On the surface, the case of Nadya Suleman is a perfect example of how and why hard cases make for tempting, but potentially disastrous foundations for policy. Through in vitro fertilization, she has given birth to fourteen children, and she is neither married nor economically capable of supporting those children on her own. She is to children what a cat hoarder is to felines.
It is hard to say that Suleman actually genuinely loves her children. Perhaps she is simply insane, but that is less likely than the possibility that she is just another self-absorbed woman who thinks that her womb is an untouchable sanctuary free from the regulations of society, the state and God. She says that she loves children and clearly she feels to have as many of them as she wants irrespective of their needs and consideration about them as human beings with an equal claim to rights (not to mention a rightful claim to her that makes her obligated to support them at all costs).
Despite the appearance of just being a hard case, this case is actually a clear warning shot about a long-term problem which is people using in vitro fertilization as an alternative to giving children a reasonably stable family life based on having both a mother and father in their lives (especially ones that are married). Plenty of women do this on a small scale. They spend their fertile years chasing a career, then resort to modern medicine to have the children that they now want, and like Suleman it never really occurs to them that the child they are creating is a being whose rights they must consider and whose needs they must place before their own. They want a child, but a child has a superior need for a stable, normal family life.
Aside from the basic needs of the children here, and the lack of respect for them, there is another issue here. In vitro fertlization, when abused, can result in a woman being able to have far more children than she could ever support and doesn't have the natural controls that natural pregnancy does that limits how many children these irresponsible women can give birth to at any one point. Theoretically, Suleman could go from having fourteen to forty children by the time she is forty if she repeats this process a few more times, and that should give sober libertarians and conservatives pause because there is an inherent sickness to a society which allows adults to collect and produce children in a manner similar to a cat hoarder. There is an implicit reduction of those children to the status of mere property which is philosophically offensive and unacceptable.
Suleman, and people like her, really do exist to serve as a warning to others, but more than that, they serve as a basis for society to start considering how, when, where and why limits are needed on certain freedoms. So while hard cases may not make for good policy themselves, they are better than normal cases for spurring debate about an issue.
It is hard to say that Suleman actually genuinely loves her children. Perhaps she is simply insane, but that is less likely than the possibility that she is just another self-absorbed woman who thinks that her womb is an untouchable sanctuary free from the regulations of society, the state and God. She says that she loves children and clearly she feels to have as many of them as she wants irrespective of their needs and consideration about them as human beings with an equal claim to rights (not to mention a rightful claim to her that makes her obligated to support them at all costs).
Despite the appearance of just being a hard case, this case is actually a clear warning shot about a long-term problem which is people using in vitro fertilization as an alternative to giving children a reasonably stable family life based on having both a mother and father in their lives (especially ones that are married). Plenty of women do this on a small scale. They spend their fertile years chasing a career, then resort to modern medicine to have the children that they now want, and like Suleman it never really occurs to them that the child they are creating is a being whose rights they must consider and whose needs they must place before their own. They want a child, but a child has a superior need for a stable, normal family life.
Aside from the basic needs of the children here, and the lack of respect for them, there is another issue here. In vitro fertlization, when abused, can result in a woman being able to have far more children than she could ever support and doesn't have the natural controls that natural pregnancy does that limits how many children these irresponsible women can give birth to at any one point. Theoretically, Suleman could go from having fourteen to forty children by the time she is forty if she repeats this process a few more times, and that should give sober libertarians and conservatives pause because there is an inherent sickness to a society which allows adults to collect and produce children in a manner similar to a cat hoarder. There is an implicit reduction of those children to the status of mere property which is philosophically offensive and unacceptable.
Suleman, and people like her, really do exist to serve as a warning to others, but more than that, they serve as a basis for society to start considering how, when, where and why limits are needed on certain freedoms. So while hard cases may not make for good policy themselves, they are better than normal cases for spurring debate about an issue.
"She says that she loves children and clearly she feels to have as many of them as she wants irrespective of their needs and consideration about them as human beings with an equal claim to rights (not to mention a rightful claim to her that makes her obligated to support them at all costs)."
Let's not forget that many of these children may be damaged permanently from their premature birth, premature as a direct result of Suleman's actions.
Moreover, she cranked out these children without any ability to support them or pay for their care in the hospital. She did so because she knew that the costs of her and her childrens' hospitalization would be socialized.
I'm at a loss for how to prevent future abuses of the public coffers and of innocent children without significantly more intrusive government. How does one enforce virtue, morality, and ethics in people have none?
"...to start considering how, when, where and why limits are needed on certain freedoms."
Perhaps a way to do this is by enforcing property rights...in that a person's freedom to act as they so choose stops when it infringes upon the rights of others. In this case, the rights of the fetuses-cum-babies that she bore early into this world, and the rights of the taxpayer whose monies will have to fund it.
I realize, like you, that we have an entire cultural edifice built around the notion that a woman's womb is a sacrament, where any betty may do as she wishes with it no matter who it impacts or how much cost it incurs on others. But abuses such as these of the sacred womb regularly infringes upon the property rights of others and therefore I think a property rights case may be well made to clamp down in this area.
I agree to a large extent with what you said. It's important for people to realize here that the child does have a meaningful claim to the woman's attention, wealth and support, and that society has a right to manage her womb if she is clearly intending to make herself a ward of the state. I think it would do wonders for individual liberty if the price for making yourself a ward of the state is that you lose most of your individual sovereignty and right of self-determination to the prerogative of the state bureaucrats who will be managing your use of public funds. That would certainly make people think twice about just falling back on the welfare state!
A slightly more irreverent summation of my position:
It's a womb, not a clown-car.
You are now officially a candidate for best quote of the year.