Should women be allowed to have 14 kids without job?

by sammielee24 280 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sammielee24

  The type of comments made about this woman without substantiation in the media and on this thread empower no women anywhere, least of all her. Ironically, it seems most only want to empower those women who conform to their moral values and choices

  I would disagree. Again, the context is in the financial responsibility = to your rights to breed. One cannot be exclusive of the other when your choice (and this was a planned, deliberate choice) is made on the backs of societal funding. Empowerment comes from promoting good self esteem and letting you know that you can make good decisions for your life contrary to the 'norm'. She herself (watch some of the interviews she is giving) said she wanted to fill her life with kids to make up for a lonely childhood. Women who have children to fill a void in their lives and who believe (not saying she does but it appears so from her comments) that those children will love her forever and never leave..are women who do not see the value in themselves or what they can do. They keep busy until the last child leaves and then often feel desperate and alone after that - plunging into depression and sometimes into addictions or other illnesses.

  It would have been better for the woman to receive counselling for her many issues prior to being ALLOWED to become pregnant. Remember, this was not a natural occuring event - it was a planned and deliberate choice. Had she been counselled before, she may have been empowered to use her skills to help other women wade through the same issues she had. You empower most women through education and helping them make better choices for their lives - for other women, that may not work and for those, people should question their individual rights against the societal majority.

  sw.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  sammilee

  you raise quite a few ethical issues about women in general but you keep tieing them to Nadya Suleman who is unusual to women in general.

  For example In Britain many single parents are on govermental benefits and they were on aid before they became parents. Just to clarify you position are you saying that if the majority of people agree that people on benefits shouldn't be allowed to get pregnant and have children then that should somehow be adhered to?

  here is another point

  Women who have children to fill a void in their lives and who believe (not saying she does but it appears so from her comments) that those children will love her forever and never leave..are women who do not see the value in themselves or what they can do. They keep busy until the last child leaves and then often feel desperate and alone after that - plunging into depression and sometimes into addictions or other illnesses.

  lets put Nadya Suleman aside once more because I've heard this argument used for women iin general too and you do seem to be doing that above.

  The void that you refer to above is a valid biological, emotional drive and isn't reducible to the portrayal you have outlined. The same goes for the feelings engendered by children growing up and leaving home. Women who feel lonely and lost after their children leave home testify to the huge emotional, physical committment they have made to bringing up their children and I would argue that this is not an evidence of women being unable to value themselves or what they can do. I see these assumptions as a sort of legacy of feminsim and they actually undermine women's postion in society imo.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Whatever happened to "my body my choice"? I guess it only counts when you want to murder the unborn.

  http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/02/06/feministeria/

  Feministeria

  Ellen Goodman: Regulate women’s reproductive organs.

  You have to admire these Old Line Liberals for their chutzpah.

  After years of railing against abortion laws — reproductive rights — of saying its my womb and I’ll do what I want with it — Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Ellen Goodman is now calling for the regulation of reproduction.

  In a column today, she wrote: “Does anyone have a right to tell anyone else how many kids to have? Can only people who can afford them bear children? Do you need a husband to have a baby? These are questions that make us feel queasy when we are talking about old-fashioned families. But they take on a new flavor in the unregulated wild west of fertility technology.”

  Ah yes, Goodman is upset with Nadya Suleman, the woman who chose to have 8 children, to bring her family to 14 kids.

  So much for a woman’s choice to have a kid. Or 2. Or 8. Or 14. Mrs. Goodman wants the government to dictate the number.

  And why?

  Goodman: “This is more than an individual decision. Suleman’s babies weighed between 1 pound 8 ounces and 3 pounds 4 ounces. They will cost at least $1 million in neonatal care and more if they have the typical range of disabilities for premature babies. The meter is running at the neonatal unit.”

  Oh, I see. It is too expensive for the government to provide health care for children.

  So kids, there you have it. Goodman has abandoned “reproductive rights” in favor of the government dictating the size of families.

  And she has abandoned the call for universal health care because, gee, it is so expensive.

  Liberals used to have principles. I think.

  Me? I like babies. The more the merrier.
• 

  hemp lover

  It doesn't look like anyone saw this in the original article, as there are multiple comments wondering why the doctors implanted 8 embryos. Apparently, they didn't.

  "Angela Suleman told reporters Friday that doctors implanted far fewer than eight embryos, but they multiplied.

  Experts said this could be possible since Nadya Suleman's system has likely been hyperstimulated for years with fertilization treatments and drugs."

  So in fairness to Nadya, maybe she was only trying to have 12 kids. ;-)
• 

  llbh

  There are some very interesting jurisprudential (both biomedical and familial ) issues that are not really being addressed here except by some posters. , just prejudices dressed up as philosophy.

  Do we want the state and the judiciary to intervene in the fecundity of its citizens? If so when and under what circumstances? If some of its citizens are not well mentally do we want intervention to stop them reproducing? The Spartans use to leave unwanted children to die on Mount Tegea.

  Can and should the state encourage good parenting ? If so how when and where. Will this sublimate the role the role that familes have?

  Does this include homosexual couples?

  You see their are many issues being alluded to here, but many are arguing ( with notable exceptions, JD QL, and CD come to mind) in a visceral manner, which is OK, when recognised as such, but does not help to have an informed and informative debate.

  This thread could cover a number of quite prescient issues, if prejudices were set aside.

  Regards david
• 

  BurnTheShips

  David,

  You hit the nail on the head.

  My opinion is that ultimately the cure (more control over the lives of individuals) is worse than the disease.

  BTS
• 

  betterdaze

  Octuplet Mom: Blame the Lawyers
  
  The story of Nadya Suleman, the woman who delivered octuplets in Los Angeles last week, is troubling to many medical ethicists and frankly, normal observers. Why did a woman who already had six children get so many embryos implanted during an in vitro fertilization procedure? Adding to the concern is that one of her other children might have special needs--and that she is a single mother whose own mother, with whom she lives, reportedly disapproved of her decision to ahead with so many births.
  
  Some of the blame has been directed at Suleman's fertility doctor. That doctor has not yet been identified in the press. But it seems like others in the field have a non-judgmental approach. In one dispatch, a fertility specialist says: "Who am I to say that six is the limit? There are people who like to have big families." Another says that he cannot be a "policeman for reproduction." In other words, doctors don't consider it their role to steer patients away from making bad decisions.
  
  But legally-speaking, can they refuse to aid and abet if they so desire? The answer is no, at least according to a recent high-profile court case in Suleman’s state of California. In that case a lesbian couple in San Diego went to a fertility specialist so that one of the women, Guadalupe Benitez, could get pregnant. The doctor, Christine Brody, refused to treat Benitez, explaining that she objected to unmarried women having children. Brody offered to refer the couple to another doctor. Benitez and her partner sued Brody and her medical practice, claiming civil rights violations.
  
  The case eventually made it to the California Supreme Court, where the judges unanimously agreed last year that anti-discrimination laws trumped the rights of doctors to use their own judgement to decide whom to treat.
  
  So in the case of Nadya Suleman--if there's anyone to blame besides the mother herself, it's not the doctors, but the lawyers.
  
  --David Whelan
  http://blogs.forbes.com/sciencebizblog/2009/02/octuplet-mom-blame-the-lawyers.html
• 

  independent_tre

  Now some might think that arrogant, judgemental and presumptuous of me to say such a thing about someone I barely know, based on a few comments on such an unreliable medium as the internet, but I know you will be Ok with it because that's how we roll on this thread, isn't it?

  Yep, Great job Cog... It's sooo good to see you finally displaying some of the behavior you so adamantly claim to hate.

  But since you seem to be scanning for professional diagnoses and advice on an internet forum, let me give you some:

  You seem a little constipated, so maybe you shoud take an ex-lax and let the shit go.

  Ah, but if I know you, you won't let that post quota drop, will ya? So, you should be posting another nonsensical rant in 5...4..3..2...1.....

  _________________________________________________________

  Betterdaze... Good point regarding legal precedence.

  However in this case, I believe the doctor could have clearly backed out citing the dangers to the woman's and children's health. Many articles have shown that other fertility specialists and physicians believe that this went well beyond normal practice and that at most 2 embryos should have been implanted. I don't believe any physician is required to perform any medical procedure when the risks to the patients health outweigh any supposed benefits.
• 

  llbh

  I always say blame the lawyers ! Good point, unless i am using one, then i want the best i can afford. Lawyers are parasites they so do not get the meaning of jurisprudence. LLBH.

  Anyone read Sophocles - The Theban Plays, they have a bearing here?

  Btw JD your analysis of population statistics is spot on.

  Regards David
• 

  cognizant dissident

  Yep, Great job Cog... It's sooo good to see you finally displaying some of the behavior you so adamantly claim to hate.

  But since you seem to be scanning for professional diagnoses and advice on an internet forum, let me give you some:

  You seem a little constipated, so maybe you shoud take an ex-lax and let the shit go.

  I guess the concept of irony is lost on you. Here's a little tip. The first person in a debate to resort to name calling and potty humor automatically loses the argument.

  Signed,

  poo-poo head

  However in this case, I believe the doctor could have clearly backed out citing the dangers to the woman's and children's health. Many articles have shown that other fertility specialists and physicians believe that this went well beyond normal practice and that at most 2 embryos should have been implanted. I don't believe any physician is required to perform any medical procedure when the risks to the patients health outweigh any supposed benefits.

  You actually make a good point, in questioning whether a doctor is obligated to perform a procedure that carries a too high risk to the patient. I beleive the answer to that is no. However, it has still not been established that eight embryos were intentionally transferred to Nadya. It has been claimed by her and confirmed by her mother that some of the embryos multiplied. In the case of the other woman who gave birth to octuplets, it was also due to fertility drugs. Yet, most keep insisting on arguing their points as if the octuplets were a planned event in spite of any evidence to the contrary. This shows a disposition to ignore the facts in order to cling to a cherished belief that there is no support for. Reminds me a bit of JW's and other religious fanatics.