The octuplets born to Nadya Suleman came into the world on January 26, 22 days ago — and just three hours or so after our daughter was born. (And in Bellflower, a working-class Los Angeles County community some twenty miles away from us.) Our first child shares a birthday with the world’s first surviving group of eight babies born at once, and in the midst of all the hubbub and upheaval that goes with having a new addition, I’ve paid at least some attention to the coverage of Suleman and her (now) fourteen children. I’ve also noticed, more than I might otherwise, the coverage of the birth earlier this month of little Maisie in London — a girl whose father is apparently Alfie Patten, age 13.
Maisie and the Suleman octuplets have been welcomed into the world in the harsh light of the media glare and nearly-universal censure. The mental state of Nadya Suleman (a single woman who recently reported she has been celibate for eight years) and the foolhardiness of her fertility doctor have been much decried; Maisie’s arrival has been greeted with the not-particularly-original lamentation about how awful it is for “babies to have babies”. In the Suleman case, it’s that she’s had too many babies without a husband or the obvious means with which to provide for all of these children. In both the Patten and Suleman case, we’re dealing with folks who have been labelled “unfit” to be parents, and the orgy of hand-wringing commenceth.
I contrast these infamous stories with the reaction to the birth of baby Cerys, born as she is to a well-off, heterosexual married couple (husband in his early forties, wife in her mid-thirties). Baby Cerys was longed for and planned for and wished for, not only by her now-doting (if exhausted) mother and father, but also by an army of grandmothers and aunts and uncles and friends and cousins and even acquaintances. (One of our chinchillas, Ninotchka, regularly expressed enthusiasm by allowing my wife to hold her while she was pregnant, but only near the growing belly.) My growing family has been showered with love and with gifts and with warm words of praise, as if we have done something new and surprising and wonderful. Admittedly, many in my family “never thought they’d see the day” when the inconstant black sheep of his generation became such a devoted papa, but that surprise and delight at this change in me is only partly a reason for such enthusiasm.
My wife and I have been given a compliment many times in the past three weeks, sometimes with direct reference to the Suleman case. Both friends and family members have said to us: “You two are the sort of people who should be parents.” It’s a sentence loaded with meanings, only some of which may be intended by the many who have spoken and written it to us. What’s meant, at least by most, is that my wife and I are “ready” to be parents. We are in a stable relationship (married three and a half years, together for more than six). We are homeowners, employed, insured. We are certainly not young parents, but not so old that folks start to question whether we will be physically up to the challenges of raising small children. We are in good health physically, and at least for the past decade, mentally. We are planted in a strong and supportive spiritual community, and so on and so forth. And we’re feminists, which at least to a great many people is an encouraging sign in the parents of a newborn daughter.
It’s true that all of these things are helpful, though in and of themselves none of them are guarantors that we will be great parents. But I can’t help but hear a tinge of classism in at least some of the voices that have proffered this well-meaning phrase in one form or another. Though it is true that my wife and I are, of course, delightful human beings, I’m troubled by the implied comparison between us and the likes not only of Nadya Suleman or Alfie Patten, but all of the vast army of new parents who lack our educational background and financial good fortune. It’s hard to say “Hugo and Eira are the sort of people who should be parents” (the emphasis is generally the speaker’s) without wondering who it is that the person offering this insight thinks ought not to have reproduced.
Most of us think there’s something just a bit odd about Nadya Suleman. Most of us think having eight embryos implanted after having had six children is a bit unusual at best. And most of us think a thirteen year-old boy and fifteen year-old girl are woefully unready to be parents. But it’s not as if our sense of outrage and judgment is limited to the likes of these. The praise and encouragement lavished upon my wife and me is sometimes explicitly linked to a sense that we will have the resources to provide comfortably for Cerys and any other children whom we might have.
From a feminist perspective, I find the whole notion that a life without children is an unfulfilled one to be patently ridiculous. We should not be pressuring anyone, woman or man, into becoming a parent unless he or she genuinely feels called to nurture a child of our species. The world’s resources are already strained to the limit; having babies because “that’s just what you do” is a poor strategy for one’s own happiness and for the planet’s well-being. I am not only a supporter of the organization known as Planned Parenthood, I support with great enthusiasm the ideal embodied in its name: that every child born should be wanted, that every growing zygote be conceived in accordance with the deepest wishes and hopes of he who gave the sperm and she who gave the ovum. Cerys, our beautiful daughter, was planned for and wanted and longed for. She came into the world the child of two parents who were more than ready for her — and my capacity to love her so immensely, to surrender other aspects of my life for her so willingly, is in no small way linked to how badly she was wanted. This doesn’t mean that her worth as a person is contingent upon my desire to be a papa, but it is clear that my desire to be a papa is the root of the devotion I can lavish upon her. And it is also clear that many who don’t desire to be parents, but are forced to be parents by circumstance of one sort or another, turn out to be very poor at the task indeed.
But it is my desire to be a good father that is at the root of what will make me a good father. The facts of money and stability and education are not as essential. These things will make Cerys’ life easier in some ways; we can lavish many things upon her. Indeed, the most important thing that money can buy is not stuff, but time — my tenured teaching position and my wife’s ability to take an extended time off work means that for the foreseeable future, Cerys will always have one (and often both) parents with her. We will not be exhausted from working two or three shifts at odd hours, and so on. But make no mistake — those who lack our blessings are no less qualified to be parents than we. Money and education make things easier, but they are no substitutes for love. Plenty of wealthy people turn into lousy moms and dads, and plenty of single mothers on public assistance prove to be wonderful parents. What makes it easier for us to take care of Cerys is not the same as what qualifies us to take care of her. Money, maturity, education and savvy are part of the former, but love and desire make the latter. I am enraged at any suggestion that only those as blessed and fortunate as we are entitled to reproduce.
It is true that Nadya Suleman and her fourteen children are on public assistance. But in a very real sense, every child is a drain on public funds and natural resources. We don’t need food stamps, it’s true, but our child will be driven on public roads and make use of public utilities and (though this remains to be decided) be educated in public schools. My child will be protected by the public police and the public fire department. My child will, probably unlike the Suleman children, do a great deal of traveling from the time she is small, burning up fossil fuels as she bops around the globe. (We will buy carbon offsets for her.) She will grow up a vegetarian who recycles, but she will grow up in a comfortable American family, and she will consume and consume and consume. The diapers of the rich and the diapers of the poor end up in the same public landfills. And though Cerys will, we hope, grow up to be someone who has a positive impact on the world, for the next few years at least her primary job will be to consume resources. And even for the children of vegan environmentalists, the truth is that the kids of the prosperous will take far more from the earth and from the public purse than they will give back for a long time, if ever.
Clearly, the world needs some people to have some children, otherwise the human race will eventually die out. Clearly, the world needs population limits. But I’m wary of the suggestion that in a world of scarcity, some people are more entitled to have kids than others. Small families would seem to be best, of course, as would families in which the parent or parents have the time and resources to at the least meet the basic needs of their children. But there is nothing inherently more virtuous about meeting one’s child’s needs through one’s own wealth (generated from, say, market investments) than from public assistance. In the end, every child drains precious resources, and every child has the chance to grow up and provide productively for the world. I think Nadya Suleman is a bit of an odd duck, but I haven’t the slightest resentment about paying taxes to support her precious babies. I would rather that folks not have eight at a time, but should they choose to, then I see it as my obligation to share in the common responsibility of caring for the most vulnerable members of our community. My daughter is worth everything to me, but her net worth ought not to be contingent upon mine.
Another thoughtful post.
Inherent in the idea of “planned parenthood” is the idea that people should think before becoming parents. Let’s be honest. Some become parents for the right reasons (the desire to bring a child into this world) and some for the wrong ones (the desire to please someone else, or the desire to have someone around to love you). I do condemn people who have children for the wrong reasons. But my concern is not for them but for the children they will produce. A child produced for the wrong reasons will likely be the subject to questionable parenting. Though I agree with you that at no point should we deny these children’s right to be born into a supportive society, have all the opportunities that more fortunate children do, and not be condemned as a drain or a blight on the rest of us.
Pingback: Anonymous
“I think Nadya Suleman is a bit of an odd duck, but I haven’t the slightest resentment about paying taxes to support her precious babies.”
I see it differently. Based on what I know of her, she’s beyond an being an odd duck. That phrase just makes her sound innocently eccentric. To me, she’s an exemplar of deliberate planned selfishness, pursuing some personal obsession at great cost to her older children and her parents. I refuse to grant her any “nonjudgemental” pass in this.
I agree with your main point, and accept the responsibility of a citizen to do the best we can for her children. But I have a citizens resentment of someone who clearly games the system and who seems blissfully unconcerned about her own responsibilities as a citizen.
I was going along with you for awhile, but… is love just a warm fuzzy feeling? And desire, well many want to adopt, but money, maturity, education and savvy are part of the requirement. Not buying you economic dependency argument either, seems to work best only for the rich (doesn’t matter) and poor (they only gain). I’m getting tired here in CA with folks earning half or less than half as I do having a better standard of living. Outside of paying for the “general” public works, I’d like to decided for myself how my money is spent and more than likely that would go to my children which I do see as being more important than others’ children.
Hugo, to say you are willing to support and defend a woman who hasn’t the slightest inkling of what it means to be a parent is incomprehensible. The woman already has six children and is on public assistance! She is completely irresponsible and neurotic to boot. Mothering children without an income, a husband, or an extended family’s assistance is a clear indicator of her irresponsibility. It is also indicative of an irresponsible scientific community that enabled such a procedure and of a society that could condone such a crime. Should it be okay for a fertility doctor to plant random numbers of embryos into a woman without having her go through psychological counseling? Make no mistake about it, it is a crime to bring that many children into the world without giving a second thought to how they will be cared for. Did it occur to anyone how she will care for all those infants alone! NO matter which way you look at this situation it is a clear example of a system gone “very” wrong.
I don’t think you are being fair to at least some of the people who are critical of nadya s. and using classism seems to be missing the details of the particular stories. i say this as a parent and former child therapist. no one person can care for 8 infants. it would be extremely difficult for one person to care for the six children she already had. she certainly appears to be short changing all her children, since there is no way she can give them adequate care. some of the statements she has made do suggest she has some “issues.” she has, i believe, said she wants all there kids to make up for her lonely childhood, which is a poor and dangerous reason for kids. especially when taken to this extent where she is almost certainly destined to not have enough time for all of them.
ascribing some of the criticism to classism seems a bit trite given that both the cases you mention are far out of the mainstream, there are many valid child care issues and reasonable people could, and likely should, have concerns. why isn’t it reasonable to ask of Nadya, why have so many more children? and why have so many more if you cannot support them?
I hope this doesn’t sound mean but………….why don’t you just accept the compliment and be done with it?
As you know, no one knows better than I do that privilege does not a happy household make. But people are probably just complimenting you because you two seem like you’ll be good parents. The comparison to Octomom is more than likely about the differing levels of thoughtfulness……..not socio-economic disparity.
This really is a bit of a stretch my dear.
I have a citizen’s resentment of a system that allows people with mental illness to go unhelped so they can run up a huge tab on our dime in every other way except “getting needed services”. Penny wise, pound foolish. I can’t see Suleiman’s behavior as anything but indicative of serious problems.
Gosh, I wish I hadn’t made this about Suleman — what I object to strenuously is the implication that a financial litmus test ought to be in place for parenthood, or an educational litmus test, or so forth. And Bill, saying to us “You will be great parents” is a solid compliment; saying “You are the kind of people who should be parents” is an utterly different statement, tinged with a not-very-subtle implication that other people shouldn’t be. The former compliment doesn’t bother me, the second one really, really does.
without wondering who it is that the person offering this insight thinks ought not to have reproduced.
How about “people who already have six kids that they can’t properly care for”.
Your sympathy for the poor, and their right to have families, is noted, but I think you’re letting your feminist “a woman did it and therefore I must not criticize” module run on overdrive.
Easy check: If a man had fathered fourteen children, not a single one of which he was financially supporting, what would be your reaction?
I’m with Mythago. This woman has major issues, and it’s just crazy that our system will pay for the consequences of her issues but not to address the underlying problem(s).
As a Catholic, I believe in openness to new life. It’s a beautiful thing. But even the Church teaches that parents must be responsible for their children, and that there are times and circumstances where new life is not something to seek out. “Unemployed mentally ill parent of six still living at home with mom and dad” qualifies as being a reason not to have ONE child, let alone to go out and deliberately choose eight more children.
Thanks for helping me understand the difference tween those who should be parents but can’t because financial/social resources are unavailable, and those who shouldn’t be parents because of faulty thinking/training, no matter how many resources they have. I have begun to suspect that I *should* have a cat or two, but financially this is not feasible yet.
I am appalled at a woman who arranges to have a litter like a cat for selfish and otherwise unhealthy reasons, and the people who not only abetted her but those who consider this some sort of wonderful miracle. Any salmon can do better, and I wish more salmon did.
“Going unhelped” does not sound like “getting needed services.”
Suleiman’s problems, while real enough, would be less problematic if the right cultural/social structure was in place to care for them [to say nothing of a less strained biosphere.]
It sounds to me like little Cerys will be one of the more fortunate of the world’s children. But I suspect she would be just as lucky if you had adopted her, even if you had gotten her from Suleiman. (Well, all right, she might have genetic problems, but she’d get more help if she was yours.) Why is it so hard for sound, stable people to adopt, when any sad case who’s reproductively viable can start cranking them out? Maybe we should license that, just like we do for driving. Sterilize offenders and give the kids to rich people. But if we can’t do that, we could at least give better care to the kids, who didn’t ask to be born.
But Hugo, even if the statement is, ‘you two are the kind of people who SHOULD be parents’, why do you infer that that’s because of reasons other than that you’d be good at it? And yes, in the grand scheme of things, everything happens for a reason and wonderful people come out of the worst circumstances. That said, it’s still arguable that some people indeed ‘shouldn’t be’ parents.
That said, you’re sleep deprived, I’ll let it go. ; )
mercy: “It is also indicative of an irresponsible scientific community that enabled such a procedure and of a society that could condone such a crime.”
If the government is to regulate in vitro fertilization, the solution is clearly not to limit the number of embryos who can be transferred to the woman, but rather to follow Italy’s example. According to Italian law, no more than three embryos may be created at any one time, and all created must be given a chance at implantation.
Obviously, this is ethically superior to the monstrous but common practice of creating thirteen or so embryos, implanting two, and then destroying the rest. As an animal lover, I’d find that approach disturbing enough if we were discussing sea monkeys; it takes an a whole new dimension if it’s how we treat our own offspring.
Nadya Suleman explained that she didn’t want to choose some of her sons and daughters over others. At the very least, she should be commended for that.
She should be commended for that? And the flip side is what, if she had chosen some of her sons and daughters over the other, she shouldn’t be? We’re supposed to commend her for what, putting all of her children at a real risk of birth defects and herself (and therefore, all eight of her children) at risk of death? There’s a real medical reason for not carrying so many children at once, it’s not “commendable” that this was ignored.
At the very least, she should be commended for that.
Sure – in the same way that someone who is robbing a bank, and decides not to shoot witnesses, deserves some credit for not being completely depraved.
But it’s a pretty weak form of praise, like noting that someone isn’t quite as bad as Hitler. OK, you’d rather that than the alternative – but neither one is all that great.
I’m quite uncomfortable with the nastiness that has surrounded much of the discussion of Nadya Suleman, and I certainly agree that there is often an unpleasant undertone of classism to the discourse.
But in societies as inequitable and family-unfriendly as these ones, does it make sense to suggest that ability to provide for one’s family (emotionally and financially) is irrelevant to the question of children?
Finally, as Mythago says, ‘caring for the vulnerable’ here should have meant getting Ms. Suleman the help she needed, and all indications are that fertility doctor was nowhere near the top of that list.
I think the criticism is great. It will invoke some thought and maybe lead to some change—changes in policy we really need in this economic climate. The socialist state of CA is going bankrupt, even with the massive engines of capitalism bolstering it up. It does not matter the economic system a state employs, if the people are not held responsible for their actions, all economic systems will fail. I realize the exceptions for the common good. But it is ridiculous and a grievous error to hold so many hostage to the exceedingly poor decisions of others. It is a turbid morality that cannot accept failure.
Paul, I realize that whenever I read your comments, I’m reminded of someone — and at last I recall who it is. Here’s a fellow with whom you have great common cause:
The clerk, in letting Scrooge’s nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge’s office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.
‘Scrooge and Marley’s, I believe,’ said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. ‘Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr Scrooge, or Mr Marley?’
‘Mr Marley has been dead these seven years,’ Scrooge replied. ‘He died seven years ago, this very night.’
‘We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,’ said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.
‘It certainly was, for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word liberality, Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.
‘They are. Still,’ returned the gentleman,’ I wish I could say they were not.’
‘The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?’ said Scrooge.
‘At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,’ said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ‘it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.’
‘Are there no prisons?”
‘Plenty of prisons,’ said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
‘And the Union workhouses.’ demanded Scrooge. ‘Are they still in operation?’
‘Both very busy, sir.’
‘Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,’ said Scrooge. ‘I’m very glad to hear it.’
‘Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,’ returned the gentleman, ‘a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?’
‘Nothing!’ Scrooge replied.
‘You wish to be anonymous?’
‘I wish to be left alone,’ said Scrooge. ‘Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.’
‘Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.’
‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
“There’s a real medical reason for not carrying so many children at once, it’s not ‘commendable’ that this was ignored.”
From what I understand, she believed that four or five embryos were implanted, and then some twinning took place (as can happen at so early a stage of human development). Until the day of birth, she still thought there were “only” seven babies.
Your argument against “carrying so many children” holds water if and only if she would have had the “remaining” embryos implanted later, or if she would have let a loving couple adopt them, for reasons I’ve already outlined.
BTW, Hugo, I love the Dickens quotation. Every Christmas when that movie is on in the background and Scrooge lets loose with that, I’m reminded of the modern-day “overpopulation” crowd. I’d love for someone to wait ten or fifteen years and then tell some of NS’s children to their faces that they shouldn’t be here. I’d DVR THAT moment…
BMMG39,
I’m as pro-life as the next man, but overpopulation is a real problem, particularly in Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East. (it’s nice that it no longer seems to be a big problem in Europe, Latin America, East and Southeast Asia). Overpopulation is contributing to the depletion of energy resources, fisheries, clean water, timber, arable land, and just about any other resource you can think of, as well as threatening the integrity of natural ecosystems.
The solution, of course, must not include abortion, and it must not include a blanket hostility towards large families. I think that we can avoid overpopulation by encouraging birth-control, educating women, ensuring basic health care for everyone, and informing people abut the dangers of overpopulation. But I also don’t think that medical science needs to cater to the desires of a selfish and irresponsible woman to have 14 children when she already can’t take care of six.
Selective abortion is, of course, wrong, but in my ideal world there would not be artificially assisted reproduction in the first place, as I think it’s against nature.
Selective abortion is, of course, wrong, but in my ideal world there would not be artificially assisted reproduction in the first place, as I think it’s against nature.
I’m not trying to be rude, but I actually laughed aloud at that sentence. What methods of birth control do you advocate, then? I cannot imagine anyone could say with a straight face that artificial insemination is more “against nature” than the Pill. IVF is another level (kind of), but you didn’t say IVF, you said “artificially assisted reproduction.”
bmmg39, I understand that you don’t want to see embryos destroyed, but I really don’t think you’re thinking this one through:
From what I understand, she believed that four or five embryos were implanted
That, in itself, is extremely medically risky for mother and children. Heck, triplets are an extremely high risk pregnancy. Quads are a pregnancy where any fertility doctor would strongly recommend selective abortion, because of the likely extreme prematurity of the babies, the severe health consequences to them from such prematurity, and the heightened risk to the mother of such things as preeclampsia. When you get as high as quintuplets, you’re to the point where selective abortion down to twins actually results in a higher expected number of surviving babies than carrying the pregnancy as it is to term.
I’m not saying this to convince you that selective abortion is a good idea. I’m saying this to argue something different – that if selective abortion is a bad thing, you need not to take the steps in the first place which would make not doing selective abortion a medical horror story. Nadia Suleman’s pregnancy was way outside what’s medically advised fertility treatment for a woman of her age; she should have had maybe two embryos implanted, and absolutely no more than three. (Mind you, I don’t blame her much for this, since, as mythago said, she appears to be mentally ill – I just think it unfortunate that she was apparently more readily able to get risky fertility treatment than the mental health treatment that she seems to have needed. But I think it’s a mistake to make a pro-life hero of her.)
And if living within reasonable medical advice and not sending large numbers of babies to high risk births and months in the NICU means you have to take steps that would be unacceptable to your pro-life conscience, such as selective abortion or giving up on some of your embryos, well, then I think it’s worth considering whether IVF is compatible with your pro-life conscience. Or, at least, doing IVF in what would be the really pro-life way – where you don’t create the large numbers of embryos to begin with – and taking the hit, whatever it may be, in your odds of actually getting pregnant that way. I think it’s a serious mistake to cheer supermultiple pregnancies; supermultiple pregnancies (whether they’re born to a single mother with no obvious means of support, or whether they’re born to someone as rich as Bill Gates) are a fertility treatment failure, not a success story.
Re: And if living within reasonable medical advice and not sending large numbers of babies to high risk births and months in the NICU means you have to take steps that would be unacceptable to your pro-life conscience, such as selective abortion or giving up on some of your embryos, well, then I think it’s worth considering whether IVF is compatible with your pro-life conscience.
Lynn Gazis-Sax,
Precisely. That’s part of the reason why I think that IVF is immoral. Not only is it against nature, but it also inevitably involves the killing of large numbers of embryos.
Sorry you’ve been toiling over that
For the sake of the national dialogue over this, I’m *really* glad Ms Suleman is not black.
bmmg – the American Society of Reproductive Medicine’s code of ethics recommends no more than two embryos be implanted. There is nothing “pro-life” about putting your unborn children at risk by forcing too many of them to share a uterus and risk being born prematurely.
All well and good. So, again, do what is done in some other countries: you want two children, create NO MORE THAN two embryos. You want five children? You still cannot create any more than three embryos at a time, and all you create must be given a chance at implantation eventually.
We don’t need to lionize this woman, but she’s being vilified right now at a disproportionate level. Had she DROWNED eight children she’d be receiving more compassion than she is now.
Well sure. All that weird cultural BS about “single mother welfare queen” is rearing its ugly head.
Agreed. The turn some of the criticism of her has taken is creepy.