An addendum to a previous post.

America is in an uproar over the fact that Nadya Suleman gave birth to octuplets.  Conservatives and liberals are up in arms about how it happened.  It fits the liberal agenda to paint the whole thing as enviromental irresponsibilty.  But conservatives may find it a little harder to explain what is so wrong with these sixteen children.

Can we get mad that we, the taxpayers of America, are going to pay for them?  Yes.

Should we then declare, as one writer in the LA Daily News, “a woman’s right to reproduce should be limited to a number which the parents can pay for.”   Hmm….

Do we want to open the flood gates for state-sanctioned limits on the number of children per family?  Do we want to force sterilization on women? (that was a prevalent suggestion across the blogosphere, believe it or not.

Perhaps the problem stems from that fact that Nadya Suleman chose to bear children out-of-wedlock.  Perhaps the problem is that she chose to conceive apart from the marital act.

But when only the Catholic Church speaks out about the dangers of in vitro fertilization upon the family and society, no one else quite knows where to turn in the Nadya Suleman case.

It may seem easier to dismiss the immorality of things such in vitro fertilization.  How do you tell a married couple having trouble conceiving that they can’t do everything possible to give them the child they so desire?  But once a moral evil is ignored, society may find itself staring at other evils and unable then to verbalize what exactly is wrong with them.

Rip conception from the marital act, and you end up with problems.