Loading ...
Unless you have been spending the past week spelunking in a deep, uncharted cave, you most likely heard about a 33-year-old Southern California mother of 6, Nadya Suleman, who thought it would be smart to have six additional crotchfruit frozen embryos implanted in her clown car womb last year (at least that one deep cave has been well charted). By the magic of fertility treatment that raises the odds of having multiple pregnancies, she gave birth last week to eight reasonably healthy babies, raising her kids count to a staggering fourteen, close enough to forming a rugby team (if shrimps had such a thing as rugby teams).
Bon appétit
While we could care less all rejoice that the babies are doing well, this has sparked a row over the ethics of parenthood (see A bidding war and a row over ethics: how the octuplets story turned sour). I actually think this raises issues beyond that of white trash spawning more of itself irresponsible parental planning. It has private, societal and even environmental implications that I haven’t really seen brought up anywhere.
At a private level, the row stems from the obvious fact that a single, unemployed attention whore mother living with her parents in a modest three-bedroom house cannot do a decent job at caring for so many infants at once. Barring external help, these kids will lack space, attention, care and opportunities for a decent future (hey, we’ll still need people to serve our fries, right?). It is hard to see the decision of the mother as anything but incredibly selfish to both her kids and her own parents – which is highly ironic for a nutcase mother whose love of children is said to be pathological.
At a societal level, it was clear from the beginning that Miss Suleman counted on the welfare state to provide for her 14 kids (that, or she’s just braindead and did not give it a thought — I’m unsure which is worse). In other words, these kids will be raised on everyone else’s dime, even though no one but the mother had a word in the decision to go forward with this little trainwreck experiment. This violates the very principles of social solidarity, which is aimed at covering unplanned life events (sickness, job loss, etc.) and typical planned ones (reasonable childbearing, retirement, etc.). She made, after all, several unreasonable, deliberate choices by pursuing in-vitro fertilization on top of her 6 kids, and refusing the much-needed vacuuming embryo reduction that doctors advised when they found out about the unusual multiple pregnancy.
At an environmental level, this is a setback in the urgent effort to try and preserve our future as a species. What if thousands of mothers fucked up behaved as unreasonably as this particular one (actually, some do for religious reasons)? Anything above 2.1 child per female will keep pink goo world population growing at an exponential rate and increase the ecological burden in proportion. The single most effective way to combat global warming and depletion of resources is not fuel-efficient cars or solar power: it is killing all morons tackling the overpopulation issue. People who are not born have no ecological footprint whatsoever, which is still a lot less than smug eco-conscious people driving hybrids and recycling their trash. For decades this “elephant in the room” has been left unadressed by policy makers in the Western World, despite having its high-profile supporters and even its extremists (interestingly, the British government’s Sustainable Development Commission is about to report that governments must reduce population growth). China, on the other hand, notoriously pioneered the one-child policy in 1979, preventing at least 250 million births over the course of one generation while preserving economic growth and reducing poverty. Of course, their heavy-handed policy (resulting in infanticides and restrictions to individual freedom) might have contributed to keeping it out of the Western social agenda so far. This does not, however, have to be the case. Consider the following alternative policy for a moment:
The Duggar family and their 19 kids
“It is a fundamental human right for parents to have as many kids as they want. However they will receive state benefits (such as medical coverage, free schooling, parental allowances, etc.) only for two pregnancies that go to term, or two children, whichever comes first (see why below). Any pregnancy beyond that will be at the sole expense of the parents, in the form of additional taxes to cover services that society provides to their children.“.
How would this translate in real life? A woman could have one kid from a first pregnancy, and could choose to have a second one while retaining full benefits. If she had twins (or more) during her first pregnancy, all kids would receive benefits, but any subsequent pregnancy would not. If she had one kid from a first pregnancy and twins (or more) from her second pregnancy, all would receive benefits, but any subsequent pregnancy would not. Also, no fertility treatment or in-vitro fertilization would be provided to couples that reached the limit (as in the case of Miss Suleman).
This policy would have several benefits. At a private level, it would preserve the basic human right right of having as many kids as desired while giving a strong financial incentive to better parental planning. At a societal level, it would limit the financial burden of individual irresponsibility to the welfare state and help preserve the social fabric. At the environmental level, it would act positively (rather than opressively) to bring us closer to the desirable goal of Zero Population Growth.
But then again, maybe I’m just yet another douchebag misanthropic, malthusianist thinker. What do you think?
[UPDATE 12FEB09] the lady has set up a website to beg for cash and items for her family. I for one will send her a time machine and a rusty coat hanger absolutely nothing.
