WTF! Eight babies AT ONCE! Seriously? The miracle is undermined by the fact that mom Nadya Suleman already has SIX children. If you suck at math, that means she now has FOURTEEN children. But wait…it gets better. Ms Suleman is a single mom living with her parents, and all FOURTEEN of her children, yes ALL fourteen, have been conceived using in vitro fertilization with sperm from the same donor. Hey, I mean it’s not like the world is overpopulated and starvation is a problem or anything. So let’s talk ethical responsibility. You are a doctor. A single woman, who lives with her parents and has received in vitro successfully on six previous occasions at your clinic, walks in requesting treatment so that she can have her seventh baby. You say, “Sure, no problem! If you birth a football team per chance, your parents will foot the bill anyway and when they croak you can always rely on the tax payers. Jobs and fathers are so overated anyway.” Good decision. In an interview with the NBC, Ms Suleman stated “I’m not trying to expect anything from anybody. I just wanted to do it on my own. Any resources that someone would really, really want to help us, I will accept, I would embrace…I will feed them. I will do the best I possibly can”. Sounds like as good a reason as any to birth fourteen babies.
The degeneration of the moral core of society is often just so damn funny. And my hysteria over a video on YouTube (follow the link) attests to the fact that I am as degenerate as the next person. In my best American hoodlum/chola accent, I have spent the last week chanting “I’m gonna have a baby…and if I can’t afford it…i’ll just sell it”. Nope, I haven’t been fired yet. The fifteen-year-old on this Jerry Springer-esque talkshow makes a great example for the argument that there should exist a right to veto individuals from reproducing based on a set of criteria. The logistics of defining and agreeing on said criteria could be messy and yes yes, I know that it is unconstitutional and in violation of The Rights of Man. Fuck those rights anyway. What does a right to anything even mean when those rights are selectively applied? The personal rights of Ms Suleman infringe the socio-economic rights of her fourteen children. So which right is more valuable? And who has the right to decide which is more valuable? These questions would be redundant if man used his God-given brain to make sensible (admittedly a debatable concept) and unselfish decisions. That being said, I do however tend to agree with William Golding’s perception of man, which is illustrated in the most brilliant, awesome and amazing novel Lord of the Flies. When the structures that keep man in check are eradicated, chaos ensues as the innately sinful and selfish nature of man is exposed. There is no cure. Ask Piggy.
I agree. People should have to pass examinations or something before they can have children because some people are definitely too dumb to even look after themselves, let alone some one else and, again, let alone 14 other people. I wish I knew this lady so that I could slap her a good one.
I disagree. While I think it is hideously irresponsible and selfish for someone to impose such poor judgement on society in general and on their offspring in particular, I have to hold on to my faith in the human potential to rise above the circumstances of their birth and childhood to achieve greatness. Call me naive if you like but if just one of those children goes on to do something tremendous with their lives like find a cure for AIDS for example, won’t we be thanking our lucky stars that someone out their was dumb enough to have fourteen children without any plan to provide adequately for their needs.
I love you so much for thinking like this and your point is totally valid! You are the ying to my yang. Perchance you are right and one of the fourteen is the next Albert Einstein. What about the other thirteen who may suffer a great and unecessary penalty based on the actions of another. The “what if” game is always tough to play and rather pointless. Exercising power over another based on one’s own opinions and emotive responses (even if we think our ideas are right and logical) is very dangerous.
But then you could also argue the “what if” point to the degree that a woman should conceieve as many children as humanly possible in a lifetime, by the odd chance that one of them would be kindof clever.
Will those 14 children receive great care at home? Unlikely, there’s just too many of them, even with Grandma’s help. But then is it anyone else’s problem to care for those kids? No. And if they don’t receive love, care and education, all of which I assume she couldn’t afford (and yes that includes love, there are 14 of them), without sponsorship from the successful fertilisation clinic, then they could become her village’s next worst nightmare. But there are good people out there, and human rights activists who’d be more than happy to help the baby fevered mother. And in so doing aiding the downward spiral (in my opinion).
(Note: I know it’s not a great point, and not well constructed but you get the idea)
I think that the main problem with the “what if” game is simply the extreme odds of the best coming true. The point is that you have pleny of people out there who will continue to be irresponsible and we are absolutely powerless to do something about it without beginning the slippery slope of surrendering our free will and our human rights. That it why there is this huge part of my that has to pray that out of the sheer stupidity of some, perhaps something good will arise that may not negate their wrongdoing but at least offer a glimmer of light. I mean, take for instance the following question found on an abortion website:
What would you suggest in the following situation?
A women has tuberculosis, and the father has syphilis.
Together they had four children.
Their first child was born blind…
The second child was stillborn…
The third child was deaf & dumb…
and their fourth was born with tuberculosis.
They’re now pregnant with their fifth child.
Would you recommend that they abort this child?
Legitimately, intelligently, logically and morally many of us would have said yes but then the beauty that was Beethoven’s would have been unknown to the world.
There is very little to be said for human rights and free will when these ideals are selectively applied by society and the governments they ‘elect’. The US fights for ‘human rights’ (aka Oil) in the Middle East but it’s okay for Robert Mugabe to annihilate a nation – what does the notion of human rights actually mean? Within a society, nobody is ever completely free to exercise their free will, as it should be…otherwise chaos would ensue. If human rights is a happy ideal that means jack-shit, and free will is an illusion, theoretically, one would not be taking anything away from anyone by regulating birth. We have surrendered our rights and free will to the restrictions placed upon us by society and religion and government. Thank God for that.
All this being said. I have merely proposed a debate. My personal view is that practically speaking, there is no way to determine who should and shouldn’t be allowed to conceive children. Let’s not forget China’s population control policy that has prevented more than 250 million births, and has led to an increase in forced abortion and female infanticide. Ethically speaking, it would be very dangerous to institute such regulatory procedures. So, maybe China has benefited economically and socially – so some ‘rights’ have been preserved and yet simultaneously, others have been infringed – the right to life of the aborted fetuses and female babies. Theoretically, it is an interesting debate that is premised on something as inconsistent as free will and human rights. The only thing that is consistent about human rights is that they cannot all be applied consistently.
Ha ha ha – is that the polite way of saying you are simply shit-stirring? I certainly hope so for it is one of your most attractive qualities not to mention fundamental rights :-)
I think people that have that many kids, should just use them to supply the homeless with a secondary food source other than digging in trash cans!