Ugh, I can't think of anything to say today at all. I haven't been sleeping enough (and not for fun reasons, just dumb ones), and today is one of the low points of tired+cranky. I'm also out of coffee, and tea just isn't the same. Especially without soy milk, which I'm also out of.
But anyway, I just wanted to direct everybody to the excellent blog post at starinapapercup. I haven't followed the octuplet scandal (if you want to call it that) at all, but this definitely made me blink a lot and think hard.
One of the things that I liked was that she admits that she doesn't really agree that people should have giant families, but she's still willing to write a defense of somebody who did. I am a big supporter of reproductive rights, and to me that means I have to support the choices that I don't particularly favor (large families in an overpopulated country during a time of economic crisis) as well as the ones (like abortion) that are so constantly under fire and in danger from people who are nowhere near as accepting. As much as I disagree with the decision to have a large family, I want to respect the rights of other people to make that decision for themselves. When I was in college I was surprised to find the feminists I was hanging out with (briefly, oh so briefly) referring to the "anti-choice" movement. Pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-life, anti-life (presumably)... Those names seem so limiting. I'm sure plenty of pro-choice people have lambasted Suleman. Are we selectively deciding which choices we support? Is that a valid thing to do if the choices they make are harmful to the rest of us in the long run? If lots of people decided to have eight children, that's not particularly good for the environment, overpopulation, etc. Where do we draw the line on personal choice?