An economic recession probably is not the most practical period to start a family, even for those who are financially and emotionally capable of doing so.
Strangely enough, there are still those who are compelled to take on the overwhelming responsibility of having anything from one to eight babies at a time.
Most publicized of these cases is the story of the now infamous mother of the, as of late, 14 babies: Nadia Suleman. Already a mother of six, Suleman was living on welfare, attending college, and raising her family in her parents’ house when she made the dramatic decision to try in vitro fertilization, yet again. This time around, she landed herself with eight more infants (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7889517.stm).
The press is running amuck with the countless controversies the situation brings up.
Should the doctor have performed such a procedure, knowing about her six other children? Upon realizing she was to give birth to octuplets, should the financially unstable mother have terminated some of the embryos? Should the 14 children, who are unjustly being punished for their mother’s mistakes, be allowed to live in Suleman’s care?
The recent story of a British, 13-year-old boy’s predicament raised a slew of equally poignant questions.
Alfie Patten, who still possesses the baby-faced, short statured cuteness of preadolescence, recently became a dad. His 15-year-old girlfriend gave birth to a healthy baby girl, Masie (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7889517.stm).
Some are questioning the parenthood, and a DNA test is under way.
The story was first reported in a British tabloid, but reached national news headlines before long. The baby was supposedly conceived when Patten was a mere 12 years old; the young parents vow to do everything in their power to provide for their daughter as responsibly as possible, despite their own emotional and financial limitations.
Again, questions are raised. How was this relationship allowed to continue? Should the daughter live with such irresponsible, incapable parents? Should people pity or scorn the couple?
It is certainly quite a coincidence that two such phenomenal births took place consecutively. Remarkable births are publicized regularly; everything from septuplets to conjoined twins are recorded and documented as much as possible before they lose their newborn cuteness.
These two most recent anecdotes are especially remarkable, however, in that, between the two stories, a total of nine children were recently born to the most unprepared parents possible.
Ordinarily, the press would applaud these unusual situations, advocating their support for underprivileged parents. The couple, in all its sympathetic, sad-eyed glory, asks for donations, makes a website under its name, and is interviewed on every major news station.
For these two recent cases, however, the parents are receiving little, if any, sympathy from the public.
Indeed, both Suleman and Patten made their share of mistakes. Their children are being born under the most unfortunate of circumstances; Suleman’s and Patten’s destitution and irresponsibility, as well as the scrutiny they are under from the public, cannot be a positive experience for any child.
These children are suffering for their parents’ mistakes. In publicizing the births, the press is certainly feeding into the parents’ eagerness for fame and help.
The children are, however, not to blame. In all the pointing of fingers and news coverage, the actual products of the parents’ actions are being forgotten.
It is all too common that the most important aspects of a story, in this case, innocent children, get left behind in the more controversial, gossipy aspects of the situation.
In time, the public will move on from these stories; along with the unnecessary drama and accusations, the children who have been born into such unfortunate situations will also be forgotten. No longer will the parents’ stories be poignant and interesting; only their children will continue following their saga, having been left to live with these incapable families.