WhatFinger


Nadya Suleman and her octuplets

What To Do About Nayda



The sick case of Nadya Suleman and her octuplets is a symptom of where our society is going. Look for more multiple births by self-centered women intent only on welfare largess and shock publicity. The creation of life as a voucher for social welfare benefits is simply sin. We all sense that. But, because life itself is sacred, we often hesitate before condemning maternity, even this macabre maternity.

Support Canada Free Press


Large families have been normal throughout most of human history, but the explosion of unwed poor mothers is a new and deadly social disease. Children are always innocent in birth, but the procreation of children may often be a sin. Nadya Suleman, in choosing to have many fatherless children – children that she can never support – commits sin. We have lost the power to say “sin” and so we have lost the nerve to suggest that sin be punished. What should the State of California do about Nadya and other women contemplating doing what she has done? Amend the laws related to children. Build into those statutes a series of increasing strong evidentiary presumptions which focus not on the innocent children but rather the guilty mother. If a mother meets all of these evidentiary presumptions, then it is “three strikes, you’re out.” At the outset, we must realize that having children out of wedlock with the father at home although the parents may not marry, is not a grave social problem. Mothers who had children in wedlock and who divorce, although such broken families often create social problems, are not acting recklessly. The focus of our attention must be on those mothers who randomly have sex to beget children that they cannot support. The laws should be changed to create an initial evidentiary presumption that a child born out of wedlock is a child born into an unfit home. There is abundant social research which says that children born to unwed mothers are much more likely to fail in school, to end up in prison, to develop a host of physical and emotional problems. This presumption should be a very soft presumption, easy to rebut by the mother if she has otherwise acted responsibly. The next step in the ladder of evidentiary presumptions should be an incremental presumption that a woman who has a child out of wedlock who cannot support the child is also presumed unfit. This should be a bit harder for the mother to rebut: she has assumed that we will support her children and that we will support her for becoming pregnant. If the mother has had children that she cannot support on multiple occasions, then the evidentiary presumption of unfitness should be stronger. This is no longer a “girl in trouble,” for whom we all should have compassion (even while we condemn the conduct.) This is a girl creating trouble. If the mother does not know who fathered her children, the presumption of unfitness should be stronger still. A sexually promiscuous woman who cannot support her children and cannot even name the men who fathered her children is behaving with an utter indifference to anyone but herself. What if the mother, beyond all this, uses fertility medicine to produce multiple births in the same pregnancy? Three strikes, you’re out! In the case of Nadya Suleman, officers of the court should meet her as she leaves the hospital and take the children away while they are babies and put them in suitable foster homes. The innocent babies need a fair shot at life, and they will not have that with Nadya. This “mother” is behaving as if her children are simply human cattle. She does not deserve them, and they deserve much better. Is it just to wait until they fail in school? Until they become drug addicts? Until they wind up in prison? No. The babies are innocent. Nadya is guilty. Society has not failed Nadya: she has failed society. After taking these babies from their unfit mother, the State of California should bring an action against the mother for child support. If she can identify the father, then both of them should have to pay child support. If she has been impregnated by artificial means or if she cannot even name the father, then she alone should bear the burden of paying child support. That would mean Nadya would have to get a job (or go to jail) and have most of her wages go to care for the children who she so shamelessly and carelessly brought into the world (for us to support.) Nadya could escape the child support liability by terminating her parental rights and giving the children up for adoption (there are many loving couples who would raise these babies well.) Fathers of unwed children are hunted down and forced to pay child support. They are not offered custody of their children in lieu of paying child support. Why should Nadya be treated any different? If anything, she is more culpable than these rogue males. The argument is that men who father children knew what they were doing and that they must pay. Yes, but even more mothers like Nadya Suleman know what they are doing. Until they pay for their moral crimes, our society will continue to unravel. Sometimes it is hard to prove paternity of a child. It is never hard to prove maternity. Make wanton and callous maternity cost, instead of being rewarded, and many of our worst social problems will go away.


View Comments

Bruce Walker -- Bio and Archives

Bruce Walker has been a published author in print and in electronic media since 1990. His first book, Sinisterism:// Secular Religion of the Lie, has been revised and re-released.  The Swastika against the Cross:  The Nazi War on Christianity, has recently been published, and his most recent book, Poor Lenin’s Almanac: Perverse Leftist Proverbs for Modern Life can be viewed here:  outskirtspress.com.


Sponsored