Octuplet mom rant

decides2dream · February 2009

cornnifer wrote:

So Much Clearer wrote:

She has a website now, asking for public donations. You can leave comments for her there but she probably won't read them.

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.

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.

Enkidu · February 2009

I looked at her website. Kill me now. On Huffington I read a comment that someone donated a penny.

Poor fucked up delusional egomaniacal super-breeder thing.

so-much-clearer · February 2009

decides2dream wrote:

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.

decides2dream · February 2009

So Much Clearer wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

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.

cornnifer · February 2009

decides2dream wrote:

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.

decides2dream · February 2009

cornnifer wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

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.

AmentsChick · February 2009

decides2dream wrote:

cornnifer wrote:

So Much Clearer wrote:

She has a website now, asking for public donations. You can leave comments for her there but she probably won't read them.

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.

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

redrock · February 2009

decides2dream wrote:

....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?

decides2dream · February 2009

redrock wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

....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.

cornnifer · February 2009

decides2dream wrote:

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.

decides2dream · February 2009

cornnifer wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

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!

puremagic · February 2009

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.

so-much-clearer · February 2009

puremagic wrote:

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.

decides2dream · February 2009

puremagic wrote:

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......

norm · February 2009

So Much Clearer wrote:

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.

i agree with this...

Drowned Out · February 2009

_Crazy_Mary_ wrote:

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?

_Crazy_Mary_ wrote:

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....?

so-much-clearer · February 2009

Drowned Out wrote:

_Crazy_Mary_ wrote:

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

_ · February 2009

puremagic wrote:

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.

Thank you for seeing the bigger picture....

_ · February 2009

decides2dream wrote:

do you think ,amybe, it might actully help lower the incidence of unplanned pregnancy, especially at lower income levels?

No.

bigeye21 · February 2009

This story just got weirder. Turns out that there might be some truth to the rumors of Octo-mom's fascination and obsession with Angelina Jolie: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1144715/Angelina-Jolie-creeped-octuplets-mother-receiving-letters--hearing-rumours-plastic-surgery.html?ITO=1490

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...

Octuplet mom rant

Comments

Categories