There’s an infamous saying in regards to pro-choice: Keep Your Laws Off My Body.
And I agree with it. When the laws start to govern what we can or cannot do to our own bodies, it opens up a whole mess of abuse potential. I do not like the idea of abortion. But I dislike even more the concept of a woman not having the choice. It is her body. The paternal parent of that wee cellular mass can walk away and no one ever know he had responsibility. But for nine months, everyone knows who the maternal parent is. Her body goes through physical and emotional changes. All because she made a mistake, was raped, or was coerced into sexual intercourse that resulted in a pregnancy. To say she has no right to terminate that pregnancy is just wrong. Meanwhile, the male is still going about his business.
And now we are looking at purposeful pregnancies that result in a costly and physically dangerous event: impregnating an unemployed mother of six living at home with her parents. And not just impregnating her with the typical one to three embryos, but with six. Now there are 8 more children for her to feed and care for. 8 more children who will most likely have a disability or two. Three of her other children have disabilities and receive state disability income. She told an interviewer that she was going to return to college. I can’t see that happening. Eight infants and at least one other toddler? The oldest of her kids is 7. That’s what, kindergarten age? Maybe first grade? So that’s maybe one kid out of the house each week day. What of the other 13?
So where does the law fit in this? Who is at fault here? The idiotic woman? The idiotic physician? Should there be laws that govern in vitro fertilization?
In vitro fertilization is when they take eggs from a woman and sperm from a male and do various hi-tech stuff with them. The result are cellular masses (ie embryos) with the potential to be human. These masses are then implanted into the woman’s uterus where, hopefully, they “take” and she is officially pregnant. The accepted rule is that a woman in implanted with anywhere from one to three embryos to increase the chance one or more will work out. These embryos are so small, so early in development, that the division that creates identical twins has not happened yet.
So what happened with the woman in California? Why was she implanted with six embryos at once? Two of those embryos split, resulting in two sets of identical twins. There were so many babies in there, that the hospital’s doctors didn’t realize there were 8 but instead thought there were 7. The smallest is just over a pound and the largest is just over 3 lbs. Altogether, they weigh just 15lb 1oz. I just cannot fathom a single infant that small, but 8 of them? Who is going to pay for their extensive stay in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (at an average cost of $164,273 each)? Who is going to pay for the 46 or so staff that were there just for the delivery? Who is going to pay for the follow up care? Keep in mind, this is a single woman who lives at home with her parents and already had 6 children, all 7 yrs or younger.
I really don’t blame anyone for wanting children. It will be my number one regret in life that I couldn’t have kids and was unable to adopt. And I don’t want any laws or rules that dictate how many kids a woman can have. It’s her body.
But in this case, we are talking about removing Mother Nature from the picture. This woman became pregnant by artificial means. Purposeful things happened. This isn’t fertility drugs made six eggs drop at the same time into the uterus where they then met oh-so-happy sperm. She already had 6 kids. Did I mention she was unemployed and lived with her parents? But she had six embryos left over from her other pregnancies and decided, along with the physician (and I use that term sarcastically), to have them all implanted at once. Those where her embryos to do with as she chose, yes. I don’t deny her that right. She paid for them, might as well use ’em, right?
The problem here is money. It always comes down to money. And who is going to pay for the result of her lack of common sense? The state can’t say “Sorry, you’re an idiot and we aren’t going to support you” because then they’ve opened the door to say that to anyone. What about the moron that raced down the highway on his motorcycle and crashed? He was an idiot, too, right? Depends on the viewer. Some would say it was an accident, some would say it is his right to drive his motorcycle. What about the guy who gets so drunk his brain fries, making him not much more than a stalk of broccoli? Definite idiot, but should the state say he is such an idiot they aren’t going to help pay for his diapers? The money to pay for this care comes from the taxpayers of that state and from the gov’t deductions from our paychecks. The idea is that if my taxes help pay for the care of
the idiots and non-idiots other citizens of my state who have health emergencies, then the same option would be available to me and my family, should we need it.
Should there be laws to govern idiocy and/or lack of common sense? Debatable. Should there be laws to govern the implantation of embryos? Definitely.
Should there be laws to govern the implantation of embryos into an unemployed, living with her parents, and already have 6 kids woman? There should be but I hope there never are. Keep the laws off my body and out of my bedroom. Put it instead in the doctors’ offices and fertility clinics. Put it where it began, where someone put a chunk o’ change down for a service. Regulate that service. I just paid to have My Truck fixed. Laws say they must make it work again and work safely. Rules, both assumed and instituted, say that this part must work with that part. There are no laws that say because I drive a Chevy, I am not allowed to be protected from poor repair work. If I can pay for it, I must be provided with the repair as covered by rules and laws. Why is there more common sense at work with the repair of My Truck than there was in that doctor’s office in California?