News in brief: Fourteen Children Under Eight

I’m sure many of you read or heard about the woman in California who recently gave birth to octuplets.   It turns out she already had six children under the age of 8.   So now she has 14 children, all under the age of 8.   It does sort of catch your attention.  But what to think about it or, in my case, say about it?

After some thought, this is what strikes me.  In all the furor over this (and it really has attracted a lot of attention) I find myself struggling not to be (too) judgmental.   Whatever we may think about other people’s choices to have or not have children, I think we do generally recognize they are just that–other people’s choices.   There may be criticism to level at the doctor(s) who apparently (if the LA Times is right about this) implanted eight embryos.   But this was the mother’s choice.

Of course, this “choice” is only an option if you can afford it.   IVF (if that is what it was) or even less sophisticated fertility treatment is quite expensive.   So one can choose to use all the wonderful reproductive technology we have developed freely if, of course, you have the money (or perhaps a very fine insurance policy.)   

Beyond that, it’s interesting to listen to/read the coverage and notice all the commentators shy away from saying of the mother “she shouldn’t be allowed to do this.”  I think what is behind that is a (laudable) sense of a woman’s autonomy over her own reproductive functions, at least as far as choosing to have (rather than not have) children.  It’s rarely acceptable, if ever, to tell a person “you shouldn’t have so many children.”  (But again, I think of issues of class and money–the government is often quite eager to tell poor women not to have more children.)

Given this apparent recognition of some level of privacy and/or autonomy around child-bearing, why is that any number of people are willing to say “she shouldn’t be allowed to do this” when it comes to adoption?   What I mean is that adoption is regulated–only qualified individuals can adopt.  Who gets pregnant is not regulated.  The temptation is to say “but having a baby is natural, adoption is not” and distinguish them that way.   But was this recent birth of octuplets really all that natural?

I don’t mean to suggest that we should regulate who gets to use ART as we regulate who gets to adopt.   And I don’t mean to suggest that we shouldn’t regulate who can adopt.   Though I’m opposed to the anti-lesbian/anti-gay/anti-single people adoption restrictions, I think checking out who becomes an adoptive parent is not a bad idea.   For the moment, perhaps all I want to do is observe that once again, ART blurs lines between adoption and the”natural” path to parenthood.   It therefore leads us to more questions.

2 responses to “News in brief: Fourteen Children Under Eight

  1. “14 children, all under the age of 8” Wow. Not sure what to think of that.

  2. Actually, they didn’t ‘implant’ 8 embryos. First of all, however many embryos they used, they were ‘transferred’ into her uterus but not actually implanted into her uterine lining. The fact that all the embryos in the end DID implant themselves was up to them, not ART.

    Next, they didn’t use 8 either way. The woman used IVF with donor sperm and ended up with X number of embryos. Over the course of 8 years, she had used them to have the kids she already has. At the end, she evidently felt that there were few enough to transfer all the remaining frozen (for 7 or 8 years) embryos in one shot.

    Due to the large difference in weight with the babies, it would seem some twin to twin transfusion syndrome was probably happening which means at least some of them were identical which means ONE transferred embryo split. At least one. The grandmother said they transferred far less than 8. I don’t buy that more than 4 spontaneously split, however identical splitting IS more likely in IVF depending on the circumstances. So, I’d say it is easy to say the transfer was around 4-6 embryos. Still pretty crazy, in my mind, but I’ve heard of 4 being transferred with frozen embryos when the odds aren’t as great – 6 is kinda nuts.

    I find it interesting that she did it because she believed that all those frozen embryos were people and wanted them all to have a chance at life. It’s kinda exactly what pro-life sentiments would have her do. (Although the ‘all at once’ bit – probably not so much.)

    Either way, I’m holding back on giving a solid opinion of the story. I’m only commenting to discuss facts.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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