Octuplets: Reproductive freedom taken to its logical conclusion?

Revelations about the mother who recently gave birth to octuplets have occasioned a great deal of public consternation. There was a natural and laudable concern for the welfare of the eight babies who were, of course, underweight and premature when delivered.
Concern became more acute as more was learned about the circumstances surrounding this multiple birth. The babies were conceived through in vitro fertilization which came as little surprise since such births are usually the inadvertent byproducts of modern technologies.
It was soon learned that the mother had six other children, one of whom has autism. She is not married and, although she has been divorced, none of her children were conceived with her ex-husband. Indeed, none were conceived the old-fashioned way. The maternal grandmother of the octuplets told the Associated Press that her daughter had difficulty conceiving in the usual manner due to “plugged up” fallopian tubes. The grandmother also said her daughter had a great love for children and had wanted to have many since her teen years.
Perhaps what we are seeing in this troubling case is the end result of the philosophy of “reproductive freedom” and “a woman’s right to choose” that has guided American public policy since the 1970s. After all, if we have the right to avoid pregnancy through contraception and even to abort pregnancies in progress, we must have the right to try to GET pregnant when we so choose. I can recall seeing a photograph of a protester holding up a sign reading, “Legalize abortion” and underneath that demand, “No forced sterilizations.”
The mom of six children and now fourteen was exercising her freedom to choose as she went in for one in vitro fertilization after another. Single motherhood has lost its social stigma throughout much of modern America and unmarried women have long enjoyed access to modern technologies when choosing to become mothers. Many people are now criticizing medical personnel for servicing this newsworthy mom. They defend themselves on the grounds that they informed her of the risks and let her choose what to do with her own body.
This woman may have made a morally praiseworthy choice when doctors suggested she abort some of her embryos and later fetuses in order to give those that remained better chances of being born alive and healthy and she insisted on carrying all of them to term.
However, when I read about this motherhood-obsessed woman’s reproductive history, I couldn’t help but think of choices from an opposite extreme: women who get pregnant with the intention of aborting.
Does that happen? U.S. News & World Report once had a round-up of women telling their stories of abortions. One woman had had eleven terminations. She claimed that she had been so nicely treated by clinic staff after her first abortion that she had deliberately gotten pregnant so she could return and receive their tender care. If this sounds beyond belief, there are people with Münchausen Syndrome who deliberately make themselves sick for the attention and those with Münchausen Syndrome By Proxy who will make someone else sick for the same reason.
My late friend, “Steroid Guru” Dan Duchaine, once told me that female athletes at an elite level deliberately get pregnant and then abort because the hormonal change in the body chemistry of early pregnancy could help them athletically. In The Myth of Male Power, Warren Farrell writes of reports that female soldiers during the Gulf War deliberately got pregnant so they could be transferred and then aborted after receiving said transfers. He does not quote anything that proves that such pregnancies took place.
However, a woman who chose to get pregnant with the intention of aborting would be doing nothing illegal in the United States (and many other countries). In America, she would be exercising what the Supreme Court has determined is a constitutional right. Similarly, an unmarried mother of six who seeks in vitro fertilization is exercising her freedom to choose to reproduce.
Freedom of speech doesn’t include the freedom to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater just for one’s own amusement. Freedom of religion doesn’t include the right to commit human sacrifice even if the sacrificer believes it is a religious duty. Reproductive freedom can lead to similar perversities if unchecked. Hopefully, the case of the single mom and the super-sized family will lead to a searching discussion about reasonable limits to reproductive freedom.