Octuplet mom rant

Heatherj43 · February 2009

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.

JordyWordy · February 2009

i wonder if she'll have any more kids?

id like to punch her in her ovaries.

Heineken Helen · February 2009

AmentsChick wrote:

So Much Clearer wrote:

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.

Heineken Helen · 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.

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!

redrock · February 2009

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

decides2dream · February 2009

redrock wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

decides2dream · February 2009

Drowned Out wrote:

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.

Heineken Helen · February 2009

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.

soulsinging · 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.

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.

cornnifer · February 2009

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

redrock · February 2009

Heineken Helen wrote:

....... but she was entitled to spend that money however she wanted.

Of course she is Helen. But don't you think providing a decent home, etc for her six existing kids (via IVF already) is a priority? Don't you think planning for their future is a priority? Any decent parent would think that way, especially if there is no other income coming in the household. Damn... myself, due to my husband's illness (therefore a loss of his salary), I think of my daughter and her years to come, I keep up our mortage payments, etc. before I even buy a CD for myself. And I still have my salary as a regular income.

What she has done again shows an irresponsible and selfish person with major psychological problems that should have been a warning to the doctor continuing with her numerous IVF treatments (but then, that is money coming in for him). I don't give a shit about that woman, it's her kids I feel for.

Heineken Helen · February 2009

redrock wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

....... but she was entitled to spend that money however she wanted.

Of course she is Helen. But don't you think providing a decent home, etc for her six existing kids (via IVF already) is a priority? Don't you think planning for their future is a priority? Any decent parent would think that way, especially if there is no other income coming in the household. Damn... myself, due to my husband's illness (therefore a loss of his salary), I think of my daughter and her years to come, I keep up our mortage payments, etc. before I even buy a CD for myself. And I still have my salary as a regular income.

What she has done again shows an irresponsible and selfish person with major psychological problems that should have been a warning to the doctor continuing with her numerous IVF treatments (but then, that is money coming in for him). I don't give a shit about that woman, it's her kids I feel for.

I dunno... it wouldn't have been irresponsible and selfish in the 80s. I know soooo many huge families who were most likely living on the breadline (seriously, a few 16+ families in my small town) and they had nothing growing up... many of them are now in super high jobs now.

I, personally, wouldn't have a kid unless I was financially comfortable... but once your kids don't go starving, I simply don't give a fuck if somebody else chooses to have that amount of kids... and again, I'm sure social services will be all over this.

redrock · February 2009

Helen, a big family is not the issue. You mentioned she could do whatever she wanted with the money she received from her disability (my response about being selfish and irresponsible was following this statement). I'm saying any responsible mother would think of her children first, giving them a home, making sure they have what they need, etc. before spending the money on plastic surgery, IVF for more kids, etc. Therefore putting her whims above her childrens' basic needs IS selfish.

I'm sure that the big families you are talking about came about 'naturally' (good christian country). I know a few 'biggish' ones (though not 16+ kids) and yes, making ends meet is difficult BUT kids do come first.

I don't think anyone here has problems with big families.

JordyWordy · February 2009

redrock wrote:

Helen, a big family is not the issue. You mentioned she could do whatever she wanted with the money she received from her disability (my response about being selfish and irresponsible was following this statement). I'm saying any responsible mother would think of her children first, giving them a home, making sure they have what they need, etc. before spending the money on plastic surgery, IVF for more kids, etc. Therefore putting her whims above her childrens' basic needs IS selfish.

I'm sure that the big families you are talking about came about 'naturally' (good christian country). I know a few 'biggish' ones (though not 16+ kids) and yes, making ends meet is difficult BUT kids do come first.

I don't think anyone here has problems with big families.

well put.

theres been more debate on this since the 13year old father in england, and it brought up the issue that in Italy (i think anyway) that social welfare funds are cut off for teenage parents , to try and reduce teen preganacies. (ie to demonstrate just how much of a responsibility parenting really is on your own).

if a similar thing could be applied to over-18 parents, with a limit being put on how many kids you could claim for.....they are only ideas about to prevent these kinds of scenarios where parents put their wants ahead of the kids needs.

decides2dream · February 2009

cornnifer wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

now, now...no point in getting all judgemental.

btw - i agree with you 100%. her ACTIONS clearly illustrate a very selfish, irresponsible person who may well have some mental issues that might account for such actions.

however, you bet....choosing cosmetic surgery and more IVF, to bring MORE children into this owrld she cannot support and needs MORE public assistance to do so, i'll judge that as selfish, at the very least.

2nd btw - i mentioned the workermen's comp, b/c Drowned Out clearly asked why anyone thought this mother got taxpayer funded IVF, and thus explained the roundabout way she did. also, perhaps if she WERE'NT getting food stamps disability, etc...people may not have judged her as harshly for choosing more IVF. probably would still think she's a bit 'off' for willingly choosing to have 14 kids all on her own, and/or still quite selfish to EXPECT her mother to care for her kids, etc....but i bet it wouldn't bother as many if she actually could, at the bvery least, support said kids on her own. ya know, personal responsibility. we all have wants, just most of us know better than to expect others to foot the bill to support our wants...and certainly not to bring other life into this world who's need we clearly cannot meet on our own.

it's sad to think we need LAWs to tell us what should just come naturally, ethically, but this case clearly illustrates we obviously DO need some laws, some parameters, for the rare few who WILL choose to abuse IVF. i should hope tho, even with more standards or criteria to meet, the vast majority who choose IVF, in reality, should not have any negative effects.

always a voice of reason:

redrock wrote:

Of course she is Helen. But don't you think providing a decent home, etc for her six existing kids (via IVF already) is a priority? Don't you think planning for their future is a priority? Any decent parent would think that way, especially if there is no other income coming in the household. Damn... myself, due to my husband's illness (therefore a loss of his salary), I think of my daughter and her years to come, I keep up our mortage payments, etc. before I even buy a CD for myself. And I still have my salary as a regular income.

What she has done again shows an irresponsible and selfish person with major psychological problems that should have been a warning to the doctor continuing with her numerous IVF treatments (but then, that is money coming in for him). I don't give a shit about that woman, it's her kids I feel for.

EXACTLY.
i think this is just about what most who have debated this topic having been saying, all along.

decides2dream · February 2009

redrock wrote:

Helen, a big family is not the issue. You mentioned she could do whatever she wanted with the money she received from her disability (my response about being selfish and irresponsible was following this statement). I'm saying any responsible mother would think of her children first, giving them a home, making sure they have what they need, etc. before spending the money on plastic surgery, IVF for more kids, etc. Therefore putting her whims above her childrens' basic needs IS selfish.

I'm sure that the big families you are talking about came about 'naturally' (good christian country). I know a few 'biggish' ones (though not 16+ kids) and yes, making ends meet is difficult BUT kids do come first.

I don't think anyone here has problems with big families.

again, absolutely. no one has a problem with single mothers, nor with large families...none of it. it is ALL of it, coupled together......joined with being on public assistance ALREADY....and then CHOOSING to have SIX EMBRYOs implanted, when you already have SIX kids at home you can't support. she WILLINGLY chose this for herself, for her family....and clearly, her family....her other children, her parents, really cannot afford this burden, financially or otherwise. also, as you say.....it's one things for a family to grow 'naturally' to the size of 14....that would take a good 10-14 years, depending on any any multiple births, etc. makes a BIG difference than EIGHT children, all the same age, plus 6 more....ALL under the age of 7! when there is a big age difference, older kids can help out with the younger, etc, etc. quite honestly, i cannot understand how anyone cannot see that. it';s the WHOLE picture that comes into play here.

puremagic · February 2009

decides2dream wrote:

redrock wrote:

Helen, a big family is not the issue. You mentioned she could do whatever she wanted with the money she received from her disability (my response about being selfish and irresponsible was following this statement). I'm saying any responsible mother would think of her children first, giving them a home, making sure they have what they need, etc. before spending the money on plastic surgery, IVF for more kids, etc. Therefore putting her whims above her childrens' basic needs IS selfish.

I'm sure that the big families you are talking about came about 'naturally' (good christian country). I know a few 'biggish' ones (though not 16+ kids) and yes, making ends meet is difficult BUT kids do come first.

I don't think anyone here has problems with big families.

again, absolutely. no one has a problem with single mothers, nor with large families...none of it. it is ALL of it, coupled together......joined with being on public assistance ALREADY....and then CHOOSING to have SIX EMBRYOs implanted, when you already have SIX kids at home you can't support. she WILLINGLY chose this for herself, for her family....and clearly, her family....her other children, her parents, really cannot afford this burden, financially or otherwise. also, as you say.....it's one things for a family to grow 'naturally' to the size of 14....that would take a good 10-14 years, depending on any any multiple births, etc. makes a BIG difference than EIGHT children, all the same age, plus 6 more....ALL under the age of 7! when there is a big age difference, older kids can help out with the younger, etc, etc. quite honestly, i cannot understand how anyone cannot see that. it';s the WHOLE picture that comes into play here.

Right or wrong, the deed is done, she now has 14 children. The public argument is whether or not she can properly take care of 14 children with or without public assistance. Many think that she can't and feel the 8 babies should be put up for immediate adoption. Others think the State should step.

Who will make that decision? The courts, thus, you have the foundation of a law that overtly determines the conditions by which a woman can reproduce.

redrock · February 2009

puremagic wrote:

Many think that she can't and feel the 8 babies should be put up for immediate adoption. Others think the State should step.
Who will make that decision? The courts, thus, you have the foundation of a law that overtly determines the conditions by which a woman can reproduce.

Not the conditions by which a woman (with the help of a man!) can reproduce naturally - there will never be anything to govern that. It seems what you are talking about the courts making the decision you are a fit or unfit parent/parents and taking what they think are the necessary steps to safeguard the children. This already happens in the US, in the UK, in France, etc. These laws are already there. Produce as much as you want but be fit parents/parent.

blackredyellow · February 2009

puremagic wrote:

Right or wrong, the deed is done, she now has 14 children. The public argument is whether or not she can properly take care of 14 children with or without public assistance. Many think that she can't and feel the 8 babies should be put up for immediate adoption. Others think the State should step.

Who will make that decision? The courts, thus, you have the foundation of a law that overtly determines the conditions by which a woman can reproduce.

I don't think that a decision will or should be made by anyone. We can all agree that this woman is a nutjob, and her and her doctor acted unethically, but like you said, the deed is done.

She will probably get a lot more public assistance, and will make some money off of this deranged story, so unless she does something to put her children in harm's way or whatever, the state shouldn't step in. Either way, the kids will probably not grow up in the greatest of situations, but it is what it is at this point.

As brought up in these threads, the idea of taking reproductive choices from people is tricky discussion, but something should be done to prevent the next crazy from implanting 10 embryos to try to out-do this wingnut in a few years.

decides2dream · February 2009

redrock wrote:

puremagic wrote:

Many think that she can't and feel the 8 babies should be put up for immediate adoption. Others think the State should step.
Who will make that decision? The courts, thus, you have the foundation of a law that overtly determines the conditions by which a woman can reproduce.

Not the conditions by which a woman (with the help of a man!) can reproduce naturally - there will never be anything to govern that. It seems what you are talking about the courts making the decision you are a fit or unfit parent/parents and taking what they think are the necessary steps to safeguard the children. This already happens in the US, in the UK, in France, etc. These laws are already there. Produce as much as you want but be fit parents/parent.

i've been saying this quite often lately in response to your posts, but....exactly!
whether this woman had 14 kids thru IVF or naturally, whether she was on public assistance before or after or not......such decisions would come up either way if it were deemed a problematic/bad situation for her children. this case does not open new doors on that. imo, the door it DOES open is directly linked to IVF, and yes, the apparent need that perhaps some laws be set up to govern the ethical choices involved, and perhaps to have similar standards as adoption. i can see nothing but good there. now i may be proven wrong later who knows...but more safguards for children, i can't see the negative there? and for a governmental standpoint, yes...as a taxpayer...i personally do not see it as 'wrong' to tell a woman, or a couple, no....while you receive public assitance, you can't undergo IVF. if someone doesn't have the good sense to not choose to expand/start their families when clearly they are not currently in a position to support themselves, i take no issue with the government doing so. hell, the government, us the taxpayer's, are already helping you in your life....i think it's ok to say no...don't add more mouths to feed. b/c this is NOT about 'accidently' getting pregnant, this is seeking out pregnancy, thoughtfully...or at least it should be thoughtful.

btw - obviously...we all KNOW 'the deed is done' and absolutely, it now is all about the best interest of these children. BEYOND that tho, i personally think we can try and LEARN from this situation, so that yes...we can prevent abuse of IVF, and sure, more abuse of public assistance, etc. to me that is a very worthy discussion.

blackredyellow wrote:

I don't think that a decision will or should be made by anyone. We can all agree that this woman is a nutjob, and her and her doctor acted unethically, but like you said, the deed is done.

She will probably get a lot more public assistance, and will make some money off of this deranged story, so unless she does something to put her children in harm's way or whatever, the state shouldn't step in. Either way, the kids will probably not grow up in the greatest of situations, but it is what it is at this point.

As brought up in these threads, the idea of taking reproductive choices from people is tricky discussion, but something should be done to prevent the next crazy from implanting 10 embryos to try to out-do this wingnut in a few years.

absolutely!

Octuplet mom rant

Comments

Categories