The octuplets: difficult situation. Bad law?

Last updated on: February 10, 2009 at 3:38 pm by Pia de Solenni

The octuplets: difficult situation. Bad law? 2009-02-10T15:38:05-07:00 Pia de Solenni

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Well, if you’ve been vacationing on Mars, you may have missed the story about the octuplets, or more specifically the mother of the octuplets. A lot of interesting information has been revealed and good questions are being raised.

Last week, Nadya Suleman, the mother of the octuplets, gave interviews to NBC’s Today Show. As people find out more and more about the situation, it seems like something should be done. But what?
Some facts to keep in mind:

Ms. Suleman has had all 14 children as a single parent; she has repeatedly referred to these children in terms that suggest that they are therapy for her. She has no visible means of supporting them and is already receiving government assistance for her first six children.
While some are scandalized by the number of children in one multiple pregnancy, there’s really no ground for surprise. After all, assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are not self regulating or regulated by the government. So, while it’s unwise to implant numerous embryos, there’s nothing to prevent someone from doing it (aside from moral reprehension at IVF, but that’s a different conversation for another time).
For good reasons, we don’t have laws regulating who can conceive children and how many children they can have.

China, however, does and we’ve seen what’s happened there: one couple, one baby.

Now, pundits are raising questions as to the suitability of Ms. Suleman as a parent. O’Reilly had this segment with Laura Ingraham and, more recently this one with other guests. There are many reasons to doubt Ms. Suleman’s suitability as a parent, but I think we have to be extremely careful. People make claims to the effect that she has “too many” children, that she only has a three-bedroom house, that she has no money. These are all valid concerns, but they’re not grounds for removing a child from her home and we wouldn’t want them to be. Do we really want the government deciding how many children we can have or who’s wealthy enough to afford them?

As it stands, in the US the state cannot intervene unless there is a substantial risk to a child in the home. And this has to be determined by qualified experts, not us pundits and commentators. Ms. Suleman has made statements on national television that suggest she might be inbalanced and, given that she has an extraordinary medical situation, a social worker should already be assigned to her case.

Yes, it’s frustrating. Most of us probably think that the children should have been born under better circumstances – say, oh, as a result of the loving embrace of a husband and wife who love each other and are committed to each other. But the children are here. Their existence is a fact. At this point, the question should be: “What’s best for the children?”

Ironically, in many cases a not-so-great parent is better than no parent at all. If the children are in no immediate danger, then the best thing we can do is to support them in a loving home with their mother.

Sure, question the IVF industry. Think about why IVF may not be such a good thing. (Our Sunday Visitor’s editor John Norton has this piece.) Question the doctor and even whether he should have some fiscal responsibility for the children. Question Ms. Suleman’s intentions. Reflect upon the sense of entitlement that her actions represent.

It may be that she’s not suited to be a mother, but the question now has to be whether or not she presents a substantial danger to the children and I don’t think any of us outsiders have enough information to weigh in on it.

This is a difficult case. Although we can’t undo what’s been done, we can work to bring about the changes so that things like this won’t happen again. But we should keep in in mind: difficult cases make bad law.

Thinking Out Loud

Uncategorized

Previous Post

February 10, 2009

Caught in the crossfire

Next Post

February 11, 2009 Life

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Articles Thinking Out Loud Uncategorized

Select a Month August 2016 July 2016 May 2016 March 2016 February 2016 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 September 2013 August 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 August 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 July 2007 October 1008

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What Christian group requires its members to serve as missionaries?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Jehovah’s Witnesses Anglicans Baptists Latter-day Saints