Since this does touch somehow on men's issues, I thought I should reference it here.http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/6fa9292340ad7d64#
-------- QUOTED POST
We discussed this in one thread before, but I'd like to
present my own thoughts on the matter. We pretty much
agree that the mother is the exemplar of irresponsibility
But what about the father, the sperm donor? What's his
excuse? He surely knew what was going on, did he not?
Funny that he can't be pursued for support, even though
he could no doubt pay something. Men that get women
pregnant the natural way can be held liable - even when
it's clearly unfair - where men that get women pregnant
through artificial means can't be. That strengthens my
belief that child support payments are another way to
punish men for having sex. I say this man is _more_
irresponsible than he that has promiscuous unprotected
sex and won't support any resulting children, as he at
least should have known that he was creating a public
liability while the promiscuous man just wants to get
And of course the medical system is hugely irresponsible
for allowing this to happen. Given her life situation
_and_ her psychological state, she should not have been
allowed IVF even once. Yes, I know some have argued that
she should be treated no differently than someone having
14 children naturally, but I differ. There are good
reasons we do not attempt to control natural breeding, as
it takes us places we shouldn't go; there ate equally good
reasons we should control artificial means of fertility.
I believe in the last thread that Society argued that
artificial means should simply be outlawed entirely ,
and think I would have to agree - it would save us from
a lot of problematic issues .
Now I argued the last time that her children should be
taken from her. A reason for this that I haven't mentioned
is to make an example of her, as I fear other women will,
as she did, think that it's OK to try for an irresponsible
number of children in a short time and that one might get
lots of money from this. She can't care for all the kids
herself  anyway, so taking them away doesn't seem that
far out of line, when you add that to all the other reasons.
 To me, 'artificial means' includes fertility-enhancing
drugs even without any other intervention, even though the
Church says this is technically permissible. Another good
justification for this is that such drugs allow the
possibility of high multiple births, like what she had.
 Including debates over eugenics, which I do not think
can be resolved satisfactorily.
 One might ask whether this applies to any woman
employing a nanny. While we can't bar such women from
having children naturally, I think there _is_ a good
cases for barring adoption to any family that will. It
would stop certain celebrities from collecting children
as if they were status symbols, at least.
I can't find the older thread I talk about in that post.