to further her education to create an opportunity for a job that will adequately provide for her family. However, living on her own, she has a limited support network. Despite the special needs of at least a few of her babies, she chooses to continue her pregnancies and raise her children to the best of her ability. Even if she had considered an alternative, financial support from funds like Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project (WRRAP) is dwindling and may not have covered the cost of her procedure. This is a common story in a world submerged in the current economic crisis.

Yet, we have become consumed with the Nadya Suleman phenomenon. At first, she was hailed for the "achievement" of giving birth to octuplets. Now, she is vilified for her inability to independently cover the costs of birthing those children. Our culture's ridicule of her circumstances surpasses her financial mismanagement of her 15-member family, too. The media has become obsessed with her appearance, even offering Angelina Jolie the opportunity to throw in her two cents about how "totally creeped out" she is by Suleman's likeness to her own. Other critics have gone so far as to say that Suleman ought to face mandated sterilization, a practice we condemn as a human rights atrocity in other nations. We are mesmerized by and beholden to this media circus featuring the proverbial stoning of a woman now responsible for the livelihood of 14 American citizens.

Suleman exercised her right to choose. Why are we not supporting her freedom of choice?

For so long, women's reproductive freedom has been synonymous with abortion rights. The rhetoric of anti-choice activists has focused primarily on one choice -- abortion. Public discourse has often overlooked the choice to have children on one's own terms. Another glaring omission is what is offered to women who cannot afford to raise their children, but who choose (or are forced) to continue their pregnancies. Enter Nadya Suleman.

Despite her struggle to financially care for her existing six children, Suleman chose to seek additional fertility treatment services, which produced her octuplets. Even though she was financially unstable, she chose to give birth to all eight children, which could now cost the State of California around $1.3 million. This is the reality of a world that glorifies a woman's choice to give birth to octuplets, and shames a woman's choice to abort when she lacks the financial means to provide for her children. Perhaps those invested in the battle for and against a woman's "right to choose" have an answer for this looming financial question facing a state that already has critical budgetary concerns. Fiscal consequences of reproductive autonomy -- and who faces these consequences -- are matters of equal importance to the moral considerations regarding conception and abortion.

Some critics have suggested punishing Suleman's doctor for performing these services, but there is no existing legislation to provide standing for such a legal battle. Pro-choice advocates would agree that a doctor ought not be legally culpable for another person's choice to govern her own reproductive health. However, this circumstance does raise the question of instituting some minimum requirements -- i.e. demonstrating financial ability to care for children conceived through fertility treatments -- before receiving authorization to receive such treatments.

In order to truly create a "pro-life" society, we must be willing to support the children who are born into it. In order to truly support a woman's "right to choose," we must be willing to support her choice to have children, even in destitute circumstances. Perhaps instead of being the latest bastion of anti-female sentiment in the media, the phenomenon of Nadya Suleman can be the "common ground" upon which the conversation about reproductive freedom -- and its consequences -- can be built.

Comments

[LovinTheOldies]

The Non-Profit "Angels In Waiting" Volunteer Nurses offered to provide 24/7 care along with Special and individual care for ALL the children. ..........­..........­...Plus, a Home would have been provided and ALL fourteen children could have been kept together.

There would have been NO BURDEN on the Taxpayers.­..........­.........B­ut, Nadya turned down their offer, it now looks like the Taxpayers are going to be hit with THE ENTIRE BILL.

Oh Great!

[sunnybunny]

She certainly has made me think. Several years ago I was a situation where I had an unplanned pregnancy. I would have loved to do the selfish thing and have another baby, but we were devastatingly poor at the time and it was just too much for my family to handle. There were other people to consider besides myself (primarily my 3 kids who were here already , and my disabled mother who I was caring for and whose house we were living in, and my husband who was still in the process of recovering from addiction) and I put their needs before my own ideals. I have beat myself up for years that I didn't stand up for my own desires and do it anyway, but now seeing her situation makes me feel like maybe it was better the way things turned out.

[AndrewEAC]

Miss Suleman has been an easy target for our society to blame for being irresponsible. America has been angered at the current state of affairs engulfing our country and our personal lives -- our troops are still in Iraq, the worst financial crisis in 80 years, surging insecurity regarding one's job, etc. -- and while we blame failed politicians, bankers, variuous corporate shenanigans for these massive issues, our search for solutions defies simple explanations.

Thus we turn back to Miss Suleman. Her circumstances are essentially of her own choosing, and resulted in her own government bailout. While this story would be a media sensation in any news cycle, it has gained greater prominence due to external cultural and economic difficulties.

Anytime a woman decides to bear a child society must support her decision -- not necessarily for the mother's sake but for the child's future. However, I believe a financial test for fertility treatments is not against the goals of feminism, and would actually provide incentives for woman to better gauge if they can provide for a new life's well-being.

I think it is essential for woman's groups to be pushing for greater financial literarcy with women. I'm not sure if this would have helped Miss Suleman all that much -- thanks in large part to previous generations of feminists -- as women increase their financial earnings they need the tools to empower themselves to be more responsible for the lives of their children, family and their own personal future.

[Ipanemagirl]

I have only praise for Planned parenthood. They are the only ones that help so many who otherwise would get no help.. Only ignorants would be opposed to an institution that helps so many especially teens in trouble and the poor. Abortions is only a tiny part of what they do, they counsel people give medication , provide birthcontrol , and enpowers women to make safe decisions for their lives and their off spring.

[Alison Camacho]

I'm 42. Recently married. Career in non-profit sector. Always wanted to be a mom. Trying to get pregnant. Infertility. Eggs not so healthy. I get irritated when octo-mom discussions come up around me. It's personal and emotionally close for me right now. I'm in the throes of it: blood tests, semen count, poking, prodding, questions, drugs, IUI, IVF, ay-yi-yi. Having done financial research I can attest that the decision, once you face not being able to conceive naturally, is largely financiall­y-based.On­e IVF is $15,000 or IUI is $6000. Our insurance company will provide MINIMAL coverage.(­Meanwhile, men's Viagra prescriptions are FULLY covered by insurance!).

The octo-mom made questionable pregnancy and fertility CHOICES for her family and will rely on public assistance.WHO pays for their public assistance? WHO paid for IVF? WHO counseled her as an IVF candidate? WHERE will those children go to school? WHAT happens with her special needs children? WHO is paying for the children's hospitalization? WHERE will they live once evicted? WHY did not one person intervene (mother, father, boyfriend, girlfriend, doctor, infertility specialist) to tell her having 14 children was too much for one person, with "limited" financial means?

It seems that octo-mom carelessly brought an additional eight children into the world. It may be judgmental on my part to say but her CHOICES—without having emotional, financial or long term planning in place for her family— are irresponsible and more importantly, so detrimental to her children.

[Ipanemagirl]

Amen! to Alison's comments!
obviously this is not a fair world. Those who can afford and want to have children, many times cannot , and those who should not , have too many!! Look at all the poor countries,)You should try to adopt one of Sulemans kids! I'm sure you would be a much better mom and much more qualified! Good luck.

[idreamwideyed]

my best friend became pregnant in high school, and she made the choice of having her child. in making that choice, she also accepted the RESPONSIBILITY, at 17 years old, of caring for her son to the best of her abilities. and she has.

she went to school full time, she worked full time dropped the baby off at day care very day and she did all of this without the father, only a measly 50 dollars a week was all she saw of him.

now her son is 5 years old, she has a degree in early childhood education and a good job. she accomplished all of this on her own.

this woman did not accept the responsibility of her actions. she hasnt learned because she hasnt had to provide for her own children. she doesnt know what its like to be down to your last ten dollars for the week, trying to decide if she has enough diapers to last her until her next paycheck. her mother knows of it, because HER mother has been more of a mother for those children than she has.

i have to support these children? i have to support a woman who sounds like a 15 year old brat hell bent on having children on the maury show? i dont think so.

i support having those children taken away from that woman and given to those who have the resources, time and selfishness to care for and love a child.

[bulldoglover06]

Nadya could not handle 6 kids, and was not financially supporting them. Her parents were doing it all. If you can't feed them ,don't breed them. Why she decided to become pregnant every year for the past seven years is selfish? Any money she had was spent on herself. She could not handle 6 kids ,let alone 14. It should not be up to the taxpayers, to help her.

[mydwyf]

The 'choice to have children' ultimately ends at the mother's ability to feed them. I did not have children until i could do so. And I don't mean by buying food at the supermarket. I mean by having cows, chickens, a big garden, the whole thing. We as a society are WAY to disconnected from how to sustain ourselves !

[CarolDowner]

Beware, proponents of women's rights! Our disapproval can blind us to how this woman is being treated unequally. Many men impregnate as many women as possible, and nothing happens to them. The biological difference that enables us to know when a woman delivers a baby enables us to condemn and control her.. If a man fathers a child, all that is asked of him is to financially support it, period. He may never choose to see the child, much less provide companionship or love, and our legal system thinks that's fine.
I'm working for a woman's right to have as many children as she chooses.
If that makes you gasp to think of how overpopulated our earth would be, realize that the gross overpopulation of our planet has resulted from a woman's inability to control her own body. Most women, choose to have only those children they can provide care for.
"choice must go with responsibility" means, in our male-dominated society, I know this standard will only be applied to women. We need to struggle for Equality, not for "Choice". Carol Downer

[Ipanemagirl]

you are on the wrong track lady carol! Helping women have as many children as she can sounds really out of date and irresponsible. The biggest problem of the word now is the growing population, and I support having the choice of having only as many as you know you can raise well...and in these present times, for most people, its one or two, unless you are fighting for the polygamists mormons that marry children and force them to procreate every year. and then use our food stamps to feed them! its ok to say you dont want government intervention, unless its to feed your miserable children!
What hippocrates!

[cyjames1975]

Of course, she can have however many kids she wants, but there's a limit to whether doctors should help her do it under these circumstances. It's a matter of ethics. Obviously, you can't forcibly sterilize people. And we do have to guard where we go with deciding who should and shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of fertility services.

But we should be able to address this case and similar ones ethically and responsibly. It seems reasonable that we could have medical protocols to put the brakes on assisting people in such obvious madness. Yes, it could be a slippery slope, but it's similar to the best practices for a bariatric surgeon to have an obese patient screened before gastric bypass to make sure they are prepared to handle the consequences. This woman clearly has a number of mental issues and it is horribly irresponsible for a doctor to facilitate her having more children that she isn't mentally healthy enough to care for. As disturbing as her financial situation might be, it's not even really about the money. It's about those poor children being raised in an environment where their role is to fulfill their mother's sense of self at the expense of their own well being.

[Michelle Bart - Huffpost Blogger]

Well said, as always my friend! The only thing I can say on this is ACCOUNTABILITY: even a state licensed daycare center will not allow one aid for fourteen children under their care. Everyone in this picture must be accounted for; the grandparents, the mother, the doctor etc. These are real human beings that are our future; NO ONE in this situation should matter except the fourteen children who never asked to be brought into this world or this crazy drama that will eventually be played in books, television, and on the big screen. The only ones in the end that will lose are the kids. The best outcome for the kids should be the only avenues explored.

[Romulus]

And what do you think WOULD be the best outcome for these 14 children?

[Ipanemagirl]

Not having been born would be the first best outcome...but its too late now!, So being adopted out to parents who will love and can afford to care for them and educate them, is NOW the second best option. Some laws need to be changed. for this to happen and I would support this!

[AngelaQuattrano]

The grandparents have lost their retirement and are losing their house. But they don't matter. Okay...

Remind me of your opinion after her next litter.

[RenoSage]

It cannot be said more clearly:
Choice must be accompanied by RESPONSIBILITY.

I do not feel that I must support anybody's poor choice.
A woman's right to choose must not be abridged except by responsibility.

[OnlinewithZoe]

I hope the children are cared for, no one could deny that, but there are several more issues at play here.

Clearly the doctor abandoned his obligation to care for the integral welfare of his patient and her dependents. Doctors are not supposed to merely fulfill the desires of his/her patients; they are counselors. I look forward to his peers reprimanding him for this procedure.
Secondly, it is not natural for a human to conceive, birth and parent eight children at once. I found it very disturbing from the very earliest of announcements ~ with the staff and media all beaming about this successful delivery. Regardless of who is paying, it is not natural and not indicative of the miracles of modern medicine.

Finally, the word CHOICE: a small word which is very complex in its application. There is a presumption that a woman makes her choice armed with information, counsel and balance. That is the law in counties where choice is an option. The very name Planned Parenthood implies that a parent is making a planned and informed choice.

I am glad that there is so much discussion about this ~ but I do worry that it can be used on both sides of the aisle to advance positions when, in fact, it is an extraordinary case exacerbated by an unstable mother and her doctor's unethical action.