The knee-jerk reactions to the woman with 14 children is frightening

[nadine_mn]

First, let me just say this disclaimer: I do not have kids... nor will I ever have children. That is a choice I made and my husband supports.

Personally I think one has to be ready mentally, financially, physically and everything else to have 1 child much less 8 at a time. In my opinion, raising a child is a huge responsibility that should not be entered into lightly. That is my personal opinion.

I believe, personally, that overpopulation is a global crisis. I believe that there are hundreds of wonderful children needing to be adopted before we bring anymore into this world.

That said... what I am reading on DU scares me, comments referring to Nadya's children as a litter, declaring that she is crazy, insane, unstable (she may be), demanding her children be taken away, stating that no one should have children if they can't afford them, how dare my tax dollars be spent on her children, stating she needs to be institutionalized... on and on and on.

1) They are children, little tiny human beings who did not ask to be brought into this world. And they are here whether anyone thinks they have a right to be here or not.

2) Even if Nadya has a mental illness, does that mean she should not have children? What if she had some genetic disease? What if she had mental retardation? The idea that her mental health alone should be a gauge by which 'we' determine whether or not someone should have a child is outrageous.

3) So far her 'crime' has been having 14 children. I have not heard of or read any reports of abuse. Some may argue having that many kids without the financial means is abuse. However, large families once were quite the norm (granted, the ages were staggered and without medical assistance).

4) My tax dollars pay for a whole bunch of crap I don't support (umm Iraq war anyone), and I see it as a trade off... no one is 100% supportive of every single penny that is spent in taxes.

5) To those who say .. take those children away!! Then really, isn't it likely Nadya will just have more children to replace those taken from her? So what has been accomplished?

6) The argument that I have seen is that one should not have children if you can't pay for them. Well, my mom had me at a time she could pay for it, then later she had to go on welfare because she could not afford me. And here I am, a somewhat productive member of society. And look at George W Bush... his parents could afford him, and look how he turned out. Financial stability does not equal ability to parent.. it just makes it easier. Now how she could afford fertility treatments, I have no idea. Should she have factored in her ability to raise another 6 (because that is how many were planted) of course. But she is not the first nor will she be the last who has had fertility treatments, chosen to keep all embryos, and not been able to afford it. The Iowa septuplets come to mind.



I do not know her mental state, and I am not going to diagnose her or mock her or judge her. I may personally disagree with the decisions she has made, but she has a right to make them. Just like she would have had the right to have an abortion. Some posters have been whipped up into a frenzy over the fact that a woman has a right to have as many children as she wants. Well she can. Now if she is deemed an unfit mother, then each child may be taken away. That is unfair to a child who did not ask to be born and yes that child has rights. But a woman's right to choose goes both ways.

Because what is the alternative? If I were to agree with the DUers who say Nadya should not have these children... assuming you could go back before they were born, what would do you suggest we do to stop her? Its one thing to say take them away once they are born, but to say she never should have had them in the first place... who makes that decision?


Who makes that deciding factor of how many children someone can have (not should but can)?

There are a whole lot of men making babies out there (not the instance in this case) who can't afford them, yet I don't see calls to institutionalize these men.

No one knows the whole story, and even if we did...what then? Instead of anger and outrage.. should we not be offering help and support if not to Nadya, then to her children?

[Hanse]

1. I think the knee jerk defense of the woman is annoying.

She's completely fucked in the head. And the negative reaction she's getting is well deserved.

"There are a whole lot of men making babies out there (not the instance in this case) who can't afford them, yet I don't see calls to institutionalize these men."

I don't see a lot of threads defending deadbeat dads.

[nadine_mn]

2. Not once did I defend her... I am referring to the logical

conclusion that somehow 'we' should decide who can and cannot have children. That is what scares me.

[JI7]

5. is someone calling for a law on who should and shouldn't have kids ?

i don't think teenagers should be having babies. is that scary to you ?

[nadine_mn]

11. When you make a law prohibiting it yes...

I don't think teens should have children.. but they do. So what is your solution if a teen becomes pregnant?

[JI7]

16. who is calling for a law prohibiting people from having kids ?

[Why Syzygy]

49. I haven't seen anyone call for outlawing child birth.

But, there was clearly an ethical breach in this situation. That's why we have ETHICS, so everything doesn't have to be ruled by law. By disregarding them in this situation, it may well be that SHE has brought society closer to calling for more oversight. She is the guilty one if harm should come on society for her selfish and irresponsible behavior.

[mitchum]

7. No, we do have a voice concerning the wisdom of a psychotic broodmare...

putting an excessive burden on the limited resources of this world.
Fuck her.

[hlthe2b]

204. Look up the term "litter"

that is exactly what she had... Any negative connotation is in your own interpretation. It is the correct term for multiple births.... Geebus....

[nadine_mn]

246. there are 2 common uses of the word litter

One is describe trash or waste, another while used to describe multiple births is most often used when talking about animals. I have yet to see anyone here use the term litter when describing twins.

Considering the fact that many who use the term litter, also call this woman batshot crazy, scumbag, easte of space etc.. I do not think it is a stretch to think they are using the term in a negative way.

[Breeze54]

12. I don't see ANY threads calling out the disengaged Dads at all- ONLY single Moms are attacked at DU!

:grr:

"I don't see a lot of threads defending deadbeat dads."

:eyes:

[Hanse]

14. Do you see any threads defending the "choice" to be bad dads?

Because I see somebody defending the "choice" to be a bad mom.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hanse]

24. She's a shitty mother, and a lousy excuse for a human being.

"Are you from Alabama?"

Do you raise your kids as irresponsibly as this woman "raises" hers?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mitchum]

32. She's a bad dam because she's has lots of babies...

I have seen little evidence of her being a mom...since her parents and the taxpayers of California support her and her litters.
Prerhaps you would like to kick in some extra $$$$ in order to enable her bullshit?

[Breeze54]

36. Awe, how much do you pay in taxes? She'll

be able to earn money to take care of them.

[uppityperson]

51. How will she be able to earn money to take care of them?

and what does that have to do with taxes?

[Breeze54]

63. Read up the thread for your tax inquiry and she isn't just a high school drop out.

[uppityperson]

So, being not just a high school dropout, how will she support them?

Beyond living with her mother?

Taxes :"since her parents and the taxpayers of California support her and her litters"? So, should only taxpayers of a state have an opinion of how those state funds are used?

[Breeze54]

71. She has her Masters Degree and lives with her father, in a house, and is not on "welfare". n/t

[uppityperson]

77. She does NOT have a Masters Degree but was in college to get it.

[Breeze54]

91. and how many single mothers get that far?

:shrug:

THAT'S why I think she'll succeed. She's a go-getter, imho.

[uppityperson]

93. That is a thought. I wish those kids a lot of luck and hoping for health.

She has proven she is a go getter indeed.

[Breeze54]

97. Don't we all wish ALL kids a lot of luck and hoping for health?

:shrug:

[Carolina]

235. Go-getter my ass

How the fuck is she going to pay for the hospital bill which will be in the millions?

Then, have you ever cared for 6 children under 7? Add 8 more. It is PHYSICALLY impossible for one person (or 3, if her parents help) to care for 8 special needs infants which many premies are.

Child care is expensive, if it's even available. Add diapers, clothes, medicine, education...

Go-getter my ass, masters degree or not, she cannot afford all those children; and it was a fucking irresponsible travesty to do what she did!

[Lorien]

108. No Master's degree, but she does appear to be a professional at something:

Octuplets Mom Collected $168,000 in Disability Payments

By Howard Breuer

Originally posted Friday February 06, 2009 04:50 PM EST
Nadya Suleman (left) and Ann Curry Photo by: Paul Drinkwater / NBCOctuplets Mom Collected $168,000 in Disability Payments
Octuplets mom Nadya Suleman had more to worry about than the demands of her ever-growing family: records reveals she was injured in a 1999 riot at a psychiatric hospital and got disability benefits from the state of California totaling nearly $168,000.

Suleman, 33 – who said in her first TV interview that she had always dreamed of having "a huge family" – received the payments as part of a workers' compensation settlement stemming from injuries she suffered during the disturbance, which left her with chronic back pain.

On Sept. 18, 1999, while on duty as a psychiatric technician at Metropolitan State Hospital in Norwalk, Calif., Suleman responded to an emergency alert called when 20 patients rioted.

"While she attempted to hold down a female patient, she was struck on her back by a desk that was thrown by another patient in the ward," according to a document submitted last year to a state claims examiner. "She experienced the onset of immediate pain in her low back."

Permanent Damage
Doctors advised her against taking a job that involved "prolonged sitting, standing and walking," according to the workers' comp documents.

The State Compensation Insurance Fund's liability to Suleman ended on Aug. 28, 2008, after she had became pregnant with octuplets by in-vitro fertilization. (By then, she had already given birth to six other children.) Suleman had been paid $168,000 in disability benefits since August 2001.

Doctors concluded Suleman had suffered permanent damage to the lumbar area of her spine that could become more painful "with heavy lifting, repetitive bending, prolonged sitting, standing or walking."

Noting that she was pregnant, the doctors estimated 10 percent of her pain at the time was due to her pregnancy, and 90 percent was due to the injuries from the riot and a subsequent car accident.

A Second Claim
In 2001, while Suleman was leaving a doctor's office for treatment of the injury, her car was rear-ended, according to the records.

Suleman hurt her neck, back and shoulders, and filed an additional claim for workers' compensation, arguing the accident would not have occurred had she not been going for medical treatment for the earlier injury. It was unclear if she received funds for that claim.


http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20257478,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines

Odd. My friends on disability can barely afford to take care of themselves. She must be a superhero!

[BrklynLiberal]

116. She can't do "heavy lifting, repetitive bending, prolonged sitting, standing or walking."

but she can give birth to 14 children, via 6 deliveries, and do all this is required to take care of them....riiiiiiight.

I think the main thing that would prevent this woman from being a good, nurturing mother who could raise healthy, happy children is that she is not very healthy herself..either physically or mentally. Her bouts with depression which have been mentioned in other articles, and her need to spend part of her compensation money on plastic surgery indicates that she is not a person who is happy with herself..

I do not think she would ever qualify to adopt a child. She simply is not equipped to deal with the realities of being a parent.

I also hope that the MD who implanted all these embryos in her is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[uppityperson]

119. Hold the doctor partially liable for them, responsible for them? Child support?

A thought I just had, wondering if the doc will be held financially liable for the care they need as preemies? Not to mention later on in life.

[BrklynLiberal]

154. He should be. The state shoudl sue him.

[uppityperson]

157. Unethical for sure, wondering about malpractice. I hope they release info

on their investigation into this. And I hope they pass some regulations to limit the number that can be transferred at any one time to a number which, if they all survive, won't condemn them to the issues these ones have.

[Lorien]

121. I hope so too. I feel terrible for those kids

I know far too many adults who are still struggling with the difficulties they had as a child of a mentally ill or chronically depressed mother (or father, or both). I would think that 14 kids would be rough on even two healthy parents with really good incomes!

[Breeze54]

126. So judgmental. gheesh,

[BrklynLiberal]

156. Is English your first language?

[Breeze54]

158. Such a crock!!

gheesh! :eyes:

[BrklynLiberal]

159. Obviously it isn't.

[Breeze54]

165. What country are you really from?

Russia? Egypt? Some hellish, non-Democratic society? Where do you hail from? :shrug:

[Lorien]

228. Why the personal attack? BrklynLiberal is one of the kindest, most sane,

intelligent and reasonable posters on DU. She doesn't deserve your condescending remarks. If you disagree, why not simply post "I must respectfully disagree" and then state your case without it de-evolving into ugly, condescending personal attacks?

[LisaL]

240. How is she taking care of all these children?

How would she be able to pick up all these babies, with her horrible back pain?

[barb162]

277. It's pathetic and sick at the same time.

I shake my head every time something new is learned about this woman. Invariably, she shows with each new bit of information, she should not have children until she can take care of them on her own. I fear she will have more embryos developed somewhere and have even more children. I wonder what she thinks she can make as a counselor to feed and clothe all of those children. Maybe she thinks she can get an entry level counseling job at 200,000 per year.

[notesdev]

295. Bingo

if she's disabled as she claimed when she was taking our money, how the hell does she think she can raise 14 kids on her own?

And what kind of job could she possibly get that doesn't involve bending, sitting, standing or walking? Or even non-job activities, how can you do anything in life without either sitting or standing? Is she prescribed to have to lie down in bed 24/7 or something?

[Breeze54]

122. So? She was injured doing her job! How does that make her 'bad'? I sympathize with her injuries.

I've had similar injuries and the pain doesn't go away.

I'm just sorry I didn't compensate as much $$ as she did!

Good for her!! :D

[Lorien]

124. See post #145. nt

[hendo]

127. a super hero indeed

she is Super Breeder. Ready and willing to pop out more kids at a moment's notice.

or

Super Scammer. Ready and able to file false workers comp claims.

edit: sorry, that first one was uncalled for.

[Breeze54]

188. Jealousy will not make you a parent.

Sorry to say.

:hug:

[hendo]

216. and just what am i supposed to be jealous of?

the fact that she is an unfit mother? Yes, that is what I always wanted for my future children, to be an unfit parent who cannot support them.

[tigereye]

256. no parent is unfit until proven to be

[Lorien]

227. And just because someone gives birth

doesn't automatically make them a good mother worthy of some kind of sainthood. Just walk into any Wal-mart; there are millions of "parents" out there who should never raise any creature more complex than a goldfish.

[a la izquierda]

209. Okay, I see your point and completely get

your aggravation at those bemoaning this woman and her right to choose. But let me give you a little of my own observations, FWIW.
I'm working on a PhD. I have no kids, why you might ask? Well, though my husband and I want kids, the pay you get as a graduate student, if you're lucky enough to have an assistantship, is not much to raise one child on in most places, let alone 14. Sure, you can get student loans, but they will hold out only for so long. And in California, loans will support a small family comfortably for a while, but not long (I do have experience in that regard).
Number two: I have witnessed the length of time it takes a single/married w/out kids to get a degree. Add kids to that, and it can lengthen the time significantly (in several friends' cases, a regular MA took 4.5 years as opposed to the regular 2). Add 14 little ones, including babies, to that equation and the time to complete a degree will most likely dramatically increase. Add to that the emotional stress of graduate school. Again, I don't have kids, but I can't imagine having to nurture my children after some of the terrible days I've had in class, working on a thesis or dissertation and studying for exams, plus grading on top of that, or teaching. There are days I'm happy I just have dogs, because they don't understand what I'm saying.

Most graduate students worth their salt travel to present their work: how to do that with 14 kids? She may not have to travel for research, but my friends with kiddos hate leaving 1 child for a weekend or a week, let alone having to leave many children.

And from my friends' experiences, I know that childcare is wildly expensive, even for those who receive some sort of assistance (one friend is Native American and in Oklahoma Native peoples can get assistance from the state or tribal authorities). In California, I know it is expensive, because I lived there. For 14 children, it would probably bankrupt most people; to expect her mother to help with 14 babies is incredibly irresponsible. My mom wants grandkids from me, but not that many.

So, perhaps she wants to get a Masters' degree, and she certainly seems plucky enough to do it. In reality, it's going to take her awhile. The media attraction will probably cause her problems among her peers and among any prospective university.

I wish her luck...mostly, for her babies' sakes.

[glinda]

242. Child Credit For The Poor

$1000 per child tax credit for those making around $6000-14,500/yr. (to be determined yet). She is one way or the other going to make a killing off of all of us. I imagine we paid for her medical??????
And does anyone know if she was in a group of "hard to conceive" people or was this just a frivolous, besides selfish, act.

[hendo]

55. what on earth makes you think

that she can earn enough on her own to take care of all 14 kids? I demand answers.
edit: you keep side stepping the question

[mitchum]

57. Well, why don't you just let her move into your fucking house...

until that comes to pass?

Put up or shut up.

[Breeze54]

69. She has a place to live. What's your beef? She doesn't collect Transitional Assistance.

So, what's your problem? :shrug:

[Lorien]

89. She doesn't have a place to live for long. Her mom can't take it anymore

she wants her and the kids to get out.

[Breeze54]

98. No, GrandMa says she's moving out... not the daughter. n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

117. So who will pay the mortgage/rent on the house?

[Breeze54]

128. Her and her father?! He may own it outright by now.

I don't know. Do you? I guess that's up to him, right? :shrug:

[BrklynLiberal]

Her father is in Iraq.

There are other bills that will have to be paid.

[Breeze54]

166. So? Does he still own the house?

:shrug:

[Doughboy71]

249. You are bad for having lots of babies?

What is your definition of lots? More than 2? More than 3? For your sake I hope you are an only child or only have 1 sibling, otherwise you are calling your own mother bad.

My grandparents on both sides had lots of babies. One side had 7 kids, the other had 5. Neither had them all at once, they were spread over many years as the norm. So are you saying my Grandmothers were bad becuase they had 'lots' of babies?

[mitchum]

265. Well, were your grandmothers dams (look up the definition if you are...

unfamiliar with the word) or were they mothers?
I have seen little evidence of "mothering" upon that artificially fecund freak.

As to your question, I guess my mom is "good"; there are only two of us.

[tigereye]

254. should you be able to judge who should have children and how many?

the OP is right.

[mitchum]

264. I don't have the right to prohibit her from grunting out numerous litters...

but I can certainly judge her for her fucked up actions

[tigereye]

287. do you have kids? It's pretty uncool to refer to multiple births as "litters"

:thumbsdown:

[hendo]

hell yes she is a bad mom

she has 20 kids and no way to support them. If that's not the definition of being an unfit mother, I don't know what is.

[Why Syzygy]

58. She's a TERRIBLE mother! Who could ask that?

FOURTEEN children under the age of 7! Voluntarily. Yes. She sucks at motherhood.

[Breeze54]

78. I disagree. Show me proof. n/t

[Why Syzygy]

81. If you're okay with a woman USING her children

to promote her own ambitions (sarah palin)achoo . then you'll be just fine with these antics.

[hendo]

92. disagree with the facts?

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/02/06/octuplets-mother-in-the-usa-interview/nadya-suleman-wanted-a-huge-family.html
"The mum of 14 didn’t actually find it easy to get pregnant. She had three miscarriages and two ectopic pregnancies before she became successfully pregnant by artificial insemination for the first time in 2001. "

[BrklynLiberal]

120. Bit of an obsession I guess.

[hendo]

135. a bit more than a bit.. yeah. NT

[Lorien]

229. I think there's a little too much personal identification there

maybe the poster has been accused of being "unfit" or worse at some point in her life as well, so she feels that she must defend someone else who is going through the same thing. Who knows? But it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, whatever the reason. I honestly don't understand how anyone could view the situation as anything but tragic for the children, the mother, and the stressed out grandparents.

[Carolina]

236. you obviously

have no children.

No idea of what it takes to nurture (physically, emotionally, financially) 1 child much less 8 infants plus 6 other kids aged 2-7.

No idea of the costs of raising one child (food, housing, clothing, health care, education).

Do you really think this clueless unmarried, unemployed mother can do anything right by these children in a modest house of 2-3 bedrooms with an exhausted, disgusted grandmother who's already claimed bankruptcy once and who threatens to leave and with a grandfather who's going back to Iraq to work.

Support this crap all you want but do so with your money and time and effort rather than your computer keys!

[aquart]

87. Yes. She is.

There is nothing involved here but her own selfishness. No thought of the children and their needs. No thought at all of her mother.

[hendo]

138. but why take that into account

when she had the "right" to do it.
:sarcasm:

In case that sarcasm there wasn't enough, I agree with you 100%

[JI7]

20. don't compare this shitty person with most single mothers

who work hard to care for their kids.

[Breeze54]

41. I am a single mother and I defend her right for choice.

Would I or did I choose to have 12/14 kids?

Hell no!!

BUT I defend her right to choose.

[JI7]

50. do you defend the Duggars also ? there are a lot of threads bashing them

[Breeze54]

76. They are self sufficient and what they do doesn't effect me. n/t

[hendo]

60. 12/14

how on earth can she support any of them?

[Breeze54]

80. I'm not supporting them... she is...

;)

[hendo]

95. thats what I asked you

how on earth do you propose that she take care of them?

You have no answers do you? you are content to just sit at your computer and hurl insults at the rest of us who point out her complete lack of perspective.

[Breeze54]

103. I didn't "hurl" insults but you did. She has college ed and will succeed.

Will it be easy for her and the babies? Probably not but
I think she'll get through this with the kids in tow. ;)

[uppityperson]

105. "Then you are an idiot... did you take a wrong turn at Free Republic?!" isn't an insult?

huh. How about "Why is a repuke like you posting at DU?!"?

[hendo]

107. kids in tow?

do you honestly believe that she will be able to earn the $100+K a year to take care of these kids? I have a frickin PhD, and I will never make $100k.

[Breeze54]

129. I don't believe you.

:P

[hendo]

139. as though your lack of belief makes my PhD any less real.

edit:
or do you not believe that i will never make 100k?

[Breeze54]

146. Your lack of grammar makes me disbelieve.

:rofl:

:P

[a la izquierda]

210. I might, but not til I'm 50 and only...

if I publish books that sell.
First, I got to pay off the debt. Actually, first I have to finish my dissertation.

[hendo]

217. good luck with that

the dissertation is the hard part :) You can do eet!!

[ima_sinnic]

182. her "right to choose" is not the issue. the issue is that is physically impossible

for one person to care 24/7 for 14 tiny children.

and you say she is going to "work"?

she really IS a supermom, then! do you have any idea how many hours per day at a reasonably well-paying job somebody would have to work to care for FOURTEEN dependents? while she's out "working," who's going to do all the baby-care things multiplied by at least 8, PLUS give those poor 6 older children the attention they are now NOT going to have?

nobody said she didn't have the "right to choose." Everything in life is a CHOICE, so big deal. Usually people weigh the consequences of their choices, especially when those choices affect so very very many other human beings.

[hendo]

83. Yeah, I cant believe that anyone would compare

her to most single mothers.

The cases aren't even remotely the same. It's one thing to have one kid and not be able to support them, it's a totally different matter to have a litter that she cant support.

[JI7]

23. do a search for Jim Bob Duggar and that asshole whose mentally ill wife killed their kids

[underseasurveyor]

35. Aren't the Duggars the ones with 17 or 18 kids.

Have a cable show or something?

[JI7]

56. yup, and there are many threads on them where the father is being bashed

as i think he should be .

but it's in response to those who are trying to make it like this is some poor single mother who is being picked on.

[hendo]

25. you see what you want to see

don't change the subject.

This woman chose to have more kids than she can ever hope to support. Heck, that many kids probably couldnt be supported if she was making $100k a year. This woman doesn't have a job, yet she keep wanting to have more and more kids.

She is 10x worse than Reagan's mythological welfare queen.

[Breeze54]

44. Exactly!! She had the right to CHOOSE!!!

;)

[hendo]

53. not if she is found to be mentaly unfit

to have made that decision. She is a danger to herself and others.

[nadine_mn]

61. Really? so then if a woman is deemed in your opinion

mentally unfit to have children... what is your solution?

[hendo]

65. then she will be placed in a mental institution

and her children will become become wards of the state. Sucks for them, but if thier mother is unstable it could be better in the long run.

[nadine_mn]

79. And if she becomes pregnant again?

[hendo]

100. if she is proven to be unfit

a judge could force her to get a tubal ligation. She has already shown twice that all she wants to do is have tons of babies.

[nadine_mn]

104. How is the want to have lots of babies equal unfitness

would you say the same if she were a millionaire?

[hendo]

111. if she were a millionaire..

she would at least be able to take care of her children financially. However, the question would still be raised concerning state of mind.

[GCP]

208. That's a moot point - she needs in vitro to get pregnant

So a tubal ligation would just be unnecessary.

She's a delusional wack-job who's probably hoping she'll get a book or TV deal to bring in the bucks necessary to provide for these poor kids.

[Breeze54]

94. **** crickets*** ** chirp* *chirp*

;)

[hendo]

112. chirp chirp my a**

I answered the question. get over yourself and answer my questions.

[Breeze54]

123. Someone else asked you a ?... not me. lol n/t

[hendo]

141. you can't even folow your own posts anymore, can you?

this is over, you aren't worth the time it takes to respond to you anymore.

[uppityperson]

54. Did she have the right to chose to condemn 8 infants to preemiehood and severe health issues?

Was that the ethical thing to do? I think it not about the sheer number of kids but HOW she did it and WHAT she has condemned 8 of them to.

[hendo]

102. exactly

her right to choose ends at the point where she screws up the lives of her kids. ALlowing her to have more kids is tatamount to screaming "fire" in a crowded theater.

[Breeze54]

131. All the newscasts say the babies are healthy.

Do you know more then everyone else? :shrug:

Not all preemies have health problems.

[uppityperson]

136. I feel if I give info from my experience or education, you'll just insult again.

A high percentage of preemies have health problems, and the more premature, the greater the risk. So far they are surviving but it is too early to tell what issues they will have.

[hendo]

143. an extremely high percentage

just because they are beginning to be able to breath on thier own does not mean they are in the clear, not even close.

[uppityperson]

147. Are they breathing on their own? Wading through online news is tough

I didn't hear radio or tv news today either.

[hendo]

152. yeah

I got that from a yahoo story, but haven't seen it verified anywhere else.

[hendo]

68. right to choose my a**

she abused her rights.

[eridani]

191. IVF is about as disengaged as it gets. Does the sperm donor even know? n/t

[MiniMe]

195. The sperm donor is a friend of hers

Same donor for all of the kids, all 14 of them.

[eridani]

196. He ought to have everything lopped off, in that case n/t

[barb162]

223. I see one single mother being attacked , not plural usage there

And I think this woman never should have had all of those kids without getting her head straightened out first. I really doubt you'd see any one around here defending deadbeat fathers.

[knowbody0]

3. at her job in the mental institution, she was badly beaten

and received a $150,000 settlement, which covered the in vetro expense. Let's hope she amazes all with her coping and organization skills. It is a mind blowing bit of news.

[Breeze54]

132. Right on !!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[JI7]

4. your problem seems to be that people have an opinion about her

and most of it is negative.

help and support for her ? there are many people who need help and support including the people criticism the idiot.

[nadine_mn]

9. My problem is not what people think of her

it is more how reactive people are in that she should not have children, she should be insitutionalized or that her kids should be taken away... few people here are qualified to make that decision

My philosophy has always been and always will be to help and support others, even if I disagree with them, over anger. There is too much anger and hate in the world, and I don't have the stomach to be angry at someone, especially if they have a mental illness.

[JI7]

10. how do you know she has mental illness ? i think she is selfish and wanted money and fame

i think she is a crappy mother also.

[Breeze54]

13. WOW!!!

Just wow....

[hendo]

37. why are you standing up for her

do you have something to prove? DO you think its A-OK that she had 14 babies, while she had 6 more kids at home?

Do you honestly think it is perfectly fine for someone to have 20 kids and no means to support them?

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. It is only 14, she had six and then these eight

the problem is an ethics impaired doctor

[JI7]

45. "It is only 14" and who is defending the doctor ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

244. I'm not, as is the State Board is now looking into it

as this is a huge ethical violation as well as standards of care

[B o d i]

43. 6+8=14 not 6+14=20

Wow, can you imagine woman giving birth to 14 at once? :crazy: We can all agree that'd be crazy, right?

Or is that only a matter of time?

[Breeze54]

48. One instance doesn't a massive movement make.

Get over it, Zappa fanatic! :P

[hendo]

106. she has been hospitalized for bouts of depression

depression is categorized in the DSM-IV TR as a mental illness.
edit: Actually to be more accurate its classified as a mood disorder.

[hendo]

19. then you can help her with YOUR tax dollars

I want no part in it. I hope they cut her off and take away her kids, then force her to under go tubal ligation.

She has shown that she can not be trusted to reproduce responsibly. She is creating an undue burden on the economy, and the world. The doctor who gave her in vitro should be stripped of his license and fired from his place of employment.

This woman is insane and should be thrown into a mental institution for the rest of her life.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underseasurveyor]

64. Whoa

There's some dangerous territory right there.

[hendo]

145. dangerous? yes

However, what would you suggest she do to take care of all of her children? Do you know where she can make a quick $100k a year?

[uppityperson]

148. "This woman is insane and should be thrown into a mental institution for the rest of her life." ????

I strongly disagree. She needs therapy, but throw her into a mental institution for the rest of her life? No. Wrong.

[Breeze54]

170. You're just jealous....

:(

[mitchum]

211. Stray dogs and cockroaches can grunt out offspring...

why would anyone be "jealous" of such an "accomplishment"?

[underseasurveyor]

174. Sorry but after reading some of your replies in this thread..

I refuse to engage you here.

People should consider more wisely what they wish for, hence they might get it.

[Breeze54]

169. You are insane... And she's not on welfare!

:crazy:

[John Q. Citizen]

38. It amazes me how fast people are to demonize people they read about.

It's like a re-hash of Reagan's "welfare queen" or maybe a bad update on the nursery rhyme "there was an old lady who lived in a shoe."

But the group hate is there, all right.

[Breeze54]

150. Another observant and intelligent DUer.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Why Syzygy]

6. She should have had some "help"

before becoming impregnated with four more embryos. None of the ethical standards were met in this case. "Knee jerk" refers to "habitual". The reaction you see is not habitual, since this is the very first case of its kind.

You make good arguments, but none of us owe her anything. And, I will strongly resent any MSM figure making her a *star* for what she has done. Or, if she should get a show as an *expert* in child care! No expert would condone such an act.

[Breeze54]

15. Only YOU can make her a 'star'.... don't watch. n/t

[nadine_mn]

27. I agree whole-heartedly that she should have had some help

and I think that was lacking. But I would rather see that those children live healthy lives than condemn their mother

[Breeze54]

33. Exactly!!

:hug:

And I think she does have good intentions but obviously will need some help.

[mitchum]

47. Well, you're quite the sucker then, aren't you?

"And I think she does have good intentions but obviously will need some help"
What good intentions?
Sponging off her parents?
Sponging off those who work?
Willingly bringing children into the world who have severe health problems?


Hey, would you like to trade your car for a handful of magic beans?

[hendo]

114. good intentions?

PT Barnum was right. There really is another one born every minute.

[OnyxCollie]

266. She is a hoarder.

Babies, dogs, cats, trash, etc. All symptoms of a mental illness.

How the hell will she have time to spend with them? Cooking, cleaning, feeding? Just holding them? I guess 15 minutes of attention of day will suffice, right? They can spend the rest of their time with their terry cloth mothers.


The Nature of Love
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Harlow/love.htm

I'm in graduate school, work part-time, and have four dogs. It's hard to give them the attention they need. There is NO WAY anyone can fully provide for 14 kids under 7 years old. Not without burdening others.

The woman is a nutcase.

[uppityperson]

40. I want the kids to have healthy lives, but also condemn their mother

for having so many at once. She condemned them to such greater risks by doing so than by limiting herself to 2 or 3. I condemn her for that.

Those poor kids.

[Why Syzygy]

72. I honestly think they will devise a new

category of mental disorder to describe what she has done. It seems obvious to me that she had the intention of living off her ability to birth all along. She wants a television job as a child expert! But, you can't get this kind of attention with only six children. I think she is sick to the core.

[BrklynLiberal]

134. Somewhere between Munchausen's and Histrionic Personality disorder.

[Lorien]

225. And some sort of hoarding syndrome

like cat or garbage hoarders-only this person hoards human beings!

[mitchum]

224. Natophilia?

[hendo]

115. I want her children to live healthy lives too

I personally think the only way for that to happen is for them to be removed from the harmful environment that they are in.

[eilen]

273. I know of a woman who had a recessive gene for sickle cell anemia

her husband had a dominant gene for it. They found this out when they had their first child, who was diagnosed with sickle cell anemia.

They then went ahead and had two more kids, who also had the disease. They all have to spend inordinate time in the hospital and in horrible pain. All on the state taxpayer's dime. There is no cure.

That is what I call irresponsible.

This woman is no different.

[geek_sabre]

278. sickle cell anemia is a recessive disease

which means they both had to at least be carriers of that gene.

I have family experience with this disease, so I don't really think its as black and white as you portray it.

[eilen]

285. I think her husband had two recessive genes--he had it

all their children had sickle cell disease.

If I knew I had the Huntington's Disease genetics, I would not have children.

[Breeze54]

8. WooHoo !!! Thank You, nadine_mn!! ~ ((((( nadine_mn))))))))

CHOICE matters!!!

:hug:

Well stated and Well Said!

Thank You!! :D

:kick: & Recommended!!

:toast:

[Dorian Gray]

197. I have a question for you

I do have a problem with this story from the perspective that the fertility doctor acted unethically in implanting 6 embryos in a woman who already had six children. The norm seems to be implanting two to three, max because of the possibility of multiple births. I am uncomfortable with the ethical nature in the medical side of this. I do wish the best for her fourteen children, though it tires me out just thinking about how she will care for them all on her own.

You are defending her choice, but do you think that choice should actually have been ethically available to her via the doctors? I think that any doctor worth his or her salt would have not allowed more than two or three embryos to be implanted at once. And I don't know if laws should be made about that, but some fertility guidelines by the medical community are in order here, I think.

[Lorien]

226. You won't get an answer to that one

she's obviously avoiding the questions that don't fit her notion that this woman is worthy of sainthood and the entire situation is somehow "healthy".

[mecherosegarden]

17. I agree with you1

thank you for saying this aloud!

:yourock:

[Breeze54]

26. Welcome to DU, mecherosegarden !!

:D

[Venceremos]

18. Good points

I especially like your point that "There are a whole lot of men making babies out there (not the instance in this case) who can't afford them". I'd hazard a guess that there's more than a few who've fathered 14 kids through different women, and never paid a dime to support them.

[Breeze54]

28. Right on !!

:D

[uppityperson]

46. Oh I condemn them also. Here is a story for you.

We have a local man who has several children by several different women. He is a nice guy, sort of, in a needy way. I know 5 women who have been with him and they are all very supportive women. Most of them have his baby now also.

His first local partner and I are friends and we both have had words with him about this behavior. "But they want to have a baby and I'm glad to give them one" is his reply. Of course he works minimally and besides, he is such a sweetheart and a flake that they just don't want to bother him with child support.

Shame on him. And on any male who leaves his sperm behind without supporting the aftermath.

[eilen]

274. That one is a head scratcher

who is more flaky aka dumb? The women or the man?

[uppityperson]

29. My reaction is it was entirely UNETHICAL for a doctor to transfer that many embryos

Unethical since then either some would need to be "culled" (killed) to allow the others to survive without having severe medical and health issues, or, as it turned out, all of them were carried to being pulled out via c-section and very premature status. Why transfer so many embryos that you were dooming them to severe health problems or death?

That is my issue. Ethically this was wrong. Making that many who would of course have severe health issues was unethical.

As far as my saying "I hope CPS is watchin"g, that is because IF, and only IF, the mother cannot support 14 children, many with severe medical/health care needs, in the way they need to be healthy, I hope CPS gets those kids the help they need.

As far as saying "families used to have large numbers of kids", were they single moms with 8 preemies with intensive health care needs? The 2 cases are not equal.

If you want to call THAT knee jerk or wrong, I am sorry.

[DebJ]

31. I agree. This octuplet thing intentionally created disabled

children, we'll see.... To me that is vicious and cruel and unthinkable. Disabling a living human being is horrendous, but
intentionally creating children that you know will suffer is beyond words.....belongs in the Dick Cheney realm of things.

[nadine_mn]

34. I agree that it was unethical

and I stated that while large families were the norm, I also stated that this case was different. I wasn't comparing the two in that sense, only in the outrage over the number of children. The fact that they all need health care is a separate issue.

Your arguments are not knee-jerk but well thought out. The ones I refer to are the ones posted above (referring to her as a shitty person, waste of space, etc etc)

[uppityperson]

62. OK, I agree. What a sad thing for those kids and those sort of insults don't help

the ones you refer to.

[LisaL]

67. She wanted it. She didn't want one or two. She wanted six embryos

implanted. The doctor warned her about the risks.

[uppityperson]

75. Ethically he was wrong to do what she wanted. He didn't have to, wasn't legally obligated to

Medical offices, ESP ones like those that deal with IVF, have policies based on things like ethics. Ethically, he was wrong to intentionally create disabled children.

[geek_sabre]

279. apparently, she'd had six implanted each time (5 times before this one)

and it had only resulted in 4 single pregnancies and 1 set of twins.

[kestrel91316]

42. Well, I find her behavior not too different from that of many feline mothers,

dropping kittens hither and thither without regard for common sense. But at least a cat won't often have more offspring at one time than she has nipples.

And somewhere in this case, BTW, is a highly unethical doctor who needs his/her license revoked for taking advantage of this woman's mental state FOR PROFIT. He/she placed the mother's life at risk along with all 8 babies, and that alone should give one pause.

I've seen the woman speak on tv, and she sounds like a self-centered twit. It's ALL ABOUT her and what SHE WANTS. Not the slightest concern for actually being able to PROVIDE for all 14 kids' physical needs.

She is living proof that pronatalism has run completely amock in our society.

[LisaL]

52. She asked that doctor to implant six embryos.

The doctor warned her about potential consequences. But she wanted six embryos implanted.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/06/octuplets.mom/index.html

[LisaL]

59. What is your point, exactly?

The woman had six children already. She then goes to the doctor and asks that the doctor implanted six embryos into her. The doctor warned her the risks to the children, but she wanted six embryos implanted anyway. You are defending this?
"Suleman said her fertility specialist told her about risks for the children. But she did not want to have only one or two embryos implanted. "Of course not, I wanted them all transferred. Those are my children. And that's what was available and I used them. I took a risk. It's a gamble. It always is.""

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/06/octuplets.mom/index.html

[nadine_mn]

73. My point is simple..

I have read a lot of anger in this post and other posts and the logical outcome of what people are stating is unsettling.

When someone says 'she isn't fit to have kids' my question is then what is your solution

When someone says 'she shouldn't have kids if she can't afford them' my question is what threshold do we set on who can have kids.

Because if you take one example (Nadya) and apply to the rest of the world.. then we are talking about making decision on who should and should not have kids.

[LisaL]

82. The woman now has 8 premature babies.

What are the long term consequences to these babies? I don't think anyone knows right now.
She now has 14 children total. She was on disability and claimed she has horrible back pain. But yet she got pregnant on purpose multiple times. Add to this she wanted multiple embryos implanted into her, despite the fact that she already had six kids.
And so of course you feel the need to defend this.
:eyes:

[nadine_mn]

86. Nope.

I am seeing the bigger picture here... all this talk of her being unfit, she shouldn't have so many etc etc

Like it or not she has a right to have children just like I have a right not to. Because the alternative is what? Forced abortions? Forced sterilizations?

I don't think she should have had the first 6 much less 8 more... I have not once defended that. However, logically there are 2 options.. one is to prevent her from having children in the first place or second, let them come to term and then take them away if she is unfit.


I think the doctor was 100% unethical in this case, and that is a separate issue entirely. What I am talking about is when people say someone should not have children... then other than take them away, what other option is there?

[eridani]

192. The alternative is hopefully that a lot of public shaming will keep us from getting as crowded

--as China. Then we dodge the bullet on the forced abortion issue.

[billyoc]

66. She had 6 kids and no job or prospects of getting one, but had herself impregnated on purpose.

But yeah, you're right, we don't know the whole story. :eyes:

[snot]

70. Guess what. We don't have to judge her;

but we can still think that that many kids is a mistake and question the parents' ability to care for them.

Taking the kids away -- maybe it should happen, maybe it shouldn't. If it should, it should be for the good of the kids, not as a punishment to the parents.

That said, it is a little weird to me that we impose various licensing requirements on various other activities, but parenting, which is far more important and difficult than most, is too "sacred" to be regulated.

I'm not saying I like the idea of regulating parenting; but there's something wrong with this picture, and maybe we should think seriously about what might be done to ameliorate it.

[Lorien]

99. As someone else said; if she had that many dogs or cats

the Humane Society would be all over her in many counties.

[hendo]

118. and what qualifies as animal abuse

should also qualify as child abuse.

[Lorien]

133. Exactly. nt

[tigereye]

253. the rules are that people can have children until it is very clear that they

cannot care for, provide for and protect them. Would any of us want to make that determination? She isn't an addict, and she seems to have taken reasonable care of her other children so far from what I have read.

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

74. i have no patience with lack of responsibility and selfishness at childrens expense.

none at all.

i cannot stress or emphasize enough.... 6 children under 7 and 8 newborns. these babies will NOT get what the need, deserve and it is wrong. that simple.

[hlthe2b]

205. Ditto... this is an act of selfishness...

She did this to make HERSELF feel good, with no regard to the welfare of these children nor concern for her parents who have been bearing the load of assisting her with the six children she has now. Does she care that her own father will have to go back to Iraq, placing his own life at some danger, to try to support them all?

[autorank]

84. Here's why some of that comes up

Men are humbled by the reality that women can grow and nurture another human being in the womb.

Men are completely shocked at the birth process, knowing they not only cannot replicate that but
can't even begin to imagine it. There's no frame of reference.

Sooooo ... a woman who has had that many children will draw out the worst fears and they're
expressed very poorly.

[mitchum]

212. Stray dogs and cockroaches can grunt out offspring...

so, why would men be humbled by such an accomplishment?

On the other hand, men, not stray dogs or cockroaches...or other creatures...created the great works.

Genius trumps fecundity.

[Telly Savalas]

270. Quite to the contrary

Many men are very actively engaged in what happens after the human being comes out of the womb: the diaper changes, the playing with, the comforting a crying sick baby at 3 AM, the feeding, the reading to, the doctors appointments and trips to the ER, helping with the homework, etc.

We know how much is involved in the proper raising of a child. And like most of the women here, we understand that 14 kids is too many for a parent to give each one the attention they deserve.

[Lorien]

85. There are actually millions of children waiting to be adopted

over one million children in India orphaned because of AIDS ALONE. There are personal desires that sometimes conflict with personal responsibility.

[LisaL]

88. If a woman with six kids, living with her parents,

on disability, showed up, do you really think she'd be allowed to adopt?

[Lorien]

96. Nope. And I don't think that she should be allowed to either

there are a finite number of hours in the day to devote to each child and earning an income. Too many and neglect is unavoidable. Kids don't just need "quality time", they require time, period. My single mother raised two of us, and I rarely saw her because she had to work such long hours to support our small family. 14 with a single mom? That's insane.

[LisaL]

101. Add to this, one child was described as autistic, and

the 8 babies are premature so who knows what health issues they might have.

[Lorien]

110. Oh good Lord. I didn't know that one was autistic

the parents of autistic children I know have so much guilt because most of their attention has to be on the child with autism, so they feel like they are never doing enough for their second child. :-(

[1776Forever]

90. It isn't so much her but the physician that inseminated her 6 times that needs to be looked at!

The Medical Board of California has begun an investigation into the doctors involved in case of the Whittier mother who gave birth to the country's second set of octuplets.

When they do this investigation I think there should be some restrictions put on their license from now on. It is obvious to anyone who heard this woman say she wanted to have more children because she needed to feel better because of her loneliness being an only child is alarming! Bringing 8 children into the world is something no one should take lightly.

[mindwalker_i]

109. Response to 6:

You say your mother had you when she could afford it but went on welfare later. This person had 14 children when, I'd say it's pretty safe to say, she had no way to support them, even absent losing a job or some other "event." Different starting point, WAY different quantity.

Having children when you very obviously can't afford them either in terms of money or in terms of time to dedicate to each one is very irresponsible. It's like buying a million dollar house while working at a 7-11, except that affects the whole lives of the children.

I'm not sure taking her kids away is the answer, but somebody stick a cork in her before the next batch!

[nadine_mn]

113. true... however, my point was more directed at the

blanket statement that has been made prior to this incident that if you can't afford children you shouldn't have them.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

232. You shouldn't have children if you can't afford them.

Why is that so difficult? Regardless of color, gender, political stripe, religion, Crest v. Colgate, etc.

[tigereye]

257. good luck on that one!

:rofl: If people were only rational about having kids, hardly anyone would have them!

[rebecca_herman]

125. I agree the women made stupid choices but the reaction disturbs me

I think this women made some pretty dumb choices. Some may have been motivated by greed or selfishness, some may have truly been motivated by a mental illness she was too sick to realize she needed help for - I really don't know. I certainly don't think her children should automatically be removed from her. If her home is abusive, then yeah, they have no choice - you could say that they will be emotionally neglected, but there are people with one or two kids who don't pay much attention to their kids either. There are children out there being horribly abused and I'd rather the state focus on protecting those kids (which they obviously don't have the resources for when you hear about some poor kid dying after an abuse investigation was done sloppily).

But really something about the way she is specifically being criticized really rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps it is the whole mental illness part I suppose. People with mental illness don't need to be thrown away into an institution and locked up, and their children taken away forever - they need help. If the children cannot be safe then yes in that case they do need to intervene to remove them, but the goal should be to help the ill parent and keep the family together if at all possible. I have anxiety/depression, it doesn't mean I'm not fit to be a mother someday and I believe I will be a good mother when I have children whether it's in a relationship or single. I get the feeling some of you would like to take the children of any mentally ill parent away. Ripping up this family is not the solution, and good luck finding a foster or adoptive home where the children would even be allowed to stay together if it came to that.

I'd rather my tax money go to support innocent children and helping their family stay together than a war that kills innocent children. Even if she is dumb and selfish, her children are still better off with her in my opinion, then taking them away where they are pretty much guaranteed to be seperated in care. IMO the only legitimate reason to remove a child from its parents is abuse. Not having an ideal personality is not abuse.

[Breeze54]

137. Very well said, rebecca_herman !! Thank You!!!!

:yourock:

:hug:

[hendo]

149. how is this not abuse?

As Lorien illustrated, if these were dogs or cats, she would be charged with animal abuse. Are human children less deserving of basic rights than dogs or cats?

[Breeze54]

161. I was hit by a truck and had 2 preschoolers at the time. Should they have been taken away from me..?

I was hit by a truck and had 2 preschoolers at the time.

I was in really, really bad shape. I was unable to pick the 18 month old up and change his diaper.

Should they have been taken away from me due to my incapacity for 2 years?

[ima_sinnic]

183. you couldn't pick up one--she can't pick up 14

WHO is going to take care of this brood?

she just went out and had 8 children with absolutely no way to support them. Living on her parent's (now nonexistent) dime and assuming, I guess, that her mother would be only too happy to fill in as a full-time free babysitter.

You seem to have absolutely NO CONCERN for the welfare and well-being of the 14 children, those "innocents" you cried crocodile tears about in the OP. All that seems important to you is this woman's "right" to pop out babies like a guppy.

I'm sure you will be fine with her trying for 12 at once next, when this litter has gone past the baby stage and she is tired of them, as apparently she got tired of the first 6.

you also seem to have no concept of just how time-consuming it is to care for 8 babies and 6 preschoolers all at once, 24/7. when will she sleep? when will the older children get any attention at all? and how will they even get to have a childhood when they will be spending all their time babysitting?

[hendo]

215. did you purposefully chose to have 14 kids?

I didn't think so. By comparing her to you, all that you are doing is making the both of you look bad.

[hendo]

130. ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_re_us/octuplets
"Angela Suleman said her daughter always had trouble conceiving and underwent in vitro fertilization treatments because her fallopian tubes are "plugged up.""

IF thats not a sign that she shouldn't have had 8 more kids, I dont know what is.

[Breeze54]

140. You are disgusting!!

:puke:

:nuke:

[uppityperson]

142. Blocked fallopian tubes are a normal reason for infertility, to get IVF

[hendo]

151. the first time yes

but to go back and have 8 more kids.

I have nothing wrong with IVF in most cases.

[uppityperson]

153. I have a serious ethical issue with the doctor who did that.

I don't know if she truly understood what was going on as it seems a bit...off.

I have no issue with IVF, even if someone has a bunch of kids EXCEPT when they transfer more fetuses than are healthy for them.

[Breeze54]

155. Your avatar is Fallopian Tubes.... are you jealous of her?

:shrug:

If so, then adopt!!

[uppityperson]

160. hahahahaha. Thank you. I needed a laugh. Here is a fun page for cat laughs...

http://lady-mariona.livejournal.com/231665.html

[Breeze54]

162. lol but I was asking "hendo"...

[uppityperson]

163. I don't think that avatar is fallopian tubes.

[Breeze54]

164. Look closer...

;)

[uppityperson]

267. Nope, not fallopian tubes.

Irkin invader.

[hendo]

214. last night you werent worth my time

this post this morning proves it. It is an irkin invader. google it sometime and become more enlightened.

[BrklynLiberal]

144. The truly relevant quote from that article...

"This woman could not comprehend the ramifications of having eight children of the same age at the same time," said Judith Horowitz, a Parkland, Fla.-based psychologist and author who works with couples on fertility issues."After Pampers stops delivering the free diapers, then what?"

[JeffreyWilliamson]

167. Good god, the posts here...

It took me reading every post until the late 190's before I caught the initials IVF.

To the original poster, and those who are arguing about the right to have children, when is IVF treatment a right? Is the choice to have children a right--yes! Is the right to end a pregnancy a right--yes! But when is it a right to use bad judgment and have a doctor implant a woman with multiple fertilized eggs so that they can get a tv deal a right? For Christ's sake...

A few facts for those who are apparently catching up with all of us on this:

1. This young lady worked for a mental hospital, was injured in a riot and claimed disability to the tune of 180-some odd thousand dollars.

2. After experiencing endless pain she refused surgery and instead took the benefits.

3. She agreed to a divorce from her husband because it "wasn't fair" to burden him with her pain.

4. During their 7 years of marriage she had several miscarriages, (presumably with him), and after that began seeking IVF treatment from an anonymous donor and had 6 kids.

5. At some point during this time her parents declared bankruptcy due to debts, including several large medical debts.

6. This young lady begins working at a fertility clinic.

7. Mom-in-question is implanted with 6 embryos from past IVF attempts, which later split into 8 fetuses.

8. Now octo-mom checks into hospital 7 weeks before giving birth while living in a 2-bedroom house with her parents and 6 children between ages 2 - 7 with no current job.

9. Octo-mom gives birth and her mother explains to the press that octo-mom has always been obsessed with having children, that she disagrees with her daughter, and that she's moving out as soon as mom gets home--she's had it.

10. Neighbors turn up saying that octo-mom has been telling them that she's said that she's getting paid to have kids.

11. The outcry and ethics questioning regarding the doctors that did this begin.

12. Word leaks that octo-mom has hired 2 agents and is demanding $2 Million for her story.

13. Octo-mom turns up in televised interviews with major plastic surgery issues, explaining that she needs the children "to complete her" and that the only thing they'll need to be happy in life is "her love".

Is this an issue of choice?

Did I miss anything in this saga? If so, please someone chime in.

Once again, is this an issue of choice, or rational thinking?

[BrklynLiberal]

168. No doubt you will get lambasted for using common sense,

rationality and logical reasoning.

3....2....1....

[JeffreyWilliamson]

171. Oh, for some reason that seems to happen to me a lot...

I've been following this here since the end of last week.

At first I was, "Wow, amazing news!" A day later, I was, "Okay, that's questionable", and then the following day, "Well now that doesn't seem ethical".

Since then, like most here, I have run the gammut from, "What kind of doctor would do this", "Isn't this a violation of some law", "You mean she demanded $2 Million from Oprah", and, "The state has started an investigation", to, "She's telling people she's paid to have them", and, "She says she only wants to give all 14 of them the kind of attention that she feels she didn't get as a child?".

Honestly, the defenders here are amazing. Everyone on this board supports the right to choose, but very few of us support the right to stupidity at the expense of innocent children. Amazing.

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Breeze54]

172. I get ya!! She's bad for having a disability injury caused by the state?

And because she was injured she shouldn't pursue her dream of having a large family?

Am I following you? :shrug:

:sarcasm:

Each to their own. It's none of your business.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

175. My god...

Did you even read my recap of this debacle?

This isn't an issue of choice, it's an issue of selfishness and child endangerment.

Google up the news history on this. It's an amazing story, to say the least. It defies reason what she's done. She's endangered the lives of everyone of her children as well as herself, and it appears that she only did so to enrich herself.

You really, really need to read up on this.

ALL OF US HERE support a woman's right to chose, but this is taking it to a new and unethical extreme. Does any person have an inherent right to create 8 new lives so that they can be a guest on Oprah? Is that really what we are fighting for?

[Texasgal]

176. "ALL OF US HERE support a woman's right to chose"

Not true. One would think on a progressive board that this would be true but sadly it is not.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

177. That may be true, but it's a vast minority of us...

The vast MAJORITY of us support a woman's right to chose. I know I do, and I initially thought this birth was amazing.

But when the motives of the mother began to be shown, I did a little looking into the situation. What I found was a real eye-opener.

While most of us support a woman's right to chose, we don't support greed.

While most of us support a woman's right to chose, we don't support endangering a child, much less 8.

While most of us support a woman's right to chose, we don't support unethical medical practices.

Greed, Child Endangerment, and Unethical Medical Practices--I don't remember any of these things being tenets of Pro-Choice activists, much less Progressives.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bryn]

237. I can't see anything wrong with Jeffrey's posts

It doesn't sound like he was being judgemental of her life just facts and his opinions/feelings. :shrug:

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Telly Savalas]

269. She already had a large family.

By spending that money on IVF instead of supporting the six kids she already had she clearly signalled that she doesn't give a fuck about the well-being of the first six kids. I actually have a job and it's a struggle to support one kid.

But it was her CHOICE so it was the right thing for her to do and we should shower her with praise. As you say, the well-being of her children is none of our business.

[nadine_mn]

194. I guess you missed my main point, and I can see how it got

lost. I am not saying IVF is a right. What I am saying is that if you follow the conclusion of she should never have had these children... what would be solution? And what ripple effects would that have? If you deem one person unfit to have children, what criteria will you use on the next?
I have never disagreed with the opinion the doctor should never have done the treatment.

[earth mom]

178. The woman has not a lick of common sense-either that or she is a total nutcase.

Since you don't have children-which you made a HUGE deal about in another thread several months ago-you don't have a clue as to what it takes to take care of a child-even one child.

People around here are pissed off because many of us know what it takes to be a parent. It is a 24/7 job with huge responsibilities that never end.

The woman selfishly bit off more than she can chew by having a litter of kids that she now expects the world to take care of for her.

It's all just totally unfair and cruel to do to the kids she already has-especially the child with autism, who probably needs round the clock care.

[nadine_mn]

193. Personal attacks are a nice touch

'you don't have a clue as to what it takes to take care of a child'

actually I do

The attacks and venom towards this person (she is a shitty person, scumbag etc) do not further any good.

And I am not sure what HUGE deal I ever made about anything

[earth mom]

239. You have an "idea" of what it takes to raise a child.

But until you actually do it yourself you have no clue.

So stop passing judgment on the parents around here who are calling bullshit on that woman who is neglecting her first 6 children by having 8 more.

p.s. I didn't attack you. I should have given your "know it all" OP, but I didn't.

[nadine_mn]

245. If you have a problem with me, I am sorry

I know what it takes to raise a child, and without going into more personal detail, I don't give a rats ass if you believe me.
I am not calling bullshit on anyone... again you seem to have your own issue with me that is clouding your ability to read and process information.
What I don't like is anyone passing judgment on who can and cannot have a child. I do not agree with this woman's decisions, but I am not about to pretend I can diagnose her and I sure as hell am not going to hate her.

[cherish44]

179. Yes my reaction to her was knee jerk

But nothing I've seen or heard from her has change my mind yet...

[Name removed]

186. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[terisan]

180. Great Post. Too much authoritarianism and judgment of other going on. nt

[eridani]

181. It isn't rational. It's a gut-level response to people who shit in the reservoir.

We all know that our collective production and reproduction habits mean that we are killing off our planet and our children or grandchildren. People get upset at that and lash out, even though kids in big families are innocent bystanders to the decisions of others.

The root is growing modern revulsion against traditional values, which in the reproductive realm means being a willful cheerleader for mass murder and genocide. (I mean tradition as in the last 5000 years, not the era before that.) The Old Testament spells it out plainly.

Genesis 22:17

I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore.

Immediately the question arises as to where all those little grains of sand are supposed to live. Hey--no problem! Genocide, pillage and rape to the rescue!

Deuteronomy 7:1-2:

"... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

Deuteronomy 2:26-35 "...we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain."

Numbers 31:16-18:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

And what are big famlies for? Women have the job of breeding enough mass murderers to do the job of genocide.

Psalm 127:3-4

Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord:
and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man;
so are children of the youth.
Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them.

Traditional values are why we invaded Iraq and have 700+ military bases around the world.

It's why the people of Rwanda slaughtered each other. That's what happens when women start their reproductive careers at 15 and average 8.5 kids in 1983 and still 6.2 in 1992. Well, that and not having a powerful enough imperial army to impose genocide on foreigners and take the food and water they'd need from someone else.

Israel has rained destruction on Lebanon and Palestine mainly for the purpose of water theft in a very dry part of the world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2249599.stm

And that's why so many people have an irrational hatred for a woman with 14 kids under the age of 8. For most our our existence (before the era of writen history) we have had relatively slow population growth. Isn't it about time that we break the habit of over-reproduction followed by mass murder? It's only 5,000 years old. Older old-fashioned values should be doable.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eridani]

189. Great. Another global warming denier

Our fisheries will not collapse if we think nice thoughts. No such thing as soil depletion or water wars. We can just do Happy Motoring off to the future--all 20 billion of us.

[ima_sinnic]

190. I think the clue train left without you

do you have any real facts or evidence to back up your ridiculous name-calling and blanket rejection of the mountain of evidence that the world is quickly losing the ability to sustain its billions and billions of inhabitants?

[foo_bar]

268. "It's only 5,000 years old" ... is that a fact?

It seems difficult to believe that prehistory was anything less than an unchronicled series of mass murders, isn't the progress of hominid-kind essentially measured by the sophistication of his weapon of choice? I mean hunting, sure, but:

In a new analysis released Monday, anthropologists suggested that the hole in the head of a young adult Neanderthal who died about 36,000 years ago, near what is now the village of St. Cesaire, in southwestern France, was probably made by someone who sliced open the skull with a machete-like knife or sword. Equally important, the victim got enough help from relatives and friends to survive the experience. <...>

Violence "is natural behavior among social primates," Zollikofer said. "The biggest difference between apes and hominids (humans and human ancestors) is the involvement of tools." <...>

Still, he added, "almost anything is possible." A weapon of the type that inflicted the wound to the young Neanderthal was not found at St. Cesaire, but Trinkaus said Neanderthals had the technology to accomplish the job, as do modern humans.

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news288.htm

[Celebration]

198. Personally, I think it is the doctor that should face the consequences

I understand the point about not wanting to police this sort of thing. It shouldn't be necessary. However, it seems like malpractice to me. If I were one of those babies who had to put up with a lifetime of medical care because of this I sure would want to sue the doctor. It seems like the malpractice insurance companies could step in here and refuse to insure doctors who do this. That would stop it!

[dkf]

199. Let's see if she can take care of everything by herself.

If she can do it without assistance, more power to her.

If she can't then take the kids away.

How simple is that?

Personally, I think it is impossible and I feel very sorry for the kids. And I don't think anyone should have kids with the expectation that other people will take care of everything. That is simply wrong.

[Spider Jerusalem]

200. I'm sorry, but the whole thing is horrifying and freakish.

The woman in question is very obviously psychologically disturbed, and is by no stretch of the imagination financially capable of having six, much less fourteen, children, let alone mentally. You shouldn't really expect that the response to a deranged breeder with a baby fetish is going to be 'you go, girl!' And this was a conscious decision on her part, as she's already HAD six children by IVF, apparently, and chose not to selectively abort any of her litter (which is what they are, whether you like the term or not).

[JonLP24]

201. Frieghtening knee jerk reactions are common on the internet

Which is why I don't come her often. Too many people judgmental about people they don't know. People without PHD's and haven't personally examined her are calling her fucked up in the head. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. Didn't the egg split btw? I'm not an expert in child birth so maybe she had some way of knowing she would have 8 kids. Either way it isn't any of our business and the only people I heard complaining about tax dollars paying for her is hosts Fox News Fox & Friends.

Bottom line it's none of our business and this woman doesn't seemed to be worried about what anonymous internet board posters are saying about her. Now lets talk about something more important such as Jessica Simpson's weight gain. :eyes:

[Vinca]

202. I don't know about the OP, but I'm not feeling too warm and fuzzy

as a taxpayer about footing a $1.3 million hospital bill when I can't afford health insurance myself. This woman is completely and totally irresponsible. If "by accident" she'd found herself in this mess it would be one thing, but she - a person on disability income - decided to spend her money not on education to be able to support the 6 kids she already has, not on a college fund for those 6 kids, not on independent housing, but on in vitro fertilizaton . . . and I suspect Angelina Jolie lookalike surgery. She obviously has psychiatric issues and the state needs to sit on her doorstep to be sure those babies are taken care of. Another question is whether these will be her last. Nothing is stopping her from having a litter every year.

[LibDemAlways]

213. I hope that the posters upthread who are

applauding this woman will take out their checkbooks and send her something besides "you go girls." Those words of praise aren't going to feed, clothe, and provide medical care for 14 children who, if the CPS people allow it, will soon be going home to a small house never meant to accommodate that large a family.

This is a hugely fucked up situation.

[we can do it]

203. Its a Fucking Litter, Not a Crime. The Idiot Dr. & Media Are Also To Blame

Implanting 8 embryos for attention and money is total bullshit. Disgusting

[MilesColtrane]

206. The numbers are stacked against her.

The cost of raising a single child to the age of 18, excluding any college tuition is $289,746.

This includes:

Housing
Food
Transportation
Clothing
Healthcare
Childcare/Education

She's got 14 kids, so 14 X 289,746 = $4.05 million

$4.05 million divided by 18 years = $225,358 a year.

Since some of the octuplets are tiny, chances are they will be developmentally delayed and they'll face further medical challenges and costs.

The only way she'll be able to provide for those kids is if she gets a job that pays well over $225,000 a year.

The median salary for attorneys with 20 years experience is $114,399. Law school takes about three years to complete if you're attending full time.

The median salary oncologists is $204,068. To get there she'd need 6 years of med school, 3 years of internal medicine residency, and 2 years of oncology residency.

I have the feeling that most of these kids will end up in state care eventually, and that she'll continue to get pregnant.

[Lorien]

230. Plus one has autism, so add a little extra to that 4.05 million bill

she's going to need one heck of a lottery win-especially living in California!

[nichomachus]

207. "Knee jerk" -- definition

Lately it has come to mean "Any statement that doesn't agree with my preconceived notion."

[krabigirl]

218. What I find revolting is the continued interest in this non-news story by the media.

[treestar]

219. I would say you are right, and there isn't much we can do about the

very tiny minority of people who make this kind of choice. But then again, that doesn't mean she isn't subject to the same Child Protective Services everyone else is, and given her situation, something is liable to go wrong. Those kids aren't safe unless she has other adults committed to help her day to day. That's not knee jerk, but common sense. If she had a day care, she probably would be regulated under state laws regarding the adult/child ratio. Just because they are all her kids doesn't mean that question doesn't still come into play.

[LWolf]

220. The dark side of choice

is that people are free to make reproductive choices that are harmful to others.

In this case, harmful to those 14 kids.

In the greater picture, harmful to the planet, and the rest of us, by deliberately overpopulating.

The planet, and humanity, would be healthier and better off with a huge reduction in the human population. The responsibility lies with people to make that happen.

If 99 out of every 100 humans made the choice that you have, the world would be a better place.

While I don't support legislating the number of children a woman can have, I do support some strong incentives to have no, or few, children. I also think that people who have proven themselves to be unfit parents for the children they already have should be prevented from having more.

I don't know if this woman was "unfit." I think she's mentally ill, I think she's irresponsible, and I think her mother has enabled her. Hearing about her, I keep thinking of a family I taught in the 90s.

There were 8 beautiful children, being raised by their grandparents. All the children had learning disabilities and various levels of brain damage due to their mother's drug use. Some had other related health issues, as well. The grandparents were the mother's parents. Every time she had a child, she kept it for a while until social services decided she was unfit, and took the child away, awarding custody to the grandparents. Sometimes she kept a new baby for a year or two; sometimes less.

We met many times every year, for all those children's IEPs. One time the grandmother looked at me across the table; she was exhausted, discouraged, and she said desperately: "If there were just a way to keep her from having any more! She never knows who the father is, it's always the same, and nobody will make her stop. Why can't people who have abused or neglected children be sterilized by law? How many more are we going to end up raising before she finally quits conceiving?"

[Lorien]

231. That's truly horrible! I feel awful for those grandparents

it's amazing that the ability to have as many children as possible is not only protected, but celebrated-even among those who are clearly unwell and unable to care for their offspring. Meanwhile many counties legislate how many and what kinds of pets people can own, because 14 cats in a small apartment of keeping a lion in your backyard is inhumane. There's a double standard there, and children are being damaged for life because of it.

[tigereye]

259. oh for god's sake, kids and animals are not the same.

[Lorien]

Yes, so why would we condone treating children less humanely than animals?

[NashVegas]

271. A Small House With 14 Dogs Would Have Animal Welfare On Their Arses In a Heartbeat

[hendo]

283. damn straight

this woman should be no different.

[tigereye]

286. the complexities of caring for children are very different from animal care

and we don't simply take people's children away from them if they have "too many," but only when people cannot care for them sufficiently (and it has to meet a certain standard) over a period of time. Typically people help folks with a lot of kids, whereas I don't know if that's typical of folks with too many animals. They really aren't comparable.

[LWolf]

261. It IS a double standard.

And it needs to be part of the discussion about reproductive rights.

What are the limits to any right?

[barb162]

221. The comments I have seen are neither knee jerk nor frightening.

The woman needs some long term and in-depth psychotherapy and shouldn't be having children until she can afford them or take care of them. She's irresponsible. She says she'll be able to take care of them when she gets her degree. This indicates she can't take care of them NOW. SO what kind of a lousy mother is that, admitting she can't take care of them now. She should wait until she gets her degree to have them them. Chances are she won't be making as much as she thinks with a counseling degree and not at all enough to support that many children.

[pmorlan1]

222. Judgmental threads

You see a lot of judgmental comments in the smoking threads too.

[undeterred]

233. Thanks for your thoughtful post.

I agree with what you've said, and I also have found the response here to be a little frightening.

For those of us who believe in a "woman's right to choose" it is as hypocritical to attack someone for having too many children or as it would be to attack them for having too many abortions. I would not choose to have 14 children or 14 abortions, but I will not mock or criticize someone else's right to make those choices.

The mother of the octuplets probably has some psychological issues. Being depressed or obsessed with babies does not stop millions of other women with psychological problems from having children. It seems like the provider of the IVF should have done a more careful screening of the patient and been more careful about implanting so many embryos. I am not in favor of having too much regulation here, but clinics should establish reasonable ethical guidelines, not just SELL their services. A single woman with six young children would not be considered "infertile" by most standards.

I know a lot of people living on disability, and it usually isn't easy to tell what is wrong with them. I'm sure there are people who try to cheat the system. But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

So, I wish her the best in raising these children. And I hope that as a consequence of the attention paid to this story, doctors who practice IVF will be more careful about who they are willing to treat.

[gongsnotbongs]

234. Yes, we need to help the children, but your point on mental health is insane!

People who are mentally ill should NOT be making kids! And if her mother knew she was nuts and that she had already used IVF, she should have called Nadya's doctor and threatened to sue or whatever!

I say we go after fathers, too! But my God, we have to have some boundaries in society! Just because war funds are wasted doesn't mean that we should invest in people who have issues making dozens of kids!

[tigereye]

260. people with mental health issues are permitted to have kids in this country

And, no one here is qualified to judge this woman's mental health. No one here has met her.

[Bryn]

238. re:

re: "The knee-jerk reactions to the woman with 14 children is frightening"

I honestly think Nadya herself is the knee-jerk frightening from what I have heard about her, seen her, what she has said. I wonder how her children will turn out. If they're all healthy and well taken care of and loved. Will they be ok? I certainly wouldn't want to be one of them with a mother like that. :scared:

[leftofthedial]

241. no complaint with the kids

their mother's mental illness is not their fault.

the fertility docs should have their medical licenses revoked.

the parents of the mother should be examined thoroughly.

the woman should be in an institution.

the kids should be adopted out.

[ferrous wheel]

243. Well, if you can complain about your taxes being spent on Iraq, why can't we complain about ours

supporting a baby factory producing litters?

[Doughboy71]

248. You only get to complain

about your taxes being used if you live in California. I'm in Minnesota so I'm pretty sure none of my taxes are being used. If a few bucks of my Federal taxes go to help out her kids, I can live with that. If you want to take your few bucks and run home and put it back in your piggy bank, I'll throw in what you take out. Her kids need that money more than us.

[ferrous wheel]

250. You're very confused. You admit some of YOUR taxes from MN are likely to end up in

the brood mare's bank account but you think none of -mine- would unless I live in California? You really shouldn't be smoking that shit.

[Doughboy71]

251. Ok...

My post said if some of my Federal taxes are used I would OK with it. I know none of my MN taxes would be used. I know the people of California's state taxes are likely to be used as well as their Federal taxes. I also know you didn't read my post completely otherwise you would have noticed I specifically said my Federal Taxes not State taxes might end up being used. I also know I have more compassion for my fellow human being than you.

[Doughboy71]

247. Ok, ok can't we all just get along?

I agree with Nadine_mn for a few reasons, the first, and probably most important is she is my wife and I love her and we agree on the topic of having our own two legged kids. We currently have four, four legged kids and that is just fine with me.

Now, on to more serious reasons. I believe almost anyone has a right to have kids in this country. Those I believe do not/should not have kids are those who will pass on some horrible disease like AIDS. If there is better than 50% chance you will pass along your disease or genetic abnormality to your child and that child is going to suffer, then you shouldn't be having kids, and maybe it is societies job to step in and make that decision for you. That unborn child should not have to grow up / live with the pain of your mistakes. Remember, I did say MAYBE society should step in, maybe that intervention is only counseling.

Other than those extreme cases, I firmly believe no one has the right to tell someone else they can or can't have kids for whatever moral or ethical reasons they may have. This debate is no different than a womans right to choose to give birth or get an abortion if she gets pregnant. If I had the $5 to bet, I would say most of you who are arguing against Nadine's original post are Pro-Choice and would fight for a womans right to choose. How is this any different than the abortion debate? On one side you are saying someone does not have the right to have more kids if they already have X number of kids, or they can't have kids if they can't afford to have them. With the abortion debate we fight for the womans right to choose what she does with her body, all be damned who try to legislate what she can and can't do. Stop these shenanigans now, you are just giving the Pro-Life supporters ammunition to use in their fight.

There are many posters who say if you can't afford to have kids you shouldn't have them. So how much money do you need to have in the bank to have kids? What about yearly salary? How much is enough? How about the middle manager who was making $150,000 a year who gets laid off from the NY investment firm who goes under? Say he and his wife had a baby three months before he was laid off? Is the state going to swoop in and take the 3 month old? Say it was Donald Trump, he has gone bankrupt a couple times, should the state take away his kids if he goes under?

We all have opinions, morals and ethics. But I don't have the right to force my morals on anyone else. I may agree the woman should not have had 8 more kids when she already had 6 at home. Maybe the fertility doctor or clinic should have sent her to a counselor before her latest procedure. You would hope 6 would be enough for anyone, but apparently she wanted to field a baseball team and a bullpen. Instead of damning this women as evil, maybe we should have concern for her and all 14 kids. Maybe we should setup a trust fund and make a donation to help fund whatever medical expenses or future educational needs they will have.

Maybe, Maybe, Maybe, yes there are a lot of maybes. One thing I know for sure, I don't have any more right than anyone else to condemn this woman for her actions.

If you are Catholic you probably remember the following passage from the bible. If you are not Catholic, you probably know it as well. My parents would be so happy, I'm quoting out of the bible.

The Gospel of John 8:1-11

8:1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
8:2 Now very early in the morning, he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him. He sat down, and taught them.
8:3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery. Having set her in the midst,
8:4 they told him, "Teacher, we found this woman in adultery, in the very act.
8:5 Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such. What then do you say about her?"
8:6 They said this testing him, that they might have something to accuse him of. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote on the ground with his finger.
8:7 But when they continued asking him, he looked up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her."
8:8 Again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.
8:9 They, when they heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning from the oldest, even to the last. Jesus was left alone with the woman where she was, in the middle.
8:10 Jesus, standing up, saw her and said, "Woman, where are your accusers? Did no one condemn you?"
8:11 She said, "No one, Lord." Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way. From now on, sin no more."

[tigereye]

252. thanks for this reasonable post. Always a pleasure to see them.

[flvegan]

255. This thread is so epic, it made the Kessel Run in less than 10 parsecs.

[BlooInBloo]

258. Your mealy-mouthed sorta-agree-sorta-disagree is stupid.

Everyone agrees it's a woman's choice.

Rational people agree that this particular choice was a poor one.

All else is silliness.

[JerseygirlCT]

262. I agree with you

It's been disturbing to see all the judgement and dictated "rules" about just how many children should be allowed to one person. Are we in China? Do we only believe in choice for certain people?

Until we see that some tangible (as opposed to imagined) harm has come to those children, she remains an oddity, but a parent all the same.

Just as it's not for me to judge your child-free choice, and it's not for anyone else to judge my choice wrt children, it's not ours to judge.

I have plenty of questions about her doctor - implanting 6 in a patient who may not have been infertile to begin with, and who would not reduce... seems quite questionable.

But as you say - those children are here. And I wish her well, because I wish them all well.

[bridgit]

263. If concerns are available for the simple, kind hearted, eternal sunshines of the spotless mind...

Then be concerned for Nadya Suleman cause it is imo she's being abused by a for-profit "I'm sorry, we don't cover *that* procedure" HMO system now all about publicity & profit and a nip/tuck mentality, in a less than ethical way, seeking to make even-higher-profits per procedure by manipulating the separation anxieties of the lonely such as Nadya Suleman.

Who makes the decision for how many face lifts a person can have? Oh geeze!! That woman's face just popped into my head and no I am not going to go Google & embed it cause it scares me. Naw, like internment camps & shooting all the buffalo till they're gone...some ideas are better left un-pursued and the abuse of Nadya Suleman by teams of for-profit medical professionals was one of them

[NashVegas]

272. WTH? You Agree With All The Reasons This Is WRONG, But You Want Everyone to Shut Up About It?

Please examine your own action and tell me what changes if public opinion doesn't make itself heard, loudly?

[BlooInBloo]

284. Yup, that's about the sum of it.

[nadine_mn]

288. I agree that the doctor acted unethically

and she made some poor decisions...

But the comments that say "if you can't afford kids don't have them", "people who have mental illness should not have children"

fuck yes I disagree and want them to shut up... because I doubt anyone here is qualified to make judgments on who can and cannot have children. You may have an opinion and thats fine, but demanding some be institutionalized based on MEDIA reports is a witch hunt

[sohndrsmith]

275. I can agree - partially...

I am startled and concerned by this woman's behaviour, even though I'm aware that she seems to have every legal right to do what she did (I fault her physicians for not taking an adequate history or other reasonable screening prior to all these transfers... especially year after year after year - if she is telling the truth that all her children were due to IVF from the same clinic/physician, which I'm not really convinced is the case. Either way, the expectation that doctor will not offer harmful or inappropriate procedures is standard, and doing otherwise indicates negligence in my view).

I think this woman has serious troubles, but I'm not concerned about her issues as I am concerned about her children. But it is absolutely true that there is no prerequisite for having children for any specific reason. People are allowed to have children for any reason they want - or no reason - or without expecting/planning to - or whatever.

Just because she (or anyone) has that right doesn't mean it's unreasonable to find it extremely troubling. And I say that especially because I've had children which specifically reinforces my concerns. Maybe I'm odd, but having children significantly and permanently altered my whole sense of the world and what's important - in a visceral, wonderful way...

What I'm appalled at, though, is the number of people (though I'm happy to report I haven't really seen it here at DU) who want to punish the mother claiming to boycott any magazines that feature her or companies that provide products for her - and basically seem to seriously want to see her stranded - I guess to "teach her a lesson or something". Whatever, how people feel about her would not be disturbing to me one way or the other - were it not for the fact that the intense reaction to really see this woman suffer is such a horrible sentiment in regards to her children.

I disagree with what I know about this woman, and I'm horrified by her self-interest that these children seem to provide for her - which is an abnormal and inexcusable responsibility to burden any child with - but I HOPE she gets millions of dollars, I HOPE she gets a free house, I HOPE she has everything she needs to provide for each and every one of her children on every level and in every capacity. These children are in for difficult childhoods - even in the best of circumstances and the most mentally healthy parent... neither of which look promising for them at this point.

But I don't wish more pain and hardship on these children... and I'm horrified that there is so much callousness about their well-being because any punishment wished for towards their mother is punishment to them.

I don't think removing these kids from her care is ideal, much less good or even preferable - unless she proves to be unfit by whatever standards determine that. Realistically (and sadly) she's probably very close to the threshold right now... just shy of the line but so close the difference is insignificant. I would love to be proven wrong on that.

Personally, the most loving thing she could do at this point is allow these infants to be adopted into loving, nurturing, healthy homes. That would be the MOST maternal, caring thing she could do for them - unless a miracle happens and she is somehow able to provide that to all of them somehow herself - especially in meeting and nurturing their emotional/psychological needs which does not seem possible for one individual to do adequately - it's just logistically impossible, no matter how good intentions might be. Food, clothing, shelter and basic physical needs and care are hugely difficult but not impossible because it is more appropriate to group manage, assembly-line, even "outsource" to others. And it's still not a great experience because all those activities are rich opportunities for connection and attention, loving and teaching... so I take that back. Especially given the cognitive and emotional development of these kids is so close (her other kids are all young) or identical (the new babies). They is no way they can get what they need from the person they most need it from - their parent - unless their parent has the time to devote to each and every one of them, which is not possible for one person to do and why I advocate adoption (which I know this woman is not about to consider).

Her older kids are already under some level of anxiety or confusion - their mother has been in the hospital for a long time, which is time she is not caring for and focusing on them. Even if Grandma is doing an excellent job, she's not mom. The younger ones, especially don't really have a grasp on what is going on, they just know Mommy is not there and that's stressful for kids. It's going to be even more stressful when they realize how their lives are about to change and nurturing rationed out between them - unequally when infants are involved...

The more I think this through the more I have to think I have to retract my initial statement of partially agreeing with you - because I am so angry that anyone would be so selfish as to put children in this kind of situation for their benefit - regardless of the cost and risk to the children.

But I still hope she has every possible amenity and help she could possibly hope for. She still won't be able to do right by them but it's better than anything else. And I do think someone with such disregard for her childrens' needs and health and well being is probably not capable of being a fit parent because by default she's already disqualified herself for that - the only way she could act like a fit parent would be to love those babies enough to give them better lives so she can provide for the children she already has with some level of marginal adequacy. Even that is in question in my mind...

[LisaL]

276. Are you for real? You hope she gets millions of dollars? For what?

What did she accomplish for her to get millions of dollars? If somebody should get millions of dollars for having children, hello? Lots of people have children, albeit not so many and at once.
Should everybody be getting money for having children? There are people with children who are losing jobs right now. No doubt many people with children could use some extra money.
:eyes:

[earcandle]

280. Well said! I totally agree with you.

This is a major event for this woman and those kids, and when these events occur, we generously support them.

What is all the animosity about? Jealousy that she might get some cash to raise her kids? The uniqueness of
the event demands it. That is just fine with me. I wish I could help. It can be fun watching the kids grow
if we have the ethics (character, intelligence,and goodwill)to support her, and she gives us the rights to observe
her progress.

Haters, go home.

[KoKo]

281. Kick...thanks for this. I've wondered if some weren't going to call for forced Sterilization

of this woman. That's how vicious many of the comments have been. Calling her children a "litter" and all the rest. If the doctor involved did some experimenting that she had eight children at one time, then he is the one who should be rightly condemned if she wasn't informed. If she was informed then it was her choice. We go down a slippery slope when we make the issue the babies or the mother for her choice. If she was abusing the rest of her children then there would be some cause for some agencies to get involved in her mental health and whether she's able to take care of the children. But, many are jumping the gun when all the facts are not know and the media is sensationalizing the whole thing.

[LisaL]

282. She doesn't need sterilization. She is infertile.

What she needs is for the doctor to stop implanting her with babies.

[Skittles]

289. nothing knee-jerk about it

the woman deserves to be slammed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5013220

[kiva]

292. Yes, there is no defense for this.

Her mother has obviously reached her limit, and without her support - both financial and caring for the children - the mother and children are in trouble. The fact that both grandparents asked the doctor not to do another implant after the first six was born, and Nadya managed to find another doctor to do so speaks to the need to regulate this procedure. It also show that Nadya obviously didn't care that her parents had been run into the ground financially and emotionally caring for her children.

[Skittles]

294. it's just sick and sad all the way around

:thumbsdown:

[LatteLibertine]

290. I pity the children caught up in this

NT

[kskiska]

291. Read what her mother says:

Octuplets' grandmother criticizes daughter

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The mother of the woman who used a fertility doctor to give birth to octuplets, despite already having six young children, called her daughter's actions "unconscionable" in an interview posted online Sunday.
Angela Suleman is caring for the six older children while her daughter is hospitalized after giving birth Jan. 26 to the octuplets.
"She already has six beautiful children, why would she do this?" Angela Suleman said in the videotaped interview with celebrity news Web site RadarOnline.com. "I'm struggling to look after her six. We had to put in bunk beds, feed them in shifts and there's children's clothing piled all over the house."

The Web site posted photographs from inside Angela Suleman's disheveled three-bedroom home, where Nadya and her brood also live. Heaps of clothing pour from an open closet door and a carpeted bedroom, where a bedsheet serves as a curtain, is cluttered with cribs.

Nadya Suleman's publicist Mike Furtney said that his client has been away for nearly two months, so shouldn't be held responsible for the home's current condition.

Furtney said his client planned to move into a larger home once the octuplets were healthy enough to leave doctors' care.

more…
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ilIx-PXnXPpwF1a_nlRYF00fzBIQD967SLOG0

[notesdev]

293. More than the mother

We need to look at the doctor. Who is implanting 8 embryos in a single mother who already has 6 kids and has no independent means to support even the ones she has?

If it's being done on my dime, I should have a say in it. And I say, no million-dollar CEO salaries on my dime, and no artificial creation of kids that I will have to support. This is a form of economic warfare - the more I have to support other peoples' kids, the less means I have to have my own. This kind of reverse-Darwinism, where the least able are the most prosperous, is perverse.