Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
We have 14 kids, and now Nadya Suleman has 14.
We’ve received requests about what we think about Nadya Suleman, the woman from California who birthed 8 children by in vitro fertilization. In a second swoop of childbirth Nadya delivered as many children as Wendy Jeub! Her unconventional method has marched a media montage against her.
It appears, on the surface, that we (and other large families, at least those with 14 children) have a moral dilemma on our hands.
First, the facts:
- Nadya has delivered twice: 6 children the first time, 8 the second.
[Correction: The second pregnancy followed several individual deliveries.] - [Her latest pregnancy] was through in vitro fertilization. Two eggs split after the second implant, resulting in 8 children with two sets of twins in the mix.
- She lives with her parents and refuses welfare. Her church has helped with basic needs.
- She claims to have received death threats for her “unconventional choice.”
- The father (still unnamed) is the father of all 14 of her children.
- Nadya is not married. She was raised as an only child, and has reported to have always wanted a large family.
This is an intriguing value conflict, no doubt. We love children, too, and have dedicated our lives to following God’s calling for us to have children. We encourage couples to allow God to bless them with one of his greatest blessings, that of children. Why refuse His blessings?
Here is a mom who desires children so much so that she voluntarily had six embryos implanted. Now she has 14 children. Good Morning America hosts were “congratulating” Ann Curry for landing the first interview with Nadya. Though the press is salivating in their eagerness to interview Nadya, there is an undertone of judgment toward her, and it appears that the sentiment of public opinion is stacking up against her.
These judgments come from the same crowd that attack Wendy and me for having a large family. The judgments are very similar: we’re irresponsible, inconsiderate, immature, and selfish. Some will go so far to say we have no choice but to neglect our children. Here’s an email we got just last week from a woman:
You guys who say we want to have as many as GOD gives us sicken me. This is not the medieval times, this is an advanced age [where] everyone has access to birth control. We should know and do better than animals. By having a lot of children, you people put unbearable demands on planet earth. You take resources and spaces of many average families. In return more carbon emission and quickens the global warming.
If Nadya has been getting emails like this, my heart goes out to her for having to withstand such attacks. I take issue with people who have such low opinions of life, who think children are little curses who do nothing but drain a society and harm the environment. Quite the contrary. Nadya’s 14 children will, Lord willing, grow to be benefits to society who contribute to those around them. They will likely pay for this emailer’s retirement, especially if this emailer has no children herself.
You’re thinking: “What about the ethical conflicts with in vitro implantation?” or “What about her being a single mom?” Yes, in vitro fertilization has its ethical problems. It bothers me that Nadya snickers at conventional families like ours. If I were a doctor, I’d likely be bothered about the implantation of six embryos in a single mom. These are ethical dilemmas, no doubt, that medical students will be discussing this case study for years to come in their college ethics classes.
But what is more bothering to me is that these ethics classes are the same ethics classes that have shelved the Hippocratic Oath for the sake of “choice.” Abortion on demand is the status quo, and life itself is seen as “demands of planet earth.” Nadya reveals in her other interviews that she chose to have six embryos implanted because she didn’t want them to “go to waste.” This is the ethical dilemma with in vitro fertilization: these are tiny human beings who are discarded if not implanted. The vile reaction to Nadya come from the pro-choice community, not parents like us. Families of 14 children remind the pro-choice community of their ethical dilemma, so they lash out at Nadya and the Jeubs.
Really, this isn’t a moral dilemma for us, nor for any large family. Would this have been news if Nadya killed most of her embryos? Apparently, implanting six embryos and killing the weakest during the pregnancy is common practice. That all eight embryos survived to full term is a miracle, one that we are rejoicing over. The premise that life puts “unbearable demands on planet earth” simply isn’t true. Scrap this lie and embrace the truth that life–all life–is a gift from God, and the choice to kill is always wrong.
Nadya’s pastor and her church family have no moral dilemma in extending love to one (well, 15) of its congregation. The dilemma is on the hands of moral relativists, the “pro-choice” crowd, the modern culture who have dissed conventional mom-and-dad families and embraced “anything goes” lifestyles. Here is a value conflict of theirs: a single mom who has chosen to create as many children as she chose. The dilemma is for the relativist: they may condemn Nadya for her choice, yet they would excuse her if she aborted them. Their respect for “choice” is sadly low, but their respect for life is even lower.
So, let them deal with the dilemma. We love life, and we applaud Nadya for choosing life.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy













Pingback: Angel's Problem Is Not Her Children