Octuplets, anyone?

What would cause a single mother of 6 children (ages 2-7), who lives at home with her parents, to want to be implanted with embryos in order to have more children? I can say from experience that having three children is a chore, and I am married. I cannot imagine even being a single father of three, much less being a single parent of 6 with another 8 coming at one time.

While it is not my position that we should be involved in telling others what decisions they should make and how many children they should have, I would think that the people close to her would have counselled her more wisely before undertaking this endeavor. Children are a blessing, but we should be prepared to care for the children that we wish to have, and do so responsibly.

She now is the single mother of 14 children, all of them 7 years and younger. Stop and think about that. Her judgment does need to be questioned. We can only hope and pray that she will be a good mother. I give her credit for not aborting any of them during her pregnancy, even though she was given the opportunity to do so. She plans to breastfeed them, a decision that my mind cannot comprehend.

I have been fascinated by the Duggar family (which can be seen at times on TLC), who are in stark contrast to that new mother of octuplets. They have 18 children, from 19 years old and recently married, all the way down to a newborn. The mother and father (he is the father of all the children) are married. He has a job and is able to support the family. They have a rather large home for their children. All the kids seem to get along and they have chores to do around the house. While I question the sanity of 18 children, they have done things the right way, and they have a loving family to show for it.

What I find interesting in this whole saga are the comments of Arthur Caplan, the bioethics chairman at the University of Pennsylvania. He believes that this mother is wrong in what she did because it will cause insurance premiums to go up and it will cause an increase in the need of some social services, among other things.

Basically, this bioethics guy is promoting the limiting of the human population because it will be too much of a cost for society to handle (sounds a little like Nancy Pelosi). This situation only allows his views to possibly get a little more time in the debate that is happening on the public stage. I guess my question is how did this guy get a job as a bioethics chairman at an Ivy League school when it sounds as if he is for population control? What does that say for our education system today.

What responsibility????

As you have probably seen by now, Nebraska had adopted a safe-haven law that allowed parents to abandon their children in specified places. The kicker is that you could abandon your children up to 18 years of age. One noted example was a man that dropped off his seven children right after the law was put into affect because he could not handle the pressure of being a single parent.

Now, the Nebraska legislature, in a tremendous stroke of genius, wants to specify the age of the children that you can legally abandon. The law was intended to stop the proliferation of the 'dumpster baby', and I guess the Nebraska legislature did not foresee the extent to which people woudl go to in order to dump off kids of all ages.

There is so much wrong with this line of thinking that I do not know where to start. First and foremost, it is the duty of parents to care for their children. Is it always easy and pleasant? Absolutely not. But that does not mean that I should just disregard my responsibility as a parent when life gets tough. That is a part of life. No one promised it would be easy.

Second, I realize women have children for one reason or another and then give them up for adoption. This is completely different. There is no abandonment when it comes to adoption. They realize that they are not able to give the child the care that is needed as a parent, and they want the child to be raised by those who can give them what is needed. This is generally not an easy decision for someone to make. These folks are not 'test-driving' the child to see if they like being a parent and then 'trading in' the child for a different lifestyle. Rather, they are thinking of the needs of the child (for the most part).

Third, the stories we here of 'dumpster babies' are heart-breaking. But they are, by no means, commonplace. If we would teach people about the dignity of human life instead of forcing the idea of abortion on people, maybe these things would not happen. After all, this 'dumpster baby' syndrome is not really that much different than abortion. The only difference is the timing of the infanticide. The act itself is still basically the same.

Yes, these situations should not happen. However, many of these young women having these children and dumping them somewhere do not know any better. They were not brought up to know better. It is the society that we live in. Personally, it is just downright sad (almost maddening) that we as a society do not teach our children to know better. We tell them that it is better to be safe than it is to abstain. The last time I checked, those who abstain have a much lower pregnancy rate than those who practice safety.

Ultimately, this is about personal responsibility. No one wants to be responsible for the consequences of their own actions. There are many prevalent examples of this in today's society (mortgage foreclosures, credit crisis, etc.). We want someone else to bail us out because we do not want to take responsibility for our own decisions.

What responsibility????

As you have probably seen by now, Nebraska had adopted a safe-haven law that allowed parents