About Those Octuplets
Feb. 4th, 2009 03:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jhameiaThere's half a ton of debate out there (as well as a media circus) about the woman who had an IVF procedure with EIGHT embryos and all of them resulted in pregnancy.
Fishy things about this?
- She already has 6 children.
- One is a special-needs child.
- She's recently filed for bankruptcy.
- She's basically relying on the support of her family.
- She claims she didn't know that all eight embryos would take in this procedure, but having conceived several more times before through the same procedure, surely she would have realized it was possible to end up with eight babies?
I'm trying very hard not to pass judgement on what she's doing with herself: it IS her body, and it's her business what she does with her body. Just as every woman has a right to an abortion, so should every woman have a right to motherhood.
And then I think about Somel in Herland's response to Van's question about criminal types having children in that country, and when she replies that those women weren't allowed to raise their children, Van says, "I thought motherhood was for all of you."
"Yes, motherhood, maternity, the right to bear children. But raising children is left to our highest artists," comes the answer.
Which is how I feel in this case - a woman has the prerogrative to keep or dispose of an embryo as long as it is within her body and mostly a biological parasite. However, once it is OUT, a child is a life now (albeit a financial, psychological, emotional parasite until it becomes more independent), to which society must be responsible. (That's why pro-lifers are annoying... for them it's just the pregnancy that matters, and beyond that, they expect the woman to be on her own - or preferrably with a man - to raise the child.)
This woman's not exactly in a country where children are very highly regarded (except as methods of social control) - maybe if she was in a country more like Herland where each child could be guaranteed of the best possible start to life because the entire country is geared towards caring for the next generation, this situation wouldn't sound so awful as it does.
But as it stands, I find her incredibly irresponsible to have so many children without being completely capable of providing for them, short of publicity (similar to the Duggars) - not for what she's done with her body, but for her existing children. However, her choice has been made, and there will be eight more little children in the world to consider.
And the rest of the media and public stares a-goggle as if it were a freakshow, rather than a situation to be taken seriously, pointing fingers and blaming her for being the crazy one. And I want to know what crazy IVF clinic she went to that implants EIGHT embryos under the assumption that only ONE will take. Here I thought they implanted at most two or three, not EIGHT.
I think we forget how true the old adage "it takes a village to raise a single child" is.
I hope some kind people pitch in and help her out. I don't think it'll happen, seeing as she's a single, unmarried WoC. Still, I hope her kids grow up okay. It's really hard to raise children in today's world, much less a large family like that.
Fishy things about this?
- She already has 6 children.
- One is a special-needs child.
- She's recently filed for bankruptcy.
- She's basically relying on the support of her family.
- She claims she didn't know that all eight embryos would take in this procedure, but having conceived several more times before through the same procedure, surely she would have realized it was possible to end up with eight babies?
I'm trying very hard not to pass judgement on what she's doing with herself: it IS her body, and it's her business what she does with her body. Just as every woman has a right to an abortion, so should every woman have a right to motherhood.
And then I think about Somel in Herland's response to Van's question about criminal types having children in that country, and when she replies that those women weren't allowed to raise their children, Van says, "I thought motherhood was for all of you."
"Yes, motherhood, maternity, the right to bear children. But raising children is left to our highest artists," comes the answer.
Which is how I feel in this case - a woman has the prerogrative to keep or dispose of an embryo as long as it is within her body and mostly a biological parasite. However, once it is OUT, a child is a life now (albeit a financial, psychological, emotional parasite until it becomes more independent), to which society must be responsible. (That's why pro-lifers are annoying... for them it's just the pregnancy that matters, and beyond that, they expect the woman to be on her own - or preferrably with a man - to raise the child.)
This woman's not exactly in a country where children are very highly regarded (except as methods of social control) - maybe if she was in a country more like Herland where each child could be guaranteed of the best possible start to life because the entire country is geared towards caring for the next generation, this situation wouldn't sound so awful as it does.
But as it stands, I find her incredibly irresponsible to have so many children without being completely capable of providing for them, short of publicity (similar to the Duggars) - not for what she's done with her body, but for her existing children. However, her choice has been made, and there will be eight more little children in the world to consider.
And the rest of the media and public stares a-goggle as if it were a freakshow, rather than a situation to be taken seriously, pointing fingers and blaming her for being the crazy one. And I want to know what crazy IVF clinic she went to that implants EIGHT embryos under the assumption that only ONE will take. Here I thought they implanted at most two or three, not EIGHT.
I think we forget how true the old adage "it takes a village to raise a single child" is.
I hope some kind people pitch in and help her out. I don't think it'll happen, seeing as she's a single, unmarried WoC. Still, I hope her kids grow up okay. It's really hard to raise children in today's world, much less a large family like that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-05 01:54 am (UTC)Your last-para statement betrays a deep lack of knowledge of the pro-choice position. The pro-choice position retains its logical validity _even if_ a fetus is a "person". Pro-choice people see the rights of the mother not lesser than the rights of the embryo or fetus. No person can be forced into bodily slavery. No women can have her rights subsumed to that of an embryo or fetus. Every woman has bodily sovereignty. It's as simple as that. Women have the same rights as everyone else.
I hope I never, ever live in your world. My life would constantly be under threat for the next ten years, and my work would involve trying to save the lives of mothers half- or mostly-dead from illegal abortions, and counselling their surviving partners and children. A bleak world indeed.
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-05 05:32 pm (UTC)It's called forgiveness. ={ I don't believe anything is made better by persecuting women who have had abortions, so I refuse to treat them poorly for their decision. Also, I realize that they didn't make their decision out of malice or thinking it was murder, even though that's how I see it. I can still love and forgive someone even if they've done something I couldn't conceive of doing.
a deep lack of knowledge of the pro-choice position. The pro-choice position retains its logical validity _even if_ a fetus is a "person".
I understand your position, I just strongly disagree with it. If a baby is a person, then that person should have equal rights to every other person. If a mother isn't allowed to euthanize her newborn, why should be allowed to euthanize her not-yet-born? It should never be left to the hands of a private individual to decide one life is more worthy than another. If a person could somehow cure their cancer by murdering an elderly senior, would that make it an ethical choice? So why should a woman be allowed to "cure" her pregnancy by killing her own child? It's not up to us to choose who lives and who dies. Besides, we're talking about the difference of 9 months of unhappiness and outright death of someone else. It's not an even exchange by any means.
Also, it's not "bodily slavery", it's a consequence of natural cause and effect. Having sex means you might get pregnant. There's the risk; there's the consequence. Whether disease, mood change, or procreation, our actions have consequences. Murder of one person is not justification for removing a mistake made by someone else.
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-06 01:33 pm (UTC)When you're trying to conceive and eventually do, you won't see your baby as an embryo or fetus. Those are technical legal/medical terms. To a pregnant woman, it is a life.
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-06 02:16 pm (UTC)Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-06 03:32 pm (UTC)Some of us are actively trying NOT to conceive. If the pro-lifers would please stop with the anti-contraceptives and abstinence bullshit, we would all lead better, abortion-free lives.
Re: Generalizing much?
Date: 2009-02-07 06:03 pm (UTC)Fixed that for you.
Date: 2009-02-07 04:16 am (UTC)You are assuming an awful lot about others' "personal perspectives" in the expression of your own.