.... I still feel the need to mention that we need to be careful when we start talking about actually controlling women's fertility. It's a slippery slope. (I know, this is just a message board.)
But isn't IVF in a way a control of fertility? Not in saying you can or you can't from a moral (or dictatorial) point of view, but more from a physical/medical point of view. I.e., your body says 'no you can't conceive children for various reasons', you/the medical profession say 'Hey body... I have control over you and whatever you say, these doctors can go over your head and make me conceive. Thus control over a woman's fertility. Then all the moral/ethical implications surface. A bit far fetched, maybe, but still.
Yes, I guess it's kind of like controlling your fertility with contraceptive pills/devices. But that's not the kind of control to which I was referring. In the cases of contraception and IVF, medicine helps women control their own fertility. I was warning more against anything that would take control away from the woman and place it in the hands of society/politics, ya know?
I was warning more against anything that would take control away from the woman and place it in the hands of society/politics, ya know?
True, there is a danger, but once you start talking ethics, etc. there is already some control in place, whether moral or by law. That goes for other medical procedures as well. It's a very grey area. But when you see something like this - 6 kids with first IVF, 8 with second IVF, you start asking yourself questions. Clearly the IVF clinic/doctor did not adhere to the guidelines (rules? law?) of only a couple of eggs to be implanted. Was the doctor right to do this (can one assume at the request of the mother?), at the potential expense of the mother's and babies' health?
But then again... would a refusal to do so be an affront to freedom of choice (the mother's)?
The thought of 8 screaming at the same time, 8 sets of diapers to change, 8 mouths to feed, 8 baths to give makes me absolutely shudder.
Yeah... i can't imagine even two people logistically being able to keep up with 8 babies on the change/feed/nap routine in the first couple of months.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I was warning more against anything that would take control away from the woman and place it in the hands of society/politics, ya know?
True, there is a danger, but once you start talking ethics, etc. there is already some control in place, whether moral or by law. That goes for other medical procedures as well. It's a very grey area. But when you see something like this - 6 kids with first IVF, 8 with second IVF, you start asking yourself questions. Clearly the IVF clinic/doctor did not adhere to the guidelines (rules? law?) of only a couple of eggs to be implanted. Was the doctor right to do this (can one assume at the request of the mother?), at the potential expense of the mother's and babies' health?
But then again... would a refusal to do so be an affront to freedom of choice (the mother's)?
Ever-evolving medical technology has sure given us a lot to think about, and I'm not ready to take a stand things such as IVF just yet. My point is just that as we do consider these things we need to keep in mind that we want to move forward, not backward to the days when it was completely unacceptable for single women to be mothers, for instance. As for the question of whether the doctor was right to do this at the potential expense of the mother's and babies' health, I'll have to leave that up to the medical community to decide.
one is too much these days.. fn 14? Thats just stupid.. and why would a single mom have so many damned kids? Most couples can't even afford enough for their kids... I feel sorry for the grandparents who probably do most of the tuff stuff.
I was warning more against anything that would take control away from the woman and place it in the hands of society/politics, ya know?
True, there is a danger, but once you start talking ethics, etc. there is already some control in place, whether moral or by law. That goes for other medical procedures as well. It's a very grey area. But when you see something like this - 6 kids with first IVF, 8 with second IVF, you start asking yourself questions. Clearly the IVF clinic/doctor did not adhere to the guidelines (rules? law?) of only a couple of eggs to be implanted. Was the doctor right to do this (can one assume at the request of the mother?), at the potential expense of the mother's and babies' health?
But then again... would a refusal to do so be an affront to freedom of choice (the mother's)?
Ever-evolving medical technology has sure given us a lot to think about, and I'm not ready to take a stand things such as IVF just yet. My point is just that as we do consider these things we need to keep in mind that we want to move forward, not backward to the days when it was completely unacceptable for single women to be mothers, for instance. As for the question of whether the doctor was right to do this at the potential expense of the mother's and babies' health, I'll have to leave that up to the medical community to decide.
...
Wholeheartedly agree... As a whole... we need to steer clear of legislation that would restrict us a of a Choice to use the new and emerging technologies and concentrate on the moral and ethical questions raised by its use (and abuse). Like, just because this one crazy lady did this, it does not mean we should abolish all future procedures. We need to put moral and ethical decisions in play.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Ever-evolving medical technology has sure given us a lot to think about, and I'm not ready to take a stand things such as IVF just yet. My point is just that as we do consider these things we need to keep in mind that we want to move forward, not backward to the days when it was completely unacceptable for single women to be mothers, for instance. As for the question of whether the doctor was right to do this at the potential expense of the mother's and babies' health, I'll have to leave that up to the medical community to decide.
...
Wholeheartedly agree... As a whole... we need to steer clear of legislation that would restrict us a of a Choice to use the new and emerging technologies and concentrate on the moral and ethical questions raised by its use (and abuse). Like, just because this one crazy lady did this, it does not mean we should abolish all future procedures. We need to put moral and ethical decisions in play.
I think most people would be happy with just a restriction on how many embryos can be implanted at a time. At a minimum, IVF seekers need to be put through the same amount of paperwork and scrutiny adoptive parents get.
I think a psychiatric exam should be given and a look into their psych background, especially for a woman with 6 very young children at home, no father, and no means of support, living with her mother. But, I think all people getting embyro implants, or whatever thye call it, needs a psych eval.
I'm not surprised she's had plastic surgery. She has that creeper-fake-face look.
I was going to post the same thing. Judging by the plastic you can tell it is all about "me".
plastic surgery or not.....ANYone who willingly chooses to bring that many children into the world, with no real means of support for them all, no partner to assist and love these children, did it ALL simply b/c SHE 'wants a big family'.....SHE always 'wanted lots and lots of kids', etc. it's all 'she wants, she wants'......not what is best for any children brought into the world. utter selfishness. and beyond these poor children, apparently she is so selfish and about her own wants, that it's a-ok in her book that she cannot afford them, and therefore the taxpayers of the US can foot all her medical bills, and end up supporting her children to adulthood. all for HER WANTS. man, she Is special. :roll: there are many things in this world i 'want'...and if i get them, it's b/c i WORK for them, and some other things...i may never have, simply b/c it's not meant to be. maturity and responsibility, you know, behaving like an adult, usually helps most realize these things. we are NOT entitled to ANYthing, and we can't just get what we want b/c we want it. obviously, this woman proves to be the excpetion to this rule...and these poor children shall suffer for it, and we all get to pay for it too.
I've heard a lot of people saying, "Let her find out how hard it is to raise kids without help!" but I don't agree with that at all, because then the children suffer when she is inevitably a horrible and neglectful provider.
This is a really good point. I mean, we're all in agreement that Nadya has some serious mental issues and is straight up selfish...BUT I think it's easy to overlook the children in all this. Clearly, the mom is the bad guy...but the kids are the innocent ones...and they're the ones who are suffering and will continue to suffer. But then again, I'm not sure taking them away from their mom is the right answer. In all her selfishness in wanting a large family, I *DO* think she wants to be a good mom. Whether she actually is, or not, is not for me to decide since I'm obviously an outsider.
This is the greatest band in the world -- Ben Harper
I've heard a lot of people saying, "Let her find out how hard it is to raise kids without help!" but I don't agree with that at all, because then the children suffer when she is inevitably a horrible and neglectful provider.
This is a really good point. I mean, we're all in agreement that Nadya has some serious mental issues and is straight up selfish...BUT I think it's easy to overlook the children in all this. Clearly, the mom is the bad guy...but the kids are the innocent ones...and they're the ones who are suffering and will continue to suffer. But then again, I'm not sure taking them away from their mom is the right answer. In all her selfishness in wanting a large family, I *DO* think she wants to be a good mom. Whether she actually is, or not, is not for me to decide since I'm obviously an outsider.
yeah but what, in this nutjob's mind, constitutes a good mother?
I've heard a lot of people saying, "Let her find out how hard it is to raise kids without help!" but I don't agree with that at all, because then the children suffer when she is inevitably a horrible and neglectful provider.
This is a really good point. I mean, we're all in agreement that Nadya has some serious mental issues and is straight up selfish...BUT I think it's easy to overlook the children in all this. Clearly, the mom is the bad guy...but the kids are the innocent ones...and they're the ones who are suffering and will continue to suffer. But then again, I'm not sure taking them away from their mom is the right answer. In all her selfishness in wanting a large family, I *DO* think she wants to be a good mom. Whether she actually is, or not, is not for me to decide since I'm obviously an outsider.
yeah but what, in this nutjob's mind, constitutes a good mother?
maybe she is like half the people on this board.....
she doesnt work....
she doesnt pay taxes....
and she thinks she will be able to FLIP the 8 hawaii posters she owns in order to pay for the kids college.....
hehehehehehehehe.....................
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
I've heard a lot of people saying, "Let her find out how hard it is to raise kids without help!" but I don't agree with that at all, because then the children suffer when she is inevitably a horrible and neglectful provider.
This is a really good point. I mean, we're all in agreement that Nadya has some serious mental issues and is straight up selfish...BUT I think it's easy to overlook the children in all this. Clearly, the mom is the bad guy...but the kids are the innocent ones...and they're the ones who are suffering and will continue to suffer. But then again, I'm not sure taking them away from their mom is the right answer. In all her selfishness in wanting a large family, I *DO* think she wants to be a good mom. Whether she actually is, or not, is not for me to decide since I'm obviously an outsider.
yeah but what, in this nutjob's mind, constitutes a good mother?
Great point.
This is the greatest band in the world -- Ben Harper
yeah but what, in this nutjob's mind, constitutes a good mother?
I think she said she would be there for them and love them unconditionally or something like that.
that's certainly a big PART of being a good parent, but certainly not enough by any stretch. being able to meet your children's basic needs would be a good start too. i also think, even with the best of intentions...most would realize there is NO way, all alone, that they could adequately meet the basic needs of 14 children, all under the age of 7, some with special needs...physcially, mentally, emotionally, financially....and therefore would not willingly choose to bring said children into this world without being able to care for their needs.
yeah but what, in this nutjob's mind, constitutes a good mother?
I think she said she would be there for them and love them unconditionally or something like that.
Didn't she say she'd spend 45 minutes each day holding each child? Um...at 14 kids that works out to ...what...10 and a half hours a day?!! That's not even logically possible.
This is the greatest band in the world -- Ben Harper
.most would realize there is NO way, all alone, that they could adequately meet the basic needs of 14 children....
She also said that no one can raise that amount of kids alone without the help of parents, friends, church, etc. Good thing her mum is already looking after the other 6. Maybe she has 8 friends and/or church goers that are ready to take responsibility each for a child!
yeah but what, in this nutjob's mind, constitutes a good mother?
I think she said she would be there for them and love them unconditionally or something like that.
Didn't she say she'd spend 45 minutes each day holding each child? Um...at 14 kids that works out to ...what...10 and a half hours a day?!! That's not even logically possible.
i saw that on the news yesterday. i think she was actually referring to 'just' the babies. so that would = 6 hours. and that's just holding em. how about changing them, feeding them, giving them mental stimulation, caring for any other special needs.....let alone her other 6 children...and oh yea, work a job to support them all. care for them, support them, ALL on her own? BS. she never planned on it...b/c it's impossible w/o assistance.
She also said that no one can raise that amount of kids alone without the help of parents, friends, church, etc. Good thing her mum is already looking after the other 6. Maybe she has 8 friends and/or church goers that are ready to take responsibility each for a child!
for the sake of those children, i sincerely hope so!
.most would realize there is NO way, all alone, that they could adequately meet the basic needs of 14 children....
She also said that no one can raise that amount of kids alone without the help of parents, friends, church, etc. Good thing her mum is already looking after the other 6. Maybe she has 8 friends and/or church goers that are ready to take responsibility each for a child!
I'm sure there will be a multitude of people who will step forward to help out in the beginning...whether it be to honestly help...or to be close to a "celebrity". :roll:
This is the greatest band in the world -- Ben Harper
Just some observations from last night's 'Dateline: NBC'....
It is all about her. Her wants for a large family... her dreams of a large number of children... all about the I, the Me and the Mine. I think she is seriously delusional about her abilities to care for the extremely large number of kids she has undertaken. Loving your kids and caring for them are two completely different things. You may love them all, but you may not be able to provide the required care for each of them.. that each child deserves. she doesn't consider the fact that her wants impose in the lives of others... namely, her elderly parents. They are taken for granted in her list of wants and desires.
She reminds me of the crazy cat ladies... they may be well intentioned and believe they can provide for 14 kids (or 137 cats), the reality is... logistically, it is impossible. Imagine getting the kids off to the doctors... taking all 8, while finding someone to watch the older kids... just getting them into the car... how do you do that... especially, by yourself?
It is a lesson in selfishness. Selfishness that blinds out reality and reason... logic and fact. Love cannot solve all problems... it makes for a nice line in greeting cards, but the reality is, love does not feed hungry babies or change their diapers.
...
One disturbing observation... the whole 'My angels' comment in reference to the fact that all 8 kids share the middle name, 'Angel'... that creeped me out. Along with all of the other religious crap she said, and the kids all having Biblical Names... she could be one of those psycho types that 'loves her kids so much' that she drowns them in the bathtub so they can all be together with Jesus while she is in one of her deep depressions.
I hope I'm just worrying about more than I should... I don't think these 14 kids deserve this.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Just some observations from last night's 'Dateline: NBC'....
It is all about her. Her wants for a large family... her dreams of a large number of children... all about the I, the Me and the Mine. I think she is seriously delusional about her abilities to care for the extremely large number of kids she has undertaken. Loving your kids and caring for them are two completely different things. You may love them all, but you may not be able to provide the required care for each of them.. that each child deserves. she doesn't consider the fact that her wants impose in the lives of others... namely, her elderly parents. They are taken for granted in her list of wants and desires.
She reminds me of the crazy cat ladies... they may be well intentioned and believe they can provide for 14 kids (or 137 cats), the reality is... logistically, it is impossible. Imagine getting the kids off to the doctors... taking all 8, while finding someone to watch the older kids... just getting them into the car... how do you do that... especially, by yourself?
It is a lesson in selfishness. Selfishness that blinds out reality and reason... logic and fact. Love cannot solve all problems... it makes for a nice line in greeting cards, but the reality is, love does not feed hungry babies or change their diapers.
...
One disturbing observation... the whole 'My angels' comment in reference to the fact that all 8 kids share the middle name, 'Angel'... that creeped me out. Along with all of the other religious crap she said, and the kids all having Biblical Names... she could be one of those psycho types that 'loves her kids so much' that she drowns them in the bathtub so they can all be together with Jesus while she is in one of her deep depressions.
I hope I'm just worrying about more than I should... I don't think these 14 kids deserve this.
thank you.
these have been my thoughts all along, especially the focus on HER wants and desires, to the detriment of all else. slefishness of the highest order.
and you are absolutely right - those 14 children, and her parents too i might add, do NOT deserve this.
Just some observations from last night's 'Dateline: NBC'....
It is all about her. Her wants for a large family... her dreams of a large number of children... all about the I, the Me and the Mine. I think she is seriously delusional about her abilities to care for the extremely large number of kids she has undertaken. Loving your kids and caring for them are two completely different things. You may love them all, but you may not be able to provide the required care for each of them.. that each child deserves. she doesn't consider the fact that her wants impose in the lives of others... namely, her elderly parents. They are taken for granted in her list of wants and desires.
She reminds me of the crazy cat ladies... they may be well intentioned and believe they can provide for 14 kids (or 137 cats), the reality is... logistically, it is impossible. Imagine getting the kids off to the doctors... taking all 8, while finding someone to watch the older kids... just getting them into the car... how do you do that... especially, by yourself?
It is a lesson in selfishness. Selfishness that blinds out reality and reason... logic and fact. Love cannot solve all problems... it makes for a nice line in greeting cards, but the reality is, love does not feed hungry babies or change their diapers.
...
One disturbing observation... the whole 'My angels' comment in reference to the fact that all 8 kids share the middle name, 'Angel'... that creeped me out. Along with all of the other religious crap she said, and the kids all having Biblical Names... she could be one of those psycho types that 'loves her kids so much' that she drowns them in the bathtub so they can all be together with Jesus while she is in one of her deep depressions.
I hope I'm just worrying about more than I should... I don't think these 14 kids deserve this.
Damn....well said.....but you left out the fact that her lips look like Speedy's done punched her in the mush....for being such a dumbass. :twisted:
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Just some observations from last night's 'Dateline: NBC'....
It is all about her. Her wants for a large family... her dreams of a large number of children... all about the I, the Me and the Mine. I think she is seriously delusional about her abilities to care for the extremely large number of kids she has undertaken. Loving your kids and caring for them are two completely different things. You may love them all, but you may not be able to provide the required care for each of them.. that each child deserves. she doesn't consider the fact that her wants impose in the lives of others... namely, her elderly parents. They are taken for granted in her list of wants and desires.
She reminds me of the crazy cat ladies... they may be well intentioned and believe they can provide for 14 kids (or 137 cats), the reality is... logistically, it is impossible. Imagine getting the kids off to the doctors... taking all 8, while finding someone to watch the older kids... just getting them into the car... how do you do that... especially, by yourself?
It is a lesson in selfishness. Selfishness that blinds out reality and reason... logic and fact. Love cannot solve all problems... it makes for a nice line in greeting cards, but the reality is, love does not feed hungry babies or change their diapers.
...
One disturbing observation... the whole 'My angels' comment in reference to the fact that all 8 kids share the middle name, 'Angel'... that creeped me out. Along with all of the other religious crap she said, and the kids all having Biblical Names... she could be one of those psycho types that 'loves her kids so much' that she drowns them in the bathtub so they can all be together with Jesus while she is in one of her deep depressions.
I hope I'm just worrying about more than I should... I don't think these 14 kids deserve this.
Damn....well said.....but you left out the fact that her lips look like Speedy's done punched her in the mush....for being such a dumbass. :twisted:
damn ty, you've become more and more :twisted: on this new board. i like it.
Comments
Yes, I guess it's kind of like controlling your fertility with contraceptive pills/devices. But that's not the kind of control to which I was referring. In the cases of contraception and IVF, medicine helps women control their own fertility. I was warning more against anything that would take control away from the woman and place it in the hands of society/politics, ya know?
True, there is a danger, but once you start talking ethics, etc. there is already some control in place, whether moral or by law. That goes for other medical procedures as well. It's a very grey area. But when you see something like this - 6 kids with first IVF, 8 with second IVF, you start asking yourself questions. Clearly the IVF clinic/doctor did not adhere to the guidelines (rules? law?) of only a couple of eggs to be implanted. Was the doctor right to do this (can one assume at the request of the mother?), at the potential expense of the mother's and babies' health?
But then again... would a refusal to do so be an affront to freedom of choice (the mother's)?
Yeah... i can't imagine even two people logistically being able to keep up with 8 babies on the change/feed/nap routine in the first couple of months.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Ever-evolving medical technology has sure given us a lot to think about, and I'm not ready to take a stand things such as IVF just yet. My point is just that as we do consider these things we need to keep in mind that we want to move forward, not backward to the days when it was completely unacceptable for single women to be mothers, for instance. As for the question of whether the doctor was right to do this at the potential expense of the mother's and babies' health, I'll have to leave that up to the medical community to decide.
Wholeheartedly agree... As a whole... we need to steer clear of legislation that would restrict us a of a Choice to use the new and emerging technologies and concentrate on the moral and ethical questions raised by its use (and abuse). Like, just because this one crazy lady did this, it does not mean we should abolish all future procedures. We need to put moral and ethical decisions in play.
Hail, Hail!!!
I was going to post the same thing. Judging by the plastic you can tell it is all about "me".
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
plastic surgery or not.....ANYone who willingly chooses to bring that many children into the world, with no real means of support for them all, no partner to assist and love these children, did it ALL simply b/c SHE 'wants a big family'.....SHE always 'wanted lots and lots of kids', etc. it's all 'she wants, she wants'......not what is best for any children brought into the world. utter selfishness. and beyond these poor children, apparently she is so selfish and about her own wants, that it's a-ok in her book that she cannot afford them, and therefore the taxpayers of the US can foot all her medical bills, and end up supporting her children to adulthood. all for HER WANTS. man, she Is special. :roll: there are many things in this world i 'want'...and if i get them, it's b/c i WORK for them, and some other things...i may never have, simply b/c it's not meant to be. maturity and responsibility, you know, behaving like an adult, usually helps most realize these things. we are NOT entitled to ANYthing, and we can't just get what we want b/c we want it. obviously, this woman proves to be the excpetion to this rule...and these poor children shall suffer for it, and we all get to pay for it too.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
This is a really good point. I mean, we're all in agreement that Nadya has some serious mental issues and is straight up selfish...BUT I think it's easy to overlook the children in all this. Clearly, the mom is the bad guy...but the kids are the innocent ones...and they're the ones who are suffering and will continue to suffer. But then again, I'm not sure taking them away from their mom is the right answer. In all her selfishness in wanting a large family, I *DO* think she wants to be a good mom. Whether she actually is, or not, is not for me to decide since I'm obviously an outsider.
yeah but what, in this nutjob's mind, constitutes a good mother?
she doesnt work....
she doesnt pay taxes....
and she thinks she will be able to FLIP the 8 hawaii posters she owns in order to pay for the kids college.....
hehehehehehehehe.....................
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
boy if she's a flipper, she'll have the wrath of a lot of angry delusional pearl jam fans after her
Great point.
She's CLEARLY not cool enough to be a PJ fan.
I think she said she would be there for them and love them unconditionally or something like that.
that's certainly a big PART of being a good parent, but certainly not enough by any stretch. being able to meet your children's basic needs would be a good start too. i also think, even with the best of intentions...most would realize there is NO way, all alone, that they could adequately meet the basic needs of 14 children, all under the age of 7, some with special needs...physcially, mentally, emotionally, financially....and therefore would not willingly choose to bring said children into this world without being able to care for their needs.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Didn't she say she'd spend 45 minutes each day holding each child? Um...at 14 kids that works out to ...what...10 and a half hours a day?!! That's not even logically possible.
She also said that no one can raise that amount of kids alone without the help of parents, friends, church, etc. Good thing her mum is already looking after the other 6. Maybe she has 8 friends and/or church goers that are ready to take responsibility each for a child!
i saw that on the news yesterday. i think she was actually referring to 'just' the babies. so that would = 6 hours. and that's just holding em. how about changing them, feeding them, giving them mental stimulation, caring for any other special needs.....let alone her other 6 children...and oh yea, work a job to support them all. care for them, support them, ALL on her own? BS. she never planned on it...b/c it's impossible w/o assistance.
for the sake of those children, i sincerely hope so!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I'm sure there will be a multitude of people who will step forward to help out in the beginning...whether it be to honestly help...or to be close to a "celebrity". :roll:
It is all about her. Her wants for a large family... her dreams of a large number of children... all about the I, the Me and the Mine. I think she is seriously delusional about her abilities to care for the extremely large number of kids she has undertaken. Loving your kids and caring for them are two completely different things. You may love them all, but you may not be able to provide the required care for each of them.. that each child deserves. she doesn't consider the fact that her wants impose in the lives of others... namely, her elderly parents. They are taken for granted in her list of wants and desires.
She reminds me of the crazy cat ladies... they may be well intentioned and believe they can provide for 14 kids (or 137 cats), the reality is... logistically, it is impossible. Imagine getting the kids off to the doctors... taking all 8, while finding someone to watch the older kids... just getting them into the car... how do you do that... especially, by yourself?
It is a lesson in selfishness. Selfishness that blinds out reality and reason... logic and fact. Love cannot solve all problems... it makes for a nice line in greeting cards, but the reality is, love does not feed hungry babies or change their diapers.
...
One disturbing observation... the whole 'My angels' comment in reference to the fact that all 8 kids share the middle name, 'Angel'... that creeped me out. Along with all of the other religious crap she said, and the kids all having Biblical Names... she could be one of those psycho types that 'loves her kids so much' that she drowns them in the bathtub so they can all be together with Jesus while she is in one of her deep depressions.
I hope I'm just worrying about more than I should... I don't think these 14 kids deserve this.
Hail, Hail!!!
thank you.
these have been my thoughts all along, especially the focus on HER wants and desires, to the detriment of all else. slefishness of the highest order.
and you are absolutely right - those 14 children, and her parents too i might add, do NOT deserve this.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
If you want to see it but don't want to actually visit it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/1 ... 66030.html
All i can say is, Wow. She must have a set of walrus balls.
damn ty, you've become more and more :twisted: on this new board. i like it.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow