I don’t think I can even say ‘perhaps’ to this one. And I don’t see that happening here.
Mmm, I think this one is a bit over the top. I’m sure she has other roles and interests besides motherhood, but even if she didn’t, how would that be an insult to feminism, and characterize her as not having grown as a full person? I thought the whole point of feminism was so that women could chose to do whatever they liked? Not so they could be limited to a new set of options pre-selected by a feminist elite.
I think people have different views on what constitutes a family, and what constitute a sick family. I see this entire situation as the grossly dysfunctional but utterly predictable and inevitable product of dysfunctional policies, but others don’t. Who am I to question their wisdom?
By the way Icon, you said something particularly disturbing a while back about nine year olds in your country. Did I understand you to mean that there are kids younger than 12 getting pregnant there?
She has said that “having kids” makes her happy, not the kids themselves, nor making them happy. It is the act of reproduction what makes her happy. Read/see her interview.
Women are complex beings that work, study, live different roles as friends, bosses, colleagues, etc… She’s limiting her life to only “bearer” -not even mother, as in real life, mothering duties are taken over by the grandparents.
She is not a mentally healthy person. She really has problems. She cannot administrate her house nor her family, she lives in a fantasy world -we have seen how her statements differ greatly with reality- and basically, she’s harming the kids. She will continue having kids, that’s a given.
Her actions are an insult to feminism, if we are using feminist arguments to justify her actions, as her actions have nothing to do with feminism and more with a serious mental disturbance.
At least we agree this is dysfunctional, and that the policies that "support’ this are also wacked.
Yes, back home, girls even at 8 get pregnant and abortion is forbidden (they “develop” faster as abuse starts “early”) . Many die either in the hands of the “father” of the creature -most of the time a relative or their own mother’s companion-, complications from the pregnancy, or worse. In any case, if they survive, their children come to engross the cycle of poverty and hopelessness, as already described.
fortigurn, what the hell does this case have to do with feminism? A woman who has 6 children, no husband, no job, is living on disability payments and food stamps, lives with her parents in their small 3 bedroom house, has been declared nutso by her own mom for neglecting her existing kids and putting such a huge burden on everyone, including her parents who are nearly bankrupt, has decided to take extraordinary measures to become pregnant with and give birth to 8 more kids.
That’s got NOTHING to do with feminism. It’s got nothing to do with strength or freewill or independence. It’s strictly a matter of a seriously mentally ill person with a very unhealthy, harmful and expensive obsession. She’s a loonie, not a role model for women.
Well it’s her life and her right to do with it as she pleases, and her body and her right to do with it as she pleases, so where do you go from there? She’s simply exercising two rights for which women fought for years, the right to have children without marrying, and the right to control over their capacity for reproduction. This is a success poster for the feminist movement.[/quote]
We’re not disputing her legal right to choice of marriage and procreation.
On the contrary, we are discussing the moral and ethical concerns in having 14 children without adequate financial support, without a father, without a job, relying on her parents, and on disability payments, etc.
There is a fundamental difference which should be obvious to anyone. You’re just throwing out a strawman.
Many women limit their life to ‘work’, or ‘study’, or ‘boss’, or 'colleague. What’s wrong with that? It doesn’t make them any less ‘complex’, surely?
Quite possibly. Perhaps having more children will make her happier.
Undoubtedly.
None of which are reasons to deny her free exercise of human rights.
This one is very tricky. In what objectively measurable way are they being harmed?
This is her inalienable right.
Whatever is motivating her actions (and I’m wary of attributing them to mental disorder, since the desire to have children and not have a husband seems perfectly rational), I don’t think her actions specifically have anything to do with feminism either. I’m simply pointing out that she’s exercising the rights feminism fought for her to enjoy. Now she’s enjoying them.
I am entirely sympathetic to the idea that after we have fought for people’s rights they should only exercise them in ways we consider appropriate, but I don’t think i’ts realistic.
We certainly agree on that.
How on earth are 8 year olds getting pregnant? How does abuse cause accelerated sexual maturity? It looks like there’s something wrong here which neither abortions nor condoms will fix.
That’s her inalienable right. It was secured for her by the blood, sweat, and tears of previous generations.
As I have said, no matter what is motivating her actions, I don’t think her actions specifically have anything to do with feminism either. Nor did I call her a role model for women. I’m simply pointing out that she’s exercising the rights feminism fought for her to enjoy. Now she’s enjoying them.
By the way, I’m wary of stigmatizing her as mentally ill, and as having ‘a very unhealthy, harmful and expensive obsession’. No such judgment has been made by any qualified medical practitioner, and as has already been noted she has enjoyed the full support of the medical profession. They’re in a position to know what they’re doing, surely? In fact it’s noteworthy that she suffered from depression prior to having all these children, and hasn’t suffered from depression since she’s been building this family.
She has undergone psychological evaluation, and I haven’t seen any professional reports that there’s anything mentally amiss. People who actually know her have characterized her very positively:
[quote=“The Guardian”]While the two publicists she hired last week acknowledged she was reviewing such offers, one of her friends said Suleman simply loved children and didn’t get pregnant for profit.
“She’s not even interested in that right now,” said Jessica Zepeda, who lives down the street. “It’s funny and sad in a way, there’s a lot of people saying really negative things and they don’t know her.”
Suleman’s mother said she expected people’s opinions to change now that her daughter was going public.
“She’s a very likable person,” Angela Suleman said. “She’s basically normal except for this obsession she’s always had with children.”[/quote]
There you have it. She simply loves children. She’s just a bit disorganized.
I am well aware of that. I have not said anyone is disputing her rights. And by the way, they’re not just legal rights, they’re human rights, protected by the UN.
There are plenty of moral and ethical concerns in this situation. They differ wildly from one person to the next, but they’re certainly worth discussing. I have myself described her and the situation as dysfunctional.
Not in the least. I haven’t dismissed anyone’s arguments on the basis of arguing against something they’ve never proposed. The issue here, as I have already identified, is not whether she has the rights but how she should be exercising them. Some people are implying that’s not a decision for her to make. I sympathise with that view, but it does dilute somewhat the point of giving her the rights in the first place.
I’ve got no problem with her having another 8 children, if she can look after them. But it’s only her “inalienable right” if she can pay for them herself. No?
I’m afraid that’s not how human rights work. They aren’t conditional on responsible exercise.[/quote]
I agree, but what’s your point? She has a right to bear as many kids as she wants, with or without the necessary support, regardless of how stupid her choice may be, and thats in part due to the feminist movement. Is that your first point?
If so, I think it would be a stronger point if she had chosen to abort all 14, but Ok, I’ll grant you that the feminist movement has made it easier for a woman to choose to impregnate herself and give birth to a whole litter without a husband if she so chooses, but so what? Are you using that to suggest the feminist movement has been a bad thing? If so, you’re overlooking a few minor details such as equal jobs, equal pay, freedom from harassment and discrimination, etc., etc., etc.
Are you suggesting this one lunatic is somehow a poster child demonstrating that feminism is a bad thing?
legal or human rights protected by the UN, doesn’t make a difference in this context.
on the one hand, you say no one is disputing her right, on the other hand, you are disagreeing with people who ‘imply’ the decision is not hers to make. not sure i see the difference.
at any rate, if we are then just talking about moral and ethical concerns, i think ppl have listed out most of them here, which seems to point to the sentiment that she is neither equipped nor prepared to raise 14 children, in particular, her lack of financial, mental, and physical capability as demonstrated by her physical disability (that affects her ability to physically care for 14 kids and limits her job selection), her financial status (ie she is unemployed; she is supported by her parents; she is on food stamps), and her mother takes care of the children, not her, it would seem. Also, she is planning to go get a masters; this implies, part, if not most of the time, her parents would be raising the kids. finally, the medical risks with multiple-order births - she put her kids at risk - this may indicate her level of mental fitness is questionable.
i’m still not sure what’s the point of you raising feminism in this discussion. how is that relevant or helpful?
Fortigun, the woman went public and made some statements which have been found to be untrue. I think it is morally wrong to use kids as things. She “has” them, but as far as we have seen from her life, she’s just “having” them. As someone said, there is no difference so far from hoarding childreen and hoarding cats. How can you possibly take adecuate care of so many kids with dissabilities. She cannot pay for their livelihood herself -that is the basic statement disputed here- and hence, harms their development. How many minutes a day can she spend with each? How can she nurture their minds, not to say their bodies?
Many women -and men- choose to limit their lives to one area, and we can see they are not entirely happy. A well-developed human being enriches their lives and that of others around them, to the best of their possibilities.
My argument here is that this woman has used her choices and possibilitie sto make life difficult for herself and harmful to others, especially her children. In our countries, so many people living in a limited space -3 bedrooms- is a fact of life due to poverty. However, the results are not the most desirable. This woman had her choice, yes, but it is the same choice as someone who drinks and drives: the consequences are not the best for anyone.
Having children will not make her happy, because as a mental disorder, no matter how many children she has, there won’t be enough. Is this fair to the kids? I don’t think so.
many a poor mother will tell you that they wish they had the resources to feed, clothe and take care of their kids as they wish. You ask me about the 8 year olds, the last statistics I saw put them at 300 a year. I can look it up, but it is really awful. I personally blame their rapid development as a coping device, it has been studied that in situations of stress, and even famine, kids develop faster as they have to cope with more difficult situations.
How doe sone thing realte to another? That cases like this woman’s will be used as publicity by those who oppose the right to use condoms, access to contraceptives and even sexual education, not to say laws and support groups to stop this from happening again. When those girls grow up, very few options open for them and their kids, and such twisted “ideologies” perpetuate this cycle on and on. I am sad to see someone who had a choice and became an instrument for those who oppose having these choices.
Her right, maybe, but who’s talking about the rights of children in a developed country not to live like, well, hoarded cats?
So, she’s basically normal,
but
has always had an
obsession
with having children, was diagnosed with
depression
until she had them, and everyone seems to agree that she’s
dysfunctional
.
Instead of China’s one child policy may I recommend the US adopt a 14 child policy? The nation will never starve, because, apparently, such things are not conditional.
What do you mean ‘so what’? That’s it. Did you think I was trying to sneak in a hidden agenda behind that point?
Ah, I see you did think I was trying to sneak in a hidden agenda. I wasn’t. No I am not suggesting the feminist movement has been a bad thing. For the sake of the argument, I am even prepared to dismiss any suggestions that it has had any negative impact whatsoever.
Not in the least. I have said the opposite. And please stop calling her a lunatic. There is no evidence that she is a lunatic, and you are as unqualified to make such an assessment as I am. If you’ve seen ‘The Changeling’, I’m sure you’ll appreciate the irony of labellng someone insane just because they’re not doing what you think they ought to.
[quote=“zender”]So, she’s basically normal,
but
has always had an
obsession
with having children, was diagnosed with
depression
until she had them, and everyone seems to agree that she’s
dysfunctional
.
I’m basically normal, too.[/quote]
Yes that’s right. Everyone has the odd obsession, and almost everyone is dsyfunctional in some way, according to some metric or other. That is ‘basically normal’. If you live your life without any dysfunctions, obsessions, or depression, then you’re abnormal. And note that she had depression in the past but doesn’t now.
Well that’s pretty normal.
I agree. Unfortunately that’s only my personal perspective. It has no objective value or moral authority.
If true, that’s the case for millions of children everywhere. It’s just one of those facts of modern society.
Believe me when I say that I am entirely of the same mind. But my personal judgment has no relevance to her right to bear children, and clearly the medical profession agrees.
This is moving into dangerous territory, because this can be leveled at any parent who typically spends less than 4 hours a day in personal contact with their child. That includes a huge number of happily married couples, as well as millions of single parents. I am of the opinion that spending little time with your child is a very, very bad thing. But that’s just my personal opinion, and the overwhelming view in society leans in another direction entirely. Who am I to contradict them?
And others are. And at the end of the day, choice is what it’s all about.
But we all have different ideas about what constitutes a well-developed human being, and what constitutes enrichment. Some people would also argue they have no personal responsibility to enrich either themselves or others. Having said which, I am in total agreement with what you say here. That’s because I was raised in a very conservative family with old fashioned values which haven’t been current in society for about 50 years.
I would agree. But that’s not for me to decide in this case.
There’s no evidence that she has a mental disorder, and her psychological assessment indicates that her depression ended when she started having children. There’s no argument to be made here.
I know my mother would have.
Unbelievable.
Perhaps you’re right, perhaps this woman will become a poster for the anti-abortion and anti-contraception crowd. But I find it difficult to see how this case could be credibly used for such an argument. These days women have all the choices they need, and sometimes they’re going to make choices which some of us disagree with. But that’s all part of having the right to choose. We have the right to decisions with which others will disagree.
Well, I’m sure the infinite wisdom of the relevant UN declaration will have all the answers. But you’ve keenly identified a challenge with rights based societies. Individual rights will conflict.
[quote=“Thelonlieste”]Instead of China’s one child policy may I recommend the US adopt a 14 child policy? The nation will never starve, because, apparently, such things are not conditional.
:liar:[/quote]
This is logically incoherent. Could you explain the process of reasoning by which you arrived at this conclusion?
[quote=“zender”]So, she’s basically normal,
but
has always had an
obsession
with having children, was diagnosed with
depression
until she had them, and everyone seems to agree that she’s
dysfunctional
.
I’m basically normal, too.[/quote]
Yes that’s right. Everyone has the odd obsession, and almost everyone is dsyfunctional in some way, according to some metric or other. That is ‘basically normal’. If you live your life without any dysfunctions, obsessions, or depression, then you’re abnormal. And note that she had depression in the past but doesn’t now.
Well that’s pretty normal.
?[/quote]
There’s a large difference between have the “odd obsession” and “everyone is dysfunctional” and using that to justify a multiple-order birth where it results in (a) medical risk to the children and (b) quality of life for the children. Odd obsession is maybe a weird hobby or eccentricity - odd obsessions are not, I would think, ‘an abnormal desire to bear many children’.
What kind of statement is “that’s pretty normal”. how is that relevant and helpful to the discussion?
Whoa, wait a minute. I said everyone is dysfunctional according to one metric or another. According to the metric applied by medical professionals in this case, she is not sufficiently dysfunctional to be refused the exercise of her right to bear octuplets. As much as you or I may disagree with the professionals in this case, those are the facts.
No qualified professional has yet identified her as suffering from any psychologically defined obsession, still less anything in the DSMIV. No qualified professional has yet identified her desire to bear many children as ‘abnormal’. It is certainly abnormal to want to bear many children these days, in the sense of being directly against societal norms (and some mores), but that does not mean it is ‘abnormal’ in the medical sense to which you allude.
It was an appropriate response to the comment ‘the woman went public and made some statements which have been found to be untrue’. I could have said ‘So what?’, but I wanted to make the point that there’s nothing particularly unusual about people making public statements which are later found to be untrue, so I don’t see the relevance of this fact to her mental state.
actually, according to the medical ethicists and doctors, it does sound like that it was “abnormal” for her to have so many children at once in the medical sense that it is dangerous for her and the fetuses to have multiple-order births. That explains why the Board is looking into whether the IVF clinic breached its standard of care.
So the only people suspected of acting ‘abnormally’ here by qualified professionals are, ironically, other qualified professionals. And the only ethical breach suspected by qualified professionals is a duty of care towards the woman by, ironically, other qualified professionals.
