All i can say is, Wow. She must have a set of walrus balls.
from the huffington site:
Suleman no doubt needs help. She has no income, is $50,000 in debt. She also receives $490 a month in food stamps and receives about $600 in disability payments a month for each of the three of her older six children with disabilities. One has ADHD, one had a speech impediment and one has autism, according to NBC's "Dateline" special.
seriously, who in their right mind, who truly loves and cares about children, would go out of their way to have MORE children when their present situation is described as above? how is adding to your brood x8 truly loving and caring for the family you already have and cannot properly support or care for?
btw - am i reading this correctly? does she get a sum total of $600 a month in disability for her kids...or does she get $600 PER child, as in $1800 a month for these kids? plus the food stamps? i realize, 6 kids are a LOT to care for...thus why most nowadays wouldn't dare have that many, b/c most believe in actually being able to provide for their children.
btw - am i reading this correctly? does she get a sum total of $600 a month in disability for her kids...or does she get $600 PER child, as in $1800 a month for these kids? plus the food stamps? i realize, 6 kids are a LOT to care for...thus why most nowadays wouldn't dare have that many, b/c most believe in actually being able to provide for their children.
btw - am i reading this correctly? does she get a sum total of $600 a month in disability for her kids...or does she get $600 PER child, as in $1800 a month for these kids? plus the food stamps? i realize, 6 kids are a LOT to care for...thus why most nowadays wouldn't dare have that many, b/c most believe in actually being able to provide for their children.
600 per kid.
that's what i thought, but wanted to be certain. :evil:
seriously, HOW many average american families have $600 per child - and that's not even counting her food stamps - soley for their care of their children, EACH month? soooo many people work hard to provide for their families, make sure they don't over-extend themselves, limit their families too b/c they know they can't afford more, etc.....while this woman gets it handed to her and why? b/c she selfishly choose to have all these children on her own. the more i think about it, the more i think IVF should follow suit with adoption, you must clearly demonstrate that you CAN fully support whatever children you desire to bring into this world.
the more i think about it, the more i think IVF should follow suit with adoption, you must clearly demonstrate that you CAN fully support whatever children you desire to bring into this world.
This would, of course, have to be on a case by case basis. To a degree, it sets dangerous precedent. There are plenty of people conceiving and birthing children the old fashioned way when they probably shouldn't. Hard to regulate or monitor that. It would be like mandating that incompetent, deadbeats can't fuck. Impossible and, perhaps, unethical.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
the more i think about it, the more i think IVF should follow suit with adoption, you must clearly demonstrate that you CAN fully support whatever children you desire to bring into this world.
This would, of course, have to be on a case by case basis. To a degree, it sets dangerous precedent. There are plenty of people conceiving and birthing children the old fashioned way when they probably shouldn't. Hard to regulate or monitor that. It would be like mandating that incompetent, deadbeats can't fuck. Impossible and, perhaps, unethical.
isn't every adoption looked at on a case-by-case basis? all i am saying is criteria to be met, that's all. actually being able to afford the child you are purposely trying to adopt, or to give birth thru medical intervention...i personally think would be wise. i DO agree, we cannot regulate everything, and it would have to be very thoughtfully figured out. obviously, we cannot regulate sexuality, or the ability to bear children, naturally, etc. but i just think if you are looking for assistance, outside of your own natural abilities...i don't see a problem with say legally limiting the amount of embryos one may have implanted, how many times one may undergo IVF, etc, etc. obviously, many people go thru numerous IVF treatments until they are successful....but once they ARE successful....how many times should one undergo the procedure, try for even more children, if they cannot show the means of basic support? it is the same requirement of adoption. both are procedures looking to have a child that otherwise you could not have...so i think equal restrictions would not be necessarily wrong. as i've said, it's not like i think i have it all figured out...i just think this case does prove too well how even something that is meant to be 'good'...can often be abused, to the detriment of it's intended purpose.
All i can say is, Wow. She must have a set of walrus balls.
from the huffington site:
Suleman no doubt needs help. She has no income, is $50,000 in debt. She also receives $490 a month in food stamps and receives about $600 in disability payments a month for each of the three of her older six children with disabilities. One has ADHD, one had a speech impediment and one has autism, according to NBC's "Dateline" special.
seriously, who in their right mind, who truly loves and cares about children, would go out of their way to have MORE children when their present situation is described as above? how is adding to your brood x8 truly loving and caring for the family you already have and cannot properly support or care for?
btw - am i reading this correctly? does she get a sum total of $600 a month in disability for her kids...or does she get $600 PER child, as in $1800 a month for these kids? plus the food stamps? i realize, 6 kids are a LOT to care for...thus why most nowadays wouldn't dare have that many, b/c most believe in actually being able to provide for their children.
I beieve it was $600 per child.
And, also, you're forgetting the part where the hospital bill ALONE will be $1-3 million
This is the greatest band in the world -- Ben Harper
....all i am saying is criteria to be met, that's all. actually being able to afford the child you are purposely trying to adopt, or to give birth thru medical intervention...
Not only the financial side of things. I feel that both for adoption and IVF a psychological evaluation is essential. Is one doing it for the right reasons? Most of the times, it will be. But in this case IVF after IVF after IVF because she wants a huge family because she was an only child, etc. suggests the reasons to have loads of children were not the right one. But then again, one can be as psychologically imbalanced and have loads of kids naturally. So how does one get the right balance?
....all i am saying is criteria to be met, that's all. actually being able to afford the child you are purposely trying to adopt, or to give birth thru medical intervention...
Not only the financial side of things. I feel that both for adoption and IVF a psychological evaluation is essential. Is one doing it for the right reasons? Most of the times, it will be. But in this case IVF after IVF after IVF because she wants a huge family because she was an only child, etc. suggests the reasons to have loads of children were not the right one. But then again, one can be as psychologically imbalanced and have loads of kids naturally. So how does one get the right balance?
absolutely. i just used the financials b/c that is the most 'obvious'....b/c before this case, one would THINK someone would not purposely go and have kids they can't afford. but sure, you bet......all along that's my thought; tis the total picture. being able to emotionally, mentally, physically as well as financially, support your children. and yes, i KNOW that anyone can go and get knocked up willy-nilly and be deficient in these things. however, i do not believe we can regulate people's bodies and sexuality......but if one is willingly going OUTside of themselves, due to desire or necessity, for adoption or fertility assistance, than yes.....it is allowable. idk what the right 'balance' is...but i do think, w/o adoption, or medical intervention.....children would not be possible for some, and to have to meet some baic crtieria to get what you desire, it's not too much to ask. i mean, there is criteria to be met for an organ transplant and if you don't meet it you don't get the organ...so why not for taking on or creating someone ELSE's life? as i said...preliminary thoughts, and this whole 'thing' definitely has brought the idea forth for me and others i imagine, that it Is something that should be addressed.
isn't every adoption looked at on a case-by-case basis? all i am saying is criteria to be met, that's all. actually being able to afford the child you are purposely trying to adopt, or to give birth thru medical intervention...i personally think would be wise. i DO agree, we cannot regulate everything, and it would have to be very thoughtfully figured out. obviously, we cannot regulate sexuality, or the ability to bear children, naturally, etc. but i just think if you are looking for assistance, outside of your own natural abilities...i don't see a problem with say legally limiting the amount of embryos one may have implanted, how many times one may undergo IVF, etc, etc. obviously, many people go thru numerous IVF treatments until they are successful....but once they ARE successful....how many times should one undergo the procedure, try for even more children, if they cannot show the means of basic support? it is the same requirement of adoption. both are procedures looking to have a child that otherwise you could not have...so i think equal restrictions would not be necessarily wrong. as i've said, it's not like i think i have it all figured out...i just think this case does prove too well how even something that is meant to be 'good'...can often be abused, to the detriment of it's intended purpose.
Don't get me wrong. i don't disagree. Especially in cases like the one we're discussing, SOMEONE, in fact everyone involved, should have stepped in and said "hells no". There's now way this should have been allowed. It seems that whenever IVF or fertility drugs are employed, multiples are almost always the result. i guess my point is that these types of cases are in the extreme minority. A far bigger problem as i see it are people with no business having children, having all kinds of kids through old fashioned coital relations, and that unfortunately cannot be regulated.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
isn't every adoption looked at on a case-by-case basis? all i am saying is criteria to be met, that's all. actually being able to afford the child you are purposely trying to adopt, or to give birth thru medical intervention...i personally think would be wise. i DO agree, we cannot regulate everything, and it would have to be very thoughtfully figured out. obviously, we cannot regulate sexuality, or the ability to bear children, naturally, etc. but i just think if you are looking for assistance, outside of your own natural abilities...i don't see a problem with say legally limiting the amount of embryos one may have implanted, how many times one may undergo IVF, etc, etc. obviously, many people go thru numerous IVF treatments until they are successful....but once they ARE successful....how many times should one undergo the procedure, try for even more children, if they cannot show the means of basic support? it is the same requirement of adoption. both are procedures looking to have a child that otherwise you could not have...so i think equal restrictions would not be necessarily wrong. as i've said, it's not like i think i have it all figured out...i just think this case does prove too well how even something that is meant to be 'good'...can often be abused, to the detriment of it's intended purpose.
Don't get me wrong. i don't disagree. Especially in cases like the one we're discussing, SOMEONE, in fact everyone involved, should have stepped in and said "hells no". There's now way this should have been allowed. It seems that whenever IVF or fertility drugs are employed, multiples are almost always the result. i guess my point is that these types of cases are in the extreme minority. A far bigger problem as i see it are people with no business having children, having all kinds of kids through old fashioned coital relations, and that unfortunately cannot be regulated.
oh i hear ya!
thing is, while in the 'minority'...IVF and all IS growing, and more than likely WILL continue to grow, so yes..i think we should be better prepared for these moral and social issues that arise.
and yes, it is a fact that multiples have a MUCH higher occurance incidence with IVF than any other birth....and yes, there are numerous effects linked as such. even as a teacher, it was amazing how many more multiples were in my classes, and yes, the various health issues, learning issues, etc. of course, it's not all doom and gloom, and it is a source of utter joy for families and i certainly do not want to end that. i would like some true...pause...before diving head-first, slefishlessly, into such tings. obviously, THIS incident proves JUST how off-kilter it can all be!
The sad thing about this whole situation is that it has opened the door for a LAW to be passed that will overtly allow States to restrict a woman's right to reproduce based on thier income. As no LAW stays in a neat little box, this LAW will allow courts and medical professionals to further look in whether a woman's financial situation is due to her mental stability, her disabilities and her current living circumstances for determining if she is financially capable of raising a child.
It will give the States, the courts, the government, the power to write more LAWS that determine how many children a woman can have if she receives public assistance of any kind, with or without medical assistance.
Before you start clapping and saying its about time. Public assistance is not limited to people on welfare. It covers people receiving food stamps (think about the unemployed who get food stamps, the people who are victims of natural disasters, the families of foreclosure, people who were born with mental or physical disabilities, people with student loans). Think of the families who receive public assistance for their children with down syndrome, autism or cancer, etc. Just think, your credit rating will become a factor in whether or not you can bear a child and it will not be limited to single parents because who now oversee the Financial industry.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
The sad thing about this whole situation is that it has opened the door for a LAW to be passed that will overtly allow States to restrict a woman's right to reproduce based on thier income. As no LAW stays in a neat little box, this LAW will allow courts and medical professionals to further look in whether a woman's financial situation is due to her mental stability, her disabilities and her current living circumstances for determining if she is financially capable of raising a child.
It will give the States, the courts, the government, the power to write more LAWS that determine how many children a woman can have if she receives public assistance of any kind, with or without medical assistance.
Do you agree when adoptive parents have to go through such checks? To me it's the same thing. Adopting a child and implanting embryos both guarantee that there will be a child in the family. Natural reproduction doesn't guarantee anything so I don't see it as an infringement of those rights.
The sad thing about this whole situation is that it has opened the door for a LAW to be passed that will overtly allow States to restrict a woman's right to reproduce based on thier income. As no LAW stays in a neat little box, this LAW will allow courts and medical professionals to further look in whether a woman's financial situation is due to her mental stability, her disabilities and her current living circumstances for determining if she is financially capable of raising a child.
It will give the States, the courts, the government, the power to write more LAWS that determine how many children a woman can have if she receives public assistance of any kind, with or without medical assistance.
Before you start clapping and saying its about time. Public assistance is not limited to people on welfare. It covers people receiving food stamps (think about the unemployed who get food stamps, the people who are victims of natural disasters, the families of foreclosure, people who were born with mental or physical disabilities, people with student loans). Think of the families who receive public assistance for their children with down syndrome, autism or cancer, etc. Just think, your credit rating will become a factor in whether or not you can bear a child and it will not be limited to single parents because who now oversee the Financial industry.
really? i have not heard of this. purely based on income, alone? why not focus on how MANY embryos are allowed for implantation, etc. also, is this the same criteria as someone who goes to adopt a child? b/c obviously, we are only talking of people who cannot conceive 100% naturally on their own....as the laws cannot stop people from pro-creating the old-fashioned way. and i would not see why it would, or should, be limited to single parents in any case. i don't think the issue is being a single parent, not at all. it';s willingly choosing to have moe children than you can afford, and i don't even mean financially.....
obviously, there is so much inolved in all 'this'...and this particular case has opened the door to a whole host of pondering about wht we can, and what we should...or should not do. kinda like how, perhaps, this woman should've thought about this procedure, and her choices, in the first place.
hmmmmmmmmm....thinking further....are you saying even amongst women who conceive naturally, limits will be placed? as in, if she has X amount of children right now, she cannot have more she cannot afford or she loses her public assistance? honestly, i don't know how i feel about it. overall, i am against limiting women's choices...but on the other hand, when you are looking for assistance with your lie, i don't think it's too much to say if you can't afford what you've got right now, best not to go and have more mouths to feed. do you think ,amybe, it might actully help lower the incidence of unplanned pregnancy, especially at lower income levels? i honestly don't know what i think or feel, just kinda throwing questions out there......
Do you agree when adoptive parents have to go through such checks? To me it's the same thing. Adopting a child and implanting embryos both guarantee that there will be a child in the family. Natural reproduction doesn't guarantee anything so I don't see it as an infringement of those rights.
First of all, I'm against in vitro fertilization. I believe that if your body is not capable of reproducing, then you should not reproduce.
I'm very close with a couple that has had two healthy, happy, loved, and extremely well cared-for kids thru IVF. The husband was left with a low sperm count from injuries sustained in a car accident as a kid, when he was hit by a drunk driver. The wife had to haver her ovaries removed b/c of complications with another medical issue. I'm curious if your opinion has a religious tilt to it, or if you're being pretentious?
I'm sure it was taxpayer money that paid for the frickin in-vitro to begin with! :evil:
I'm not very familiar with US healthcare, but I'd be surprised if this were the case. The couple I know had to pay for each procedure....BIG $$$$$, like five figure big...this is in Canada...I'd be shocked if it was tax payer funded in the US. The cost of the procedure is a form of financial check in itself (here anyway).
If I remember correctly, the Dr. gave them the choice of multiple embryo's in case a single embryo didn't make it, because it is so costly to try.....but I am blown away that it appears that there is no limit to the number of embryo's implanted in Cali? I wonder if there is elsewhere....?
I'm sure it was taxpayer money that paid for the frickin in-vitro to begin with! :evil:
I'm not very familiar with US healthcare, but I'd be surprised if this were the case. The couple I know had to pay for each procedure....BIG $$$$$, like five figure big...this is in Canada...I'd be shocked if it was tax payer funded in the US. The cost of the procedure is a form of financial check in itself (here anyway).
If I remember correctly, the Dr. gave them the choice of multiple embryo's in case a single embryo didn't make it, because it is so costly to try.....but I am blown away that it appears that there is no limit to the number of embryo's implanted in Cali? I wonder if there is elsewhere....?
Well, the likely story is that she paid for in vitro with either her disability settlements or student loans.
No, as far as I know no state has limits on IVF, just "guidelines". Here's an article you should take a look at, especially page 2: http://www.slate.com/id/2211151
The sad thing about this whole situation is that it has opened the door for a LAW to be passed that will overtly allow States to restrict a woman's right to reproduce based on thier income.
This woman is C-R-A-Z-Y! This doctor, at a minimum, needs to lose his license to practice IVF. Most importantly though, these 14 kids are going to need serious help -- the damage is done and they can't be punished for the awful decision-making of their mother and doctor. This infuriates me on one level and deeply saddens me on another. What a giant clusterfuck...
Hmmm...$600 times 14 equals $8400 monthly, plus all medical is paid for, prescriptions too, and food stamps will go up to at least $2000. Also, she will make money with public appearances, etc. And she lives with her mom, live in babysitter.
Kids in big families end up learning to take care of each other, plus in no time, they will do all the chores.
It is hard to raise one kid, much less 14, so I do think she's sincere, but I also see where she isn't the one who has to raise them.
I know for all the money in the world I would never have that many kids. I worry more about their emotional health. How can she equally meet all their emotional needs thru the years. I feel this way about Angelina Jolie too. Kids need love more than anything, and it means a lot more than just the words "I love you".
To sit up all night with one sick kid is a lot. All 14 will likely get sick at the same time and need mommy. Things like that. She just can't do it.
Babysitters, or others, who may step in to help in such cases don't take theplace of mom when a kid is sick or such.
Hell, daycare centers often don't have that many kids in them and have lots of hired help just to meet the kids needs part time.
Poor babies.
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.
I think that was very well said. I've said before that I believe anyone who wants more than say three kids HAS to be nuts but then I can't really even imagine wanting one There is just nothing to suggest that she's not going to try to be a good mom and I'm sure social services will be all over this just waiting for her to fuck up... I'm just not quite so sure why people are actually ANGRY about this. If you start messing around with things like IVF of course these things are gonna happen. So who's to blame, the mom, the doctor, whoever fucked her up in her childhood? Well they're not really the right questions when there are now 8 babies who need taking care of.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
The sad thing about this whole situation is that it has opened the door for a LAW to be passed that will overtly allow States to restrict a woman's right to reproduce based on thier income. As no LAW stays in a neat little box, this LAW will allow courts and medical professionals to further look in whether a woman's financial situation is due to her mental stability, her disabilities and her current living circumstances for determining if she is financially capable of raising a child.
It will give the States, the courts, the government, the power to write more LAWS that determine how many children a woman can have if she receives public assistance of any kind, with or without medical assistance.
Before you start clapping and saying its about time. Public assistance is not limited to people on welfare. It covers people receiving food stamps (think about the unemployed who get food stamps, the people who are victims of natural disasters, the families of foreclosure, people who were born with mental or physical disabilities, people with student loans). Think of the families who receive public assistance for their children with down syndrome, autism or cancer, etc. Just think, your credit rating will become a factor in whether or not you can bear a child and it will not be limited to single parents because who now oversee the Financial industry.
well said... and the fact that there are people agreeing with this already is pretty scary :oops: . On one hand I do believe there should be some psych evaluation if you want 6 embryo's emplanted in you... on the other, that's giving plenty of power to the evaluator and who are they to play judge and jury in this. This is a very dangerous route to start considering.
It already angers me when I hear people say they can't afford to have kids. I think that kinda sums up how money makes the world go round these days and it's pretty fucking sad :( . Sure, when I go to have kids, I'd like to be in a sound financial place... but what if that never happens? I'm supposed to let the banks tell me whether I can or cannot have unprotected sex :shock: SCARY!
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
I'm just not quite so sure why people are actually ANGRY about this. If you start messing around with things like IVF of course these things are gonna happen. So who's to blame, the mom, the doctor, whoever fucked her up in her childhood? Well they're not really the right questions when there are now 8 babies who need taking care of.
I guess if you had a child you would maybe understand why one can get 'angry' at this situation - think of the kids - it's a mess.
Who do we blame for this (if 'blame' is the correct word)? Doctors - most definitely, the mom - as well but she has been shown to be unstable so can we completely 'blame' her?, ethical 'guidelines' when it comes to IVF - these need to be more than guidelines (ie how many embryos to implant, etc) . Who fucked up her childhood? She says now it was fucked up. A while back, when she was being assessed for her disability, she said it was happy. So what do we believe? She obviously has mental problems and whilst I am NOT for laws restricting the number of kids you have based on your financial situation (which in reality will never happen), I am definitely for a thorough vetting process for IVF - just like it exists for adoption. If such thing was in place, I'm sure alarm bells would have sounded when this lady wanted her Nth round of IVF.
I'm just not quite so sure why people are actually ANGRY about this. If you start messing around with things like IVF of course these things are gonna happen. So who's to blame, the mom, the doctor, whoever fucked her up in her childhood? Well they're not really the right questions when there are now 8 babies who need taking care of.
I guess if you had a child you would maybe understand why one can get 'angry' at this situation - think of the kids - it's a mess.
Who do we blame for this (if 'blame' is the correct word)? Doctors - most definitely, the mom - as well but she has been shown to be unstable so can we completely 'blame' her?, ethical 'guidelines' when it comes to IVF - these need to be more than guidelines (ie how many embryos to implant, etc) . Who fucked up her childhood? She says now it was fucked up. A while back, when she was being assessed for her disability, she said it was happy. So what do we believe? She obviously has mental problems and whilst I am NOT for laws restricting the number of kids you have based on your financial situation (which in reality will never happen), I am definitely for a thorough vetting process for IVF - just like it exists for adoption. If such thing was in place, I'm sure alarm bells would have sounded when this lady wanted her Nth round of IVF.
EXACTLY.
i also don't think it's necessary to have a child to think and feel like this. and yes, in regards to the 'bigger picture'...i can see it, and right now, i just see - at most - possibilities. and i personally see the possibility of a vetting process for IVF, just as adoption, and rightly so. that is the only 'good' i see coming out of this situation. as has been said often enough, this is not regulating a woman's fertility (although that actually is already done to a certain degree, legally, right now) it is regulating a medical procedure. for some women, w/o IVF, there IS NO cope of fertility, period. to actully expect a woman, or a couple, to meet certain criteria to prove they are capable of meeting the needs and demands, which include the hopeful positive outcome of it - a child, is not wrong at all imo. you are willingly choosing, actively persuing, having a child. i think at a bare minimum, one should be able to afford to support said child. so absolutely, same rules for IVF as adoption, all for it. evidently, 'ethics' is a foregin concept to a few within the medical community, and those looking towards the medical community, so if it takes some laws governing this to force some to behave in an ethical, responsible manner towards bringing new life into the world, so be it. that is a 'bigger picture' i can see, and support.
I'm not very familiar with US healthcare, but I'd be surprised if this were the case. The couple I know had to pay for each procedure....BIG $$$$$, like five figure big...this is in Canada...I'd be shocked if it was tax payer funded in the US. The cost of the procedure is a form of financial check in itself (here anyway).
If I remember correctly, the Dr. gave them the choice of multiple embryo's in case a single embryo didn't make it, because it is so costly to try.....but I am blown away that it appears that there is no limit to the number of embryo's implanted in Cali? I wonder if there is elsewhere....?
FYI - in this instance, in a roundabout way....this woman's IVF was tax-payer funded. she used her workman's compensation pay to fund her procedure. she was awarded workmen's comp for a supposed bad back, and such funds come out of all taxpayer's taxes to fund, and are meant to support life needs, not IVF, nor plastic surgery...but sure, your livelihood, and of your family. you are correct in assuming that normally IVF is paid for out of pocket here in the states, not covered by insurance...or at least no insurance that i know of in existence.
and there are 'ethical standards' for how many embryos to implant, but this case has opened up the eyes of the country that there is in fact NO l legal imits, per se....beyond personal judgement on the part of the doctor/clinic and the mother to be. and this is something i personally think should be addressed. as many have mentioned, i believe the ideal for IVF would be to follow standards for adoption procedures. i think this is truly the first case of 'abuse' with IVF....overusing/abusing the procedure, the taxpayer's who already support her earlier children, will foot the bill for much of her newest children's care and expenses....and seeing clearly the irresponsibility exhibited in this specific case.
i cannot recall ever hearing of anyone else receiving public support and undergoing IVF to expand their family more than they already can't afford....and mostly b/c of what you said, since IVF is normally a 100% out of pocket expense, many cannot afford, even those who CAN fully support themselves and their families...so most who cannot support their families cannot afford, and probably wouldn't want to in any case, to expand their family. that's why this case is SO unusual, the least of which, being octuplets.
I don't understand all the talk about workers comp. If I was injured in a riot at work (and this is NOT in dispute I'm presuming... since nobody seems to be disputing it) and get money I'm entitled to because of this... it's nobody's business how the hell I spend it.
So debate the IVF and her current financial situation if you wish, but she was entitled to spend that money however she wanted.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
The sad thing about this whole situation is that it has opened the door for a LAW to be passed that will overtly allow States to restrict a woman's right to reproduce based on thier income. As no LAW stays in a neat little box, this LAW will allow courts and medical professionals to further look in whether a woman's financial situation is due to her mental stability, her disabilities and her current living circumstances for determining if she is financially capable of raising a child.
It will give the States, the courts, the government, the power to write more LAWS that determine how many children a woman can have if she receives public assistance of any kind, with or without medical assistance.
Before you start clapping and saying its about time. Public assistance is not limited to people on welfare. It covers people receiving food stamps (think about the unemployed who get food stamps, the people who are victims of natural disasters, the families of foreclosure, people who were born with mental or physical disabilities, people with student loans). Think of the families who receive public assistance for their children with down syndrome, autism or cancer, etc. Just think, your credit rating will become a factor in whether or not you can bear a child and it will not be limited to single parents because who now oversee the Financial industry.
It IS about time. I'm sorry, but if you're relying on taxes to support your lifestyle, then there are going to be strings attached. If you currently can't buy yourself food, you have no business having kids. That's for the kids' sake as well. I think if you want, you should absolutely get federal funded contraception for free and without question... any kind you want, whatever works best for you.
I also believe this should be applied to dads. You get someone pregnant or you have unpaid child support, you can't get a cent in federal public assistance.
I don't understand all the talk about workers comp. If I was injured in a riot at work (and this is NOT in dispute I'm presuming... since nobody seems to be disputing it) and get money I'm entitled to because of this... it's nobody's business how the hell I spend it.
So debate the IVF and her current financial situation if you wish, but she was entitled to spend that money however she wanted.
She was entitled to spend her settlement money however she wanted. You're right about that, and when a broke single mother with six kids living in a three bedroom house with her parents chooses to spend her settlement money on cosmetic surgery in an attempt to look like Angelina Jolie and then MORE IVF, i'm entitled to call her a crazy ass bitch.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Comments
from the huffington site:
Suleman no doubt needs help. She has no income, is $50,000 in debt. She also receives $490 a month in food stamps and receives about $600 in disability payments a month for each of the three of her older six children with disabilities. One has ADHD, one had a speech impediment and one has autism, according to NBC's "Dateline" special.
seriously, who in their right mind, who truly loves and cares about children, would go out of their way to have MORE children when their present situation is described as above? how is adding to your brood x8 truly loving and caring for the family you already have and cannot properly support or care for?
btw - am i reading this correctly? does she get a sum total of $600 a month in disability for her kids...or does she get $600 PER child, as in $1800 a month for these kids? plus the food stamps? i realize, 6 kids are a LOT to care for...thus why most nowadays wouldn't dare have that many, b/c most believe in actually being able to provide for their children.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Poor fucked up delusional egomaniacal super-breeder thing.
that's what i thought, but wanted to be certain. :evil:
seriously, HOW many average american families have $600 per child - and that's not even counting her food stamps - soley for their care of their children, EACH month? soooo many people work hard to provide for their families, make sure they don't over-extend themselves, limit their families too b/c they know they can't afford more, etc.....while this woman gets it handed to her and why? b/c she selfishly choose to have all these children on her own. the more i think about it, the more i think IVF should follow suit with adoption, you must clearly demonstrate that you CAN fully support whatever children you desire to bring into this world.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
This would, of course, have to be on a case by case basis. To a degree, it sets dangerous precedent. There are plenty of people conceiving and birthing children the old fashioned way when they probably shouldn't. Hard to regulate or monitor that. It would be like mandating that incompetent, deadbeats can't fuck. Impossible and, perhaps, unethical.
isn't every adoption looked at on a case-by-case basis? all i am saying is criteria to be met, that's all. actually being able to afford the child you are purposely trying to adopt, or to give birth thru medical intervention...i personally think would be wise. i DO agree, we cannot regulate everything, and it would have to be very thoughtfully figured out. obviously, we cannot regulate sexuality, or the ability to bear children, naturally, etc. but i just think if you are looking for assistance, outside of your own natural abilities...i don't see a problem with say legally limiting the amount of embryos one may have implanted, how many times one may undergo IVF, etc, etc. obviously, many people go thru numerous IVF treatments until they are successful....but once they ARE successful....how many times should one undergo the procedure, try for even more children, if they cannot show the means of basic support? it is the same requirement of adoption. both are procedures looking to have a child that otherwise you could not have...so i think equal restrictions would not be necessarily wrong. as i've said, it's not like i think i have it all figured out...i just think this case does prove too well how even something that is meant to be 'good'...can often be abused, to the detriment of it's intended purpose.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I beieve it was $600 per child.
And, also, you're forgetting the part where the hospital bill ALONE will be $1-3 million
Not only the financial side of things. I feel that both for adoption and IVF a psychological evaluation is essential. Is one doing it for the right reasons? Most of the times, it will be. But in this case IVF after IVF after IVF because she wants a huge family because she was an only child, etc. suggests the reasons to have loads of children were not the right one. But then again, one can be as psychologically imbalanced and have loads of kids naturally. So how does one get the right balance?
absolutely. i just used the financials b/c that is the most 'obvious'....b/c before this case, one would THINK someone would not purposely go and have kids they can't afford. but sure, you bet......all along that's my thought; tis the total picture. being able to emotionally, mentally, physically as well as financially, support your children. and yes, i KNOW that anyone can go and get knocked up willy-nilly and be deficient in these things. however, i do not believe we can regulate people's bodies and sexuality......but if one is willingly going OUTside of themselves, due to desire or necessity, for adoption or fertility assistance, than yes.....it is allowable. idk what the right 'balance' is...but i do think, w/o adoption, or medical intervention.....children would not be possible for some, and to have to meet some baic crtieria to get what you desire, it's not too much to ask. i mean, there is criteria to be met for an organ transplant and if you don't meet it you don't get the organ...so why not for taking on or creating someone ELSE's life? as i said...preliminary thoughts, and this whole 'thing' definitely has brought the idea forth for me and others i imagine, that it Is something that should be addressed.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Don't get me wrong. i don't disagree. Especially in cases like the one we're discussing, SOMEONE, in fact everyone involved, should have stepped in and said "hells no". There's now way this should have been allowed. It seems that whenever IVF or fertility drugs are employed, multiples are almost always the result. i guess my point is that these types of cases are in the extreme minority. A far bigger problem as i see it are people with no business having children, having all kinds of kids through old fashioned coital relations, and that unfortunately cannot be regulated.
oh i hear ya!
thing is, while in the 'minority'...IVF and all IS growing, and more than likely WILL continue to grow, so yes..i think we should be better prepared for these moral and social issues that arise.
and yes, it is a fact that multiples have a MUCH higher occurance incidence with IVF than any other birth....and yes, there are numerous effects linked as such. even as a teacher, it was amazing how many more multiples were in my classes, and yes, the various health issues, learning issues, etc. of course, it's not all doom and gloom, and it is a source of utter joy for families and i certainly do not want to end that. i would like some true...pause...before diving head-first, slefishlessly, into such tings. obviously, THIS incident proves JUST how off-kilter it can all be!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
It will give the States, the courts, the government, the power to write more LAWS that determine how many children a woman can have if she receives public assistance of any kind, with or without medical assistance.
Before you start clapping and saying its about time. Public assistance is not limited to people on welfare. It covers people receiving food stamps (think about the unemployed who get food stamps, the people who are victims of natural disasters, the families of foreclosure, people who were born with mental or physical disabilities, people with student loans). Think of the families who receive public assistance for their children with down syndrome, autism or cancer, etc. Just think, your credit rating will become a factor in whether or not you can bear a child and it will not be limited to single parents because who now oversee the Financial industry.
really? i have not heard of this. purely based on income, alone? why not focus on how MANY embryos are allowed for implantation, etc. also, is this the same criteria as someone who goes to adopt a child? b/c obviously, we are only talking of people who cannot conceive 100% naturally on their own....as the laws cannot stop people from pro-creating the old-fashioned way. and i would not see why it would, or should, be limited to single parents in any case. i don't think the issue is being a single parent, not at all. it';s willingly choosing to have moe children than you can afford, and i don't even mean financially.....
obviously, there is so much inolved in all 'this'...and this particular case has opened the door to a whole host of pondering about wht we can, and what we should...or should not do. kinda like how, perhaps, this woman should've thought about this procedure, and her choices, in the first place.
hmmmmmmmmm....thinking further....are you saying even amongst women who conceive naturally, limits will be placed? as in, if she has X amount of children right now, she cannot have more she cannot afford or she loses her public assistance? honestly, i don't know how i feel about it. overall, i am against limiting women's choices...but on the other hand, when you are looking for assistance with your lie, i don't think it's too much to say if you can't afford what you've got right now, best not to go and have more mouths to feed. do you think ,amybe, it might actully help lower the incidence of unplanned pregnancy, especially at lower income levels? i honestly don't know what i think or feel, just kinda throwing questions out there......
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
i agree with this...
I'm not very familiar with US healthcare, but I'd be surprised if this were the case. The couple I know had to pay for each procedure....BIG $$$$$, like five figure big...this is in Canada...I'd be shocked if it was tax payer funded in the US. The cost of the procedure is a form of financial check in itself (here anyway).
If I remember correctly, the Dr. gave them the choice of multiple embryo's in case a single embryo didn't make it, because it is so costly to try.....but I am blown away that it appears that there is no limit to the number of embryo's implanted in Cali? I wonder if there is elsewhere....?
No, as far as I know no state has limits on IVF, just "guidelines". Here's an article you should take a look at, especially page 2: http://www.slate.com/id/2211151
Thank you for seeing the bigger picture....
No.
This woman is C-R-A-Z-Y! This doctor, at a minimum, needs to lose his license to practice IVF. Most importantly though, these 14 kids are going to need serious help -- the damage is done and they can't be punished for the awful decision-making of their mother and doctor. This infuriates me on one level and deeply saddens me on another. What a giant clusterfuck...
Kids in big families end up learning to take care of each other, plus in no time, they will do all the chores.
It is hard to raise one kid, much less 14, so I do think she's sincere, but I also see where she isn't the one who has to raise them.
I know for all the money in the world I would never have that many kids. I worry more about their emotional health. How can she equally meet all their emotional needs thru the years. I feel this way about Angelina Jolie too. Kids need love more than anything, and it means a lot more than just the words "I love you".
To sit up all night with one sick kid is a lot. All 14 will likely get sick at the same time and need mommy. Things like that. She just can't do it.
Babysitters, or others, who may step in to help in such cases don't take theplace of mom when a kid is sick or such.
Hell, daycare centers often don't have that many kids in them and have lots of hired help just to meet the kids needs part time.
Poor babies.
id like to punch her in her ovaries.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
It already angers me when I hear people say they can't afford to have kids. I think that kinda sums up how money makes the world go round these days and it's pretty fucking sad :( . Sure, when I go to have kids, I'd like to be in a sound financial place... but what if that never happens? I'm supposed to let the banks tell me whether I can or cannot have unprotected sex :shock: SCARY!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
I guess if you had a child you would maybe understand why one can get 'angry' at this situation - think of the kids - it's a mess.
Who do we blame for this (if 'blame' is the correct word)? Doctors - most definitely, the mom - as well but she has been shown to be unstable so can we completely 'blame' her?, ethical 'guidelines' when it comes to IVF - these need to be more than guidelines (ie how many embryos to implant, etc) . Who fucked up her childhood? She says now it was fucked up. A while back, when she was being assessed for her disability, she said it was happy. So what do we believe? She obviously has mental problems and whilst I am NOT for laws restricting the number of kids you have based on your financial situation (which in reality will never happen), I am definitely for a thorough vetting process for IVF - just like it exists for adoption. If such thing was in place, I'm sure alarm bells would have sounded when this lady wanted her Nth round of IVF.
EXACTLY.
i also don't think it's necessary to have a child to think and feel like this. and yes, in regards to the 'bigger picture'...i can see it, and right now, i just see - at most - possibilities. and i personally see the possibility of a vetting process for IVF, just as adoption, and rightly so. that is the only 'good' i see coming out of this situation. as has been said often enough, this is not regulating a woman's fertility (although that actually is already done to a certain degree, legally, right now) it is regulating a medical procedure. for some women, w/o IVF, there IS NO cope of fertility, period. to actully expect a woman, or a couple, to meet certain criteria to prove they are capable of meeting the needs and demands, which include the hopeful positive outcome of it - a child, is not wrong at all imo. you are willingly choosing, actively persuing, having a child. i think at a bare minimum, one should be able to afford to support said child. so absolutely, same rules for IVF as adoption, all for it. evidently, 'ethics' is a foregin concept to a few within the medical community, and those looking towards the medical community, so if it takes some laws governing this to force some to behave in an ethical, responsible manner towards bringing new life into the world, so be it. that is a 'bigger picture' i can see, and support.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
FYI - in this instance, in a roundabout way....this woman's IVF was tax-payer funded. she used her workman's compensation pay to fund her procedure. she was awarded workmen's comp for a supposed bad back, and such funds come out of all taxpayer's taxes to fund, and are meant to support life needs, not IVF, nor plastic surgery...but sure, your livelihood, and of your family. you are correct in assuming that normally IVF is paid for out of pocket here in the states, not covered by insurance...or at least no insurance that i know of in existence.
and there are 'ethical standards' for how many embryos to implant, but this case has opened up the eyes of the country that there is in fact NO l legal imits, per se....beyond personal judgement on the part of the doctor/clinic and the mother to be. and this is something i personally think should be addressed. as many have mentioned, i believe the ideal for IVF would be to follow standards for adoption procedures. i think this is truly the first case of 'abuse' with IVF....overusing/abusing the procedure, the taxpayer's who already support her earlier children, will foot the bill for much of her newest children's care and expenses....and seeing clearly the irresponsibility exhibited in this specific case.
i cannot recall ever hearing of anyone else receiving public support and undergoing IVF to expand their family more than they already can't afford....and mostly b/c of what you said, since IVF is normally a 100% out of pocket expense, many cannot afford, even those who CAN fully support themselves and their families...so most who cannot support their families cannot afford, and probably wouldn't want to in any case, to expand their family. that's why this case is SO unusual, the least of which, being octuplets.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
So debate the IVF and her current financial situation if you wish, but she was entitled to spend that money however she wanted.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
It IS about time. I'm sorry, but if you're relying on taxes to support your lifestyle, then there are going to be strings attached. If you currently can't buy yourself food, you have no business having kids. That's for the kids' sake as well. I think if you want, you should absolutely get federal funded contraception for free and without question... any kind you want, whatever works best for you.
I also believe this should be applied to dads. You get someone pregnant or you have unpaid child support, you can't get a cent in federal public assistance.
She was entitled to spend her settlement money however she wanted. You're right about that, and when a broke single mother with six kids living in a three bedroom house with her parents chooses to spend her settlement money on cosmetic surgery in an attempt to look like Angelina Jolie and then MORE IVF, i'm entitled to call her a crazy ass bitch.