Much has been said about Nadya Suleman, the unmarried California mother-of-six who, at age 33, through a process known as In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF), gave birth to octuplets. Now, with fourteen children and no visible means of support, some have compared her predicament to the popular nursery poem, “There Was An Old Woman Who Lived In a Shoe.”
According to the rhyme, “She had so many children she didn’t know what to do. She gave them some broth, without any bread, she whipped them all soundly, and sent them to bed.” These critics say Nadya, being a single parent, has been irresponsible, unwise, selfish to expand her already large family, and condemn her as being just another of those “unfit welfare recipients” who take advantage of the system–although Nadya denies ever receiving welfare benefits.
On the other hand, there are those who applaud her commitment to raise her children to the best of her ability. These supporters are inspired by her desire to utilize the remaining frozen embryos from her first IVF which would have been otherwise destroyed as well as by her decision to decline selective reduction of any of the fetuses.
My feelings fall in line with what Chuck Colson said in his Breakpoint commentary last week. I agree with Chuck that there’s a deeper issue lurking underneath this debate that has, for the most part, been overlooked in the press. In the words of Paul Harvey, “for the rest of the story” click here to read Chuck’s insightful commentary.