So, I couldn't help but bring up the topic of the single mother who gave birth two weeks ago to 8 babies. Although this has been a while ago, interviews of the mother have just come out. I would like to start a discussion on this topic in relation to the overall effects of this situation to the family, children, and support that will be provided from a number of sources.
This first clip is a question from the mother in response to the biological father and his possible role in the childrens lives.
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=af062c54-a60e-4c4d-af5a-93def940d84c
Secondly, this clip is a brief interview of the mother, neighbors, and the cost of raising 14 children.
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/nbc-today-show-nbc-today-show-spokesperson-octuplets-mom-is-joyful/2288180774/?icid=VIDLRVNWS08
I am torn on this. I believe that it is fine to be a single mother and the use of invetro to become pregnant is acceptable. However, at what point should mothers not have as many children as they want (in a sense). I do know several families with 10+ children but none of these were single parent families. I am thrilled with this mothers enthusiasm to be a mother but should she be allowed to put both herself and her children at risk, should she get government support for this, and what is socially acceptable and what is not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not as split as you. I had no idea that this mom was single. Why would anyone choose to do that to her children? Why would the media choose to parade such a travesty? A parent's primary concern is for the care and protection of his/her own children. It appears that this woman has failed that by purposely not choosing a father for her children to have in their life.
ReplyDeleteThere are women who get pregnant unintentionally and regret not having a father there for their children, but to do so on purpose seems like the height of selfishness. "I want to have children so I will regardless of how hurt they will be not having a father". I feel sorry for these children who will grow up without a father or at the very least a man that may or may not be in their life (based on what I understood in the interview). A selfish choice on his part. You do not make the choice whether or not to do the best for your children after you have them, you make that choice when you choose to create them.
I agree with you for the most part Mocktalk...however the part that I am torn about is whether government should play a role in the number of children one should have, and the fact that choosing to be single or not should play a role in this decision. Its kind of an over arching theme of this issue.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this woman was selfish in her wish for more children and not taking into account her children already living at home.
Katie I'm sorry I hastily responded without trying to understand you. I am much more frustrated with this mom than anything. I read a recent article where she is already using the "new" welfare - getting her children on disability. Hmm, with the six children she already had (before the eight) three were on disability - what are the chances of that?
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of public outrage about this lady milking the system - and I can almost see why these children should be adopted out. Someone who just has children to get a handout really doesn't those children in the first place. Maybe those children should be given to someone who really wants them. Yep, I get your conundrum. It is hard to say, because is it the state's right to make that decision to take away the children? I guess so if the state is going to be paying for them anyways.
I should clarify. When your children are disabled, you get I believe around $400 (or more) for that child from the Federal Government. Well with three children being disabled that is an extra 1200 a month. What better disability to have than a mental health one (ADHD and Autism) specifically. Both of which are determined through much a parent's report to the mental health provider. Often ADHD alone is often difficult to distinguish from not having enough discipline in the home.
ReplyDeleteHer desire to be a mother had already been fulfilled, six times! Her pursuit of happiness may be a risk to her children, and my wallet. She says she saved for the treatments herself, but truth to be told she couldn't have done it without the assistance that was "freeing" up all that cash. Spending tens of thousands of dollars on new kids instead of taking care of the ones that you have, I just can't buy that.
ReplyDeleteSo, I watched this interview the other night on tv and when it was finished I was upset. I don't have a problem with big families. I came from a big family (there were ten of us total). But, my parents never used government assistance, for anything. It does seem like a selfish and irresponsible thing for her to do (have so many kids as a single parent). There is something to be said about knowing what your capabilities are and this woman is not capable of taking care of so many kids by herself. I don't care if she made lots of money. She still wouldn't be able to, so I feel as if here actions were very wrong. BUT, policy wise, I don't know if you could truly prevent someone from doing this without taking away the rights of other families (like my parents) in the process.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Patricia. The actions/decisions of this woman seem ludicrous and irresponsible to me! However, how do you regulate reproduction? I personally know lots of people who should have NEVER reproduced but thats a pretty basic freedom. Can you imagine trying to require licensure for indivduals wanting to have children? What mess. But I feel like we have a consensus on this lady, what a whack job!!! And I agree with Lucas, how irritating that my tax dollars are gonna go toward her "litter" when she intentionally put herself in this rediculous situation. Does anyone have any solutions to this?
ReplyDeleteNo one has raised the issue of regulating the reproductive technology industry. In vitro fertilization is regulated in many countries such that a situation like Nadya Suleman's would not be possible elsewhere. Regulating how many embryos one has implanted past a certain age is not onerous, in my opinion. It does mean that some families who use reproductive technology may not be able to have as large a family as one who can have children "naturally," but I think most persons who turn to invitro fertilization are not hoping to have 10 children.
ReplyDeleteThis issue stirs up so many issues; i.e., right to life, women's reproductive rights, societal concerns about excessive burden to the social welfare system, etc. What sort of family life will these children have?
Like Lucas,
They are gonna have a life like mine!!??? We are in trouble now ;)
ReplyDeleteThe question isn't if they have a right to reproduce, its do they have the right to reproduce and expect to be supported by society. Does she have a right to have an unlimited number of children AND get government support? I cant help but wonder if the cut off for government support was 6 if we would have seen the last 8.
I for one agree that we should limit the number of embryos. It is an undue risk to the mother (who would take care of the kids if she died?!) and there really is no reason for it. One option she, and all of us have, is to adopt. That I said I have never tried to adopt a child and I have no idea how difficult it really is. (though I have heard it is expensive).
I agree with all of these comments. I especially agree with the invitro comment. The doctor should have considered her curcumstances before implanting embryos and even then why 6? In the interview she stated she wanted one...maybe twins...then why implant 6?
ReplyDeleteI would also like to be the devils advocate for a moment. In this curcumstance, even though she had so many children, and was a single mother, the doctor still emplanted 6 embryo's. If the government does place restrictions on invitro and other fertilization tecniques, should the mothers current status be considered. I know that this seems like an obvious answer, but, employers today are not allowed (or are not suppose to) discriminate based on marital status, number of children, race, etc. Would these restriction for a mother like this be considered discrimination? Even though she has six children, and is single, should a doctor have the right to determine if she can get pregnant again or not...wheter it is 1 or more embryoes?
I would love to hear some of your thoughts!!!