I typically don't use my blog as a platform for discussing current events. In most cases, there isn't much I can say that hasn't already been uttered by a thousand other bloggers. As such, I have not mentioned the much-maligned "Octu Mom." Until now, anyway. Nadya Suleman continues to be in the news, ad nauseum, so it's hard to avoid her. It's like trying to avoid oxygen or McDonald's.
The truth is, my seven-year struggle to become a mom left me with the complete inability to be fair to this woman. My perspective is colored by the loss of four babies. I have two beefs with her (well, probably more than two if you want to get all technical about it). The first is her comments regarding her life as an only child. Nadya Suleman has repeated several times in various interviews that because she was an only child, she did not get enough love growing up. I cannot wrap my brain around this at all. My daughter is an only child (at least in our home - she does have a biological half-sibling out there) and as such, she gets the undivided attention of two parents. She can't get away with much because we are on her like white on rice. She is not some undersupervised child among fourteen. If anything, she will grow up saying that we smothered her with our attention and affection, not that she "didn't get enough love." She has grandparents, cousins, and friends galore. Lonely she ain't.
Now, when my daughter was born, I did pose a few questions to friends and co-workers who are only children. I wanted reassurance that one can grow up healthy and well-adjusted even without brothers and sisters. Some stated quite honestly that they wish they'd had siblings. Others said they wanted for nothing and didn't mind being the sole offspring of their parents. I don't think most couples set out to have only one child, but sometimes the universe has other ideas and you find that you're a party of three for the long haul.
The other beef is, of course, the utter lunacy of it all. Fourteen children? Even the Waltons would have thought this woman was a few bricks shy of a load. If you want to know who is most offended by this whole circus, try visiting some internet message boards for people who are suffering from infertility. Or an adoption message board, where hundreds of anxious couples wait eons for a child. One of my online acquaintances (who has been battling infertility for several years) pointed out that she doesn't want eight babies. She's not even asking for two. Just one. One baby would make all of her dreams come true.
When pressed about why she felt she had to use all of the embryos, Nadya Suleman stated that if she hadn't used them, they would have been destroyed or adopted. In the scheme of things, is adoption really the worst thing that could happen to those embryos? I know some people feel a little oogy about having their DNA out in the world, but is anyone's DNA really that sacred? Was carrying those eight babies worth all the risks, some of which are so extreme that they had never been calculated until now? A woman's uterus was not meant to carry a litter. It's really just that simple.
Speaking of which, have you seen this clip from the Jimmy Kimmel show? So inappropriate but so darned amusing.