The one-woman ethics seminar that is Nadya Suleman rolls on.
Since we first learned that a California woman had given birth to only the second surviving set of octuplets in U.S. history, there's been a constant drip-drip-drip of revelations: that she already had six children under the age of 7; that she's a mere 33 years old; that she is unmarried; that she and all her children have lived in her overwhelmed, bankrupt mother's three-bedroom home.
She and the family have started on the modern media version of the Stations of the Cross: the hiring of a public relations staff, the interview with NBC's oh-so-hushed Ann Curry and the first "reveal" of her eight little newborns, the covers of InStyle and People, the paparazzi following her to the manicurist, the treacly website for donations, the grandmother's strange interview with RadarOnline (since recanted), the rumors that Nadya has had surgery to look more like Angelina Jolie (which Suleman denies). She's gotten death threats and hired Gloria Allred as her lawyer. [Note to readers: Allred is not representing Suleman. My bad]
In this last week alone, Suleman's father has taped an interview with Oprah questioning his daughters sanity, TMZ has posted all 14 of her children's birth certificates, and the Suleman's house is about to go up in a foreclosure auction.
But don't worry: multiple media sources have confirmed that Ms. Suleman is looking at a $1.2 million home in a up-scale neighborhood the family had lived in in better times -- 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, a wine cellar, a gourmet kitchen, and, as one website notes "an unfenced pool" in the yard. The purchase of the home will probably be funded from money she will earn from any number of reality-show offers she has already received.
The depth of the interest in the Suleman story is not surprising; the depth of the fury is. While death threats against Ms. Suleman and her representatives are the most over-the-top manifestation of this anger, almost any discussion about her situation brings multiple calls for all her children to be taken away from her and give to fourteen loving, stable families who can give them the individual attention they deserve. This is unprecedented in the annals of publicized high-multiple births.
Where does this come from? Lingering prejudice against single moms? Faux-celebrity fatigue? Or is it just plain old bad timing?
Whether we recognize it or not, right now we are all neck-deep in a painful discussion about the relationship of the individual to society.
As we struggle, both as individuals and families, to chart our way through economic chaos, we're being told we're all going to have to pay for the actions and misdeeds of others. We have to bail out those organizations "too big to fail," while confronting the reality that most of us are too little to matter.
Into this maelstrom walks Nadya Suleman. One thing has become clear from her media appearances: she is not a long-term planner. She wanted a large family to fill the gnawing emptiness that had dogged her since childhood. So, she had one. How to house them, feed them, clothe them, educate them, protect them, give them all the individual love and attention each one deserves....well, she'll just work that out, somehow.
Her family is too big to fail. You can't punish the children because she's a poor planner. Being a poor planner is not criminal neglect, so you can't take them away. They don't deserve to be turned into a media sideshow -- but that may be the only way to provide enough money to keep their basic needs met.
If we don't pick up the tab by donating money or buying that copy of People or buying from the advertisers lining up for the the inevitable reality show, we'll pay it in the form of public assistance and disability payments.
Pick your poison, in the knowledge that when you lose your job, your car, and your house, neither Oprah or Ann Curry are going to care, and the responsibility of providing for your one or two kids will be yours and yours alone...at least until what's left of the bailout money trickles down to you.
Maybe there's no good answer here. We long since crossed into uncharted waters. Economic depressions strain societies to their breaking points.
As a society, we have a responsibility to care for our most helpless fellow citizens. Elijah, Amerah, Joshua, Aiden, Calyssa, Caleb, Noah, Maliah, Isaiah, Nariah, Makai, Josiah, Jeremiah and Jonah are our children, too.
We don't have to make Nadya Suleman "Mother of the Year." We do have to try to hang on to our humanity.
-------------------------
Read my earlier piece on Nadya Suleman here.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Dave Cullen
Akopsa
iamsurly
Judy Berman
David Sirota
Jeff Howe
Salon.com
Comments
Maybe because being dumb as a stump tipped the public off to this "mom" who has no firm grip on reality AT ALL.
It's a story that makes the public feel stuck and angry.
Kind of like dumbasastump sarah palin pretending to be capable of running the country.
RR
Giant families like hers ARE sickening. I was watching the news yesterday at the gym, and after discussing her story they moved on to a family with 18 children, all their own progeny. It's disgusting. They had a fast-food soda fountain in their house.
At the end of the day, I'm not upset over the number of kids. But to needlessly bring a whole soccer team into the world, while there are so many kids who need loving families floating around in the public care system is inexcusable. The fact that Nadya Suleman can't afford to take care of them just makes it that much worse.
"Only in America" - Don King.
They're all precious now, and need to be taken away from that mentally ill clown of a mother to have better lives with people who want to, and who can give them the care and love and attention that they need.
She can go to work and pay for the child support.
But oooops...people are more into buying fancy feast for their cats and new toys for their dogs.
The number of children "in the system" IS ghastly, but DAMN, it takes a special individual to deal with children who have attachment disorder and other psychological issues from traumas in their early lives. Many times it ain't rewarding, son. In addition, most couples would "prefer" infants, which aren't so common in the system, but who tend to have fewer psychological issues from abuse. Why do you think the kids have been removed from the parents in the first place?
To suggest that Nadya Suleiman, of questionable mental state herself, should have availed herself of the social services adoption system, that's right up there with the best of 'em.
As for the Duggar family being "disgusting"...I may not agree with their fundamentalist Christian views, but as cultural phenomena go, they are far from the most hideous. They are self-sufficient, hard working and seem to be happy.
The free market may actually save the day. Gloria Alred has offered, through one of her charities, to give housing and medical attention to the children. Monster Mom is just sick enough to refuse the help. In any event, Counselor Alred has made it clear that not one cent will be available to this thoughtless parasite. Good for her.
A more serious problem is that the public can be counted upon to support publicity featuring this travesty.
If the government made its policies of self-reliance clear and the public shamed and shunned rather than supported such scandalous disregard for human life, there would be fewer Monster Moms around.
If this happened in Canada, for sure we would grumble. But we accept that society is an active participant in all families, good ones and bad. Leaving mothers alone with the responsibility of raising kids only creates adults who will become a further burden on society, and have more burdensome kids.
In Quebec we have healthcare and daycare for all children, no matter their socioeconomic status. All those kids would be in a high quality daycare paid for by the government. As would one kid, if he came from a wealthy family with two parents. Because the priority here is the welfare of kids and the mothers whose financial independence and wellbeing is always made vulnerable by the decision to have kids.
This would barely be a story here.
Now that the embryos are living beings, it's open season.
Also, given what state the economy is in, I would bet there are alot of people who are delaying having kids (or not doing it at all) because they are uncertain of how bad things will get.
My husband and I had this "talk" a few days ago. I want a little one so bad I can taste it and my husband doesn't want to wait much longer, BUT because of some recent financial changes we may wait a little while now. That is okay, its called being an adult, making the tough choices and taking responsibilty for yourself.
At this point, I feel all 14 of her kids in at risk and while I know this family needs help, any help they get from the public should be in any form but cash. May sound harsh, but there it is.
Now the tragedy becomes clear: Monster Mom was a victim of right-wing theology. Had she only been acquainted with the legitimacy of birth control, she would have followed her epic effort to become impregnated with a mass abortion. Do you have any idea how silly that sounds?
This lunacy is akin to the argument that Catholic principles aggravated the outbreak of AIDS in Africa. Never mind the fact that African men would have insisted as a matter of cultural ignorance upon unprotected sex even if the Pope himself had been passing out condoms on street corners (if they had streets).
Stellaa--The most diehard pro-lifers, who regard every frozen human embryo as the equivalent of a newborn baby, are appalled by what this woman did precisely because she risked those embryos' lives. She was 33 years old. She had plenty of time to have those leftover embryos implanted two at a time until they were used up without endangering their lives by all at once cramming more embryos into her womb than the human womb was built to carry to term.
Of course, being a mentally ill welfare mom of 14 kids born one or two at a time doesn't get you a reality show...
AND it has not been definitively proven (that I have read) that two embryos split. Not that it matters except to the caregivers who will have a harder time telling them apart.
The woman is a fruit loop and I pity all of those children. It is very sad:
What wreckage hath man wrought
it has sadly not come to naught
with test tube and a petri dish
to sate a twisted wench's wish
with babes more than she can care
and food that comes she knows not where.
AND I'd like to see an army of anti-abortion Christian Fundamentalists stop barricading abortion clinics and threatening doctors and volunteer instead to go to MS Suleman's house and help this woman who took "choosing life" to an absurd extreme, care for her children. And make them stay on the job until every one of those octuplets leaves for college.
I also agree with J.L. Davis, Ms Suleman's grasp of reality and the consequences of her own actions is faulty, at best.
Answer: Absolutely nothing, but you knew that.
If there are any dots to be connected, it's between this woman's irresponsible acts and her awareness that by becoming a needy victim she will, under liberal theology, have a priority claim to social support.
The first is the concept of hate mail. I cannot understand hate mail being seen as being so acceptable in a CIVILISED society. It does not matter whether we agree with whats been done, to be supportive of such a concept and even to be a part of it indicates something about ourselves that is far from pleasant.
Second, why is it all directed at the woman??? Where were the professionals in the society? Was she counselled before treatment began? Were there any checks made into her social background? Was there any consideration by them concerning what family she already have? Did they look into her current ability to support a family, and was there a stable loving relationship for the children to be brought into? These would have been very basic considerations long prior to the professionals agreeing to treatment being given in this country. Is that normal in USA? If so, the problem is that they have failed to do the job given to them. If not, then the law should be applied into the ethical appropriateness of such a situation. Either way, the attacks seem to be directed in the wrong direction. The problem would not be there if the professionals had given priority to appropriate ethical considerations.
The 3rd consideration is, why confuse two different ethical debates together. To have a rational discussion then the issue of this situation must be treated as a different debate to abortion from a "natural" conception. THis, compared possibly with some abortion issues, is more about the ethics of deliberately creating a conception for the wrong reasons, resulting in serious risks for the children born into this situation. The abortion debate is another issue.
This should read: "Her family is too big to succeed. You shouldn't punish the children (by leaving them in her care) because she's a poor planner.
No, stupid. If she had more than one baby she would have been subjuct to a cumulative fine and loss of workplace benefits. If the first chaild had been born female or disabled she could have applied for permission to have a second child as long as it met teh birth spacing requirements. People that abandon or kill their daughters do so at their own choice. The situation is bad enough without blatant ignorance injected into it. Do 5 minutes of research, jesus!
I'm NO fan of the way they enforce the "one child" rule but considering their population numbers, I'm not shocked they have that law in the first place.
This story stinks. The woman's parents have only enabled their daughter and are complicit in this drama as well.
To top off this circus, the money will come rolling in for her support. She played on public sympathy for the personal choices she made, however misguided, and endangered the lives of 8 (well, 14 really) innocent people. And there is a strong possibility this was all orchestrated for publicity, fame and fortune. I'd say there is plenty here to be outraged about.
Swinglish - You nailed it. This horror story could never have happened without Dr. Sicko and his band of ghouls at the fertility clinic. Outside of child rapists, you can't get much lower...
You know, there are people out there who take and take and expect others to do for them. And people who will give and give out of their best intentions. Without the givers there would be no takers, but always there are givers out there.
N.S., she's a taker, no doubt about it, as blatant as they come. Yeah, maybe she's mentally ill, etc., etc., but the fact is, she expects everyone to give to her. And then damn if people don't do it.
You really want to go out there and scream, "PEOPLE, do not give a thin dime to this woman. Let her fall on her butt! Let her learn to give a little." But, alas, that's not going to happen because there are folks out there who will say, "oh, but we shouldn't punish her children for her crazy behavior," "She is mentally ill, she can't help it," etc., etc., etc., and never once recognize their own complicity in this give-take cycle.
It's such an obvious case of this situation that plays out on a smaller scale in a million other lives every day.
She had those babies implanted knowing that being octuplets would cause them to be born very premature and almost certainly some would die or be severely damaged as a result. Have you ever been to a neonatal ICU and watched those babies struggle? What sort of monster would do that to her child on purpose, over and over again? What on EARTH does being mad at her have to do with "lingering prejudice towards single moms?"
A battle over the budget in Sacramento turned the message boards into a battlefield. There were name-calling, blame-gaming, emotional rants & raves against political parties, environmentalists, labor unions & illegal aliens, with the expected racial slurs when your city is a border town.
Those responsible for the state's $45 billion deficit included Bush, Obama, Schwarznegger & . . . OctoMom, Welfare Mom, Nadya Suleman & her Fertility Doc! She is the Poster Mom who represents all the single, unemployed, unfit mothers who pop out babies right into the taxpayers' laps.
She currently collects $490 food stamps for 6 kids, $2400 SSI for 3 kids, & Medi-Cal will pay as much as $3,000,000 for prenatal, delivery & "preemy" med expenses for 8 babies. Yet, she says, "it's not welfare & she receives no help from the government."
Meanwhile, she's capitalizing on media resources & raking in "superfluous paper" from TV & magazine interviews, photos & proceeds from her "charitysite". She's looking at $1,000,000+++ homes, shopping for wii game systems & buying expensive, high-end cosmetics at the mall. Her mother's pension check is spent taking care of her 6 kids, the parents filed bankruptcy last year & are facing foreclosure on the 3 bedroom house where the 6 kids live.
In Vitro Fertilization costs up to $15,000 per cycle, with additional expenses for freezing & storing embryos. She claims to have paid for it with a disability settlement. It's my understanding that you can't have large sums of money or collect income when you receive public assistance. While she's got her eye on million dollar homes, her 8 babies are cha-chinging the Medi-Cal cash cow.
So Nadya Suleman, a single mother who had 14 kids because she suffered loneliness as an only child, claims to be a good mother whose kids are more important than money. If she's making TV appearances, magazine interviews & shopping in her spare time . . .
* Who's taking care of the 14 kids?
Mom & Kaiser Permanente Hospital!
* And, who's paying for it?
Me & all the other California taxpayers whose pocketbooks took a big hit last week, that's who!
Is anyone surprised she's getting death threats?
Thus qualifying her as a viable Republican presidential candidate.