Immanentize the Eschaton

Nadya Suleman, as everyone knows, recently gave birth to a set of octuplets.  She had undergone fertility treatment and had six embryos implanted, two of which “split”.  After she gave birth, we found out that:

• she is a single mom
• is unemployed
• lives with her parents
• is on welfare (she disputes this, though her explanation is along the lines of “it depends on what ‘is’ means”)
  
• has six other children
• who are cared for by her mother.

Suleman has come under harsh criticism for her decisions and for burdening the taxpayers of California.  Some have questioned if she is mentally unstable.  Many feel her actions is this are “disgusting”.

My question to Suleman’s critics is this:  what about Suleman’s “right to choose” and her “reproductive freedom”?  How do they come into play here?  It seems to me that a woman’s “right to choose” and “reproductive freedom” include the right to have as many children as she desires.  Her marital and employment status should have no bearing on this (or so we’ve been told).

As for the children being a burden on the taxpayers, I seem to recall that during the welfare reform debates in the mid 1990s the “welfare mother” with X number of kids by Y different fathers was a myth, and even if it wasn’t a myth these women need our help and if you don’t agree you’re a racist and misogynist.

So why is everyone bent out of shape about this?  Suleman is exercising her constitutional “right to choose” and “reproductive freedom”.  Leftist should be applauding her!

Unless, of course, a woman’s “right to choose” and “reproductive freedom”only refer to abortion.

Oh, that’s right…they do only refer to abortion.

Never mind, then.  Carry on.

(NOTE:  For the record, I think Suleman has made some incredibly irresponsible choices in her life.  I do no condone her decisions. )