Tuesday, March 3, 2009
With the case of "Octomom" Nadya Suleman, D. Parvaz makes it apparent in his editorial that her self-ignorance and irresponsibility is largely to blame. Bringing eight additional children into the world after a batch of six ushers in questions of responsibility and where it lies---especially considering her socio-economic status. The fact of the matter is, the larger society will ultimately be placed in responsibility of providing and taking care for these children. Suleman herself has no job, is in debt and lives off her mother (what little she does have.) Comparing Suleman's case to AppleBaum's piece on mothers in war, again there arrives issues of responsibility. AppleBaum makes a successful appeal to the rationale behind women in war--while freedoms and rights are applauded for women in war, the extent to which women who are planning to have children or are pregnant during their military career is questionable. I would even argue selfish and ignorant. The responsibility lies with the mother, not the state to take care of these children. If a woman is planning to enlist, then it would be a wise decision to perhaps not have a child at that time. When AppleBaum mentions instances of a child being left with no parents my heart aches for that child. It is these types of people who should not have children. Having a child is a lifetime commitment. To have a child and then ship both parents abroad is irresponsible, immoral and ignorant. This is not an issue of larger government. These are both issues (Suleman and war moms) of personal choice. The fact of the matter is, women do have a choice whether or not they want to enlist. That is great. More power to them. They should have that right, and be deemed equal under law. This is not under question. However, women are also free to choose whether or not they have children. Men are also involved in this decision. It is a collaborative affair with distinct choices.