Nadya Suleman is the focal point for a lot of anger these days.  Understandably, I think.  The 33-year-old single mother of six, all born by in-vitro fertilization, just had octuplets.  (By the way, even my computer is suprised.  It doesn’t recognize the word ‘octuplet.’)  Ms. Suleman has been on disability for years, and states that she is in school, and thrilled by her new infants.  Now, in ages past she might be a woman to revere.  In the right time, and the right social situation, she would be a woman among women, raising children to contribute to the strength of family and nation.
But now, in 2009, with her situation in mind, those of us who go to work and pay for our children find her behavior beyond ridiculous.  Those of us who have to pay our physicians are insulted.  Those of us whose tax dollars support appropriate disability and indigent care find ourselves reaching deeper into our wallets; something even more worrisome with a huge spending package circling the economy like so many smelly vultures.

As a father, deeply committed to my children, I’m offended by the man who has been the ‘biological’ father/donor for all 14 of this woman’s children.  Where is he?  What does he think?  Is he involved?  Does he care?  Does he have money to contribute to the cause?

And what doctor thought this was a good idea?  Is he accountable?  Is he brain-dead?
It all smacks of entitlement.  But worse, it all reflects on our cultural abandonment of reasonable, rational values.

You see, we live in a nation of morals turned upside-down and backwards.  There is no right and wrong.  In fact, we’re so confused that we have, ultimately, little to say to Nadya Suleman.

Why?  Well, offended and outraged as we might be, we’ve heard the mantra for years:  the government has no business in the reproductive life of women.  This popular philosophy has been sustainable thanks to the long-term power of Roe-v-Wade.  Although restrictions on abortion exist, our progressive cultural elites are themselves outraged by any attempt, whatsoever, to limit a woman’s right to choose ‘whether or not to have a child, and when.’

Nadya Suleman chose to have a boat-load of children.  Who, from the government, should have told her no?  Before we say ‘but it’s our tax dollars,’ let’s remember that Planned Parenthood has long received federal money.  That is, tax dollars help support abortion rights.  The choice to live as one wants, sexually, is deeply ingrained in our current national ethos.  Oddly, that has come to mean only one thing to most ‘moderns;’ the right to terminate unwanted pregnancy.

But, in this remarkable twist of irony, tax dollars support the right to ‘choose’ to have a large number of human offspring.  As Jesus said, ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.’  In other words, ‘people who live in glass houses ought not throw stones.’  Or, if choice is good for one, it certainly seems reasonable for the other.
See, Nadya, for all her seeming dysfunction, is a product of a world that says you can do what you want, when you want.  You can live on disability and have as many children as you like.  You don’t need a husband to have children, ‘I am woman, hear me roar;’ men are unnecessary accoutrement to parenthood.  Marriage is passe, children just need a mommy…and a set of financially strapped, exhausted grandparents, in this case.

We created Nadya, and make no mistake about it.  Mistress of her own destiny, arbiter of her own unique morality, recipient of the support of an advancing socialist state which throws out money and ‘manufactured’ rights like so much wedding rice.

Ms. Suleman is not part of a committed marriage (a statistically verifiable guarantor of the success and well-being of children).  She is hoping for, probably banking on, celebrity status. And going on and on about how her alleged education will help her support all of her fatherless offspring.  Nadya, enlightened and free, is proud of all of it.

I pray that she does a good job, and that her children receive the support they need.  But I worry about them, and about her.  And I worry about all of us, and our children, inheritors of what increasingly seems to be a mad-house of illusions that passes for a nation.
Edwin
PS:  Before we condemn Nadya’s fertility specialist, remember that we face a future in which Ob/Gyn’s may soon be compelled to either perform abortions, or refer for them, or face censure up to and including loss of practice privileges.  Why would we expect Nadya’s doctor to judge her decision? Apparently the job of a doctor is not to judge, not to discern, not to make value statements, not to have values at all; but to do what the customer, and government, says at all times.

Sounds like a bright, shining future, doesn’t it?

0 0 vote
Article Rating