Mr. Preheatedoven

In response to this opinion piece in the LA Times today, my DH wrote the following reply to the author and the editor. I thought since we never hear his perspective you guys might be interested.

Mr. Rutten:

With all due respect, your premise that it is a narcissistic "notion that, somehow, if your particular strands of DNA don’t live on into another generation, the species will be poorer for it," is ridiculous. Isn't the notion of passing along one's DNA the fundamental drive of life? Just because one woman has made irresponsible and selfish decisions when it comes to her own infertility, does not mean that others who have to deal with such issues are making decisions that are irresponsible and selfish. Yes, adoption is an option. But isn't it an option for everyone? Why single out those who are infertile? Even fertile people can adopt. Aren't they selfish for not adopting?

The very basic human desire to reproduce is, I suppose, technically self-serving. But it is a selfishness that is necessary for the continuation of the human species. It is a selfishness that nearly everyone has. But it is most certainly not an irresponsible narcissism that only infertile people should be held accountable for. Having one's own child is perhaps the most fundamental human desire.

Yes, this Nadya Suleman has made terrible, irresponsible decisions. But those people in the world who struggle for years and years and would be happy with just one child of their own are not irresponsible for following one of the most fundamental and basic human desires.