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

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

:grr:

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

:eyes:

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

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

"Are you from Alabama?"

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

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

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?

be able to earn money to take care of them.

and what does that have to do with taxes?

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?

:shrug:

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

She has proven she is a go getter indeed.

:shrug:

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

gheesh! :eyes:

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

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?

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

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.

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?

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

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.

Sorry to say.

:hug:

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.

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.

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.

$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.

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

until that comes to pass?

Put up or shut up.

So, what's your problem? :shrug:

she wants her and the kids to get out.

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

There are other bills that will have to be paid.

:shrug:

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?

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.

the OP is right.

but I can certainly judge her for her fucked up actions

:thumbsdown:

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.

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

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

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. "

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.

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!

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

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

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

who work hard to care for their kids.

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

Hell no!!

BUT I defend her right to choose.

how on earth can she support any of them?

;)

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.

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

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

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.

:P

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

:rofl:

:P

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

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

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.

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.

Have a cable show or something?

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.

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.

;)

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

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

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.

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.

would you say the same 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.

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.

;)

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

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

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.

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.

Do you know more then everyone else? :shrug:

Not all preemies have health problems.

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.

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

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

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

she abused her rights.

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

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.

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.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

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.

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.

i think she is a crappy mother also.

Just wow....

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?

the problem is an ethics impaired doctor

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

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?

Get over it, Zappa fanatic! :P

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

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.

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

There's some dangerous territory right there.

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?

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

:(

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

I refuse to engage you here.

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

:crazy:

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.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

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.

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

:hug:

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

"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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

all their children had sickle cell disease.

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

CHOICE matters!!!

:hug:

Well stated and Well Said!

Thank You!! :D

:kick: & Recommended!!

:toast:

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.

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".

thank you for saying this aloud!

:yourock:

:D

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.

:D

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

the ones you refer to.

implanted. The doctor warned her about the risks.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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:

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?

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

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

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.

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

should also qualify as child abuse.

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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. :-(

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.

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!

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

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

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

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.

:yourock:

:hug:

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?

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?

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?

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

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.

:puke:

:nuke:

but to go back and have 8 more kids.

I have nothing wrong with IVF in most cases.

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.

:shrug:

If so, then adopt!!

;)

Irkin invader.

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

"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?"

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?

rationality and logical reasoning.

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

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.