Is Having a Big Family Reason to Call in Social Services?
Aisha Sultan at Parents Talk Back writes about the recent birth of octuplets to a woman who already had six children:
This is the height of selfishness and abdication of parental responsibility.[..] Instead of showering this woman with free diapers and formula, social services should keep a close eye on the health and welfare of a these 14 children.
Of course, I don’t personally know this woman, so I can’t vouch for her responsibility. But going by the information provided in the AP story, it sounds like she had six children and wanted seven. She had a fertility treatment that can result in multiple births (or single births, or none at all if it doesn’t work). Now she has 14 children.
There are other families in the U.S. that have 15, 16, 17, or even 18 children, with or without fertility treatments. Teachers in public schools are in charge of that many children at a time. So I don’t think a relatively low “parent-child ratio” is reason by itself for state surveillance.
Sarah,
Great entry. This is a great story about a mother willing to defend all the lives of her children and not selectively abort some of them. It’s embarrassing that someone would be so callus in saying that because of a large family they should be referred to social services. That is almost akin to saying the government should fund abortion and birth control because it makes fiscal sense (see Nancy Pelosi’s comment about the stimulus package) because children are too expensive.
Comment by Phil Eckelkamp — January 30, 2009 @ 1:58 p.m.
I pretty much agree but it was irresponsible for a doctor to implant 8 embryos in a woman. That is where I believe some outrage is legit.
Comment by JB — January 31, 2009 @ 9:27 a.m.
I agree with our second commenter. Fertility treatments for someone with six children is ludicrous.
Comment by David Stokes — February 2, 2009 @ 10:37 a.m.
Dave–why? Some people want seven children.
Comment by Sarah Brodsky — February 2, 2009 @ 11:22 a.m.
I had a long response ready but hit the wrong key and lost it all. So instead of retyping the whole thing I’ll merely say that having seven children the old-fashioned way is one thing. Using fertility treatments, with it well-known increased odds of multiply births, when you already have several children, is another. I am not saying it should be illegal (although fertility clinics should voluntarily refuse to do so), or that the parents should be refered to DFS, and I’m certainly not saying the children should be aborted. I am saying I think it is irresponsible of the doctors and ludicrous of the parents to have fertility treatments in these instances. The family has a right to have fourteen kids. I have a right to say the parents are crazy.
It is irresponsible to have children you can’t financially support. This applies to teen mothers with their first child or a family with fourteen. I am, again, not saying it should be illegal, but in my opinion it is irresponsible. If this family of with fourteen kids can support them all without government assistance, then I’ll retract some of the criticism. The enormous outpouring of charity due to the novelty of this instance may take some of the gov’t assistance out of the issue here, but that, like this whole story, is the exception, not the rule.
Comment by David Stokes — February 2, 2009 @ 2:35 p.m.
Good points. I agree it was unethical for the doctor to implant so many embryos, because that’s dangerous for the babies. (But that doesn’t depend on how many kids she already had.)
I agree parents shouldn’t try to have more kids than they can support. Some large families are able to do it, though.
Comment by Sarah Brodsky — February 2, 2009 @ 2:46 p.m.
The whole idea to me didn’t seem to be inspired by wisdom. She clearly can’t take care of them all. Bottom line, she did it because she can. That’s where the shame is, specially when she is planning to have more. And who will is left to deal with it? California Taxpayers… You have people refraining themselves from conception, amid a critical economic situation, when on the other side, others boldly act in a way, that leave a doubt or question their real intentions. To be continued…
Comment by Clovis Ouangraoua — February 3, 2009 @ 10:44 a.m.
I think we can consider the case closed with the most recent revelations: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29117041/
The mom is absolutely going to depend on the government to pay for the children.
Comment by David Stokes — February 10, 2009 @ 11:26 a.m.