sushshaf:

You made a number of comments that distort what I actually said. If you read the earlier comments, you will see that I specifically said GENETIC AUTOIMMUNE illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar manic depression that were of such a serious nature as to not only be passed on to children, but put any children under their care at significant risk.

There is no question that there are exceptions to the rule, but Einstein's parents did not have any genetic autoimmune illnesses, to my knowledge, so Einstein would not have been subject to my suggestion. Additionally, Einstein was diagnosed as such during his lifetime.

Beethoven's father may not have been an abovious drunkard at the time of Beethoven's conception. However, you prove my point in that Beethoven's life was a miserable existence thanks to his abusive father. But back then, women and children were viewed as property more than human beings, so abusing them was not really a problem for a male-dominated society.

The fact remains that irresponsible parenting can often be predicted and is usually predictable. It is a question of societal values -- do we really care about children? If so, we would not willingly and knowingly pass on genetic deformities, illnesses, etc., to them. Nor would we allow individuals who obviously could be a serious danger to a child bear children.

And, if we really care about children, we will make having them a privilege which must be earned. This will weed out the irresponsible parents like Nadya Suleman.

Blogs :: Laura Schneider's Blog by Laura Schneider
posted 1 day ago
1 comments raves Share This Blog
With SodaHeads By Email Feed Suleman Octuplets: A study in irresponsible parenting
We really need to take a look at how this society encourages irresopnsible parenting.

Nadya Suleman (b. 1975) (also known as Natalie Suleman; Nadya or Natalie Suleman-Gutierrez while married; and Nadya or Natalie Doud) was born in Fullerton, California. She was raised in La Puente, Hacienda Heights and Rowland Heights, all cities in Los Angeles County. She is the only child of Ed and Angela Suleman, who married in Las Vegas in 1974 and divorced in 1999. Nadya Suleman mentioned that she is a half Arabic, half Lithuanian Protestant.[1][2][3][4][5][6]...

Suleman graduated from Nogales High School in La Puente, California in 1993[8] and studied to be a psychiatric technician at Mt. San Antonio College. She held a mental health technician license and worked as a psychiatric technician at Metropolitan State Hospital[9] where her back was injured while at work.[10] She filed a worker’s compensation claim in 1999 against the hospital, later filing another claim in 2001 against the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.[9] She received more than $165,000 in disability payments.[11][12] She attended Cal State Fullerton and received a Bachelor of Science degree in child and adolescent development in 2006[13]. Suleman returned to Cal State to pursue a master’s degree in counseling, leaving the program in 2008.[13]

Suleman married Marcos Gutierrez, a produce manager, in 1996. The couple separated in 2000 and divorced in 2008.[14] Suleman moved back in with her parents started out on her effort to become a mother in 2001. Initially, she had three miscarriages. She told a psychiatrist that she suffered deep depression and had suicidal thoughts while starting a family. Suleman used an in vitro procedure, using a single sperm donor named David Solomon to father her first six children (as well as the octuplets) using the services of West Coast IVF Clinic run by Dr. Michael Kamrava.[15]In 2001, Suleman attempted to change her legal name to Nadya Solomon.[14][16] Several embryos had been implanted during each of her previous IVF procedures, resulting in four single births and one twin birth. As of 2009, her other six children are Elijah, age 7; Amerah, age 6; Joshua, age 5; Aidan, age 3; and 2-year-old twins Calyssa and Caleb. One of Suleman’s sons, Aidan, has autism. Suleman is receiving $490 a month in food stamps along with disability payments for three of her six previous children.[17][18] (Wiki)

It is not humanly possible to take care of 14 children under the age of 7 — including 8 infants (even healthy ones) all the same age — at the same time and give them the individual attention they deserve. If you have to have an army of nurses and daycare workers to parent for you, then you are not being a real parent, are you? Likewise, it is an avoiable and unnecessary health risk, both for the mother and the children, to implant 8 embryos at the same time.

In an interview on the Today Show today, it was revealed that two of her existing children receive $2400/month from SSI (Social Security disability for indigents) for four of her children ($600/month each), which also entitles them to Medicaid. I don’t know if the other three existing children were on Medicaid, but if she herself is disabled and unemployed, it would seem likely that they are also on Medicaid and that she is as well. She also admitted in an earlier interview that she was and planned to continue living off of federally insured student loans.

So, to recap: an indigent single mother on disability herself (supposedly she injured her back, so how is it that she cannot work but can carry 8 babies?) who has six children under the age of 7, four of whom are disabled and receiving government assistance in the form of SSI and Medicaid for her existing children, and all of whom are receiving food stamps, who has a history of mental instability (depression and suicidal thoughts – great criteria for motherhood), and is living and planning to live on government assistance through federally insured student loans, decides that she can have not just ONE more baby, but has implanted SIX embryos (I assume two of the embryos split and became twins….). And now, because the number of fetuses caused the babies to be so small and born so early, the taxpayers will be footing the ENORMOUS bill for their healthcare, which is estimated to reach over $1M before they leave the hospital as infants, not to mention whatever disabilities they may have because of being born too early, etc.

But she maintains she is not on “welfare.” She is, however, very much on public assistance, since SSI is basically a welfare program for the disabled who are indigent. And she is on food stamps, which she does not believe is welfare because she doesn’t get a check every month. And she is on Medicaid, which is also not welfare in her eyes because she does not get a check every month. But all these benefits are forms of public assistance.

Suleman should be forced to undergo a full hysterectomy and prevented from future adoption of any more children. I personally would like to see all her children removed from the home until she undergoes a mental health examination to determine if she is mentally ill and incompetent to raise these children. My initial response is that she should have all her children taken from her and put up for adoption, especially the last 8, but let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and allow an independent professional to review her case. If we were talking about cats or dogs instead of children, the SPCA would have labelled her a “hoarder.” She appears to be obsessed with bearing children and possessing human property called children, not being a real parent. She needs psychiatric care, as do her crazy parents for supporting this obsession.

And the doctor didn’t think that it would be unethical to do this operation? The doctor should have his license to practice jerked.

And, finally, I’m not against the CHILDREN, I’m against the irresponsibility of the parent and the doctor. These children will experience a lifetime of AVOIDABLE and UNNECESSARY deformities and chronic impairments, including possibly mental retardation, because, by necessity, they were born early and there were too many fetuses. Many of them may never experience a full life with a normal education, job, independent living, a spouse and a family of their own because of their mother’s selfishness and irresponsibility. To me this is a crime against humanity. Had there only been two fetuses, they might have been born perfectly healthy. Even three. But any responsible doctor would tell you that implanting 8 fetuses at a time was an unnecessary and avoidable risk for the mother and the children.

And now the children are the ones who suffer a lifetime for their mother’s selfishness and irresponsibility and a doctor’s greed and unethical professional behavior.

Further proof that requiring parents to obtain a license before conception is a good, responsible way of preventing irresponsible idiots from producing offspring. In order to get the license, there should be a committed couple (two parents of either gender) with a civil union or marriage license, means testing (including the future ability to maintain the current standard of living or increase it), academic testing (for literacy and competency), and mental health screening (including testing for genetic/chemical deficiency illnesses like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, etc.).

Mentally retarded and mentally ill individuals should not be allowed to breed. Nor should anyone under the age of 21. Nor should anyone who does not have the ability to provide financial support for at least 25 years at the time of conception (which is the length of commitment based on the usual age for a young person graduating from a master’s degree, which is now required if you are to maintain a standard of living anywhere near what your middle class parents had).

And, most certainly, anyone currently on ANY FORM OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE — welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, SSI (which is social security disability for indigents), federally insured student loans or grants or ANY OTHER government provided or insured program — should not be allowed to make more if they can’t take care of the ones they already have — BY THEMSELVES.

Any parent who becomes pregnant or impregnates his partner while on welfare or while behind on child support payments should be required to undergo mandatory sterilization. If you can’t take care of the ones who have, you have not earned the PRIVILEGE to make more.

People with genetic illnesses or who carry genetic illnesses in their genes should not be allowed to breed. And, yes, I believe is a form of NEGATIVE EUGENICS based on preventing genetic illnesses and deformities. If they are not ill and the doctor projects they can physically perform their duties as a parent and a provider, then they can adopt.

And, as for genetic engineering, we already engage in that by legally preventing closely related family members from breeding — we call it incest. If you know you have a genetic deformity or serious (meaning chronic or fatal) genetic illness, is it really responsible to pass that same burden on to generation upon generation of children? Why not become a parent by adoption? If parenting is what is important, not procreating, then HOW you become a parent should not matter. Procreating is an event. Parenting is a lifestyle choice.

I’m not talking about instituting a breeding program to produce a “perfect” human being (POSITIVE EUGENICS), I’m talking about common sense rules that would prevent genetic illnesses from continuing from generation to generation that could easily be avoided. We already do this with RH factor and by preventing close relatives from marrying, and therefore inbreeding. Are we really so egotistical that we believe we must pass our genes on, even if they are seriously flawed, causing untold harm and anguish to our children? Becoming a parent has nothing to do with procreating. You can become a parent through adoption.

Notice that I agree that anyone can experience temporary setbacks or illnesses. I was NOT saying that parents should lose their children if they become disabled or ill. I was saying that parents should not be allowed TO BRING CHILDREN INTO THE WORLD KNOWING they are unable to properly care for them — that is the distinction with a difference here.

After two children, ALL individuals should be required to undergo mandatory sterilization. The choice of two children replaces the two parents. This world is overpopulated already. If a couple wants more children and can afford them and pass the criteria for legal adoption, let them adopt.

Notice I did not say that parents were restricted to parent only two children, just procreate two. If they want more, there are millions of children of virtually any age group, sex, racial background, disability, etc., that desperately need homes that can be adopted.

It is time that our society take responsibility for its children and the conditions under which they are brought into this world and continue to live in this world. It is not merely enough to guarantee their survival, we must be able to reasonably ensure that they thrive.

It is a moral imperative to examine how our society, through whatever legislation and enforcement means necessary, can support and encourage better parenting and prevent irresponsible parenting, which is, after all, a form of child abuse that is also causing the taxpayers to assume a terrific financial burden that is avoidable — not only in public assistance, but in the resulting crime, conviction and imprisonment of many kids born into poverty and neglect.

Having a child is not a right, it is a privilege. It is a sacred gift from God that requires parents to fulfill that sacred trust. And there is a huge difference between being able to give birth to a child and being a parent. Our society must relearn this lesson.
Post a Comment | Read all 1 comments

Nonickname, you said:

"I can't say I agree with some of the radical things you state in this blog; such as, manditory sterilization. They did that before in mental hospitals which included people with Downs Syndrome, when some of them are capable enough to hold down jobs, marry and have children. I know one down syndrome couple in my community who are doing very well in raising their child and living independently while I have seen parents with no such challenges being abusive and neglectful of their children.

There are many woman who conceive while married and then are divorced which really puts them in a bind to provide for their children and I don't mind if they have to lean on the welfare system and on student loans to raise their financial status and work themselves off of such help."

Let me correct this:

I only proposed that people with GENETIC AUTOCHEMICAL mental illness that can be passed on to children or whose symptoms, if not properly treated with medication consistently, could endanger the child, not be allowed to procreate. This includes psychotics, schizophrenics, persons with bipolar disorder, etc., not people with regular depression, OCD, anxiety, etc.

"Down syndrome is a chromosomal abnormality characterized by the presence of an extra copy of genetic material on the 21st chromosome, either in whole (trisomy 21) or part (such as due to translocations).... [Overall] The incidence of Down syndrome is estimated at 1 per 800 to 1,000 births, although these statistics are heavily influenced by the age of the mother.... In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated the rate as one per 733 live births in the United States (5429 new cases per year).... In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated the rate as one per 733 live births in the United States (5429 new cases per year).[13] Approximately 95% of these are trisomy 21. Down syndrome occurs in all ethnic groups and among all economic classes.... There has been no evidence that it is due to parental behavior (other than age) or environmental factors.... Genetic counseling along with genetic testing, such as amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling (CVS), or percutaneous umbilical cord blood sampling (PUBS) are usually offered to families who may have an increased chance of having a child with Down syndrome, or where normal prenatal exams indicate possible problems. Genetic screens are often performed on pregnant women older than 30 or 35.
" (Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It is possible for persons who do not have Downs Syndrome to produce Downs Syndrome babies.

If a Downs Syndrome couple wants children, they can adopt. Why take the chance of passing a genetic deformity on to your child? Is that love?

Parents who apply for a license and are granted that license because they meet the requirements AT THE TIME OF CONCEPTION would not be punished if their circumstances changed, whether by the loss of a job, disability, divorce, etc. But parents who KNOW at the time of conception that they don't have a job or plan to divorce should not be allowed to proceed with having a child. This applies to Suleman. Also, women WHO ARE ALREADY DEPENDENT ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND should not be allowed to conceive a child WHILE ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. In fairness to the taxpayers supporting her and her existing children, this requirement would seem reasonable to me.

My point was that being a parent is not conceiving or delivering or siring a child. It is about RAISING a child in a healthy environment where that child can reasonbly expect to be loved, nurtured, sheltered, fed, clothed, educated and properly disciplined and socialized. I don't think placing reasonable requirements to provide evidence of a parent's responsible behavior and ability to provide these basics is asking too much.

The problem with what you are stating is that I feel it sounds a little too much like what Hitler would like to have accomplished. Who is going to decide what is reasonable? Just because someone is required to take medicine over their lifetime doesn't mean they are not responsible parents and valuable members of society and if their children have the same medical problem then I'm sure they would not mind taking a pill or two a day to live out their lives. What about the "normal," genetically healthy, financially secure parents who neglect, beat or verbally abuse their children everyday? No one can really say who will be a good parent or who will not and no one can guarantee that their child will be 100% healthy at birth. Instead of automatically taking away someone's right to procreate and have a child I think we should start doing more to improve education and improve conditions in the most poverty stricken areas. I have 2 sisters and a brother-in-law who are all teachers and I hear about problems with education on a daily basis. I have actually followed my youngest through a school day and have seen how teens behave (or don't) in a middle class high school in an area of town that is upscale and where the people are well educated (school behaviors aren't what they were when I went to school - let me tell you.) All the teachers I know say they wish they would get rid of CATS testing because too many teachers are teaching just what will be on those kinds of tests. They also beg for smaller class sizes.
I myself and an aunt have done work in some of the poorest communities and have seen the problems facing so many of our young. There are many children being raised around drugs, violence and terrible poverty and it's amazing that they even attend school but that doesn't mean they won't grow up to be valuable citizens and it doesn't mean their parents are giving them love, nurturing and discipline. One thing I always notice is that in the poorest neighborhoods you have a liquor store on nearly every corner which I feel only contributes to the problems facing those communities. Maybe the city government should limit the number of liquor licenses allotted in a given area, especially liquor stores. How can we expect the impoverished who lose hope of improving his/her life and the lives of their loved ones, not to turn to drugs. When I say drugs I mean: tobacco, alcohol, prescribed drugs and illicit drugs. Why don't we think these young people who lose hope won't turn to drugs when some of the richest and most talented of us are killing ourselves with prescription and illegal drugs (i.e. Heath Ledger, River Phoenix, John Belushi, Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, etc, etc.) or ruining the life they have been given by socially unacceptable behavior (i.e. Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton, Bobby Brown, Shia LaBeouf, Tim Allen, etc., etc., etc.) Who is going to decide what is a healthy environment?
There are so many things that could be done to improve the lives of children but with the problems facing us today they are being forgotten and the greedy and powerful are fanatically grabbing for government handout in order to pay exorbitant salaries and bonuses while doing nothing to improve the lives of people in general. Maybe the men on Wall Street who have driven their companies into the ground or men like Madoff shouldn't be allowed to procreate either. LOL.
I just don't think we can take away someone's right to have a child based on genetics, income or the fact that they are on welfare. Genetically there are always exceptions. A good income doesn't guarantee someone will be a good parent. Someone on welfare today may not be on welfare tomorrow. The welfare system made some great changes during Clinton's presidency. They limit the time you can receive food stamps and aid to five years in the lifetime of the recipient. Welfare recipients are now required to go to school or work or do both at the same time, so to take away their ability to have a child is a permanent solution for a temporary problem.
Let me also say this. I was married when I conceived my children and never dreamed I'd be divorced one day and all of my children were surprises. I conceived one while I was on the pill, the second and third with another form of birth control. The only 100% sure method of preventing pregnancy is abstinence and to ask people not to have sex in this country today would be impossible to monitor and prevent. Just ask the strict parents of a pregnant teen. It happens every day. There are many problems facing us today but because I am hopeful for people I will never condone mandatory sterilization for law abiding citizens, although I think castration is perfectly fine for child rapists. I would not condone sterilization for the reasons you've stated any more than I would condone torture. On the issue of manditory sterilization I can happily agree to disagree. My best friend of 35 years feels the same as you do about people on welfare being sterilized and we are at polar ends on politics too but I love her dearly and am proud to say she is my friend. You have a great day. Peace.

First, I never said that anyone who is sick should not procreate, I said that anyone who has a genetic illness or deformity that would likely pass it on to their children should not procreate. And I only suggested that mentally ill parents with chemical imbalances, such as bilpolar disorder, schizophrenia and some forms of psychosis, which required daily medications consistently taken in order for the parent to be sane and competent and safe, should not procreate. The financial standard that I would suggest would be based on the parent's reasonable probability to provide income ABOVE THE POVERTY LEVEL for the life of the child through age 21-25. Ensuring that parents would not deliberately conceive a child while on public assistance is a responsible thing to do.

No one can predict the future, and there is no suggestion that a parent who becomes ill or loses their job should have their children taken away. Nor is there any suggestion of guaranteeing the "quality" of parenting a child will receive beyond the parent's reasonable ability to provide food, shelter, clothing, education and medical care without public assistance.

Hitler's attempt at POSITIVE EUGENICS was a form of ethnic cleansing, which is not anything like what is proposed here. NEGATIVE EUGENCIS is designed to prevent AVOIDABLE harm to children prior to conception.

And there is no articulated right of procreation in the Constitution, although many state courts and the U.S.S.C. have decided there is AT THIS TIME. However, because of the avoidable, irresponsible nature of our society and how we treat children as property rather than human beings with rights, it seems reasonable to me that we should rethink our view of parenting.

(a) Procreating is not a right, it is a privilege that must be earned, just like a driver's license, a hunting license, a medical license, etc.

(b) Children's rights should take precedence over parents' rights.

(c) The right to PARENT and the right to PROCREATE are not the same. And, likewise, one can be a parent without procreating a child through adtopion.

(d) We have an obligation to this Earth (and to God, if you so believe) to be good stewards of this planet. This Earth is already overpopulated. We already have fights between countries and even in our own country between states for clean water. This will only get worse as our population grows. We are destroying rain forests to replace them with farm land. This is quickly limiting our Earth's ability to convert CO2 to oxygen in out atmosphere, causing the buildup of CO2, which increases global warming. We already are unable to provide enough food and medicine to care for our existing human beings.

(e) Unrestricted procreation is one of the greatest factors in trying to address poverty.

(f) A child has the right to be born with at least a chance of survival and the hope of a decent life, and this is far less possible if it is born into poverty, inherits a genetic illness or deformity, etc.

When do we intend to start taking our responsibility to our planet and to our children seriously?