My thoughts exactly.
Not to long ago, a woman had fertility treatments and was pregnant with, I think 6. The doctor suggesting aborting 2 for the health of the others. The ‘mom’ would not allow it because it was ‘Gods’ will.
Umm no. Gods will was for you to NOT have any more children at all.
She isn’t raising them. She’s breeding them. That isn’t a job at all. That’s someone in desperate need of both counseling and a hysterectomy.
The newest news stories are stating she used IVF for her 6 previous children
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28948599/
I really want to know who paid for the treatments. There are plenty of people who would love children but can’t afford to have them through IVF
One of the linked articles in one of these threads (sorry, can’t be arsed to find it again) said that the woman told someone she was being paid for this. Maybe she’s part of some research into new techniques or something? Maybe her sugar daddy’s writing to Penthouse with his story of his accommodating little brood mare? (ew.) I can’t imagine that the fertility clinic extended her enough credit to wait until she rakes in the magazine and book deals to pay for it.
More specifically, in matters of fertility, leave it up to God.
<<Catholic Catechism 2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and “the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.”
The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.
>>
Was that the Jon & Kate Plus 8 lady?
I do know someone who falls into this category to a certain extent. I know this is GD, but all I have is anecdote. This woman calls herself “addicted” to being pregnant, and she has taken Clomid to conceive 6 of her 15 kids. She currently has 13 kids, because 2 of them did not make it (they were born extremely premature). I’ve often wondered what Dr is prescribing her Clomid when she already has so many kids, but it’s really not my business so I didn’t ask. She does cite the whole “quiverfull” thing, yet seems to have no issue taking fertility drugs. Oh, and she is on Public Assistance and has had more than one house foreclosure.
They definitely have said that they knew they wouldn’t “reduce” no matter what. And they do attend a Christian church.
Just heard a piece on NPRs Talk of the Nation on this. No one knows yet for sure she what kind of treatment she received prior to walking into Kaiser with eight(thought to be seven at first) in the womb. Her mother has said that she had IVF, but that they did not implant 8 and the extras must have happened independently(the doctor on the show said he had never heard of that, and thought it highly improbably if not impossible). The main focus of the show was the ethics. The doctor argued that it should be a self enforced standard of counseling and advice, with the final choice belonging to the patient.
So what we know is: Mother is single, living with her parents, supported by her parents, six older kids, one with autism, and now 8 more that will have a rough time for a while and, if WhyNot is right about the statistics, two of them are likely to have some long term disability. What has been hinted at, but not confirmed, is that all 14 kids have the same father, who donated sperm. That guy could be in for a world of hurt. Last I heard, the only way a sperm donor is protected from child support is if it is done anonymously via an sperm bank. This guy could be on the hook to support all 14 kids if she can’t get a media a deal and she decided to sue him. If she goes on state assistance, the state will come after him as well.
Jonathan
Not a real life example, but the wife of the painter in The Girl in the Pearl Earring always wanted to be pregnant. She would wean the babies as soon as possible and hand them off to her older children.
Jonathan
Why? Why is fertility different?
If a baby is born prematurely and will die without medical intervention, is THAT God’s will? Is it wrong to place a baby in an incubator? Or on a respirator? How is that different from using medical intervention to conceive in the first place?
Not all of us believe in God, dear.
But tell me: are you stating what choice you would make for yourself (as I think you are) or are you prescribing the choice you believe others should make?
As far as I’m concerned, having more kids than you can support is unethical, so the mother in question crossed that line at least 13 children ago.
Once a baby is in existence, then it becomes a question of what is morally right with regard to medical treatment, as with any human being. I think the reasons for not artificially creating the baby in the first place are outlined above. Additionally,
<<2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”>>
So adoption is right out, then?
I didn’t want to step into this particular side conversation because my reasoning is very different than gigi’s, but I am glad you brought up adoption.
I speak for no one but myself, but I have a problem expending vast amounts of money (I know people that have spent well over 100K trying to get pregnant) when there are millions of children without parents. I understand that for some it is actually more expensive and difficult to adopt, and that to some it is emotionally important that their be a genetic link to their children (there was a recent thread on that topic that seriously depressed me), but for me I would rather spend the money on adoption than fertility treatments. Luckily this never came up for my wife and me as we do not see completely eye to eye on this topic.
Jonathan
Nope. As mentioned above:
The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others. >>
Beyond dumb. Paging three really big guys in white jackets!
You may speak for me as well. Change “my wife and I” to “my husband and I” and your post could have been written by me.
What is the whole “quiverful” thing?