Nadya Suleman, Readers/Writers & Fertility…

I have officially kicked off the readers/writers page with an essay from a good friend and fellow writer, Chris Richardson. I published Chris’s opinion on the page Readers/Writers (here’s a direct link: although I don’t exactly share it. Please read her post first on the Readers/Writers page and then continue on with my conclusions. It is interesting to have Chris’s perspective because I feel it really represents the Pluto in Leo generation or the Baby Boomer viewpoint which is very under-represented on this blog. Please feel free to comment on her piece or on any post you want. Also remember I’m open to submissions for other voices to be heard as well on the Readers/Writers page.

I feel that Nadya Suleman is mentally ill and her children need help, perhaps even intervention. I’m more angry at the doctor and Nadya’s family for not intervening. In Nadya’s interview with Ann Curry, Nadya appeared out of it, unrealistic and suffering from some sort of personality disorder. She clearly also has a problem with lying which means she has a lot of shame. It’s my opinion that she probably has NPD. And, it hit me at some point during her interview that she paid for all the plastic surgery, and some of her children in a much darker way than she admitted to (she still hasn’t admitted to the plastic surgery, however). It was my strong hit that she at some point literally sold herself as a call girl, not something one can put on their taxes. 

To me the fact that her 8 children were born on 1-26 fits in with my theory of Aquariuses. All who I’ve read for have been (including myself here) entirely ignored during childhood, often to the point of serious neglect. And lets face it with 8 babies and 6 other kids, those little ones aren’t going to get much mommy time. I feel very bad for her children and its my belief that especially because Nadya has signs of mental illness, people should reach out and help her. It’s also my feeling that Nadya (being someone with NPD) was in desperate need of attention and wanted to be “special,” unfortunately the only way she felt she was able to fulfill those needs was by having more babies than anyone should have at one go. Also she wanted to surround herself by an a huge audience of unconditionally loving admirers, her giant brood of children.

If there is a cultural issue to blame, its this ridiculous fascination with crazy people who have had way too many children. I recently saw one woman and her husband on the View who had so many kids they had trouble remembering their names and birth order and how old they were. This woman used religion as an excuse for whatever psychological problem she had, and believe me, she had that crazy cult look in her eye like one of the Manson women showing up to his trial in the early 70s.

In a world with over 6 billion people and counting (2500 years ago there were about 10 million people, can you imagine, that’s less people than live in NY, LA or Chicago), global warming and places like China sterilizing people because they literally have no room to grow, it seems perverted to me that anyone should be so greedy as to have that many children. Not to mention the fact that the children don’t get to be children, they end up parenting each other and have very little one on one time with their own parents. We don’t live in the 1500s on a farm. Our world is over run with human beings almost to the breaking point of the earth’s capacity to deal with us. 

So everyone getting their panties in a bunch about Nadya is perhaps a good thing. Maybe it will force people to think about what it means to have so many children, not just in her case, but in all the cases of couples who choose to be greedy and selfish by surrounding themselves with a brood of admiring little people. It’s one thing back when the technology of in vitro fertilization was new and led to multiple births. OK, that’s not anyone’s fault, and it wasn’t purposeful. But when a person already has 6 kids, even going for another is selfish in my opinion. Even if you were a billionaire and could put every kid through college, give them everything they could ever want or need, you still couldn’t possibly give each kid enough attention and love, which is what kids need more than anything. 

Let’s look at the extreme situation of children (especially in Romania) in  overcrowded orphanages in Eastern European. These poor children were lucky to get their diapers changed and feed on a semi-regular basis, with nothing else, no love, cuddling, interaction. These children when adopted have exhibited incredible anti-social disorders, brain damage and often irreversible personality warping, even after just being in orphanage for 6 months. Human beings need love to grow, they need attention and kindness, encouragement and support. These are more essential to development than money or 2 opposite sex parents or really anything besides basic food, shelter and clothing. 

I recently read an article in Discover Magazine about new technology that will enable us to take a skin cell, turn it into a T-cell and then make it into either an egg or sperm. So a same sex couple could have a baby which is the good side of things, but the creepy side is a person would be able to make a baby entirely by themselves. For example your a single woman who wants to have children, you could have your skin cells turned ultimately into sperm and be implanted with your own sperm. Now that seems like the ultimate in-breeding. What kind of bizarre genetic problems will we create doing that? And also, we now possess the technology to actually extract unhealthy genes and replace them with their healthy counterparts. There are even ways to replace whole sequences, and to isolate genes to make people smarter, healthier, etc. 

So to me Nadya Suleman is just the can opener on a giant ethics problem we are starting to face. At what point do the rights of the parents or potential parents interfere with the rights of the children? One can argue we don’t want to go the route of China and God knows that is horrible what they put people through, and we certainly don’t want to emulate them in any way. However, is it fair to utilize science and technology in ways that interfere with nature and the fundamental human right to be nutured and loved by a parent without feeling like you are an orderly at an orphanage who is expected to help raise and take care of your brothers and sisters.

I don’t know about you guys, but when they interviewed Nadya’s other 6 kids, none of them seemed excited or happy about the competition coming home. They already seemed to know, all too well how hard it was to get what they needed with only 5 other little people to compete with.

As time goes on and we continue to push the envelope with fertility treatments and micro-preemies we are going to have to address these moral issues. If the Christian right is against abortion because it is the destruction of a life, then I would argue this is the same problem from the opposite side of the coin. The inability to provide your children with attention, love, comfort, food, stability, nurturing and a roof over their heads should be taken into account when science is called upon to step in and create a liter of children.

It’s one thing of nature does it, then, I’m sure we can all agree, one could understand getting pregnant and a few months in realizing you were pregnant with triplets or something. OK. You have to do the best you can. Enough said, but when you have 8 implanted by a doctor (or 6 that turn into 8)  and risk not just the children’s emotional and financial well being, but literally their health as well. This goes beyond morality into the realm of psychosis, mental illness and extreme selfishness. I pray that those little children do well and that all of her children have enough other influences in their lives to get what they need to be emotionally healthy adults.

I personally don’t think more than 2 embryos should ever be implanted into a woman. Twins are about as much as a woman can by natural standards handle. She has two breasts. We are not cats or dogs with 10 teets, there’s a reason for this. We aren’t meant to have litters of babies. It’s not healthy for any side of that equation.

Nadya Suleman, Readers/Writers & Fertility…

10 thoughts on “Nadya Suleman, Readers/Writers & Fertility…

  1. grace43 says:

    Happy Valentine’s Day, Denise!

    I couldn’t agree with you more. The whole thing reaks of a publicity stunt. How come she was so hurt in a riot, she needed all that money, but she felt well enough to have numerous babies and optional plastic surgery?

    I live in a state where workman’s comp claims often go unpaid by coal companies or are forgiven by sympathic politicians. These are people who are stuck with black ( or white caused by inhalling silicon) lung for the rest of their lives. I see people who are really sick or hurt from industrial accidents and they are not living it up having tons of babies and plastic surgeries. If she felt that good, then she wasn’t that hurt and she needs to be investigated for fraud.

    Apparently, her dr has done this again. He really needs to be investigated and perhaps have his license removed.

    I also kind of wonder why we can do all this for people, but not for animals that are going extinct because of people. If we are going to do the massive multiple birth thing, then why not do it for animals whose species really need the help?

    This woman is becoming a psychologist. Bah! Why should anyone go see someone to help them with their problems when she is so clearly sevrely mentall ill!

    One last comment and I’ll let someone else take over. Nayda, I am not impressed. Sows (female pigs) can give birth to seventeen babies at a time naturally. Top that!

    Thank god she doesn’t live in my state! Sorry, CA.

  2. Todd says:

    Happy V-day Denise. Amen and well said on this issue. I forwarded it to my wife who teaches handicapped kids, and our daughter who has been studying overpopulation in school. It echoes their opinions almost verbatim and I thought they’d appreciate it. I try not to get too wrapped around the axle about stuff like this, I remind myself that all other-selves are my teachers in some way or another, if in no other way than to make me more mindful of tending to my own shortcomings 🙂

  3. hopeandaplan says:

    Happy V day. Nadya Suleman. Is a very aggressive victim. She has completely rolled over her own mother by complaining that her need for children stems from the trauma she suffered as an only child. Interesting about the trauma she is inflicting on hers with the multiple births. She already had three who were recieiving government subsidies becuase they were “special.” And now her mother has been put in the place to care for these children because she didnt want to turn out a daughter who spent her down time getting lip implants to resemble Angelina Jolie, even Jolie called her, “creepy.” In Jolie’s defense she has the resources to help children and many would suffer unbelievable consequences. This is a subject dear to my heart since my husband and I are trying to adopt. When you learn how poor and overwhelmed orphanages are burdened across the world it breaks your heart. I think it is interesting that you bring up the Pluto in Leo generation because my motherinlaw, a woman snowshoeing in Vail this week’s response to our request to donate some of her frequent flier mileage was for us to open us more accounts. To say that this disgusts me is an understatement. She can dine and fly around the world with her wealthy boyfriend while we scrape together to help two children who will weigh 14lbs, typically at a year old. Who cry in a room with 15 other babies with noone to hold them. Who in Russia alone if they are not adopted will grow up to face a rate of 10% suicide, 70% of the boys ending up in prison and 60% of the unadopted girls in prostititution. For me Nadya isnt just about a Dr’s irresponsibility its about a culture with too many options to satisfy their own egos. She’s no different than the rest of the greedy B**tards who complain about affirmative action, because the most qualified should be hired then argue protectionism when someone from overseas who is more qualified shouldnt get an American job. Its not about qualifications its about themselves, their race, their kind having the best opportunties. Nadya Suleman left millions of dollars for the California taxpayers to pay for her brood and her delivery. People are frustrated and angry and cant put their fingers on why, and that’s why she’s had her life threatened. Who’s paying for her hiding? I hope protective services comes in and takes them all away. She reminds me of Michael Jackson, well children grow up and their no longer cute to these people. My heart goes out to these kids and every child who is neglected by selfish parents or selfish societies. Maybe she can move in with Sarah in Alaska. They look NPD up there.

  4. I was just thinking of asking you about your take on the Nadya Suleman situation, and then I visit your blog and I didn’t even have to ask! I agree with you about this woman having narcissistic personality disorder. Interestingly, I know many people who are only children, and while they may have been lonely, none are anywhere near as messed up as this. Guess I didn’t realize how traumatic it was (insert sarcasm here). Obviously something else must be contributing–faulty wiring in her head, past abuse, or both. I hadn’t thought of the call-girl thing but it makes perfect sense. I too hope that this makes us as a society consider that we all have a responsibility to conserve the planet’s resources. I mean, if one is mentally stable and wants a large family, consider having only one or two biological offspring and adopting others. But mental stability isn’t anywhere on the horizon with Nadya Suleman.

  5. Sherry says:

    I agree with you. This woman is not going to be a good mother. She really does need help herself. I would go further and say that this is one case where the state needs to step in and place these children with adoptive parents and as soon as possible so they have at least a chance to develope normally. I know I’ll hear from many who think it’s totally wrong for the state to take children away, but this is an unusual case. This is the ultimate disfunctional family and there is no way these children are going to have a normal life with this mother. It doesn’t matter how much money she gets. Even if she was a normal person she couldn’t give these children the love and attention they need.

  6. hopeandaplan says:

    Hi Denise and everyone. I wanted to apologize for my largely incoherent rant above. This is a very emotional subject for me and I guess I didnt realize how upset I was until I finished spewing. Thanks.

  7. 妊娠の初期症状にはどんな兆候があるでしょうか?妊娠の初期症状には身体にさまざまな変化(兆候)が起こります。もし妊娠かな?と兆候や初期症状を感じたら、ぜひこのホームページを参考にしてください。妊娠は新たな命が身体に宿る神秘的なことなのです。安全で安心な妊娠検査薬などもありますので妊娠の初期症状(兆候)はすぐに見分けることが可能です。妊娠,兆候,初期,症状,妊婦,出産,マタニティ,検査,薬,生理,出血,基礎,体温,子宮,後期,中絶,体重,セックス,腹痛,胎児,つわり,時期,双子,便秘,痛,性別,腰痛,風邪,食事,ダイエット,日記,ホルモンこのホームページを参考にしてください。妊娠は新たな命が身体に宿る神秘的なことなのです。安全で安心な妊娠検査薬などもありますので妊娠の初期症状(兆候)はすぐに見分けることが可能です。

  8. Sally in Dallas says:

    I made this comment in direct response to the article, but I want to share it here as well: I have the distinct “feeling” that this young woman is being used by a shadow group whose intention is to manipulate public debate about birth control, specifically, about who can have children and when and how many. I agree that the young woman was irresponsible in making this choice, but I have a premonition that she was chosen by a group for her vulnerabilities and perhaps her mental illness (who in their right mind would want eight children at one time?). The focus of this group is NOT right-to-life, but the exact opposite: this group wants to bring forth state-sponsored birth control (like China’s birth control program). This is a very dangerous road to travel. This group’s sole intent was to sponsor a case so horrific that people would actually start talking about limiting an individual’s right to bear children. And that’s exactly what I’m hearing. I’ve heard people say that — gasp! — since we have to have a license to drive, and soon we’ll have to have a license to bear arms, that we should have a license to bear children. This sounds completely crazy — but 100 years ago, no one needed a license to drive and certainly no one needed a license to own a gun. I’m not saying that this group will succeed in the next five-ten years — but this young woman’s actions have opened the door to the debate, and this group wants to limit birthing opportunities perhaps 75-100 years in the future. This is where you start. You sponsor a case that is so out there that there is no way to justify it and that gets people to talking about birth control (i.e., state-sponsored birth control).

    So, while I pity this young woman because she’s obviously mentally unstable (if not mentally ill), I also pit her because she is being used by this shadow group.

    Which group? Well, I think we start with the doctor. Who are his connections? Find out who is paying her medical bills. Follow the money, and you will find the shadow group.

    Does anyone else out there sense this?

  9. Nathaniel says:

    Sally, that is a very interesting point. I hadn’t read through this thread before so I’ll make a comment belatedly.

    I had not thought of this beyond one person doing something questionable to the possibility of political manipulation of the public at large.

    I tend to think of most conspiracy theories as myths that shouldn’t be readily trusted. However, there are a few that have turned out to be true so I cannot totally dismiss the possibility.

    I noticed talk about “overpopulation” and the need for population control mentioned here and there already. What I have not seen is serious questioning of people advocating population control.

    I say this because a number of people making predictions in relation to the problems related to “overpopulation” have been proven wrong with over time. People remember the term “Population Bomb” from the book that used it as a title. They don’t remember that the predicted mass starvation in the book never occurred when the predictions in the book said it would have by now.

    People talk about Global Warming (which I think is likely real and a problem that should be dealt with) and then mistakenly connect that with overpopulation rather than burning fossil fuels.

    Population control generally doesn’t solve problems, but that doesn’t stop it from being promoted.

    And if you doubt me on “overpopulation” not causing Global Warming then let me put this example forward. 2 groups of people, each the same size. One group operates things that burn fossil fuels, like coal power plants, and the other doesn’t.

    Question 1:
    Are both groups responsible for Global Warming?

    Question 2:
    If you get rid of the group without coal power plants you have cut the total population in half, however have you done anything that really reduces Global Warming?

    If you think I’m just making up examples that don’t apply to the real world think about this very real set of facts. China has the strongest population control policy in the world. The growth rate for China’s population has been slower year after year for these past couple of decades. That is the number of people added to China’s population gets smaller with each passing year. China’s CO2 emissions have generally gotten larger year after year for these past couple decades.

    So while China has been having less new people added to its population each year it has been putting out more new pollution each year. This means you have a real world situation of fewer people, more pollution.

    People should really think that over before they agree to ideas of population control to supposedly save the planet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s