Thursday, February 26, 2009


I need to clarify my point with the previous Bias post...I'm afraid it sounds as if I'm defending the correctness of this woman's choice to recklessly bring life into the world. My irritation is where the media chooses to pounce, and under what circumstances.

The main illustration I was attempting, but obviously failed to make, was that being reckless with life is being reckless with life. On both sides of the spectrum. I view Nadya Suleman with as much baffled dismay as the next mother. My frustration lies in the fact that the media doesn't cover the elimination of human life with the same sort of contempt and passion as the creation of it. Genocidal war leaders are treated with more courtesy in interviews and discussions than this girl. Terrorists probably receive fewer death threats.

If Nadya Suleman had aborted each of these lives, this wouldn't have even merited a conversation. And yet the biggest supposed concern is the health and well being of these babies. Right now, their chances of what we deem to be a relatively normal and thriving upbringing may be slim to none. But what would their chances have been had she aborted them? None. She is publicly castrated (pardon the pun) for taking the risk.

There are millions of people, all across the globe, who are unfit parents. Children living in dire circumstances. If we think we have the right to say or choose who stays and who should have been "selectively reduced" based off of this sort of information, back in WWII we might as well invited Hitler to tea and crumpets.

Nadya Suleman, a crazed baby fanatic coupled with an unethical doctor was a bad mix. Kind of how a woman and a man on the wrong night, without the right sort of protection, end up in a little predicament down the road. However, once the deed is done, its done...and my point simply was that if she had aborted them she would have been hailed a heroine (if even mentioned at all).

I welcome more thoughts though! It really gets me thinking!




Sarah Hansen said...

Hmm well in most cases I agree with the Liberal bias in the media, although in this case I think it has to do with the circumstances that this woman is bringing a children into the world... rather than attacking her for choosing life. I am not too familiar with this lady but sounds to me like it's a legitimate concern.

Daron and Jamee said...

Good points Rae.

I never thought about what they might have done if she aborted all of them, and your right,they probably would congratulate her for it. Yuck.


Joan said...

I love you, Rae. You speak your mind fearlessly and with refreshing courage. Keep writing.
As for Miss Suleman. I couldn't agree more with your frustrations.
"What?! GASP! She didn't abort her babies like all the rest of us who get pregnant on a whim and don't think twice about it b/c we can just go and get the obnoxious little 'fetus' scraped out of our uterus?! She's such a sick freak?!"
Yes, she is unstable and has some serious issues...but I highly doubt that her children are going to be pissed at her for not aborting them?! I mean, c'mon. Life is tough even if you're born under stellar circumstances.
Again, she should not have gotten pregnant after her original six children...but like you said--she did and what's done is done. So let's look for the good in the situation and move forward.