Anti-octuplets equals anti-choice and anti-woman in my book.

[LoZoccolo]

Please respect this woman's CHOICE. And this over-population argument is silly; it's not like everybody's having eight children and if they were, so what? Don't be anti-choice and anti-woman, otherwise cease calling yourself a progressive.

[Midlodemocrat]

1. Oh, this oughta be good.

:popcorn:

And, for the OP - :eyes:

[JeffreyWilliamson]

2. Ah, got any more of that?

Please do share.

[LoZoccolo]

4. It really is that simple to me.

Choice is choice, not a slippery slope to state control of the population.

[Donnachaidh]

5. ....

:eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

42. That's my reaction too

Fuck the kids, fuck the planet, fuck society. Everyone should just be able to have the kids they want now matter what their situation is. And we wonder why there's so much abuse and neglect.

[Maru Kitteh]

174. `Talk about apples and oranges.

One woman trying to get pregnant and overachieving in that goal doesn't really have shit to do with children elsewhere being abused.

[Hello_Kitty]

178. The OP extrapolated her situation into broader points so why shouldn't responses? eom

[JeffreyWilliamson]

6. I agree with that...

I've seen a couple of comments along the population growth line, but the vast majority of it seems to be along the use your brains line.

We can all be pro-choice and pro-making wise decisions, I think.

[polmaven]

198. I have to agree with you..

As long as they are treated well, and as long as the parent(s) are not on government assistance at the time of the IVF or other fertility treatment...it's most definitely the WOMAN'S CHOICE. If she can afford them, and will love them....it isn't up to anyone but she to make that decision.

[juno jones]

282. I'm with you

This is just insane. Choice also implies the knowledge of ENOUGH!

[Donnachaidh]

3. ...

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[geek_sabre]

7. didn't you know?

"Choice" is only for UNPLANNED pregnancies. According to a fellow DUer.

[LoZoccolo]

18. I was friends with a very radical pro-choice activist in college...

...radical as in, it is OK to directly kick the asses of your political opponents with violence if they're blocking the abortion clinic, and she even warned against the "social Darwinist" line of thinking that some people adopt in their "pro-choice" position, thinking that it keeps poor people from having kids and being a "burden". To her, if a woman wants to have children, she should be able to, and should be able to do so in a good, safe environment; to her, choice was choice.

[Hello_Kitty]

32. Children deserve to be raised in a good, safe environment too.

There are many people who, frankly, are incapable of providing that and should be discouraged from having them. The octuplet mother is a sterling example of that. Your friend was right about social Darwinism but that pendulum can swing too far the other way too.

[Merlot]

8. It's more like anti-child to me

[Hello_Kitty]

22. Oh FFS

It's not an attack on children to criticize their moron parents.

[bertman]

253. Thank you, Hello_Kitty!!

[spoony]

58. It really is.

People saying that no one has the RIGHT to reproduce; that children are caustic to the environment and on and on. It's astonishing in its anti-democratic nastiness.

[Hello_Kitty]

63. The truth hurts. eom

[spoony]

75. That's only the "truth" if you're into eugenics

[Hello_Kitty]

86. Get over yourself.

No one is advocating anything of the sort. This has nothing to do with deeming people genetically "unfit". It's looking at the person's current situation and saying "maybe having a child (or 8) isn't a great idea for you right now".

[spoony]

93. Well I'm not the one wanting to decide who can breed

So I'd have to suggest you take your own advice.

[Hello_Kitty]

102. And I'd suggest you take in some foster kids if you haven't already

I'd suggest you volunteer to adopt the mother of the octuplets children if she finds she can't handle them. I'd suggest you put your money where your sanctimonious preaching mouth is.

[spoony]

107. So saying people should be free to choose is now "sanctimonious preaching"

WOW, democracy sure has changed a bit! I guess you're right, I'll wrangle up the unfit potential parents and you get the sterilization equipment ready!

[Hello_Kitty]

111. No, thinking that "freedom of choice" means "freedom from criticism" is.

And once again you are making offensive accusations that I'm for eugenics. Despicable.

[spoony]

117. Oh your posts speak for themselves, I assure you.

Anyone reading them, not of your mindset, will be as creeped out as I am.

[Hello_Kitty]

141. Only in your fevered imagination.

I don't know if you've noticed, but you are one of only about 3 people on this thread, including the OP, who doesn't think the octuplets situation is all kinds of fucked up. That should tell you something.

[spoony]

150. The only thing I'm talking about is the right of the woman

regardless of circumstance, free of government pressures or measures. I'm not saying she made the right choice in getting fertility treatment. I'm not saying she's going to be as good a mom to that many kids as she might have been to fewer kids. I'm JUST talking about people's rights.

And as for your appeal to numbers, I sincerely doubt that even people who are criticising this mother's decision would agree with the lengths to which a few of you have taken the argument.

[Hello_Kitty]

157. You of all people have no room to be pointing out logical fallacies.

You've committed countless numbers of them on this thread. Appeal to Emotion most frequently.

[VPStoltz]

160. I've read them all and YOU'RE the creep.

[spoony]

327. Nice profile, oh wait no you've hidden it. Wonder why.

[wolfgangmo]

213. Nope.

Not creeped out.

[spoony]

328. Then you are, as I described, of the same mindset

Seems more and more new members are like you. Maniacs.

[ferrous wheel]

231. Have any of the defenders around here of this brood mare offered to underwrite

the support of any of the little bastards?
(please no flames for my descriptive here, it is totally accurate)
\

[Inspired]

234. Right on.....there was nothing sacred about the decision to have this litter.

It was one of the more selfish things I've heard about in a long time.

[Howzit]

293. Having any children is a selfish act

Instinctive maybe, but selfish all the same. You certainly are not doing it for the children.

Is asking this woman to forgo fertility treatment because of the risk of multiple births not the same as asking another women to carry an unwanted baby to term?

Should the woman in the OP have tried "selective abortion", or snuffed the rest of the live births after picking the best one?

I have no children and don't want any, but will not stand in the way of anyone who can afford to care for them.

If you want to politicize "pro life" and "pro choice", then one side ends up raising more voters than the other - perhaps that is your main objection?

[Inspired]

335. Have you paid attention to this story at all? This wasn't a normal situation.

The woman is obviously fucked up and the fact that her doctors gave her fertility treatments, after she had 6 kids and is single, is disgusting.

[Howzit]

336. MIssed the bit about the first 6 kids...

One would think that would be more than enough.

[geek_sabre]

239. well

1- She has yet to ask for support for her children
2- despite your claim of accuracy, your chosen term to describe this woman is offensive at best, misogynist at worst. Cloak it in concern for the environment all you want, but the same sort of attacks were made on Palin and her daughter, and the Duggar family, none of which used IVF-induced multiple births.

[ferrous wheel]

250. Well, it's pretty clear you do not know what the word means.

But to keep the record straight, Sarah's kid's baby is a bastard, the Duggar kids, whatever else they may be, are not.

[juno jones]

283. She is not asking for support

because HER (hot the kid's) father is going to IRAQ to support them.

She is obsessed and a danger to herself and others (her kids).

[grace0418]

307. Well, apparently now she's asking for a $2M payday from Oprah and (I think)

Diane Sawyer. So there you have it. She may not be a "brood mare" but she is a selfish, greedy woman who is going to pimp out her children.

[Malikshah]

329. Having octuplets when one cannot afford to take care of six one already has is

anti-children to me.

The woman has the right to have as many kids as she can.

I have the right to call her and those that enable her out when it comes to raising said children in a healthy, stable, environment in which each is provided for adequately for eighteen years (both materially and psychologically)
\
So there!

[grace0418]

146. It's anti-child to have far more children than you can every hope to care for with

any kind of personal attention. Even if our planet wasn't already overburdened and she somehow had the money to provide for all the children's physical needs, fourteen children can not hope to get enough time with one mother. Those older children will be forced to grow up way too fast, and will be stuck helping out with the younger children. The younger children will be raised by a) siblings who are not much older than they are and b) a mother who is going to be too exhausted and fried to be very effective at parenting.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

163. Actually, now that you've spun it forward a few years...

And brought in the probable fact that the older children will have to spend time helping with the younger, it's made me think even further ahead.

The first 6 children are between 2 and 7 years of age. That means that all 14 will reach college age within 8 years of one another. The first 6 within a 5 year span, and then next 8 at the same time.

Barring all get scholarships, I'm not seeing a lot of college opportunities in their futures.

And that can be applied to a whole host of things. 8 prom outfits in one year. 8 kids reaching driving age in 1 year.

We live in a culture where people place too much emphasis on superficial things, the latest music, clothes, etc.

These kids are already potentially going to be starting out at a serious disadvantage compared to those who will become their peers.

[grace0418]

180. My mother often (inexplicably) tells a story about when my oldest sister was not

even three years old. By that point my mother already had two more children, and one day found herself yelling at my poor sister to keep up and help her out. Can you even imagine expecting a child of 2.5 to step up and help out with a 12-month-old while you deal with a new baby? So my argument isn't even as far in the future as you might think.

But yes, you're absolutely right. I knew growing up as the youngest of eleven that there would be no money for me to join after-school activities, no money for prom dresses, or help buying a used car (or even money to pay for getting a license), or any hope of money for college. I was completely on my own, and paid for college and everything else by myself. Sure, many kids from small families often have to deal with this kind of life, but that usually comes from circumstances beyond the parents' control. My parents could've had the resources to raise a few children, but they chose to have almost a dozen.

It is a serious disadvantage financially, but even more serious disadvantage to not have enough undivided attention so you know how to survive on your own.

[1monster]

214. You do have a point. I've often thought that my parents, who were damned lousy

parents and would have been so even if they'd only had one or two children, should not have had ten.

But if they had not, I would not have had my six, if they'd stopped at three, or seven, if they'd stopped at two, younger sisters. How do you tell them that they should not be alive?

(And the reason the numbers don't add up to ten is that one sibling was born 2 months prematurely and did not survive.)

Since you are the youngest, your questions would be, am I glad I was born? Would I have preferred the alternative?

on edit: fixed a couple of niggling typos.

[Hello_Kitty]

233. Every sperm is sacred.

:eyes:

[1monster]

249. Swoosh! Right over your head. Have you any younger or older sibs?

Which one(s) would you prefer not to have been born?

For the record, I have only one child and never planned to have more. And even he was a surprise because I had fertility problems.

I'm pro-choice. But I will never comdemn anyone for carrying a pregnancy to term.
Adoption is an option.

Do I think her decision to have more children after having six already was a good decision? No, absolutely not.

I think she is deranged. But that is just my opinion.

Perhaps the fertility clinics should have told her no? Or anyone who already has more than one or two children?

[Hello_Kitty]

256. I cracked that joke because it's a common tactic of the forced birthers

You'll often see little babies or toddlers with t-shirts that say "Would you abort me" at anti-abortion rallies.

[grace0418]

303. Well that's my mother's argument every time anyone mentions that perhaps she shouldn't

have had so many children: "Well which ones do you think shouldn't be alive?" I find that argument rather infuriating because it's like saying that the end justifies any means. And I just don't think that's true. I'm the youngest and, you know what, I still think she shouldn't have had so many. Not that I wish I'd never been born, but I tend to think that I would've been born to someone else.

[Hekate]

323. It's possible your mom is trying to say "Don't be like me" and "I'm sorry, please forgive me" and...

... and especially "Learn from me and space your kids."

And yes, I can imagine an overwhelmed mother being that desperate. I have a friend, a colleague from grad school, who is #5 of 17 kids. She wrote a beautiful family biography for her dissertation, full of in-depth interviews with all of her sibs (both her parents had passed away by then). It is hair-raising to read. Everyone outside the family (especially the parish priest) said how wonderful to have such a clan, but inside it was anything but. All the interviews start with, "What a great childhood," and toward the middle all of them have a scene like, "God there was that time I looked out the window and saw Ma in the car with a hose leading from the tailpipe into the car," or, "I spent hours underneath the laundry pile because it was the only place I could get any peace," and everything in between. And most of them sooner or later said they wished their parents had stopped having kids after they, personally, were born. My friend has only two kids; none of her sibs has a big family.

It's funny, Grace, I'm the oldest in my family, with 3 younger sibs, and I was pressed into service from the age of six. That's fine, it made me feel like a big girl that Mom could depend upon. But of course there's so much more to the story than that.

In addition to the 4 of us, my mom had 3 others: a full-term stillbirth and 2 first-trimester miscarriages that nearly killed her with hemorrhaging. This was all within the space of 9 1/2 years. I'm the oldest. I remember, and the others really don't. It had an impact on her health. Mom had her problems, but she loved us; nonetheless I only have two kids.

All the things I overheard or that she said about herself and her sisters and grandma, I somehow took as lessons that I was supposed to figure out and apply to myself, sometimes in reverse. Maybe that's your Mom's lesson-in-reverse for you. Who knows...

Hekate

[grace0418]

325. I think in some of my mom's more lucid moments she realizes that she had so many

children to try to fill some kind of void in her life. She was abandoned by her father after her mother died (when she was 2 or 3) and has an unquenchable need for attention. Of course she doesn't realize that she created a situation where none of her children got enough attention, but she didn't see that side of it.

But for the most part she remains resolute that her only goal in life was to have a dozen children (I had a twin who died, so that did make 12). According to her, she doesn't regret a thing, she was a great mom and my dad was the best dad in the world. So I don't know if she recognizes the real situation enough to see her tales as a lesson in reverse.

[1monster]

207. Hmmm? My parents never paid for any of my college nor any of my siblings

college needs. We paid our own way if we wanted a college education. It may not have been done in four years, but it was our education and we worked for it. (And we also had our housing and living expenses too.)

I think perhaps that makes it all the more valuable an asset for us.

While I persoally (having been and elder child in a large family) would never want a large family, I do know that having to help rear younger siblings did me no harm. It did teach me responsiblity, tolerance, and caring long before I needed it from my own child and stepchildren.

[grace0418]

302. Like I said, I know some kids from small families didn't have money for college either,

but kids from large families are virtually guaranteed certain disadvantages in life. And while you feel you weren't adversely affected by having to care for your younger siblings, I think you should consider yourself lucky. I know many people from big families who were very much affected by being forced into far too much responsibility at a young age. My eldest sisters are just a few.

[ellie]

254. I come from a family of 8,

I am second youngest. My oldest sister, who was made to take care of us, likes to tell the story of when she put my brother (he was a baby) at the top of the steps and told my mother (finally) to raise her own children.

Only one of us had kids and he only had one.

[NashVegas]

272. It's Sad To See

People here with fertility problems getting upset *over a theory* because they think we're saying to regulate it, while everyone from a large family is talking with first-hand experience about how disastrous it is. I have no children by choice. The next oldest has none, also by choice; of the three remaining, five children between them. Everyone I know from large families, especially on the younger end, was ambivalent about having children.

[grace0418]

304. My family is the same way. Three of us have no children, the rest have one or two.

And many waited until their late 30s to start a family.

[FLAprogressive]

9. We can certainly criticize her choice though.....

[DemBones DemBones]

10. And as for the argument that taxpayers will pay to

raise these children, taxpayers are paying for abortions, too, so it balances out.

[Hello_Kitty]

24. What abortions do taxpayers pay for?

Answer: None, except for those done for medical reasons.

[question everything]

33. Are you really trying to compare the cost of a one time abortion

which is, what, $100? (I have no idea) to the hundred of thousands of dollars at the ICU for 8 newborns for months, and the cost to care for their physical and mental problems that they will face for the rest of their lives?

[spoony]

81. Same principle, the numbers are irrelevant.

Paying for a choice a person should be free to make.

[Hello_Kitty]

109. Once again, the government doesn't pay for abortions

Gah, WTF, that's something that every progressive should know! They Hyde Amendment of 1976 excludes abortion from federal funding and no states that I'm aware of cover it. Even women in the military stationed overseas cannot get abortions on base. It's kind of off topic, but the ignorance of this fact on DU is staggering to me.

[DemBones DemBones]

173. Google Obama and Mexico City policy, then

Google federal funding and Planned Parenthood.

[Hello_Kitty]

181. Google Hyde Amendment

The government does not pay for individual women's abortions.

[LeftyMom]

260. California does. Birth control too.

[Hello_Kitty]

274. Only "medically necessary" abortions. Not elective.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=458&cat=10&rgn=6

[LeftyMom]

277. No, that's incorrect.

That California funds medically necessary abortions does not indicate that California does not fund elective abortions- your link does not address that issue at all.

Both Medi-Cal (California's Medicaid program) and the emergency Medi-Cal program fund abortions, irrespective of the motivation. In fact, a Medi-Cal eligibility worker keeps regular hours at the Planned Parenthood clinic here for purpose of making sure that eligible women are covered.

edit: California has fully funded abortion services in the state budget since the early 90's. http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139490 Attempts to restrict state-level funding for abortion services were largely eliminated by the courts in the 80's. Based on those precedents, California HAS to fund abortions for Medi-Cal patients.

See page 17 of this document for a summary of the legal status of abortion in California, with an emphasis on access for low income women. http://www.hyde30years.nnaf.org/resources/nnaf_policy_report.pdf

further edit: New York and Maryland also fund elective abortion for Medicaid patients.

[Hello_Kitty]

280. I stand corrected then.

IMHO every state should fund them. As should insurance companies.

[question everything]

179. This "principles" is hurting both the real pro-choice movement

and any attempt to have a universal health coverage. Sure, any woman should have a choice to have as many children as she likes, but not when tax payers are burdened with these huge expenses. And we are talking close to half a million dollars, I would guess.

Because if we had a universal health care, and these expensive newborns were covered - while millions of Californian tax payers have to forgo pay checks, tax refunds and other benefits - there would be as many angry calls to not cover them as there are now about the Wall St. bonuses.

And once you start exclude several procedures from a universal heath coverage, once you enter words like "rationing" and "limiting" the whole idea will collapse. At least, as long as most Americans still are covered by their employers and like what they have.

[DemBones DemBones]

170. Who said one abortion? nt

[Realityhack]

34. Why don't you calculate the costs for us to show us the ballance.

Go ahead... total cost to tax payers for the kids vs. one abortion assuming we would even pay for it...
come on...



I don't necessarily agree with those criticizing her but for fucks sake don't wreck your argument by pulling numbers out your ass.

[DemBones DemBones]

176. Who said one abortion? nt

[Realityhack]

192. You implied a ballance...

between taxpayers paying for abortions and paying for children who can't be cared for by their parent. I thought you were talking about paying for the children vs. paying for aborting the same. I guess that wasn't what you were getting at. Sorry.

[Beaverhausen]

11. how about the choice to be 'responsible' about your reproduction?

The doctor had to know the risks that carrying 8 babies would cause the mother, as well as the risk that many of these kids will have life-long health problems.
Not to mention trying to raise 14 children as a single mother.

yes, it's her choice, but it sounds like an irresponsible one to me. But what's done is done.

[Carolina]

12. spare me your respect of her choice

and your labelling of anyone who decries otherwise when you and I are going to end up paying for her stupidity through our outrageous health insurance premiums, my liability insurance, taxes, etc.

There is no way one woman and her parents (aged??) can care for 8 infants plus 6 other kids ranging from 2-7 years. Six of the new 8 are boys. Boys, and girls, need the guidance of mother and a FATHER and there is no dad in the picture.

Fucking unbelievable. This is irresponsibility to the max.

I am a physician and a LIBERAL, but this is absurb.

Flame all you want.

[LoZoccolo]

23. "There is no dad in the picture." What about LESBIAN couples? n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

28. Yet another red herring from you. nt

[Realityhack]

37. I don't think that is a red herring.

The other poster had father in all caps and used the classic 'mother and father' line. It was quite correct to call them out on it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

112. Not a red herring at all. You made the point that children should have a MOTHER and FATHER. Does

that mean we take away or not allow women to raise their children on their own or with a Lesbian partner, as a matter of fact, any gay couple that wishes to have a child?

The days of Father Knows Best and the "traditional" nuclear family is gone and a large percent of children do live in single parent households. One of the reasons Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy didn't create such a big stir is because so many people are in the same situation.

[marew]

35. Could not agree with you more!

This was a horrible choice by someone who has screamingly obvious mental health issues. She needed a therapist, not in vitro fertilization. I am stunned that medical "professionals" would go along with this. A single mother, just after filing bankruptcy, now has 14 children under 7. The grandmother is reported to have said she was against this and won't be there when the mother gets home. Having spent 30 years dealing with children's emotional health issues, this is a disaster.

[Hello_Kitty]

46. ITA.

Those children do not deserve the fucked up lives they will have as a result of their mother's "choice".

[marshall]

64. I doubt if the doctor had the right to deny her treatment

Denying her treatment because you the doctor doesn't deem her to be a fit parent is too much like denying a lesbian couple the same treatment. It's a slippery slope.

[cali]

101. bzzt. of course the doc had the right to refuse treatment

just as a doc can refuse to do any elective procedure. The doc should have sent her for mental health counseling.

[marshall]

114. He'd get his ass hauled into court if he did refuse

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051203/news_1n3benitez.html

[NashVegas]

128. And the Haulers Would Lose

In this case.

[cali]

130. and as was pointed out to you

the plaintiff is such a case would lose. particularly in this case where mom is mentally ill.

[marshall]

171. That would be arguable, and many doctors would try and just avoid the lawsuit

The "Christian" doctors in the lawsuit I pointed out no doubt felt that their patient was mentally ill. While it is definitely two very different cases, I believe there are enough similarities that doctors across the state feel less inclined to deny services to anyone. And though her actions seem strange, it's not a slam dunk that she would be labeled as mentally ill. Up to this point she has somehow managed to raise six children.

[uppityperson]

201. But the doctor has a right to set office policy limiting # of embryos transfered.

Can say "only transfer 3 embryos at a time" for instance. This is different from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

[Hugabear]

90. So you agree that children need both a mother AND a father?

Do you think that single women, gays, and lesbians are unfit parents?

[marew]

334. You missed the point entirely!

Single women, gays, and lesbians can be great parents, absolutely. But nobody, NOBODY, who has 14 children under 7, has just filed bankruptcy, etc., can be a great parent. If she works, what will it cost to pay people to care for the kids? If she doesn't work, who pays the bills and buys the food, pays for medical care? This was a completely irresponsible and selfish choice made for some severely pathological reason, I can guarantee you that. No caring parent would put themselves and 14 children in this situation... straight, gay, lesbian, trans, whatever. She does not, and I mean, DOES NOT love children. She is trying to fill some bizarre psychological need within herself. She has no sense of personal responsibility whatsoever.

[Carolina]

203. thank you so much!

There will be emotional, and likely some physical, problems as well.

Some progressives on this board and elsewhere have gotten just too PC to face certain realities.

I am a proud, yet old fashioned liberal who still believes that the best milieu in which to raise male and female children is with a mother and a father in a committed, preferably married, relationship(after all, it took BOTH the ovum and the spermatozoon to make the child). Statistics bear this out, despite some exceptions to the "rule."

All these PC pc warriors need to come to health clinics and see the fallout of this kind of irresponsibility!

[Carolina]

205. duplicate deleted

[TahitiNut]

83. Agreed. Serious questions of medical ethics aside, I regard her 'choice' as child abuse.

She's not only abusing the SIX children she has but she's deliberately giving birth to children consigned lives of serious health problems and financial and emotional deprivation.

I've always thought the moral imperative of parents was to do their utmost to ensure that the child was born healthy. I've know women that spent months in bed rest and avoidance of all manner of "comfort foods" in order to give birth to a healthy child.

[Inspired]

235. I agree too. n/t

[juno jones]

284. Thank you Tahiti

If you are a nut, I'm happy to join you.

[uppityperson]

118. "Boys, and girls, need the guidance of mother and a FATHER"? WTF?

You are physician and a LIBERAL, yet you sincerely think children "need the guidance of mother and a FATHER", otherwise they are irresponsible "to the max"?

Tell me this is not what you meant. Please.

[Carolina]

216. I meant EXACTLY what I said!

I am a proud, yet old fashioned liberal who still believes that the best milieu in which to raise male and female children is with a mother and a father in a committed, preferably married, relationship(after all, it took BOTH the ovum and the spermatozoon to make the child). Statistics bear this out, despite some exceptions to the "rule."

Extended family can bolster the traditional nuclear one and fill the void to help with the single parent household. But economically, sociologically and by so many measures, raising children in single parent households is DIFFICULT for the members of those families and for society. Check out our prison population stats.

And BTW, you twisted my words. So go back and read the post CAREFULLY. I said the actions of this woman were irresponsible to max because there is no way she (even with her parents) can care for 6 children under age 7 and now an additional 8 infants.

Flame all you want. I don't give a rip. Come to some health (including mental)clinics and social service agencies to see the havoc that results all these fractured families!

[uppityperson]

223. No, I copy/pasted your words and asked you to clarify.

Here is the whole quote:
"Boys, and girls, need the guidance of mother and a FATHER and there is no dad in the picture."

I am a health care provider also, so don't snark at me that way. I have seen the havoc that results from families that are intact (genetic parents) who mistreat their children also. Just because you share genetics does not make a good family. "Fractured families" are not those who do not have everyone genetically living together but families which do not work for a wide variety of reasons.

Just because a sperm and ovum got together after having sex does not mean the person the sperm OR ovum came from is capable of parenting, just of impregnating. IF you are a health care provider and you believe that impregnating someone means you are an adequate FATHER, good grief.

I agree, raising children in a single parent household is difficult, but so is raising them in a household where the genetic parents are assholes, abusers, etc. Genetics doesn't rule all.

I disagree that a FATHER is needed though as there are other ways of getting male, and female, figures to model and instruct and parent a child without them being FATHER or MOTHER.

[Carolina]

227. context and meaning

you just don't get it.

Mothers and fathers are important.

[uppityperson]

236. No. Good parents are important. Whether they be "mother""father" or other is unimportant

"Good parent"(s) are what is important.

[juno jones]

285. My problem is that she is clearly uninterested in a partner

of either sex in concieving or rearing these children.

Her parents are currently taking up the slack, but I wouldn't blame them if they walked away.

[Bluebear]

168. -

[NJmaverick]

13. How much money are you personally donating to this woman so she can raise all these children??????

she is going to need a lot. Since YOU want to let her do it, I think YOU should pay the consequences, not the rest of society.

[LoZoccolo]

20. Says the person whose avatar is a doctor who doesn't care about people. n/t

[NJmaverick]

You didn't answer the question

not that I expected you to, because you are taking a indefensible position

[NashVegas]

14. This Was a Choice That Required Medical Assistance For an Optional Procedure

Anyone who assisted in that elective, medically unnecesary procedure has a responsibility towards the offspring.

Those children are great candidates for neglect and a variety of potential abuses; we depend on doctors to make ethical decisions. This one didn't and should have her license yanked for such irresponsibility.

[uppityperson]

26. Ethics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4949892&mesg_id=4950986


From what I read on the internet news, this was a case of the first 6 children being IVF, and this last batch having a whole bunch of embryos transfered/implanted due to the strong desire of the mom.

I am a RN and a mother and see this from both viewpoints. A person wanting very strongly to have a child from their own genes, from their own body AND the medical aspects, along with the allocation of resources aspect.

I cannot speak against people wanting to bear their own child/children, as I understand that can and is a VERY strong thing for many people. As it was for me. It can be heartbreaking to have this desire and not be able to do it. There are others who say "adopt" or "volunteer with kids somehow" which is also a legitimate thing and a very kind, caring thing to do. But still I understand the need to bear.

However, I do think it unethical for a doctor to transfer/implant this many embryos at a time since there can be huge health issues for the resulting premies. I do not think it fair to put such a high chance of lifelong health issues onto a bunch of kids because the mother "wanted one more". I think that is shameful. I do not know if she was aware of the possible health repercussions, but any doctor doing IVF sure would be and shame on him.

I also have an issue with allocation of resources. Start with the idea that resources are limited (resources being where to put the money and technology). This has been a topic amongst many for as many yrs as I have been aware.

For example, which is a better use of health care resources? Spending a brazillion dollars keeping a bunch of premies alive, or on vaccines for thousands of children in developing countries? Do we put research funding and labs into seeking help for more common diseases or more uncommon ones?

These are difficult questions to ask, very difficult things to look at since we are not just looking at statistics but at individual people. But they must be looked at.

Do we put money into WIC or into Viagra? (ok, that is an extreme difference, but another example). I don't have an answer as to where to put resources, but feel this case was ethically wrong for any legitimate doctor to do this.

Regulating IVF. I do not know how it is regulated, but would like to see it done to avoid instances like this.

[bluestateguy]

15. I do respect it. I just disagree with it.

She has the freedom to have multiple kids, and I have the freedom to criticize what I view to be her poor judgment.

[cornermouse]

16. You know the planet is overpopulated when

as a child it was common for country dwellers to own 40 to 80 acres as opposed to the 5 that is common now. And no, anti-octuplets does not equal anti-choice and anti-woman. Anti-octuplets is a combination of commonsense and the survival instinct.

[katandmoon]

17. I wouldn't STOP her from cranking out as many kids as is humanly possible.

She can go for a litter of a dozen next time. That's up to her.

But I have a choice in what I think and say about this public spectacle, so don't tell me to respect her choice because I don't have to and I absolutely don't. I think she's as big of a lunatic as Andrea Yates' husband.

[Ian David]

19. I only wish women would also have eight breasts. n/t

[kiranon]

21. It's not anti choice or pro choice, It is protecting the children some of whom will

have major special needs. Eight embryos does not equal a good womb environment for these children. It can also be dangerous for the mom to be. That is why the number of embryos is limited. It has nothing to do with choice or no choice. We are raising 2 autistic children (adopted) and it takes all of our time and resources. If just one of the 8 is autistic what are the chances that child will get adequate services and attention? Autism is just one of the problems that preemies can have.

[cornermouse]

27. According to CBS one of the older kids

is autistic.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/31/earlyshow/health/main4766068_page2.shtml
"Yolanda Garcia, 49, of Whittier, said she helped care for Nadya Suleman's autistic son three years ago."

[ima_sinnic]

131. oh, well who gives a flying f**k about HIM?? the only IMPORTANT thing is her CHOICE

to have more children!

if her choices lead to neglected, poverty-stricken, hungry children--well, SO WHAT?

[kiranon]

299. That is so sad. Her chances of having another autistic child are higher

if she already has one autistic child. Those children don't have a chance. We estimated that it took almost $250,000 worth of services from birth to 6 to help just one of my autistic children. It took a tremendous amount of time to take him to the various service providers and even though he is 10 now, the need for further services continues and will continue all of his life. I hope she makes a bundle because she will need it to hire people to help her for the rest of the children's lives and to cover the expenses of raising 14 children.

[juno jones]

286. One of the original 6 is autistic. n/t

[stuntcat]

25. it's also anti-Environmental Rape

adding a single 1st-world consumer to this planet is 1st-degree murder of what's left of Nature.

But that's humanity's most basic right.. to completely violate the planet and all the other lifeforms on it. That is what God put us here for after all :)

[corpseratemedia]

185. stuntcat and ima-sinnic, great points

at some point the right to have as many children as possible comes into direct opposition to a child's welfare.

And part of every child's welfare is the welfare of the planet, which unregulated population growth has had destroyed.

Also how about the right of all those other lifeforms? Apparently they don't matter, only the human uterus's output matters, all other life be damned, because it now is, thanks to human overpopulation.

[question everything]

29. Not when tax payers will be burdened for the rest of these newborns life

Sure, go ahead and have as many babies as you want. But the California tax payers - many now who have to forgo several days of pay and tax refunds - should not pay for this. And it is not just the next several months when they are at ICU, it may be for the rest of their lives when they are faced with mental and physical problems.

This is what the right wingers often say about us: that we think that tax money should be used to support any whim and any misfortune that we face in life.

This can also be a major setback for universal health coverage. If we had one in place - would it have pay for the delivery and the care of these kids for the rest of their lives?

Should there be restrictions on what universal health will cover? Where do you start? and where do you end? And once you start combining universal health care with "restrictions" and "limitations" - there go the support of most Americans.

[PeaceNikki]

30. As much as it pains me to say this...

... I agree with you.

[david13]

31. Anti Over Population

I'm anti over population. I like the chinese solution and I think it's totally progressive.
dc

[wickerwoman]

57. Er... it's progressive to forcibly sterilize women after their first pregnancy?

I agree that we should have disincentives to have huge families (such as tax penalties for more than two kids or forcing parents with more than a certain number to start paying for their education) but what goes on in the countryside in China is appallingly anti-progressive. Many women have babies "off the grid" and then choose which one they will have educated and which one will be abandoned or foisted on relatives or sold into prostitution or forced begging.

After the earthquake in Sichuan destroyed many of the schools (killing hundreds of cherished only children) the government offered to let the parents have a second child and many of the woman came forward to say they had been sterilized against their will after their first kid. Many thousands of other woman are forced to abort children when they are caught trying to have a second one.

I see your point about some kind of government backed population limitation initiative but you should really read up on the history of the One Child Policy and how it is implemented in China before you start calling it "progressive".

[FarCenter]

74. The Chinese policy became rational after irrational policy under Mao

"Mao even feared that there would be a labour shortage. In December 1958, following a meeting of Chinese leaders at Wuchang, a communique was issued claiming that 'it will be found that the amount of arable land is not too lttle but quite a lot and it is not a question of overpopulation but rather a shortage of manpower'. So, from the start of the Great Leap Forward, the Chinese peasants were encouraged to have as many children as possible because, as Mao liked to remind listeners, 'with every stomach comes another pair of hands'. Within a generation, China's population would double to 1.2 billion."

HUNGRY GHOSTS - MAO'S SECRET FAMINE, Jasper Becker

Unfortunately, there are still too many people who believe that 'with every stomach comes another pair of hands'.

[Hello_Kitty]

115. Yup

People also think that infinite growth on a finite planet is sustainable too.

[LisaL]

36. You argument doesn't hold water. I don't have to respect this

woman's choice.
Otherwise I would have to respect everything anybody can think of doing, because it's their choice, doncha know?

[LoZoccolo]

38. Respecting my argument is optional, but so is being a progressive. n/t

[LisaL]

41. I fail to see what is progressive

about admiring someone with a brood of 14 children.

[PeaceNikki]

43. You don't have to admire her decision.

Shake your finger at her, yell, scream, call others names if it makes you feel better, but suggesting that she doesn't have the right or that the government should step in to stop people from having many kids (or not) is not progressive.

[Hello_Kitty]

48. But being for preserving our precious environment is progressive

That cancels out your position IMO.

[PeaceNikki]

51. I still say bullshit.

Regulate cars, industry, manufacturing, etc... but stay the fuck out of people's individual medical decisions.

[Hello_Kitty]

55. You can do all that and overpopulation will still threaten the planet.

[PeaceNikki]

59. Oh, we should do like China.

[Hello_Kitty]

76. What was China supposed to do?

As draconian as their solution was, they were facing massive starvation if they didn't do something.

[spoony]

85. Wow, holy shit.

I cannot believe the garbage I'm reading here today.

[Hello_Kitty]

113. So you're for starvation?

Again, what was China supposed to do? What would you have them do?

[spoony]

120. Nice false dichotomy. And of course, it wasn't just because of threat

of starvation, but you know that. It singled out a gender that was less desirable. But there ARE other avenues besides "let them starve" and "kill the girls". Maybe someone sane would understand that.

[Hello_Kitty]

126. Oh brother.

The one-child policy did not target a gender. That happened after the policy was imposed because China is a sexist patriarchal culture where boys are more valued than girls. But you knew that.

Or maybe you didn't. :eyes:

BTW, people were starving there. Learn some history.

[spoony]

132. Food resources were not the sole cause, and you're STILL defending these

monstrous actions. I cannot fucking believe it. You really think an acceptable way out of a food shortage is killing children? Are you mental?

[Hello_Kitty]

Are you constitutionally incapable of not overreacting and imagining things?

Shit like this is why we will never be able to have a rational discussion about overpopulation.

I weep for the planet.

[20score]

224. Thank you!

Some of these comments are beyond belief. Good to see some rational posts.

[wickerwoman]

61. So what's your alternative?

Forced sterilization?

How do you propose that the US government regulate (and enforce the regulations on) peoples' reproductive choices?

You can judge this woman to your hearts content but she still (thank god) has a legal right to do what she did. Are you proposing taking that right away from her? What would that legislation look like and how would it be implemented?

[PeaceNikki]

70. Your post gave me the willies.

The idea of government regulation on ANY reproductive choice is a horrible, terrifying, TERRIBLE idea.

[Liberal Veteran]

79. Even if the reproductive choice is Susan Smith or Diane Downs?

[PeaceNikki]

82. Yup.

[cherish44]

98. Ummm you know they murdered their children don't you?

[spoony]

103. And how would that have been prevented?

Didn't they have post-partum? Should we disallow people who MIGHT develop that from having children?

[PeaceNikki]

104. Yes. Are you suggesting that we should have sterilized them before they gave birth?

Or after? I find it a rigoddamdiculous argument.

If your argument is before: I have a real problem with punishing people for crimes that they might do in the future.

And after: They should be in jail, for life. And if they happen to get pregnant in jail, they won't be keeping their kids.

[Hello_Kitty]

119. Oh but we mustn't take their kids away from them when they are in jail

For that would be depriving them of their "choice", hence "unprogressive".

Those slippery slopes can go both ways, just sayin'.

[PeaceNikki]

121. Oh, now you're just being silly.

You seem crabby, you should take a nap or have a sandwich or something.

[Hello_Kitty]

184. No sillier than the OP and it's defenders

Oh and being accused of being for infanticide and eugenics as another person in this thread has done tends to make me cranky.

[Hello_Kitty]

72. If I knew that I wouldn't be wasting my time on this blog.

What I'd like to see happen is for population to stop being a taboo subject among progressives. It should be discussed alongside other threats to the environment. People need to stop freaking out when the subject comes up.

[wickerwoman]

88. I'm sorry but that's the logical next question to your argument.

You say that environmental issues are more important than reproductive freedoms. So what is your plan for protecting the environment from over-population?

You think people should be discussing it, but then you say a rational, detailed discussion of it is a "waste of time".

If you're going to make absolutist statements like environmentalism is the litmus test of progressivism and people who support this woman aren't progressives because the environment is more important than reproductive rights, then you should be prepared to follow that argument to the next logical step. Which reproductive rights do you want to see go in order to protect the environment better?

[Hello_Kitty]

196. What part of the environment do you want to see go in order to protect reproductive rights?

:shrug:

A rational, detailed discussion would be free from people freaking out and automatically jumping to assumptions that you're talking about forced sterilization and abortion.

[wickerwoman]

275. Well, since you won't say what you are talking about,

and you consider holding up your end of the conversation "a waste of time", I'm afraid I don't have much choice but to try to fill in what you're talking about myself.

I think it's entirely possible to balance environmental issues and reproductive rights. It's not a zero sum game. You're the one who sees some kind of pressing urgency in restricting rights to protect the environment. So which rights? And how are you going to enforce it?

[Hello_Kitty]

300. It actually IS a zero sum game

The Earth we have now is the only one we're getting, barring the development of sustainable space stations. Since you maintain that it's possible to balance environmental issues and reproductive rights, what do you propose?

[wickerwoman]

332. See post 57

which you've been studiously ignoring for 243 posts.

[dansolo]

238. But did the doctor have a legal right to implant 8 embryos at once?

There are medically sound reasons to avoid implanting that many embryos, especially since the woman has successfully carried babies implanted through IVF in the past. The whole point of implanting multiple embryos is to increase the success rate if there is reason to believe that there is a greater likelyhood of a miscarriage. It is completely unethical for the doctor to implant that many embryos.

I wonder if the woman did what she did because the sperm donor requested that she not use any of her remaining embryos. This is speculation on my part, but I wonder if she wanted to carry all her embryos to term, but if she did just one, he could have filed a court order blocking her from using any more of the embryos. So she decided to implant all of her remaining embryos at once.

[geek_sabre]

240. They implanted 6

She said she wanted 12 kids, and since they were her last embryos, and they all took, chose to keep them all. It became 7, and they didn't know about the 8th until delivery.

Agree with the rest

[wickerwoman]

276. I don't know the details,

but I think it's standard practice in IVF to implant many more embryos than they expect to survive since the success rate is relatively low... probably 99.9% of the time most of the embryos aren't viable and the mother ends up with singletons, twins or maybe triplets. I think it's a pretty freak case to get all six surviving (and two splitting into twins.)

I think this woman made a pretty silly choice, but I'm not going to say to doctors "you can't perform this operation which your patients asked for on their own body" and I'm not going to be the one to set a cap on embryo implantation when so many parents go through round after round of IVF and still can't have a child. And I'm not sure it's the best use of government resources to have them reviewing on a case by case basis who gets IVF and when and in what way.

If and when there is solid proof that this woman is neglecting her children, they should be taken away and put into foster care. Until then, the government needs to stay the hell out of her uterus.

[The Straight Story]

219. So to protect our environment should we force abortions after a certain # of kids?

Second hand kids ya know...(might be a good thread title later)

[Hello_Kitty]

245. Here we go again

Because of course concern about over-population = advocating for forced abortion. :eyes:

And once again, I point out how shit like this is why we will probably never be able to have a rational discussion about population.

[Howzit]

297. Somebody has to be around to enforce environmental laws after

you are gone

[DevonRex]

218. Knowingly endangering the health and wellbeing of those 8 children is abuse

and has nothing whatsoever to do with being progressive.

[sarge43]

39. First, she doesn't have eight children; she now has fourteen.

Second, this wasn't those children's choice. What inalienable right does anyone have to bring children into this world just to satisfy their own obsession? The woman's mother has stated this woman was obsessed with just having children, not giving them a good life and best possible upbringing.

Third, freedom has to be balance with responsibility. That's adult choice, not "I'll do whatever I damn please."

Finally, this has nothing to do with women's rights. No one, man or woman, has an absolute right to reproduce, see above. We have a responsibility to consider what kind of life our children should have and will have. If we have real doubts or circumstances prevent a decent life for them, then so be it. We're not talking about maxing out the credit card here and children don't come with a return guarantee. They're stuck with the situation they're born into. Children aren't ego trips and they don't exist to satisfy their parent's needs.

[LoZoccolo]

44. If the children want to be anti-choice too, that's their opinion.

But don't call it progressive or pro-choice.

[Hello_Kitty]

49. Don't ever call yourself an environmentalist then.

Ever.

[spoony]

54. What's the bloody difference if she or if four women have the same

number of children? This whole "environmental rape" BS meme is just another angle (and a horribly stupid one) of attacking this woman.

[Hello_Kitty]

60. If 4 women had the same number of children that would be more than 3 per woman

At any rate, I was responding to LoZoccolo's statement in that particular post, which wasn't about the octuplet mother. It was a general statement about how one must be pro-irresponsible breeding to be progressive. Which is ridiculous.

[spoony]

78. And I'm trying to get out of you what "responsible breeding"

(a truly cold-hearted term, btw) would be. Is "more than 3 per woman" also unacceptable in your dystopia?

[Hello_Kitty]

97. You want to know what a dystopia is?

A planet with 7 billion humans on it. Now imagine double that number. That's where we're headed in about 50 years.

I'm not proposing any solutions at this time so you can calm your fevered imagination. I'm just saying is it too much to ask to stop treating population like a taboo subject? Can we at least raise the topic without people freaking the fuck out and accusing you of being for government control of fertility and eugenics?

[spoony]

108. Well you've already defended China's, er, proactive approach...

and said others should be "discouraged" from "breeding" so, yeah, it's not too hard to picture what else you had in mind.

[Hello_Kitty]

139. You are deliberately distorting my statements and it's disgusting

I'm not defending China's policies. I said they were facing massive starvation so they had to do something. Probably there were better and more humane options available. Like, for example, using incentives to discourage having lots of kids.

OH NOOOOOOES SHE SAID DISCOURAGE!!1!2!ELEVENTY!!TWELVETY!!

[spoony]

155. There were "probably" better options than murdering children?

Yeah, you're not exactly reversing my image of you with tamely-worded denials of your defense of such things.

[Hello_Kitty]

167. The policy didn't murder children,

Yes, it was a horrible idea to implement such a policy without dealing with underlying cultural issues. But let's get our facts straight. The one child policy didn't murder baby girls, the people who murdered them did. They did so because of patriarchal and misogynistic attitudes.

[corpseratemedia]

193. it does need to stop being a slippery slope taboo subject because

over-population is affecting the capacity of future generations to survive.

[sarge43]

263. OK gotcha. To hell with the consequences and the children so long

as she gets to do anything she chooses. That's not progressive; that's anarchy.

And this situation has absolutely nothing to do with abortion rights and it's disingenuous to attempt a comparison.

[grace0418]

309. Did you even understand the point sarge23 was making? Because of their mother's choice,

those children don't have the opportunity to choose anything. They're stuck being "raised" by a woman her cares more about her own obsessive desires than she cares about their well-being.

[LoZoccolo]

313. That is like when men complain about child support...

...when a woman chooses not to have an abortion. This is actually a position some men take, called "choice for men". They think that they should be able to choose whether or not they should pay child support.

[ima_sinnic]

316. wow! that makes a lot of sense.

NOT.

I have decided you started this thread only because you are a shit-stirrer. No one in their right mind could possibly condone mindless irresponsible breeding with no care or concern about the consequential litter or the imposition on everybody else. She's spitting out babies to exploit for cash and celebrity, and all you can think about is her "right" to "choose" to do that. that is so simple-minded, so astoundingly DUMB that I know you are must be like that a-hole profiled on LinkTV who interviews people with outrageous questions for the sake of getting a rise out of them.

[grace0418]

317. Actually, it's not like that at all, but thanks for indirectly answering my original

question.

[Inspired]

237. Only 4 away from her own hit TLC tv show.

[deadmessengers]

40. I fully support and defend her right to choose...

...but it's pretty much the pinnacle of arrogance to suggest that I'm "anti-woman" for voicing my disagreement with her irresponsible choice.

[Realityhack]

47. Well put.

That seems to be a common point of view.

[Hello_Kitty]

53. Oh not just "anti-woman". "Anti-child" too, according to another person in this thread. nt

[NeedleCast]

45. I don't have to respect the choice

I'll support her right to make the choice, but I don't have to respect a damn thing about it and to suggest I do is absurd.

[Liberal Veteran]

50. There is a difference between respecting a choice and being an enabler.

Personally, I have nothing but sympathy for people who have fertility issues, but after having six children, the notion of helping her have more seems to fall on the side of enabling what appears to be an irresponsible and possibly pathological condition.

[AtomicKitten]

52. I respect her freedom of choice, I just don't respect her choice to use her vagina like a clown car.

[leftchick]

56. no it means anti-common sense

:eyes:

[cherish44]

62. There is a thing called responsibility and common-fucking-sense

and thinking of something other than your own selfish ass..Don't call me anti-choice or anti-woman. This mother is clearly not in her right mind and something should have been done before this happened.

[Liberal Veteran]

68. Yep. It's be fruitful and multiply, not exponentiate.

[SoCalNative]

65. Grandma: Octuplets mom obsessed with having kids

LOS ANGELES – The woman who gave birth to octuplets this week conceived all 14 of her children through in vitro fertilization, is not married and has been obsessed with having children since she was a teenager, her mother said.

Angela Suleman told The Associated Press she was not supportive when her daughter, Nadya Suleman, decided to have more embryos implanted last year.

*snip*

While her daughter recovers, Angela Suleman is taking care of the other six children, ages 2 through 7, at the family home in Whittier, about 15 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

She said she warned her daughter that when she gets home from the hospital, "I'm going to be gone."

*snip*

Nadya Suleman wanted to have children since she was a teenager, "but luckily she couldn't," her mother said.

"Instead of becoming a kindergarten teacher or something, she started having them, but not the normal way," he mother said.

Her daughter's obsession with children caused Angela Suleman considerable stress, so she sought help from a psychologist, who told her to order her daughter out of the house.

"Maybe she wouldn't have had so many kids then, but she is a grown woman," Angela Suleman said. "I feel responsible and I didn't want to throw her out."

Yolanda Garcia, 49, of Whittier, said she helped care for Nadya Suleman's autistic son three years ago.

"From what I could tell back then, she was pretty happy with herself, saying she liked having kids and she wanted 12 kids in all," Garcia told the Long Beach Press-Telegram.

"She told me that all of her kids were through in vitro, and I said 'Gosh, how can you afford that and go to school at the same time?"' she added. "And she said it's because she got paid for it."

Garcia said she did not ask for details.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_re_us/octuplets

[shanti]

105. this piece

"She told me that all of her kids were through in vitro, and I said 'Gosh, how can you afford that and go to school at the same time?"' she added. "And she said it's because she got paid for it."

oh boy.....:eyes: so we ARE supporting this woman? sounds like she has some mental problems...also, one of her kids is autistic. it's hard enough raising one autistic child, but then to add more children to the mix?

yes, it's her choice, but it is wrong on so many levels!

[NV Whino]

66. Well, hell. Let the Duggars adopt them.

They would never notice 14 more kids.

[LisaL]

69. Don't give Duggars any ideas. Mrs. Duggars time of having

biological children might be coming to an end, considering she had 3 c-sections already and her age.
So what's next?

[ismnotwasm]

67. Yup

The uterus control patrol is out for sure.

On another thread I was inspired to look up regulations of IVF. Forced birth organizations are just waiting to get their hot little hands on this issue. They love it. A handy springboard to control choice from yet another direction.

[Liberal Veteran]

73. There is a question of medical ethics to be addressed however.

For example, if a 90 year old woman suddenly decides she wants to be a parent again through an in vitro process, should the question of "are you going to live to be 109" enter the equation?

[PeaceNikki]

77. Yes, ethics of the physicians and other health care providers should and do come into play.

But government intervention and regulation should not.

Ever.

[Hello_Kitty]

91. Oh rly?

But shouldn't health care providers have to do whatever their patients want regarding fertility? After all if they didn't that would be depriving people of their "choice", which would be "unprogressive".

:sarcasm:

[PeaceNikki]

95. No. They should do what's best for their patient.

This doesn't appear to be what happened with octuplet lady.

[ismnotwasm]

125. I understand

But certain wealthy men who decided to impregnate women fairly late in life-- Hefner, or a few old rock stars for example, came to my mind.

Should they be "regulated" as well? There is evidence that older sperm doesn't fare all that much better than older ovum. Men of course don't become pregnant, and the other factors in pregnancy do not come into bio-play. Or do older men who most certainly will die before their progeny are 10 or 20 count as much as the (usually) much younger mothers?

[CTyankee]

71. There is clearly some mental illness here. She is harming other human beings, her children,

for putting them at serious risk of debilitation, suffering and even early death. Sorry, in no way can I RESPECT her choice. I loathe and deplore it. Her actions harm others. There's the difference, plain as day!

[eilen]

94. Some people collect cats, lots of them, and are put in jail for their choice

while it is a known form of mental illness.

[Arugula Latte]

80. There is a difference between allowing choice and respecting choice.

I think this woman should be allowed to make this boneheaded, stupid, irresponsible choice; I don't have to respect it, though.

[seabeyond]

84. no. i am pro child. this woman will not be able to give all those children what

they will need.... in all my wisdom. will eat my hat if i am wrong. and that to me is the crime. all the other, ... not my business.

[Jack_DeLeon]

87. When I'm paying for something I should have a choice?

So where is my choice in this situation?

[PeaceNikki]

89. So... all poor women should get pre-approval from you before deciding to reproduce?

:shrug:

[spoony]

142. Should you have a choice which medications people on Medicare get?

Just because your taxes go to people who need help doesn't mean you get to vote on their medical decisions or the costs associated with them.

[AZBlue]

92. What a load of BULLSHIT!

[cali]

96. Stupid post.

The arguement is that if she had embryos implanted or was on fertility drugs when she had six children as a single mother with few resources, it was fucking unethical of the doc to do this. Doc should have sent her off to the nearest therapist.

[spoony]

100. Read some of the posts in this thread

defending China killing children and saying how some people "shouldn't breed" and on and on, and tell me there isn't a serious anti-choice, and thereby anti-woman, strain of thought in all this.

[Hello_Kitty]

129. Stop exaggerating. nt

[ima_sinnic]

158. China is "killing children"? link? (nt)

[wolfgangmo]

232. Consider yourself...

told

[elocs]

123. I heard her father say today on tv that his daughter did not want 8 babies, but just one.

Whatever people may think of the situation, a woman who has another baby when she already has 6 children and does not have the approved (I wonder who gets to approve?) means to care for them in the approved manner would never be news. I am betting that worldwide there are probably tens of thousands of babies being born each day to mothers or parents who are unable to care for them in the optimum approved way so they will all have the best quality of life. Then again there are probably millions of adults in this world who were born to mothers who could not provide for them or give them all they needed, yet these people turned out to be quality adults and some may even be Democrats, maybe even DU members. Maybe being wanted has something to do with it.

[cali]

221. She had six kids already and she needed fertility treatment to conceive

she's sick and she needed to be referred to a mental health professional.

[elocs]

244. So if she is sick and need mental health help, why is she being trashed here at DU?

Is that what we do now here at DU--trash and criticize the mentally ill? Regardless of how many children someone has, who are we to tell them they should not have any more children or seek fertility treatment to conceive. This entire notion is so Republicanish that it reeks.

[Still Sensible]

99. It is perfectly okay to question this person's sense

of responsibility. It is perfectly okay to express outrage at what, on its face, appears to be incredibly irresponsible behavior.

It is not okay to call for laws to make what she did illegal IMHO.

[Kahuna]

106. I'm pro-child. I don't see how a single, middle class mom can adequately

raise 14 very young children. If you've ever had to raise even one child you would know how difficult that is. So, save your lectures. :hi:

[BlooInBloo]

110. Choices can be criticized. Duh.

[ORDagnabbit]

116. isnt that the woman who is bankrupt and living at home? classy

[ima_sinnic]

122. so by this dumb non-argument it's okay to choose to have children you cannot take care of

-- it's my choice to inflict a lifetime of poverty on 14 children (at last count! there WILL be MORE!!), making them dependent on social assistance programs, because I LOVE babies, I WANT babies, I HAVE TO HAVE so many babies around me at all times that I can never take care of any of them adequately. I can't provide them with clothing, education, health care, shoes, entertainment, books, crayons, toys, or food, but it was my CHOICE, so FUCK YOU!!! I don't even have an adequate house for them--but it's okay, they can sleep on the floor--it doesn't matter, because it was my CHOICE to have them!!

And when they've outgrown babyhood, in about 3 years, I CHOOSE to have many, many, many more BABIES, because who gives a fuck if they all grow up disturbed and without a life because they had to assume the role of parent at the age of, oh, six or so. So I never had time to help any of them with their homework so they never did well in school--I mean, how could they do homework anyway? They had to change diapers, mind the toddlers, give the babies their bottles (well, when I could buy some formula, because, well, my breast milk has been a little inadequate, heh), etc. etc., so they might as well not even go to school anyway. And friends? Those children will not have time for friends because they need to stay home and help ME ME ME with my CHOICES, my self-absorbed, selfish, self-centered, self-fulfilling CHOICES.

I mean, really, who cares if they cost U.S. taxpayers lots and lots of money every year because I LOVE my little tax deductions!!! Not only do I never pay taxes, my deductions equal out to a huge REFUND!!! I'm sure the American taxpayers don't mind paying me to stay home and pump out my CHOICES like a huge termite brood queen. And when any of them are sick--oh, please, taxpayers, please pony up again and pay for that, too, because how dare you question my RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO HAVE BABIES I CAN'T TAKE CARE OF???

oh, and my neighbor who wanted to adopt a puppy? she was turned down by the Humane Society because she cannot give it an adequate home. What a MORON!! She should have had BABIES instead!!! nobody in the world can deny her the CHOICE to pump out BABIES, no matter whether she can afford them or not!!

oh, and fuck the millions of babies and children without parents who cry themselves to sleep every night wishing for a family and who are the victims of rapists and sadists in foster homes. I mean, really, when they grow up they can CHOOSE to have children!! so they should be happy about that. They have that to look forward to, because that's ALL that matters!!!

[PeaceNikki]

127. Yeah!! No poor women who need social services should breed!!

Again... where *AM* I?

[ima_sinnic]

135. oh, is THAT what you got out of my post? how, er, "astute" of you

:eyes:

[PeaceNikki]

136. Their your words. Own 'em.

[ima_sinnic]

140. please show me where I said "no poor women who need social services should breed"

I'll be waiting . . .

[Hello_Kitty]

152. Same here.

I've been accused of being for eugenics and infanticide thus far.

[ima_sinnic]

156. yes, being concerned about anybody else in the equation is "anti-woman"

[Hello_Kitty]

159. Not to mention "anti child"

Because being concerned about the welfare of children in fucked up situations is "anti child".

:crazy:

[Kahuna]

137. How many poor people do you know who have IVF to have babies???

I'm betting, you don't know any. Try comparing apples with apples.

[Liberal Veteran]

143. I do question of the ethics of offering medical assistance to become pregnant....

....when one already has shown they haven't the means to care for them.

[PeaceNikki]

144. As do I. Big time!

But that's an issue that should be handled through licensing of the doctor.

The idea that the government should regulate reproduction at any level is horrific.

[grace0418]

154. It's not a matter of social services. It's a matter of providing adequate care,

emotional support, and individual attention. Every child needs that to grow and mature. Does having a smaller family guarantee that each child will get what they need? Of course not. But having a huge family guarantees that the each child will NOT get that. It's just not physically possible for one mother and one father (which this woman doesn't even have) to provide that for fourteen children. There aren't enough hours in a day.

[Left coast liberal]

289. I'm with you Ima.

Sad, creepy story.

Those doctors need to be put under some scrutiny.

[theHandpuppet]

310. I wish I could recommend this post

:thumbsup:

[kestrel91316]

124. Anti-octuplets = anti-unethical moneygrubbing fertility doctor in my book.

It also = anti-mentally deranged, already overwhelmed, bankrupt, multigravida mom having unlimited access to high-tech fertility treatments.

The doctor needs his/her license revoked.

[kestrel91316]

133. I wonder if you will be as supportive in 2010 or 2011 when this lunatic

of a "mother" does this again. Heck, maybe she will arm-twist some money-hungry unethical physician into implanting TEN embryos so she can go into the record books. Heck, why not? IT'S HER RIGHT!!!

What about the right of children to have a mother who actually has the time and energy to care for them, rather than dividing it FOURTEEN WAYS?

[aikoaiko]

134. Yes, I respect her right to make a STUPID choice.

[KittyWampus]

148. Do you respect and support the doctor's choice to take money and perform a procedure that's

highly unethical and against standard procedure for his profession?

[aikoaiko]

204. I don't know the details of what the doctor did and what known at the time,

But depending on what the facts are, I could either support or not support.

[grace0418]

138. I don't respect this woman's choice. Sorry. Her choice is selfish and anti-child.

If she truly cared about her children instead of her selfish need to be the mother of a litter, she'd see what she is doing is wrong. No parent (or two parents, for that matter) can adequately provide the kind of one-on-one attention a child needs to FOURTEEN children, especially when eight of those kids are the same age. I am one of eleven, and my brothers married into a family of fourteen. I know of which I speak. The children pay the price for her selfishness. The older children will get forced into being surrogate parents and the younger children will be raised by children.

[ima_sinnic]

145. apparently the ONLY person's rights who matter to OP is the mother's

screw children's right to have adequate parenting! screw children's right to even have a childhood!

[grace0418]

162. I wonder how many of these people supporting this selfish woman's choice were

raised in families of 10+ kids. I wonder if they know what it's like to raise yourself because your mom is tired, or pregnant again, or busy with the other kids. I wonder if they know what it's like to hear strangers praise your mother for being so wonderful when you know that you haven't had a moment of individual attention from her in ages, except when she yelled at you about something. I wonder if they know what it's like to be the oldest child in the family, being forced to care for your young siblings as if they were yours while other children your age get to be children.

[ellie]

271. Thank you!

I am one of eight. What a goddamn circus it was.

[grace0418]

305. No, thank you. Whenever I post my strong opinions on this matter (usually when the Duggars

pop out another kid), I tend to get a lot of responses like "Well, my grandma was from a family of 21 and they all turned out great!"

:hug: for someone who understands.

[Enrique]

147. pro-choice doesn't mean you like abortions

it means you don't want them to be illegal. Same with the octuplets. I don't think anyone can be compared to anti-choice unless they're saying the government should somehow have prevented it.

[PeaceNikki]

149. Oh, that's being said.

Some have said we should do like China and that "taxpayers should also have the right to have a choice" in the matter of her pregnancy.

[VPStoltz]

151. Uh! You ARE kidding aren't you?

The woman CHOSE to endanger both her life and the lives of eight children because she has a pathology about having kids. She CHOSE to do this while not having a pot to piss in further endangering her life and the lives of her kids - NOT TO MENTION - the 6 she already has. She CHOSE to do this on someone else's dime possibly endangering their life (lives) when they drop their insurance because the company is passing her cost - 46 physicians involved - on to you. This is anti-woman? NO! It's anti-selfish jerk.

[ima_sinnic]

153. unfortunately OP appears to be serious as a heart attack

consideration for anybody else in the world is so so "anti-woman."

[barbtries]

161. i am a progressive.

i will call myself a progressive. i could understand this woman's choice much more readily if she had not gotten pregnant as a result of fertility treatments. i feel sorry for all 14 of the children.

[fortyfeetunder]

164. I respect her choice but not her lack of responsibility

It's one thing to exercise the choice to want and have children, it's another thing to be responsible and have the resources for taking care of them when that choice is made.

But based on this story, I see a lack of responsibility.

[Spider Jerusalem]

165. With all due respect, get stuffed

I have NO respect for the blind stupidity and selfishness of someone whose choice was to undertake an ill-advised and irresponsible medical procedure that could have had extremely adverse consequences not only for her own life and health but also for those of her offspring. And conflating this issue with reproductive choice in general and abortion rights in particular is a straw man; one can accept that a woman ought to have the right to terminate a pregnancy should she choose without thinking that she should have the right to engage in irresponsible and ethically questionable misuse of fertility treatment.

[Skittles]

166. WTF???

this gal sounds mentally ill and should never have been allowed such a ridiculous "choice"

[PeaceNikki]

175. But should the law have stepped in?

I say no.

If this was IVF, the doctor should lost his right to practice. However, there are many who think the government should step in and regulate reproductive rights.

[Skittles]

177. the doctor needs to be investigated for violating ethical standards

something very wrong with that doctor indeed

[Bjorn Against]

182. You say that "the doctor should lost his right to practice", that would involve the law stepping in.

This is not about a case of "reproductive rights", this woman had the right to have children but none of us have the right to have a doctor perform unethical elective medical procedures on us. If this was a case a woman getting pregnant on her own there would not be any controversy here, the fact that this was a case involving a medical technology that was not used in an ethical manner however makes this a very different case.

Yes, I think the law should have stepped in and if you think this doctor should lose his right to practice then you clearly think the law should step in as well.

[PeaceNikki]

183. No, it would involve a licensing board.

[Bjorn Against]

186. Licenses which are issued by the state on the basis of law.

[dustbunnie]

169. You're misconstruing the word "choice" and what it means in terms of terminating a pregnancy.

Most often than not, women have abortions because they see no other choice for themselves. If a woman is faced with the decision of having to pursue termination of a pregnancy it's because it was unplanned and would result in untold hardship, for emotional, financial, health reasons. Your post smells a little of equating that with facing a choice of which ice cream to buy at the store. It isn't. It's about ensuring that women enjoy all the same rights that men do.

It doesn't surprise me that you've gotten so many negative responses. It is actually you who has little understanding what the concept of choice means, at least when it refers to abortion, and also apparently what the responsibility of motherhood entails as well. If you are gung-ho about a mentally unstable woman having a boat load of children, by all means be so inclined, but don't wipe your childish crayon mess all over a woman's right to abortion. The two are not comparable.

[Hello_Kitty]

188. Welcome to DU. Great post!

If you are gung-ho about a mentally unstable woman having a boat load of children, by all means be so inclined, but don't wipe your childish crayon mess all over a woman's right to abortion. The two are not comparable.

Probably the best description of the mindset of the OP in this thread.

[dustbunnie]

225. Thanks for the welcome HKitty!!

:hi: I probably should have chosen a more innocuous thread for my first post, but just started reading here, getting more and more inflamed.

It's like comparing a boob job with a mastectomy. One is for personal satisfaction, the other is a need.

[Bjorn Against]

172. This was not a natural pregnancy however, this involves a lot more than a woman's choice.

This is not just a women who went out and got pregnant in a natural manner. Her pregnancy involves elective medical procedures, and doctors are only supposed to perform these elective medical procedures if it is not going to cause any lasting health problems to do so. In this case there will likely be lasting health problems for these eight children, and the doctor knew this so therefore it was extremely unethical for him to allow this medical procedure to go forward. I blame the doctor more than I blame the woman, the woman likely was ignorant as to the problems associated with giving birth to so many children but the doctor should have informed her of those problems and clearly told her that it would not only be dangerous to her but to the children as well.

[MadMaddie]

187. Respecting a womans choice is the right thing to do

but that does not excuse a woman making a poor decision. This woman just filed banktruptcy she now has a total of 14 kids. The Hospital bill at least half a million. Who is paying for the hospital and the eventual care of the children?

There is absolutely no threat to a woman having choice but that doesn't mean it's okay for a woman to not use common sense.

[Hello_Kitty]

190. ITA

As a feminist, I find the idea that individual women should be shielded from criticism out of some misguided sense of "sisterhood" or "respect for choice" to be absurd and insulting. We're not delicate flowers who can't be told when we're fucking up. Or, if a woman is too delicate to be told, she's probably the last person who should be entrusted with children.

[Bluebear]

189. If only you had 14 kids you wouldn't have time to post so much. nt

[20score]

228. Hope you get a Duzy for this.

[Bluebear]

337. :)

[RandySF]

191. Fine

But don't expect me to gush "way to go mom", either.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

194. Just thinking about this in a general sense...

But other than the Palin Wants Stimulus thread over in GDP, this thread has an awesome title, even though I don't agree with it.

"Is it possible to be a Progressive AND Anti-Octuplets?"

"Vote Pro-Octuplets"

Don't know why but it just sounds funny.

[RandySF]

195. It's a disaster

http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/creepy-update-on-mother-of-6-who-then.html

"CBS News has learned that the family of the octuplets born this week outside Los Angeles filed for bankruptcy and abandoned a home a little over a year-and-a-half ago.

Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kauffman says the mother is in her mid-thirties and lives with her parents.

There's been no mention of the octuplets' father, Kauffman observes.

The grandfather, she adds, is apparently going to head back to his native Iraq to earn money for the growing family. He told CBS News he's a former Iraqi military man....

On The Early Show Friday, the scientific director of an Atlanta-area fertility clinic blasted whichever clinic did the implantations, saying he's "stunned."

....in fact, it's really a bit of a medical disaster."

"Had she walked into a fertility clinic and said, 'Listen, I've got other children, the oldest seven, the youngest two,' co-anchor Julie Chen asked Tucker, "is there any ethical responsibility on the clinic's part to say, 'I'm not going to treat you,' or, 'You know what? This is not a good idea?" '

"Suffice to say," Tucker responded, "I've been in this business for 25 years now. And it's pretty much standard practice in all clinics to have some form of psychological evaluation of the patient. Also, their sociological circumstances. And I'm stunned, actually, that a clinic would proceed to treat a patient in this circumstance and then even to get to perhaps the transfer of embryos and ponder the transfer in, I believe, the lady's mid-30s, a 35-year-old -- she should be receiving two embryos, maximum, as a transfer into her uterus to have had eight transferred is somewhat -- is extremely irresponsible."



Is it possible that the octuplets' father is heading back to Iraq?

[LisaL]

200. Grandpa, not the father.

Grandpa is heading back to Iraq.

[RandySF]

206. Think about that one for a second.

[ima_sinnic]

211. I think Grampa's going back to Iraq not so much to support the babies

but to get away from the entire mess. Imagine that, this woman's "choice" has put her GRANDFATHER into a war zone! he'd rather risk his life in Iraq than be around this nutball and her cute little "choices."

what if nobody does come forth with a TV reality show? what if neighbors don't "help out" in the "secret house" the grandfather boasted about? what kind of life will those poor children have? This is simply child abuse. But apparently OP is okay with that. The only thing that matters is her "choice." If her "choice" is to neglect 14 children and let them starve to death--well, that was her choice so we have to "respect" that. moronic.

[LisaL]

247. Well somebody has to support the babies.

The mother was described as a graduate student-now she got 14 kids. That ain't going to be cheap, and as far as I know, gaduate students don't make lots of money.

[Patchuli]

197. This "CHOICE" is irresponsible

for her family apparently as she lives with her parents, for society and for the planet. NO ONE needs 14 children. It is NOT progressive to tax this planet's resources with more mouths to feed and more carbon footprints. I love kids but that is ridiculous.

[Faygo Kid]

202. Bingo.

It's irresponsible, and she clearly has problems.

Even her own mother has washed her hands of her, saying "It can't go on," and she is leaving: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_re_us/octuplets

This woman needs help, not fertility treatments.

[slackmaster]

229. It's not progressive to tax the public to pay for someone indulging that kind of whim either

It's just dumb.

[Hello_Kitty]

199. I was just wondering how you'd feel if your 14 year old daughter "chose" to have a baby.

Things that make ya go hmmm....

[pipi_k]

212. Oh, this should be good....

Let's up the ante a little bit...

what if said person's 17 year old daughter decided to have IVF and knew she was carrying six, seven, or eight babies, and couldn't care for them all, and asked to move in with mom and dad?


;)

[Hello_Kitty]

220. Gosh, of course he'd be okay with it!

Since opposing IVF-aided multiple births in any situation is "anti woman" and "anti choice".

[pipi_k]

268. I have a feeling

that the concept might be OK with him as long as:

1. It's not his kid

2. If it is his kid, she's in someone else's house. Parents without Nannies and such know how chaotic things can be just from having one baby in the home...



I tell ya...nobody could pay me enough to be around eight squalling infants all day, every day, never mind another six kids on top of it.

:scared:

[pipi_k]

208. OK, fine...

It's HER choice.

But as a couple of others said before me, along with choice comes responsibility.

Does this mom think that she'll get the benefits of having people donate money, a new home, clothing, food, time, and whatever else that other parents of multiple children have gotten?


Since there are people here who feel her right to choose to have a litter overshadows the rights of her children to have everything they need (including the relatively undivided attention of their parent), then let them all go live in whatever home they have now, sleeping in cardboard boxes, maybe even eating whatever the mom and grandparents can beg, borrow, or steal.


Maybe the people who think this is such a grand idea will take it upon themselves to financially support all those kids, just like the Anti choice people so graciously support the kids they "save" from being "murdered".

Oh...um...yeah, I forgot. Very few of them do that, as far as I know. They just stand around outside the family planning clinics running on about the rights of the "preborn" and then when the kids are born, they turn their heads and say the kids are fucked because their parents made bad choices.

To me, choice implies responsibility. This was NOT responsible. And the people who are jumping up and down and ranting about her right to choose to have a litter are no better, IMO, than the crazies ranting about the "rights of the preborn". It's all just from the other end of the continuum.

Whatever.

It should be fun if/when the mom or grandparents ever set up a website with an "Adopt a Kid" theme. Send money right away for their support! Biggest contributor gets to have one named after him/herself!

Advocates of irresponsible breeding, start saving up your nickels and dimes....


yipppeeee!!!!!!!

[Hello_Kitty]

209. Oh, and what if your adult daughter announced she was pregnant with octuplets?

And that they were result of implantation. And oh yeah, she and her brood are going to be moving in with you so that you can support them.

Would you still be so willing to honor her "choice"?

[uppityperson]

210. I agree. I disagree. I am a progressive.

I agree that "not everyone is doing it" and that this was her choice, if she wanted to have a large number of children it is up to her. I disagree that the manner in which she chose to do this was not an ethical thing to do and no doctor should have transferred that many embryos as it puts a huge health burden on any that survive.

One is Choice, other is ethics.

[dustbunnie]

230. Being progressive means seeing past the OP's ridiculous comparison.

IVF is not a life-saving procedure by any means. In fact, it's a nice-to-have, but not something that would permanently alter the rights and freedoms of half of society if it didn't exist.

We all know what life was like before abortion became available for women. In thousands of cases even today it is a life-saving procedure, and at the very least, levels the playing ground between men and women.

It's the comparison of the two which is so unbelievably non-progressive.

Of course, argue for this woman's right to be a complete jackass. Why not? But putting that personal satisfaction next to the right to be an autonomous individual, and I find that's getting dangerously close to being as bronze age as we can get.

[rebecca_herman]

246. For me they aren't that different

If there was a way I could have a child and I was denied it, to me that would be just as bad as being denied an abortion - in some cases worse. So to me the idea is just as horrifying. I don't expect everyone to agree, but try to understand that to some people, being allowed access to treatments that will enable them to have a pregnancy is just as important as being allowed access to treatment that will end a pregnancy.

[dustbunnie]

252. But if you couldn't have a child would it change your ability to work, your place in society?

I agree with you very much that if you want a child so much, it would fill your emotional being with a feeling of wanting. That's one thing.

But what if you were a poor mother of three and thought this man was the one but he said no when you told him, and now you're pregnant, with no means, plus you have a conscience to your other children. Or if you were forty and already had three or four and were so unprepared, plus your husband has moved on as you have, but you're still together. Or you're going to school with a bright career, but one mistake without birth control with someone who was sort of a boyfriend but not really has put you in a position of being alone, going "oh frack".I'm scared and alone. Or your family is so religious you will be knocked out, alone, with no support. Are you honestly going to equate those situations with trying to have a dna-induced child, when there are other ways?

I think it's mostly progressive to want to help those who are desperate and alone. For those who want a child but can't, of course it's terrible, but it isn't the end of the planet. And also, it isn't the same thing at all.

You're doing the worst thing possible. Comparing one to the other. They are separate issues, and the thing is, it's only recently that we've picked up the "choice" mode, which makes every ass on earth cotton on to that as well, "if it's a choice to have an abortion, it's a choice to be an idiot". I doubt that's what my mom, or my grandmom thought about when they told me, go forth. It's not a choice to have an abortion...at least not like deciding "I love you, and let's have lots of kids."

I do agree that people should be able to enjoy all medical advances, including having all the kids you want, but really, placing this unstable woman's decision amongst those of why we should have abortion rights, sucks. I totally knew when the tagline was changed to choice, everyone who goes to school would see it as a "oh which flavor do I feel like today?" Only in America.

[rebecca_herman]

255. Well I'm looking at it from a personal perspective I guess

while I think you are looking at it more on a societal level. Abortion being legal probably does more to help women economically than fertility treatments, but denying either (abortion or fertility treatments) has the potential to be equally devestating on a *personal* level to an individual woman, depending on her circumstances.

[dustbunnie]

261. But nobody's denying your rights to have a child you really want.

I do look at it from a societal level.

However, all that aside, just because this woman is a complete ass, does it change your right to have a child in vitro? No.. nobody cares, and if they do, mostly it's probably to wish you well. As I do, if you have or are trying to. Or just believe are, stating an opinion I agree.

The prob is, equating this one ridiculous woman's decision, with abortion rights. And also, bringing in this frightening idea of choice, as if it's an ice cream flavor. Go that route and we'll lose abortion rights within twenty years.

[Hello_Kitty]

333. Well some women aren't good candidates for IVF and they are denied.

I imagine this woman would be in that category. Medical ethicists and fertility specialists have already weighed in and said that they would not consider her a suitable candidate for a number of reasons. There's a difference between allowing access to a treatment and giving it to anyone who wants it regardless of whether or not it would be appropriate for her.

This doesn't just apply to fertility treatments. I weigh about 175 lbs right now and I'd love to lose about 30 of them. But no respectable doctor would give me a gastric bypass at this weight, though there have been documented cases of that sort of thing happening.

[PeaceNikki]

251. It's not a ridiculous comparison. Reproductive choice is just that.

Choice with regards to reproduction.

[BlooInBloo]

267. Nah - that's just "having the barest shell of rationality".

[DevonRex]

215. Any woman and doctor who implant 8 embryos, knowing they WILL have health problems

possibly for LIFE, is guilty of child abuse in my book. They can have all SORTS of disabilities, from physical to developmental. What mother would DO that to her children?

I don't give a rat's ass how many children she has. Have a hundred for all I care. But do NOT endanger the health and wellbeing of those children. If she wanted 8 more all she had to do was implant them at separate times. Have 2 at a time, 3 at a time so the children will be healthy. But to implant 8, knowing that health problems WILL arise, is abuse plain and simple.

I let neither doctor NOR mother off the hook on this one. They are guilty of child endangerment and abuse.

[Darth_Kitten]

217. I hope she has 10 more, and those of us with no, or one, or two kids.....

should have to pay more taxes to pay for all the societal benefits this family will surely need. Why should anybody live within their means?

Buck up, people. Stop your bellyaching.

[pipi_k]

269. Sigh...I suppose you're right....

I'm feeling rather selfish now.

This is sort of like how people in my state ignore the seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws because they feel they should have the right to choose whether they wear either one.

And they do, although they'll have to pay fines, etc. if they're caught.

But I fully support their right to bounce their heads off the pavement or go through the windshield of their cars and end up in perpetual hospital care so that people like me can enjoy the benefits of higher health care costs.


Thank you for setting me straight...


;)

[20score]

222. Being progressive doesn't mean you have to be stupid about it. Don't mean to sound harsh, but Jesus

Christ! Over-population argument is silly? With almost seven billion people on the planet? And your arguments are false, straw men if you will. Anti-choice, anti-women? How about just being pro-human.
And this doesn't have a damn thing to with welfare in my book; it was a selfish, ridiculous thing to do that effects more than just her.

She may be mentally ill for all I know, but the doctor/doctors involved should loose their license/licenses.

[slackmaster]

226. I have no problem with someone choosing to have eight embryos implanted...

...As long as public funds aren't being used to pay for the infertility treatment, or to care for however many kids manage to survive.

[Initech]

241. I keep saying: Its one thing to have kids, its another to populate a small village.

Dont get me wrong, I'm all for people having kids, it would be the end of the human race otherwise. But seriously 14 in one family is absolutely fuckin' ridiculous.

[RedEarth]

242. Popcorn?

:popcorn:

[democracy1st]

243. i hope she sends ur butt the bill

[Justpat]

248. You can be pro choice and practical at the same time.

This woman is nuts. And yes, I'm making a judgment about her. She's nuts.

Having fourteen kids and dumping them on your parents is not a choice - it is more like a psychological obsession.

I'm anti stupidity and selfishness. And I'm not a big fan of choices based in mental illness.

According to your world view, we must support any woman's desire to procreate like a rabbit and dump the offspring
onto her neighbors and relatives because she chose to do so. I don't think so.

[mnhtnbb]

258. I agree. There definitely should be an assessment by child services

of whether all these kids can be properly cared for and whether she is capable of fulfilling
her responsibilities as a parent.

There is no doubt in my mind that this woman has mental health problems and that her choices
have put all her children at risk.

[Control-Z]

290. I've been thinking

that there is a good possibility social services will become involved, given the details about the mother. Her own mother thinks she has problems and is abandoning her out of self preservation. This woman will have to do some serious scrambling to get it together in a big way, before authorities allow her to take those babies home, I would guess.

[CRF450]

257. Anyone contributing to our overpopulation is anti... something in my book

[stevedeshazer]

259. Nader

:)

[LoZoccolo]

295. lol n/t

[Pisces]

262. It's also the choice of the doctor not to treat her for ethical reasons. She has choice when she get

pregnant on her own, however, when you need medical treatment your choices are a little more limited. Inseminating with 8 embryos is way beyond the ethical bounds of any doctor for any age of woman. Imagine if she had died, what kind of lawsuit the grandparents would have against the fertility clinic. This is not an arguement of choice or free will, but of ethics.

[terisan]

264. I agree. Maybe we will next start policing men engaged in casual sex who do not use condoms.

Pass a few laws.

Reproduction Po-lice is what we need.

[pipi_k]

270. Hell no!

It's way more entertaining when men go around impregnating five, six, or more women who aren't their wives and one day the kids of these unions might grow up and meet and end up having relationships with, or even marrying, one of their half-siblings!

Nothing like keeping it in the family!!!


:7

[terisan]

279. A good laugh.

[Blue-Jay]

265. Score one for U2!

[lukasahero]

266. YOU are pronouncing what is anti-woman?

That's the best laugh I've had in a year and a half!

:rofl:

[Fuzz]

273. But pro-mental health

[Matariki]

278. bullshit. and you don't own the rights on the word progressive.

[Hello_Kitty]

281. So, people defending this woman, how do you defend this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4953436#4953448

[grace0418]

306. Revolting. I guess her vagina really is a clown car because she's treating her kids like

a freaking circus act. And who the hell would want parenting advice from a woman like her? She clearly doesn't give a shit about her kids, just her own selfish needs.

[Hello_Kitty]

308. She's like Rod Blagojevich with an overactive uterus.

I think the woman has serious mental health issues and an unhealthy compulsion to collect babies.

[kiva]

287. Being Progressive, pro-women, and pro-choice

doesn't automatically make one pro-stupid, and there is no other way to describe this situation. Best case scenario, this woman is mentally ill; worst case, she's doing this for the money (see Hello Kitty's link above). Either way, this was about her own needs, with no concern for the children. Respect her choice? Nope.

[YanquiUXO]

288. I have no problem with how many children she has...

The problem here lies in the fact that she is using her children and her story to milk the media of millions of dollars.

I don't care if she has 42 children, as long as she doesn't exploit them for her own means.

[depakid]

291. Talk about reductio ad absurdum

:crazy:

That's the whackiest post on this topic yet....

[LoZoccolo]

314. "Proof by contradiction" is actually a valid methodology.

It's used in math all the time.

[depakid]

324. This is a matter of medical ethics

which no reasonable person would attempt to confuse with maths....

[LoZoccolo]

338. I don't think my argument was /reductio ad absurdium/ either.

I was just explaining, that's a concept from the field of logic used for proving things, not an insult to my argument that's supposed to make it sound "absurd".

[pipi_k]

292. Oh look! Who could have expected THIS????

Freedom of choice now gets turned into a money-making opportunity.

Who knows but if she had this very thing in mind all along...

She purposely has herself implanted with all those embryos, then says she wants Oprah to turn her into a star.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5627531.ece


That woman is batshit crazy. Fuck her "choice".

She is USING those babies to make money.


I have a few names in mind I could call her, but I'm sure I don't have to actually subject anyone to such nastiness.

[southern_dem]

294. I support her choice to have children

I also support the state's choice to evaluate whether she is of sound mind and means to take care of fourteen children.

[Howzit]

296. Having any children is a selfish act ,

instinctive maybe, but selfish all the same. You certainly are not doing it for the children.

Is asking this woman to forgo fertility treatment because of the risk of multiple births not on the same level as asking another women to carry an unwanted baby to term? Should she have tried "selective abortion", or snuffed the rest of the live births after picking the best one?

If you want to politicize "pro life" and "pro choice", then one side ends up raising more voters than the other - perhaps that is the main objection?

I have no children and don't want any, but will not stand in the way of anyone who can afford to care for them.

[Withywindle]

298. Freedom of choice doesn't equal freedom from criticism. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

301. Yours is a stupid, stupid book.

[LoZoccolo]

319. I'm sick of sittin' 'round here tryin' to write this book.

lol

[Hekate]

311. How about if mom turns out to be clinically nuts? Still support her "choice"?

:popcorn:

[LoZoccolo]

312. I think her body is hers. n/t

[Hekate]

321. Even if she's a danger to herself and others? A number of others in this thread have suggested...

... that she has mental health issues, so I'm flattered that you chose me to respond to.

That whole freedom of choice thing for the mentally ill has been in full flower here in California for several decades. The mentally ill are free to sleep under freeway overpasses and it's just worked like a charm. Mentally ill mothers are perfectly free to dodge their meds -- but if something bad happens to their kids or even if they are just outrageously neglected, eventually they get removed from the home.

Octomom has a history of irrational behavior when it comes to reproduction. Asking to have 8 zygotes implanted claiming to want just one -- when she's already proven that her uterus will accept anything put in it -- really boggles the mind. It's genuinely dangerous to herself and others.

I am hoping that Child Protective Services sends over a social worker to keep tabs on how they're all doing, especially since grandma has decided to jump this sinking ship and swim for the shore.

Hekate

[ima_sinnic]

315. and it was the "choice" of that young mother recently to beat her 2-yr-old to death

"choices" have consequences. Every choice is like a pebble thrown into a pond, it does not quietly sink to the bottom without a trace. Every choice affects others--in this case MANY others. 14 children brought into the world with multiple health problems and total dependence on the kindness of others as well as an already overburdened planet and people struggling in a major depression. 14 children apparently about to be paraded around like sideshow freaks while the moronic mother basks in her "celebrity" and inspires other imbeciles who are now desperate for money to do the same stupid thing.

yeah, I'm "anti-woman" because I harshly criticize this puppy mill for her dumb, irresponsible "choice" that has repercussions for the entire planet.

yours is among THE dumbest posts on DU.

[Onceuponalife]

318. This woman is batshit crazy

I do NOT support her choice to produce a litter. How dare you call everyone who doesn't agree with you "anti-woman."

[blogslut]

320. I have to disagree with you

It is one thing to choose to carry multiple, naturally fertilized fetuses to term. Even then, it is a dangerous choice for nine people: nine = mother + 8 human beings. There is the statistical guarantee those eight babies will be born premature. The human female womb cannot handle 8. It just can't. Premature birth is serious damned shit. I don't know how much these babies weigh but when my one and only child was born nine weeks early, she weighed 1LB 12OZ. She was the luckiest preemie in that she got out of it with very mild cerebral palsy.

This woman chose to have eight premature babies.

As someone who lived through day after night of surgeries, central lines, infections, guilt, A&Bs, that one time I accidentally knocked out her catheter... Then came the post neo-natal experience where she almost died from some epiglottis thing and developed a murmur in her heart because of an infection she caught from one of her surgeries. Then three years later, her foot wouldn't flatten out. That's when I found out she had CP.

I'm not against this woman's choice. I just don't understand it. My child was born 21 years ago and the good taxpayers of this country paid for every moment she spent in the NICU. 187,000 dollars. Those numbers sound heartless but in my mind, deliberately forcing eight human beings to be born premature is senseless and cruel.

[Lucian]

322. Give me a fucking break.

:eyes:

Anti-octuplets does NOT equal anti-woman! Jesus fucking Christ! I can't believe I'm reading this shit here!

[Turk 182]

326. My 2 cents

Enough already!
There's an old saying that says" Your rights end where my nose begins".

So- I have the right to criticize this woman and regulate such behavior if:
1. I have to pay to support her brood through my taxes.
2. Her actions negatively impact my environment e.g. overpopulation leading to scarcity of resources, ultimately leading to increased competition for said resources, and then to war over them.(yes, I realize that this is taking it to the ultimate, but you have to ask yourself "What if everybody behaved this way?").
3. If her actions are likely to lead to children who are medically fragile, putting enormous strain not only on medical facilities but schools as well, resulting in less resources allocated to MY children and/or producing dysfunctional adults who end up in the justice system. Good for contractors who build jails, but not for the rest of us.

Also, from what I understand, carrying this many fetuses to term could have resulted in serious injury or death for the mother. then where would these kids be? It seems apparently obvious that this women is mentally unstable, and that the doctor(s) involved with the implantation are seriously ethically challenged.

I'm not suggesting sterilization or any draconian solutions, but people, how about a little common sense here.

OK, Flame on!

[Iggo]

330. I'm pro-choice.

That does not mean I get no opinion on whether or not this woman made a BAD choice.

[Justpat]

331. word.

:thumbsup: