what exactly do we mean by choice?

So...the media decided to call Nadya Suleman, the woman who had octuplets as a result of IVF, Octomom, which makes her sound less like a mother of mulitple births, and more like a cartoon super-villan. The porteyals in the media have largely been negative, especially talking about how already had six children, and that at least two of her six previous children are disabled. It's also been widely discussed that she is unemployed, on disability, and recieved government aid to help with the six children she already had, and will likely need much more government aid to help support the eight children she had through IVF. For starters, I think we need to leave the woman alone. The kids are already born, and wheather one agrees with her decision or not, if only for the sake of the kids we should let them be and wish them the best.

Now having said that, there is a LOT to talk about in responose to these kids and this situation. For starters, how many is too many? (My parents were very intentional in only having two children, one to replace each of them) I don't think anyone is SERIOUSLY considering limiting the number of kids a family can have (and it looks like China may be reconsidering their one child rule), but there is a question about what is an "optimal" number of children to have. The NYT recently had an article about larger families feeling judged by others. Now, I don't anticipate having a large family (I've spent a lot of time vacilating between wanting kids and not wanting kids, but I think now I would like to have children if the opportunity arose), but I do have friends who have larger families, some intentionally and some not. The question of family size is a personal one, but I think it's valuable to talk about what it means, especially in the west where we use a disproportionate ammount of the worlds resources per person.
In a world with dwindling resources and concerns about climate change, and in a country where millions of kids spend their entire lives in foster care, maybe it's time to talk about family size and intention. This can get a bit sticky because for some folks, things like birth control (forget abortion) are considered tempering with God's plan. There is also a movement known as the Quiverfull, that encourages families to have large families as part of God's plan. I think the world can use a supply of loved, well cared for, good people, but I also think it's important to think about our planet, and what it means to be a good steward of it (to use the christian term that is often used in talking about conservation).

Another interesting question has to do with IVF itself and the ethics behind it. My understanding of the procedure is that the procedure includes fertilzing an egg (either donor or your own) and sperm, and then implanting them. And becasue the doctor is working with people who by and large have fertility issues, there are often more eggs attempted to be fertalized than they hope to implant. What to do with the fertilized eggs beyond those are implanted is an issue that currently does not seem to have a satisfactory solution. This appears to be what happened in the Suleman case. The doctor fertilized six eggs, and Ms. Suleman saw them as her children, and how do you ask a woman to dispose of her children? I wonder if some of this is in part a difference between how a doctor views these little bits of tissue in a test tube, vs how someone who is aching to have a child sees them. I mean, who's in charge here? Who owns the embryos and who has the right to decide what happens to them when push comes to shove? Yes, there are guidelines about how many are implanted (which I believe caps out at around three), but how do you enforce it? And what if the mother insists? And I wonder what the statistics are on who actually does selective reduction (which means aborting some of the fetuses in order to increase survival of the remaining fetus(es)). Putting myself in the potential mother's shoes, it would be heartbreaking to try to decide about whether or not to selectively reduce, even if it meant better survival odds for the remaining fetus.

And let's not forget that there are some issues of class (and potentially race) in play. I mean, people think that Kate of Jon and Kate plus 8 is annoying, but that's nothing compared to what Ms. Suleman is facing. And what about the Duggar family, who have a show on Discovery Health about raising their EIGHTEEN children. It seems that a lot of the anger stems from the fact that there is no husband, and that there is no visable means of independant support. I wonder if the backlash would have been so bad had we been in an economic upswing, vs the current downturn. Would it be different if she had a husband? Would it be different if she was a woman of privalege (I know the tabloids flip-flop between anointing Angelina Jolie for adopting so many kids, and think she's wackadoodle for having so many kids, but this seems worse, and not only because of the increasing magnatude)? Does it matter that these kids will likely be supported by taxpayers dollars, and is this just a new way to express rage at "welfare mothers"? On the flip side, why is this one woman recieving so much ire in the media compared to Bernie Madoff? Not that he is getting off scott free, but this woman is recieving DEATH THREATS for goodness sake. And is the fact that she is a woman of color an issue?

So, there are lots of factors and issues to think about. It seems like we (being the general populace) are angry about SOMETHING, and that we agree by and large that this situation is not good for the kids or the mom. But the fact that there is so much interest, and so much venom, suggests that it's hit something in our collective psyche. Or, as I like to say at work...it's all information. When I ask a pretty straightforward question, and someone gets very animated about it, to me that means there is likely something more there. Example, I ask you if you're feeling suicidal, how do you respond? Well, you might wonder whyI'm asking, but if you're not feeling suicidal you would probably say, "no". So, if I ask, and you start yelling at me for asking you that question, that is interesting to me because something about the question seems to have hit something important to you. So in this case, what is it about this woman that has hit a collective nerve? I really think that a lot of it has to do with timing and economics. We're all stressed to some degree about the economy, and somebody should just pay Tim Geithner to not say anything, because every time he talks the market drops 300 points. And we're angry about our country seeming to be in a downward spiral. We'd love to yell at the banks, but I think we're too confused by what happened, and too in awe of the Masters of the Universe, dethroned or not. And while we'd love to be angry at people who are foreclosing on our homes, I think a lot of us are realizing that it wouldn't take too much for "those people" to become us. But none of us are planning on having eight children, so it's easy to focus our anger on her, and how she is "squandering valuable government resources". It's the "welfare queen" of a new generation (which makes me wonder if we are underestimating the importance of race, or if we've just moved on and vilfy poor single mothers with more equality now).

I think the most interesting thing to me about all of this is how identity politics can get all flummoxed in a situation like this. Feminism is often distilled into being about "choice". Reproductive choice, the choice to marry or not, and who to marry, choice in careers, choice to stay home and raise a family and have that work be valued. But does that mean that every choice is a good choice, and should every choice be defended as legitmate? I'm a feminist, and I believe that every woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body, but does that mean I need to defend Ms. Suleman's choice to have 8 children by IVF? Read the comments on the feminist blogs around this topic and it's pretty clear that this is not a black and white issue. There are some in the movement that seem to feel that we are "under attack", and that every choice needs to be defended against criticism from a largely patriarchal society. And I get where they're coming from. It's hard being a woman. There are so many difficult and conflicting messages about who you should and shouldn't be, that ANY act that defies the expectation of society is impressive in it's way. But I feel like, while we are still fighting that battle to stake our claim on our own destinies, it's time, as a movement to look beyond that. It's not just good enough to talk about the patriarchy and how we can defy it (although we shouldn't completely abandon that discussion). It's time for us to talk about what to DO with these choices we have now, how to empower ourselves and other women, and what these choices mean for us. OK, so right now we have the right to choose to abort. Is it OK for us to talk about it now beyond "Keep abortion safe and legal"? Can we move on to making it rare? Is it OK for me to suggest that while abortions are not something to be ashamed of, it is a more invasive medical procedure than preventing pregnancy, and we should try to prevent them for the sake of our sister's health? (Is there such a thing as a pro-life feminist?) And sex. We're moving away from the idea that women don't really like sex, and beginning to accept the idea of women as sexual agents. So, how do we move in this new space in a way that is empowering to women? Because it seems like this sexual empowerment we've been looking for gets coopted by the media to meet male fantasies in ways that make me pissed off (like selling thongs to pre-teens. Seriously? This is empowerment?) So, do we close ranks around Ms. Suleman because she is a single woman who's choices are under attack? Can we do that and still as a movement talk about the implications of her choice? Do we get to judge her choice as good or bad?

Can we even help but judge?