Before I say anything else, let me first say that I absolutely love children. I think having a baby is one of the most wonderful things that could ever happen to a person. I look forward to the day when I can shower attention on my own kids. With that said, let me get to the point of this column – the birth of the McCaughey septuplets in Iowa is a sad, selfish event that should be condemned instead of applauded. (This is the point in the column where a few people will stop reading, forget what I said in the first paragraph, and write a letter to the editor calling me a baby-hater).First of all, multiple births are very risky, especially for the unborn babies. The odds are very high that some of the babies will either be stillborn, or born with mental or physical disabilities. What type of selfish parents would purposely take that risk? Second, in order for babies to develop healthy bodies and minds, they need hours of play, touch and talk. It doesn’t take a genius to know that in the McCaughey household, these things will be harder to find than a virgin at OSU. Ask any parent, it’s a full-time job just giving the proper attention to one baby; let alone seven at the same age. The Brady Bunch were only six, and look how screwed up they were. People have called the births “a miracle,” and “a blessed event.” Mr. McCaughey even went so far as to say “God gave us those kids. He wants us to raise them” I’m sorry Mr. McCaughey, God (if there is such a thing) did not give you those children. Advanced technology and science gave you those kids. If you’re as religious as you clam, than why didn’t you keep your faith in God and accept the hand he dealt you? This birth is a dangerous precedent to set in today’s society, where people will do anything to grab their moment of fame, spinning it off into an appearance on Dateline or the Today Show. It’s like winning the lottery. Except, of course, having sex is a lot more fun than scratching off a couple of squares or picking some lucky numbers. Have seven or eight kids and you’re guaranteed publicity, money, and free stuff. Where are the activists and politicians who are quick to suggest that single mothers on welfare be fixed so they will stop having children they cannot support? If you ask me, it’s worse having seven kids at once on the salary of a car dealership billing clerk.Where are the people who criticize working mothers who leave their children in daycare or with nannies? These kids still probably get more attention than the McCaughey kids will. The only clear winners in this whole situation seem to be the numerous companies who are using this event as a public relations opportunity. Gerber is donating baby food, Procter & Gamble is donating a lifetime supply of diapers, Chevrolet is donating a van, and the strangest donation of all – the local cable company is donating seven years of free cable. It’s bad enough that each of the septuplets, and their two-year old sister, will only get a fraction of their parent’s attention. Now they can be plopped down in front of cable TV, free of charge, while their parents tend to one of their seven siblings. Believe me, I wouldn’t want to be infertile. I cross my fingers that when the time comes, at least one of my boys will have enough sense to fertilize an egg. Of course, given the chance, any infertile couple would jump at the chance to use fertility drugs. But before we start passing them out like prozac in grade school, we should first develop fertility drugs that make it easier to control the number of babies born.
Anthony Castillo’s column appears on Wednesdays.
