I had a difficult time entitling this piece. Various ideas came through my mind, many including the number 14 in them. I decided against using any of them for the same reason I so detest the often-misused words, "illegitimate" and "bastard." Children never commit any offense by being born. They are never "illegitimate," nor, "bastards." The adults who create and conceive them however, are not always so innocent.
Such is the case with the now famous California octuplet mom, Nadya Suleman, who not only made headlines in recent news by giving birth to octuplets, but according to later reports, also already has six other children at home, and all of them from the invitro fertilization (IVF) from a "friend" who donated his sperm, but according to Nadya, is not yet involved in the lives of their now 14 children.
Humanists, secularists and atheists all bristle at any mention of the Ten Commandments, let alone having to endure seeing them displayed anywhere in public. The various and often fallacious, twisted and misinterpreted "separation of church and state" arguments aside, the Ten Commandments are still pretty much the basis of our criminal and civil laws and not at all disagreeable to any civilized society, let alone one rooted in Judeo/Christian principles.
Thus, this Catholic also cites the Catechism of the Catholic faith, specifically the section entitled, "The gift of a child," sections 2373-2379, inclusively. I don't know what, if any religious denomination Miss Suleman is, nor does it matter. The principles cited in this context are as relevantly ethical as they are moral and religious, and thus still applicable to her and every other civilized member of society.
For starters, 2378 states, "A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift." That entry goes on to say that a child is also not "property." Suleman, who denies accusations of selfishness, recently disclosed that she previously was depressed and wanted desperately to be a mother to right perceived wrongs she felt she endured in her own childhood. This is the same mentality as women who go to the local mall and "shop ‘till they drop" to chase away the blues. We are all called to be humble. That is not to say we should all necessarily be deprived of any pleasure or materialistic luxuries in life either, but far too much emphasis is placed on the regurgitated adage, "I deserve it." Children are people, gifts from our Creator. They are not property, nor are they little indulgences to placate our own narcissism, heal our wounds, or fill our voids. For that matter, they are also not instant repairs to troubled marriages, as some couples erroneously and dangerously believe. I sympathize with whatever sufferings Miss Suleman endured in her life, but she is not specifically entitled to irresponsibly bear children simply because of any previous heartache, nor are they at all the realistic or prudent the means of repair for any possibly unresolved personal, emotional, or mental health issues.
The catechism also teaches that while the Church supports principled medical research that may cure infertility, artificial insemination type and IVF type techniques are gravely immoral as they foster procreation outside the natural and intended marital union. Those who dispute that sex is only intended within the bonds of holy matrimony cannot dispute that the abuse of this gift is responsible for sexually transmitted diseases, children out of wedlock, abortion, all the physical and emotional injuries caused to women by abortion, broken families and a now abundantly dysfunctional culture. The sex act is for husband and wife only. It is a duel component comprised of an expression of love and a willingness to not only accept, but also to give the loving gift of children, who are in fact gifts, and not "burdens," as our pro-abortion President callously and ignorantly uttered on the campaign trail this past year. IVF, while possibly procreative, denies the loving physical union of husband and wife.
The various secular hedonists also support the evil social ills of contraception, no-fault divorce, abortion, homosexuality, premarital, and extra marital sex, cohabitation, and practically unchecked and rampant pornography. We've seen the devastating effects this cocktail of poisonous ingredients has produced in our culture. All have also led to the erosion, corruption and destruction of much of marriage and families. Mothers and fathers each naturally and significantly bring something to the table in the natural nurturing and raising of their male and female children. Of course, some families are single parent families for reasons beyond their control, but such should never be a conscious and intentional decision, nor is it ethically or morally an "alternative lifestyle." Then Vice President Dan Quayle drew both ire and ridicule for his unabashed commentary in his famous "Murphy Brown" speech, in which he chastised the fictional character of a then popular TV show that promoted radical feminism and single parenthood as a choice of an alternative lifestyle. Despite all the politically correct tremors that shook long after Quayle's comments, he was still correct. Such a choice is not freedom. It is an abuse of freedom. It is license. Nadya Suleman has no husband, nor, apparently is she in any rush to find one. (And sadly, with a "ready-made family" of 14 kids, good luck to her in even finding a husband!) In a recently televised interview, she said she hopes the sperm donor will soon decide to become part of the lives of his children. Given my druthers, Daddy Sperm Donor would be the personified justification to bring back flogging. If there truly is a "bastard" in this family, it's this irresponsible wretch for donating his sperm to willfully produce these fatherless children and walk away while patting himself on the back for doing his "friend," Nadya a supposed favor. "Bio-Daddy," still lurking in the shadows from the public eye, if he has any modicum of decency in him, needs to step forward, man-up, and start supporting his children, and their mother, soon, and permanently. These children were intentionally conceived into the willful deprivation of a father. That is an unconscionable abomination and the epitome of sheer hedonistic selfishness on the part of Suleman, and especially her unnamed sperm donor pal.
To Suleman's (limited) credit, she says she has not and intends not to collect welfare. She is currently unemployed due to a previous disability she incurred at her last job, for which she received a settlement $165,000, but her hospital bill from the octuplet births alone is now estimated to be between $1.5 million to $3 million. Currently, Suleman and her children live with her mother (who must be destined for sainthood). Suleman intends to return to school to obtain her masters degree to raise her children, but she won't be. Let's face it, while she's in school, it will be her mother who will be raising these kids, which is even more evidence of selfish and wanton irresponsibility on Suleman's part. Then upon graduation, Suleman will likely start working in her new chosen career to support her children, but primarily only in the financial sense. This inevitable reality flies in the face of her contradictory and gratuitously self-aggrandizing and utterly ludicrous claims that she is "stopping her life" for her children. While she claims to hold each baby for 45 minutes per day, she's still a country mile away from being considered mother of the year. Due to her recent notoriety, Suleman has hired a publicist, who has said that Suleman is already being deluged with offers for books, TV opportunities, etc… Great. That pays the bills, maybe, but again, who will be tending to the daily needs of these 14 children every day, and from where and when do they, if ever at all, get any kind of father figure, and the natural learning process that occurs from that equally important half of child rearing? One doctor already predicated the possibility of various development and emotional problems these children may experience from neglect because of so many siblings having only one parent.
Having 14 kids does not define a pro-life hero. In fact, in this situation, Suleman's actions are a direct affront to the sanctity of life, not just for what she has willfully wrought upon her children and why and how, but by also needlessly endangering her own life, and those of her children. The process of birthing octuplets not only produces underweight babies, but also endangers the mother by the possibility of a ruptured uterus. Meanwhile, an investigation is being launched regarding the possibility of allegedly unethical behavior on the part of the doctor who performed Suleman's IVF.
Like many tales, this one is one of good guys and bad guys. Bravo to the doctors, nurses and various other medical technicians who safely and successfully delivered all eight babies while protecting Suleman's health as well. At this writing, Mom and all eight babies are doing well according to news reports. If anyone is to be awarded mother of the year, and grandmother of the year, it certainly should be Suleman's mother for her brave and selfless actions for caring for her daughter and 14 willfully conceived fatherless, dependent children of mostly all the same age. As for "Dr. Frankenstein," who fertilized Suleman, before the investigation is even concluded, in my mind he should have his medical license yanked. He's trained and paid to heal and treat, not to play God. As far as I'm concerned, he's only one notch above an abortionist. Had our overly secular society not strayed down this slippery slope of arrogantly and foolishly abandoning the loving and almighty God who created us, Bio-Daddy would be facing 14 criminal charges of child neglect right now. Personally, I'd still settle for flogging him. Neither scenario will likely come to fruition, and considering this incident occurred in California, if this guy ever does come out of the shadows, some liberal loon out there on the "left fringe" will undoubtedly nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. I think that's what they call "California Dreamin'." As for Suleman herself, I honestly can't fault her completely, as she is trying to provide some kind of life and care for her children, but nevertheless, they may still egregiously suffer from her inane and purely self-centered decisions, and that just doesn't cut it with me in even one instance, let alone 14 of them.
I've already seen books out decrying the negative but theoretically unintended consequences (for lack of a better term for anyone who really and truly never could have ever seen this fiasco coming), of dumping kids into daycare. One of the flagrant lies of feminism is that women can have it all. No, they can't. Neither can men for that matter. It's a simple law of physics that 11 ounces of water will not fit into a 10-ounce glass. Time is just as constrained by the laws of physics. There are only 24 hours in a day, and equal time cannot be dedicated to each event and need without something or somebody getting shorted, and too often with these so-called "Super Moms," it's the kids who get shorted. The bottom line is that somebody has to bring home the bacon and somebody has to stay home to care for the wee ones. I have no beef with women having careers, as long as they responsibly have them at the right times in their lives, given their state in life. Men can certainly also be the caregivers with women being the breadwinners, but I don't think that is the optimal situation. There is a maternal role that pales in comparison when substituted by a man. Women are nurturers; men are hunters, protectors and providers. External family members, grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc.., are probably the second best alternative to parents, but strangers are clearly at the bottom rung. For too long, we have dumped our kids into these now trendy daycare "kiddy kennels" for the illusion of having it all and because of our obsession for instant and continual gratification, as exemplified by materialistic greed. And now we are just beginning to see the ill effects on our children that woefully naïve, if not self-absorbed collective mindset has sadly wrought upon the most innocent and vulnerable among us.
Children are not property and they are also not animals. Yet we sometimes treat them like animals. I have actually seen mothers walking young children on leashes. We dump kids into kennels (daycare) when they are inconvenient during their most precious, tender and vulnerable bonding, learning and formulative years when they should be with their parents more often, not less often. We also sometimes consider them little treats for ourselves when we feel we need a lift. Nadya Suleman is the poster child of this trend. God forbid, but if anything ever happens to her mother, her 14 kids will all need their own daycare school, or more appropriately, a "kiddy kennel" when they become inconvenient for "Grad School Mommy," and later, "Working Mommy." And all because Nadya didn't feel good and because she wanted to be a mother, and yet adoption, like a husband and a father, just wasn't good enough or fast enough to satisfy her needy, (and yes, Nadya, selfish) whims, and now having satisfied those needy and selfish whims, her children, all 14 of them, will all have to pay the price, and ironically because Nadya was miserable in her childhood. That's not healing misery, it's recycling it. Children are not animals. They don't belong on leashes, or in kennels. They're not intended to be born in litters. And they're not little bon-bons, intended to cheer us up and quell our cravings. Given her supposed reasoning and circumstances, Nadya was grossly and tragically confused in the whole, big picture of discerning children from animals.
She should have gotten a puppy.
Doug Wrenn
