Planned Parenthood Run Amok

A woman delivers octuplets. The world is amazed. The scientists, however, begin to criticize. It's not safe for mother or children to carry so many children. Must have been a fertility drug working too well. In Vitro Fertilization would prevent such issues. Then, the news comes that the children were the results of In Vitro Fertilization! And, the mother already had six children, has no husband, has no job, and her parents, whom she relies on for support, have declared bankruptcy. What a mess. But, with all due respect to those who would lay responsibility for this on a Pro-life attitude, clearly, what we have here is planned parenthood run amok.

One does not become pregnant via In Vitro Fertilization without planning. By all accounts, the woman planned thirteen of fourteen of the children, having only planned to have seven in the last batch, with one seemingly lost in the crowd. Most Pro-Life advocates, even those who are against artificial contraception, are not big advocates of single parenthood, especially not planned single parenthood. Most pro-life advocates are believers in the traditional family, consisting of a husband and a wife, and children. While pro-lifers would not want government telling them how large a family they can have, they would also not advise a single woman with no husband and no real means of support to have fourteen children.

There are several different issues raised here: 1) How is it that doctors implanted eight embryos into a woman? 2) How is it that doctors implanted embryos into a woman who already had six children? 3) How is it that doctors implanted embryos into a woman who already had six children and no means of support? 4) Should there be laws against 1-3? Well, my answer would be that doctors should not create and implant eight embryos into any woman, no matter her situation. Implanted more embryos than a woman can be expected to safely carry to term is clearly on questionable ethical ground. Expecting a woman to "selectively abort" excess fetuses is clearly morally offensive. How would one choose? Eenie Meanie Miney Moe? As for the other issues, it's not the doctor's business, nor anyone else's, how many other children a woman may have nor how she plans to support them. We are on dangerous ground when doctors or the government take a stand on who may procreate or how often.

But, some say, if she has no means of support, the taxpayers will have to support the children. Well, to argue that the taxpayers should not support these children, is to argue that taxpayers should not support any children. If it is not a good deal for the taxpayer to support children, they should petition their representatives to pass laws precluding their tax dollars from supporting children. What they should not do, is have their representatives pass laws precluding some people, or other people, having any number of children that they desire. It is hard for most normal people to imagine having fourteen children, so a law would have no effect on them, and how exactly would one enforce a less than fourteen children policy? Would you force abortions?

The ironic thing is, if a woman quietly went to an abortion clinic and aborted fourteen fetuses, including eight fetuses in one go, there would be no headlines, no outrage, no questions about how she could do such a thing. Or, at minimum, it would be a whole different crowd that might be offended, if they ever heard about it. And, the woman would have far more defenders. When Planned Parenthood talks of family planning, they are talking about planning a small family. But what if a woman has bigger plans?