This is the most ridiculous article I have read thus far.
Whoever wrote this, is bitter....

Every action that humans take, is God's willing...He ables us to think and make decisions on our own...whether it be right or wrong, it's because of God, that we can choose our actions...

Think about that...

So no matter what we do, that's all God's will? In that case, he's got a lot to answer for. And it must be God's will that I tell you that you lack the intellect to grasp the difference between taking responsibility for one's actions, and saying "it's all up to God". The two are mutually exclusive.

And the irony that you won't even accept responsibility for your comments renders them little more than a joke. If I'm bitter, it's because God keeps forcing me to deal with "arguments" like this that show the philosophical depth of a cookie tray.

Anyway, an update on the Van Houtens' situation: Amy delivered all six of them, alive. Interestingly, they were born on three different days, which was possible because each of them had their own placenta, which (as I understand it) is typical of fraternal "twins" (which happens when the mother releases multiple eggs, in this case due to hormone therapies). The couple are now appealing to the community for help, such as diaper donations and the like. Ben's mom and Amy's mom are both being called in to be mothers again, which I'm sure they'll do as much out of love as obligation. So apparently it isn't God's responsibility to deal with this, and it isn't Amy and Ben's. When God gives individuals such as them the freedom to do whatever they want, we're all expected to take responsibility for their choices.

Wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to just say that we're each responsible for our own choices and leave it at that? Or do we have to go for this mixture of buck-passing (as the Van Houtens put it) or blank-check-writing (as the Anonymous Coward's argument puts it)?

I think you need to see a docter. Im glad I dont know anyone who thinks like you. You are a very sad person who hopefully doesnt have any children to pass your beliefs on to. You talk about God's will, but everything happens for a reason. There is a reason thats God gave those six beautiful babies life. If God wanted them to remain childless, she would not have gotten pregnant despite the fertility treatment. Alot of women still don't get pregnant after years and years of fertily treatments.

God gave us free will we choose to believe or not,
those who believe are blessed and Ben and Amy are blessed with six beautiful children. The only thing to do now is to wish them all the best and hope that they raise their children to believe in spite of all the non believers that come along.
I personally wish them alot of joy,happiness and most of all alot of love if you have that in your family who cares what anyone else thinks or says.

I'd like to ask a favor: Could visitors please take the time to read and think about what I wrote, before responding with these simplistic Sunday School lessons?

I'm not the one questioning the existence of free will here. It's the VanHoutens. At least when it suits them. They exercised their God-given free will to use medical technology to produce a batch of six children at once. Their choice. But then they deny responsibility for that choice, when faced with the question of whether that's too many. That's hypocrisy, and childish platitudes about how God has blessed them (which are easy to say when you're not actually trying to care for them) might distract you from that fact, but it won't change it.

I do wish the VanHouten children the best. But between heredity and the rather shaky start they've all received due to Mom and Dad's decision to have all six of them at once (two of them are in critical condition, last I heard), I'm not expecting any analytical geniuses to come out of this litter. Heck, they'll probably end up spelling even worse than "katee" here.

I would just like to say that it was Gods will that she carry those babies. If it wasnt she would have lost one or more of them. Have you ever met a child with a physical or mental disability? They are some of the best people. you can learn so much from them. you need to get a life. If one of her children dies or has a disability, i am sure that the vanhoutens still would not have any regrets about their decision to carry all six babies. who are you to say that they are "too screwed up"? Why should they have had to choose which babies to keep? God gave us the capability to create such medical technology, why should she not be able to use it? And being infertile can be caused by so many differant factors, as simple as a certain kind of medication- should those people not seek treatment, so they can have children too. If you had children you know how precious life really is, and why so many people seek treatment.

"If it wasnt she would have lost one or more of them."

That still remains to be seen.

"Why should they have had to choose which babies to keep?"

Because they chose to have them in the first place. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to debate free will or anything else here. I just want to point out the inconsistency between the theology they're reciting to the media, and their actions. They're trying to say that it's all up to God, when they =didn't= leave it all up to God. If they'd simply said "we've decided to have all six babies," I'd respect that. It's passing the buck and denying that they made that choice that I find intellectually dishonest. That may not be a sin, but it certainly doesn't reflect well on either their thoughtfulness or their character. I don't see why you're so quick to excuse it.

"God gave us the capability to create such medical technology, why should she not be able to use it?"

And speaking of inconsistency, would you make this same comment in support of the medical technology which would have permitted Amy VanHouten to choose to instead have only, say, three children?

And what if the fertility treatments had (for example) caused Amy VanHouten to develop cancer? Or a heart defect? Would they smile and shrug and say, "It's up to God," or would they have made some tough choices about treatment and used whatever medical technology was available to save her life?

did your mother make a mistake when she decided to keep you instead of having an abortion, like perhaps should have. they chose to have them in the first place because they wanted to have children. should people abort their babies just becasue tere is a risk of some type of disability? if the fertility treatments caused her to develop cancer or some other problem, that is probably a risk they would have been willing to take, as many people would.and what is wrong with seeknig medical treatments for a problem? if she had chose to use medical technology to have an abortion, all though i dont support it myself, that would be their decision to make. if the technology is there and they have the money to use it then thats up to them. if they can handle raising six babies, more power to them. there is nothing wrong with a little help from the community to make sure these kids have everything they need. alot of multiple births get donations from companies and people.

Katee wrote "if the technology is there, and they have the MONEY to use it then that's up to them"

Hmm. . .let's see here - neonatal intensive care for 24-25 weeker preemies at a cost of $4,000 per day. .times 6 is $24,000. The babies are expected to stay in the hospital for 3 months if all goes well. 90 days times $24,000 per day is . . let me get my caluculator. .is $2,160,000. And that is if there are no major complications. Prematurity is the number one cause of newborn disabiliy, and these babies, should they ALL survive, are at a 60 - 80% risk of developing problems that will cause brain damage, resulting in one or more severe disabilities, including cerebral palsy, mental retardation, learning disabilities, autism, seizures and blindness to name a few. I don't think God in his infinite wisdom thinks this is a miracle or wonderful. I would say from experience that these parents have a life-long sentence of caregiving, and the good people of Michigan will be digging deep in their pockets to supply life-long medical and educational services. Multi millions - perhaps billions for this life-long care. Finding cribs, toys and clothes? What about wheelchairs, braces, feeding tubes and special education? THAT's what these parents are facing. Yes, this was/is irresponsible medicine.

Katee, on one hand you say you don't support abortion, but on the other you snarl that my mother should have had one. I guess this explains why you don't have a problem with the VanHouten's hypocrisy; you have a log in your own eye. But those are your values, and I supposed you're welcome to them, so I won't suggest that maybe you try reading the Bible and finding Jesus. Nonetheless, if you make any more I-wish-you-were-dead comments, I'll delete them.

If you are going to preach the bible (in the comments) then why not remember the story of Adam and Eve??? I believe in God, but I also believe in free will! It is a FALLEN WORLD in which we live! Wouldn't that indicated that we have FREEDOM OF CHOICE! I am a mother of multiples that were born to infertility! "I" made the choice to concieve that way! "I" made the choice to save or not save the babies! And "I" live with the consequences! GOD gives me strength to endure my life, but technology kept my children alive! If you are going to tie it all together, then consider that God gave gifts to allow the person the mind to create the technology. These children will not come out without complications! These children will endure a lot during their lives! Dare not forget the amount of money this technology produces for these hospitals either! If children are miracles, then ALL CHILDREN ARE MIRACLES! WE have to be responsible for OUR choices! As someone else said, if it is all based on God, then He would have a lot to answer for! Why not just consider God a puppet master! My word! What would be the point of free will at all???

Chela said: "The total amount of "work" put into the fight for the nolan, gerritt ,kennedy et al babies by the hosp staff et al cannot be shrugged off."

The total amount of work being put into these babies to survive marginally? What about the family, the community, the state of Michigan and the federal government who will work and PAY life-long in maintaining these babies in special education, rehospitalization, therapies, and . . perhaps institutionalization. Yeah, I have NO problem shrugging off neonatal staff who do not have to deal with the life-long care of these children and adults, and who stand to make mega-millions off these babies' births. And further for them basking in the lime-light of this medical nightmare. Shame on them.

first, i never said "i-wish-you-were-dead" i dont wish that type of stuff about anyone. second, why does everyone keep assuming that these babies WILL have life long problems? these kids could grow up perfectly normal. i dont see anyone complaining about taxes going to other special needs children, and adults. any pregnant woman could give birth to a premature baby or a baby with special needs. just because there are six of them does not automatically guarantee that they will have severe medical problems.

You said that my mother should have aborted me. That means you wish I weren't alive. Take responsibility for your own comments. Better yet: don't make them in the first place. (I'm asking nicely here; don't make me block your messages or delete them.)

But to answer your (rather naive) questions:

The reason so many people expect these children to have health problems is because that's what usually happens when half a dozen fetuses are crammed into a single uterus and have to be delivered very prematurely at very low birth weights to prevent the poor woman from splitting open. The fact that there are six of them =does= guarantee medical problems. LIKE THEY ALREADY HAVE. Healthy babies aren't kept in the hospital like this; they just go home after a day or two.

The reason you don't usually hear people complaining about taxes being spent to aid other special-needs children is that the parents of those children usually didn't choose to have children with those special needs. The VanHoutens did. That's the point here, Einstein. They went out of their way to make Amy overly-fertile, and (how many times do I have to say this?) then failed to take responsibility for doing so.

I don't know how to make this point any simpler. If you still don't grasp what I'm getting at, maybe you should ask your Mommy or Daddy to explain it to you.

Katee - Prematurity is the number one cause of infant disability. It's "neonatal induced" disabilities. Even the Friday papers in Michigan quoted the neonatologists as saying some of these infants will have disabilities! If an infant needs massive life support (which every single one of these sextuplets do), they are at risk of brain bleeding, and all sorts of things can happen - collapsed lungs, even steroid use to develop the lungs can lead to brain damage. Brain damage can cause at the very least learning disabilities, and at the worst, cerebral palsy (that's braces and wheelchairs), mental retardation, seizures, feeding disorders (where a G-tube needs to be inserted directly to the stomach) blindness, etc etc. Take a look at the McCaughey septuplets - 2 have CP, (one of those is also mentally retarded and has a g-tube)and another a seizure disorder, and since they are kindergarten age now, the verdict is still out on the host of learning disabilities that may be lurking just around the corner for them. The McCaughey babies were 6 weeks further along when delivered, so their outcomes should have been wonderful. Preemie reality isn't the miracle baby stories that hospitals are trying to push off on people - remember, the hospitals are getting paid big bucks for keeping these babies going, and truly don't care what their lives are like afterward, as they aren't the ones who have to "deal" with it.

scott, u need to go get a life. any baby can be born with mental and physical disabilities. the doctors dont know how many will have disabilities. they tell people all the time what an outcome will be, and they are wrong alot. they told one woman that her baby would die before it was born and it wouldnt be able to hear or see if it did live. she gave birth to a seeing and hearing baby girl. the baby bled to death due to having anecephaly. they told her to abort the baby. if she had aborted the baby, she would not have had that wonderful time to spend with her baby girl. she doesnt regret her decision, so why would the vanhoutens regret theirs? no matter what the outcome is, i am sure they would still make the same decision.

Toni. . There is no such thing as "anecephaly". . .there IS however a condition called "ANENCEPHALY" which according to the Taber's medical dictionary is a "congenital absence (did you read absence?) of brain and cranial vault, with the cerebral hemispheres completely missing or reduced to small masses. A condition that is incompatible with life." There needs to be brain tissue present to process hearing and seeing stimuli. Considering that your example infant probably had anencephaly and not your anecephaly, the infant did not possess brain tissue that could have enabled the process of seeing and hearing to be interpreted. In very simplistic terms, it's analagous to having a computer that is plugged into an outlet, but there are little to no internal workings to process what you are typing in to it.

I too know of a couple whose infant was diagnosed inutero with anencephaly. They chose to abort, and although it was a very difficult decision, they believed it to be the best decision under the circumstances for them. They have no regrets. It is easy to diagnose anencephaly inutero, as the baby usually has a face, but little to no skull. The physicians were not wrong in their diagnosis if in fact your example infant had anencephaly.

Comparing an anencephalic infant to a preemie is ridiculous. The preemie infant, unlike the anencephalic infant is able to process PAIN. And these Van Houten babies are going through hell right now in the NICU simply to survive and a 60-80% chance of on-going horrendous health issues. Knowing that these infants were going to be born so very prematurely, my feeling is, is that the Van Houten's and especially the fertility docs are highly negligent in allowing this pregnancy to continue with 6 infants that are now all at risk of never living independently. That's about as selfish an act as one can possibly inflict on someone else. WE want you to live so badly, that WE don't care what YOU have to endure to do so. . .and we also don't care what the costs to society is, because WE want babies!

hello! have you ever read the tiny angels web site? or looked up anencephely? the woman took off the babies hat and saw her babies brain. she saw the ridges on the brain. her baby could see and hear. why dont you look up the girls page before you jump down my throat saying i dont know what i am talking about. i read her page. i know what i am talking about. and excuse any misspellings. i have a mild case of cp. i can walk with help. i can do mostly anything anyone else can, with help. if my mother had chose to abort me 15 years ago, i wouldnt be around. i am a human being as every one of you are. should my mom not have had me? she used fertility treatments too. i and my twin were the only two of six that took. was she wrong in her desicion? my sister died when we were 8 because she drowned in a pool, but she was very healthy, u never know what the outcome will be. they told my mom that my sister and i would both be severly retarded and not able to walk or talk, ever. so ha.

Hmm. . your story sounds VERY fishy.

Many people with CP have normal and even above normal intelligence, it's doubtful that a doctor would have told your mother that you'd both be severely retarded. . .how could he know that?

Well, not all doctors are as well-informed as they (or we) seem to think, so it's certainly possible that he had mistaken expectations about Toni's prospects. My friend Tommy has CP and his parents were told to expect a lot less from him than he's accomplished (which has been a lot more than many "normal" people do).

I just found this website and I can't believe the criticism that Ben and Amy are receiving. To clear up any misconceptions, the doctors said that the babies have a 60-80% survival rate without any problems; not that there was that % of =having= health issues. I have personally seen the babies and they look great! They look better and are doing much better than some of the other babies in the neonatal unit. 5 of the 6 are off from the ventilator. They are all taking in breastmilk through a tube. It is still too early for them to suck from bottle. Health issues can happen to any child. My own child was born on her due date, but when she reached 9 months of age, she developed all kinds of medical issues and was classified as 'failure to thrive'. No one knows why, but now at 7 years old, she is doing wonderfully. She had the lung problems, CF, feeding tubes, therapy, etc. I believe Ben and Amy will be handle their blessings, medical issues or not. Their faith is strong. One more clarification, Ben and Amy =never= asked for 'hand-outs'. The ONLY thing that they ever asked for was our prayers. The media has emphasized the materialistic needs, all the while Ben and Amy have said the opposite.

"Health issues can happen to any child."

Right, and any child can get hit by a car. That doesn't mean we should look the other way and not criticize when someone decides to shove theirs into traffic.

"Their faith is strong."

I'm sure that matters a lot to those of you who believe in magic, but to those of us living in this world, it's not very reassuring.

"Ben and Amy =never= asked for 'hand-outs'." Spare me the beatification campaign. As you surely know (and so did they) they didn't have to ask. They didn't even have to wonder very much. They knew how their family and friends and their extended community would respond, and they knew that the government and their insurance company would cough up funds and services. All that factored into their decision (the one they claim they didn't make.) If they thought they might be left entirely on their own to raise six children, I can't help but wonder how different that decision would have been.

Sounds to me like this is really none of your business. You are entitled to an opinion, you have expressed it, and you should be satisfied to just drop it. You talk about your part in 'paying for this in future'. Sit back and think about all the other things you pay for: children of drug addicts, third and fourth generations of welfare families, incarcerated humans. And guess what? Individual babies are born prematurely as well, and you pay for those too. I hope you never have a child or grandchild that needs special care because as great as your hate is, even if you didn't say it out loud, you would be hating your own children or grandchildren because they would be using 'your money'. I hope you yourself never need special care either. You could be hit by a car and end up in severe life long need, and oh my gosh, we would all need to pay for you too. Do you have 'hate' websites where you discuss all of the 'things you pay for' with so much distaste? God blesses you and loves you even through your hate. Some day maybe you will be able to turn your hate to good and you would be able to accomplish a lot.

Oh, by the way, you said Ben and Amy are from nearby Hamilton. Are you sure your 'hate' doesn't stem from another grudge of some sort? And you are 'weak' enough to use this as yet another way to throw stones? Your opinion is simply that - an opinion. You've had it, now move on with your life.

The only thing I hate, Elaine, is the VanHoutens' hypocrisy. That and the fact that people keep trying to make such intellectually ridiculous excuses for it.

I'd be happy to let this whole silly thing drop if it weren't for the people who keep posting comments here without successfully wrapping their minds around the simple notion that this couple are A) responsible for their choices, and B) won't own up to that.

I'm not even talking about financial responsibility. (The fact that the rest of us are now responsible for paying for these kids' special needs is a side issue that others brought up. Though your comparison of the VanHoutens to crack mothers, welfare dynasties, and criminals is... interesting.) I'm talking about reconciling their attitude toward Amy's infertility (i.e. choosing to use medical technology to assert their own wishes) and their attitude toward her impending six-fold motherhood (i.e. denying that they had any choice in the matter). Both decisions were theirs to make. They made both, even though they apparently don't want to admit it (maybe even to themselves) in the second case. It's intellectual dishonesty. Lying, if you will. I don't think well of that. (Or of making excuses for it.)

I do not hate people with special needs. For you to accuse me of that is not only unsubstantiated and incorrect, it's spiteful and insulting. Shame on you.

Perhaps in your rush to judgment you missed the comment where I mentioned my best friend in college, a person with "special needs" and whose government and community assistance (including my own) I don't begrudge at all. And although you wouldn't know it, the one person whom I love more than anyone alive (except my parents and siblings) is the survivor of a serious brain trauma and will spend the next several decades with very (expensive) "special needs". My best friend has a learning disability that barely let him through high school. If any of them were personally responsible for making choices that led to those needs, I might be less sympathetic. And if any of them or their parents (as the case may be) were responsible, but denied it, I would have little respect for them. But they didn't create the situations they found themselves in. The VanHoutens =did=. Which is forgivable, except that the VanHoutens pretend they =did not=. I can't excuse that, even if your moral standards can.

Finally, accusing me of some kind of personal grudge based on cirumstantial evidence is just plain sleazy. You don't seem to mind the fact that some of the VanHouten's boosters here are friends, or even local fans of them, and subsequently won't even consider any criticism of them. But the fact that I happened to read about this in my local newspaper (I'm not even sure how to get to Hamilton; it's just one of the many small towns in the area) makes =my= opinion suspect? Give me a break!

For the record: I've never met them, and before the local media started givng them the celebrity treatment for choosing to have six children at once, I'd never even heard of them. If I knew them, I would've acknowledged that up front. (It's a personal integrity thing.) And since there are already enough people in my life who aren't adult enough to grasp the idea of personal responsbility, I hope I never have to deal with them personally. Not that this is any of =your= business, so kindly shove off.

Since we have been talking about morals here, I think we should consider the fact that talking about people, who they are and their decisions on life is not one of the principle morals that God would want us to practice. We can all go on and on about if the VanHoutens made the "correct" choice or not, but I do not think any of us can honestly make that choice or decision without being put in that particular situation. I will admit that I do not know what I would have done had I been in their shoes, but I do know that I would have used prayer and my faith in my decision like the VanHoutens did.
Maybe you should just find something better to do with your time than to get involved in other people's business and lives.

And maybe you should find something better to do than criticise someone without actually bothering to read what they actually said. Yes, I have my own opinions about the VanHoutens' choices, and you can infer some of them from what I've written. But - as I said right from the outset - I would have supported their right to decide either way. What I'm criticising them for - as I've explained over and over - is their hypocrisy.

I'm sorry but what Scott is saying is something myself and many of my friends and family have all agreed on in similar cases.

First off, for those that argue if they had the 'money' to do it, then it is ok: Your line of thinking is extremely nearsighted. Who do you think is going to pay for all these kids? Not their jobs. That's right, the public.

They'll get tons of donations and money from the public. Some of the people donating could hardly afford to donate anything themselves, or have kids to feed of their own, yet they do because they hear the sob story media portraying this woman and her brood of kids as heroes. What the heck is heroic about taking a bunch of fertility drugs because 'god' made you infertile and then throwing it back into everyone's faces that it was 'gods' will for them to have kids?

Also healthcare takes a bite on every hospital bill whether they have insurance or not. You see it is a negotiated charge that the insurance companies pay. It is sadly short of what the actual cost of healthcare is. Who eats the cost? You do, whether you agree with them or not. And not once or twice, but for 18 years of these kids getting sick because they were all premature. Want to place bets on at least one of them being on disability for some ailment, mental or physical? When you see the kid on the news that can't walk, do you blame god or do you blame the stupid parents for challenging god in the first place? Do you think about the fact that the kid will be a financial burden on society for it's entire life? Of course not.

These parent's will reap the benefit's of retail contributions for now, but it doesn't last forever. What makes you sick is, they might get food,clothes or even a car or house out of this. For what? meanwhile there are other families out there that struggle every day, and this couple gets rewarded for mass reproduction? Grats!

Let's not forget about the entourage of people that will be there to take care of these kids while they are small and cute. if these parents were so ready to have a huge family, then surely it is god's will that he doesn't give them more than they can handle? But no, the face of hipocrisy rears again, and they will have all these people doing the work for them, or at least the lion's share. at least until they are a burden on the public school system, unless of course they get scholarships to Holland Christian, which would not surprise me a bit.

I'm just tired of the double standards and people abusing technology for crap like this. It's called natural selection. If you want a child so bad, how about adopting one of the hundred's of thousands of orphaned children in the world and giving them a real shot at life?

Fertility drugs should be banned or be under strict medical and psychological guidelines.

Humans were never meant to have litters.

Ok, so.....Why can't you just leave that poor couple alone? Don't you think that they have enough to deal with without you to criticize them? They are really, truly blessed by our great Lord with six beautiful children, in which all of them are doing very well:) Normally, I wouldn't involve myself in this nonsense, but seriously, you need to just leave them alone and by the way, I believe you have some praying to do.....ask for forgiveness while your at it my friend:) God Bless:)

I'm with Joy, nicely put. Why do we have to ask for forgiveness Angela? Becuase our opinion differs from yours? Who made you god?

Angela, by actively choosing to have six children at once, and by talking to the news media about it (even mugging for the camera before the kids were born), the Van Houtens invited people to comment about them. That includes criticism, if people feel critical of them. And it's not as if anyone here were going to their house and harrassing them. (I even declined to be interviewed by the local media, who found this blog an interesting counterpoint to the fertility cult that lauds them so highly, because I didn't want to get "in their face".) We're just people talking.

This "enough to deal with" that you seem to think gives them a free pass to avoid being criticised, was something they brought upon themselves, by choice. It was no accident of nature or act of God. It was elective medicine. Your logic is like the kid who murders his parents and then begs for mercy because he's an orphan.

And if there's anyone here who "needs to... ask for forgiveness", you're on the list, for posting such condescending and judgmental comments to someone, and then having the hypocrisy to call them "my friend". That's lying, Angela, and according to the book of Exodus, that's a sin.

Interesting argument (the article, not your last post), but I think the word "hypocrisy" and the term "denying responsibility" doesn't apply to this situation. The VanHoutens only had a .625% chance of all six embryos implanting. They knew there was the possibilities of multiples when undergoing the procedure. By simply undergoing the procedure, they took responsibility for the possibility that all six could implant. They knew well before the IVF procedure that selective reduction would never be an option for them. Therefore, responsibility on the part of the parents to accept "God's will" was established before the conception.
The fact that, despite overwhelming odds, all six "took" is the VanHouten's opinion that God willed all six to take. Therefore, since they believe God allowed all six to develop, saying the children's future survival is "in God's hands" is completely in agreement with their belief that God willed all six to survive the implantation process. This is not hypocrisy; the VanHoutens belief in how the children were conceived (they believe it to be an act of God that the tremendous odds against all six implanting was overcome) with their decision to reject selective reduction is very consistant with one another. Hypocrisy is pretending to believe or hold virtues that you really don't have; another word for hypocrisy is insincerity. The VanHoutens have not displayed hypocrisy or insincerity. They truly believe the overcoming of great odds for all six to simply implant was God's will. Therefore, the continued survival of all six, is (in their minds) God's will.

Scott, would your friends with special needs or your friend with the severe trauma have survived if born fifty years ago? If you answered yes to any part of this question, than you cannot say that the VanHouten's infertility problems had been "God's will." Technology advances and we have the ability to use it. If your friend with the brain trauma had not survived due to lack of treatment, would it have been "God's will" or simply a lack of technology to help them? Similiarly, the VanHouten's infertility problems would not in their eyes be labeled as God wanting them to be childless, because technology has allowed us "second chances." In the VanHouten's opinion, that "second chance" was in "God's hands." I can guarantee you if they had NOT conceived, they would have also called THAT "God's will." So, in actuality, the VanHouten's personal theology that this is in "God's Hands" is very sound. They have not contridicted themselves nor given pretense to any other beliefs. Therefore, hypocritical they are not. Denying responsibility they are not. They simply believe in something you do not.

Also, when Angela referred to you as a friend, that wouldn't be hypocritical either. The Bible says to love your enemies; given her statements prior to that it is obvious she feels symphathy for your soul's eternal resting place and was reaching out to you in love. Further, her comments were neither condescending or judgemental. She simply asked if these people couldn't just be left alone and said she BELIEVED you needed to pray...no hyprocrisy there, simply her OPINION. Her post was also rather humble in it's reading, and "condescending" means taking on a tone of superiority...which hers simply did not. I fear you chose to be offended when she suggested you ask for forgiveness. You see, being judgemental and criticizing is a sin in some people's eyes. To others, it's merely a character flaw. Sometimes, when done in love, it's a help and a blessing. Ephesians 4:29b says, "...[let] only such speech as is good and beneficial to the progress of others, as is fitting to the need and occasion, that it may be a blessing and give grace to those who hear it." Angela probably felt forgiveness would be good for your soul and truly wishes you the best.

As for me, I have done as you asked and carefully read your argument. The VanHoutens have not acted hypocritically but stand firmly rooted in their beliefs, which are different from yours. They have not denied responsibility by saying it is in "God's hands," to them He is their Source. It's like you were in a car accident, and your car had damage. Someone asks you about it, and you tell them, "It's in Allstate's hands now." You're not denying responsibility, it's simply been transfered to someone else. You still have the final say, and could cancel your claim, but why would you? Your insurance company is fixing your car! Likewise, the VanHouten's didn't intend to have six (only had a .625% in having 6!) but since it happened, they handed it over to their insurance agent, God. God doesn't charge for coverage, and there are no deductibles. He's prompt in handling claims and even better in turning ashes to beauty, mourning to joy and heaviness to praise. With Him on their side, they'll make it. At least, that's my opinion! :-)

Thanks for taking the trouble to consider my point and write a thoughtful response. (At least the last part; I could've done without yet another rationalization of why it's OK for Christians to say hurtful things to strangers and call it "love" and "friendship". "I believe you have some praying to do," is the sort of admonition a mother would give to a small child; it's quite condescending. I'm amazed at the obliviousness many Christians have of just how insulting this is.) You make an interesting case for why - in their minds - the VanHouten are being consistent with their own beliefs.

But in your car-crash analogy there's a key word that makes a big difference: "It's in Allstate's hands now." If you're in an accident you first acknowledge that it was your fault, or you explain how it was someone else's fault. If there's a point where it's out of your hands, and it's up to your insurance company to deal with, that's fine, but you don't simply pin the whole incident on them and say that it's all up to them as if it were their call for you to wreck the Honda in the first place. Maybe the VanHoutens have been consistently misquoted, but I never heard them make that distinction. No, "It's out of our hands now." Instead they said things like, "God is the giver and taker of life. It's not up to us. It's not up to the doctors." No acknowledgement of the unusually willful role they and the doctors played in creating that life, just a complete passing of the buck.

"I can guarantee you if they had NOT conceived, they would have also called THAT "God's will."" So whatever happens, including the outcome of technology is God's will? Given that premise, then if God granted them the technology to abort all but one of the embryos and it was able to thrive as a full-term 9lb. baby, that would also be God's will, would it not? They're picking and choosing which of their choices to take responsibility for, and which ones not to.

"With Him on their side, they'll make it." So... what if they don't?

Any updates on the happy couple and their brood?

They've fallen out of the public spotlight, as eventually happens to families like theirs. Last I heard all of the children were as healthy as one could expect for babies delivered as early in their gestation term as these. I'm happy for them. Attribute it to the grace of God, or to the benefits of modern medicine and really good health insurance, but it looks like the only "down" side to their decision is going to be the need to run their home like a daycare facility for the next decade, like a boarding school for the decade after that, and then sell the house and move into a couple of cardboard boxes to pay off college loans in the decade after that. :)

Thanks for the update.

Here we have some very intelligent comments. I am not going to judge them either way, but just say that God does indeed love us all and His will is done each and everyday.
I had a baby girl in 1992 that was hydrocephalic (when one has water on the ventricles of the brain) and she also had Spina Bifida. These things were discovered early in a routine ultrasound. We were give the option at that time to either end the pregnancy (I was 26 weeks along and at that stage it is considered 'spontaneous abortion' which I never liked to say) or continue with the pregnancy where she would have little chance of survival. I chose to deliver her and say my goodbyes rather than live my life in and out of hospitals and convelacent units. Sometimes I have felt some guilt there and wondered if I was being selfish by not giving it a chance. On the other hand, I believe that if God had willed it any other way than it would have had that outcome He desired. Although my story is not the same sort as the Vanhouten's, I too had a choice to make regarding another human being...I made the choice that I made just as Amy and Ben made theirs, really when it comes down to it a person has every right to chose the way they want to. I do see your point here of hypocrisy, but maybe it is not that, maybe just differing views and maybe even media misrepresentation?? Who knows, but just like the Vanhouten's should be able to make any decision or comment they so desire, so should everyone here! Even though we could all use some constructive critisism at times, we cannot judge one another and should only comment on our beliefs and encourage others, or...just agree to disagree! =)