Nadia Suleman, who I've written about before, is on Dr. Phil right now. I can not believe that she'd go on his show after all the things he's said about her! He must have offered some serious "help" (as in, money), although he insists that he did not purchase a house for her. Or maybe the poor woman hasn't had time to watch Dr. Phil lately. Probably both, actually.
Anyway, they are talking about why people are mad at her. She thinks it's because of the economy, that she's a scapegoat (a theory I also put forth in my previous post on the topic). He thinks it's because she risked the life of the only parent her other six kids have by transferring 6 embryos and continuing the pregnancy in spite of the serious risks to her life.
They're both wrong.
People are cheesed off because there are millions of people out there right now who have limited the size of their family because they can't afford to raise the number of kids they want to have on their own. They aren't taking assistance into account, because reasonable, responsible people don't put "government aid" in the "assets" column when they're figuring out their family's finances. Government aid is supposed to be for emergencies, for unforseeable situations. It's not supposed to be something you count on when you decide to knock yourself up (over and over and over again).
BJ and I make a very good living, and we have debated a lot about having a third child. We know that it will be more affordable to travel, provide lessons, provide fees for sports and activities, help with college, etc. if we stick with our two. We worry that we won't be able to provide the sort of life that we want to provide for our kids if we have one more.
We also worry about the environmental impact of larger families. It feels irresponsible, on a planet that's already strained, to have a large family. (To that, though, I say, "We're the sort of people who ought to be having all the kids we can... No one would complain if we populated the earth with the brilliant offspring of a rocket scientist!" right?)
And here's this woman who can't possibly provide for the six kids she has, and she has eight more. And people who have said, "Ok, I'd love to have 6 kids, but we can't afford it, so we're done with one kid," resent that she made that choice that they didn't feel they could make.
That's it. That's why people are mad. Because we can't all choose to have 14 kids, even though we might want to. Honestly, if money weren't a consideration at all, I would quit using birth control and have all the kids we could between now and menopause. We have fabulous kids. They're smart and beautiful and healthy and hilarious, and they're the lights of our lives. It would be such fun, as they grew older, to have a big loud house full of our children and their friends, our children and their spouses, our children and their children... But we can't do that. It would be irresponsible of us to rely on the government to help us raise our children. And, in spite of what she says, it appears that Nadia Suleman did go into this pregnancy with the intention to rely on government aid, and that's annoying. It makes people feel ripped off.
Of course, I can't believe anyone goes on Dr. Phil. I would love to know how she was compensated.
In other baby makin' news, my friend Kaity is in labor right now (she was induced) with her first child, a little girl who will be called Grace. Talking with Kaity over the past couple of weeks has really made me want another baby. I'm sure that holding little Grace is going to push me over the edge. Fortunately, I've caught the kids' virus, so I'll have to stay away until I'm well. Maybe by then I'll have steeled myself against that lovely new baby scent, and the way they feel when they're so tiny and new.