38 replies to this topic

[Fizzbit]

http://news.yahoo.co...re_us/octuplets

Single mother, with 6 children conceived via invitro fertilization, recently gave birth to the second set of live octuplets in US history.

She currently receives federal aid in the form of food stamps and children disability. Three of her older children are disabled.

Personally, while yeah, I can respect parents' decisions to have large families, what this woman has done is disgusting. 14 children, and she's single? Taxpayers will be paying for every single piece of these childrens' lives! She'll likely never be able to get a job while trying to raise 14 children, and the cost of raising them to adulthood is nearly $3 million!

The doctor who allowed this had extremely poor judgment when allowing her to conceive octuplets. This is also the same doctor who allowed her to conceive her previous children. Currently he's under investigation for reckless practice. Raising octuplets, let alone 14 children by yourself, isn't just extremely difficult or next to impossible, but carrying them anywhere close to term is terribly, terribly dangerous.

What are your thoughts?

[Raien]

I didn't know the law could stop you from having too many children. Anyway, yeah, I would agree it was irresponsible of her to have so many children. There's not really much more you can say on the topic is there. The deed's been done; there's nothing more to do.

[Fizzbit]

As the video below states, fertility doctors typically do not try to implant more than 2 or 3 embryos at the very most. Anything more than 2 is considered outside the norm.

Law or no law, isn't a doctor's creed supposed to be "Do No Harm"? Obviously this doctor wasn't thinking with anything but his wallet when he allowed this woman to undergo the stress of an octuplet pregnancy.



She claims to not receiving taxpayer money like welfare, and that foodstamps and such are a "Temporary thing" and that she's not asking for money, yet on her own website she has a donation button. Innocent "suggestion" for good will, perhaps, but it's still "asking for money" which she claims she doesn't do.

http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/

Edited by Fizzbit, 13 February 2009 - 09:14 PM.

[Selena]

No legal limits on how many children an individual can have, regardless of personal wealth or creed. Have a problem spending tax dollars on couples who can't afford to have children? Get a bill to pass preventing poor people from having more children than they can financially support. Until then, it's nobody's business but theirs.

As for the doctor, that's up to whoever is reviewing the case.

[Steel Samurai]

No legal limits on how many children an individual can have, regardless of personal wealth or creed. Have a problem spending tax dollars on couples who can't afford to have children? Get a bill to pass preventing poor people from having more children than they can financially support. Until then, it's nobody's business but theirs.

As for the doctor, that's up to whoever is reviewing the case.

*cough* Why does that idea sound familiar?

[spunky-monkey]

She's mentally retarded and needs psychiatric help. What kind of sane person would want even more children after several of the first-borns were disabled?

Those discontent individuals in this life that scream "I WANT A BABY!" have no genuine love to give, just selfishness that begets only more selfishness. Do people even care about the innocents they drag into existence? Probably not, considering all incidents of child abuse and neglect we hear on the news.

People like Suleman make me glad I choose never to have children with anyone.

[Oberon Storm]

Personally, while yeah, I can respect parents' decisions to have large families, what this woman has done is disgusting. 14 children, and she's single? Taxpayers will be paying for every single piece of these childrens' lives! She'll likely never be able to get a job while trying to raise 14 children, and the cost of raising them to adulthood is nearly $3 million!

I thought she was going to school working on a degree. That doesn't sound too bad to me.

And what does it matter if she's single. If she wasn't single no one would care even if they were a poor couple in the projects. Unless they were lesbians then people would be throwing a fit because lesbians are taking care of children.

Leave her alone and get on with your own lives.

[Fizzbit]

I don't see how it's possible to work on a degree with 14 children, 3 of which have disabilities and need extra care. There's no way she can devote time as a mother to all of them and go to school. She'd have to be taking like, one class at a time online or something to be able to say that she's working on a degree.

The only thing she herself buys for these children are toys. She CANNOT support these children on her own. AT. ALL. Period! Even the six previous ones, before the octuplet pregnancy, she was living off of disability for a back injury she suffered. (The money from this, by the way, is what she used to pay for the damn IV Fertilizations!) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a pregnancy with even one baby would aggravate a bad back something awful, let alone eight.

This woman needs psychiatric help, and the doctor who implanted all 14 children in her over the years needs to be under some serious malpractice evaluation.

Edited by Fizzbit, 14 February 2009 - 01:49 PM.

[Oberon Storm]

This woman needs psychiatric help, and the doctor who implanted all 14 children in her over the years needs to be under some serious malpractice evaluation.

Maybe she does. I don't know. I don't care. As long as she at least makes an effort then good for her. It's none of my business.

As for the doctor, no laws were broken. It's between him and whatever medical board he answers to.

[Crimson Lego]

I find this quite amazing. Congratulations to her.

[Egann]

While there's no doubt that what she's doing is a little irresponsible, I'm not (and nor is anyone else) in a position to judge her until after she screws up from over-extending.

Judging before that is just mean.

[Trisana]

I think it's sad because of those poor children. The children are already here, so no use worrying about that, but...

I wish they could just take them away from her. I can't see that ending well in any way, and those will be some seriously neglected kids when they get older.

[Chiaki]

Maybe its none of our business, and it probably isn't against the law, but it still pisses me off that anyone would be encouraged to spawn that many children, especially when the woman in this particular scenario doesn't appear to be fully sane and had 6 children (including some with disabilities) to care for. Each and every one of those kids will, if they don't die before growing up, eventually have to make their way into the world and need a place to live, a job, a method of transportation...you get the idea. If they're raised well, then good for the parents, they've released a self reliant and functional human into the population, but I have doubts that many of the children raised by this woman will have what it takes to make it in the world. I don't mind my tax money going to someone who is struggling, but still working hard, but I'm not so sympathetic to people who take as much charity as possible with no intention of giving back to the community in any way.

If the woman used her welfare and disability money to really further her education so she could get a job that payed well without straining her, as well as caring for her 6 kids and putting some funds away for their futures, I could respect that. Using her money to further populate an already crowded planet...not so much.

The damage has been done, though. Karma can take over whenever it wants to at this point.

[SteveT]

If she goes out of her way to have 14 kids, and their lives are being paid for by tax dollars, and you pay taxes, then it IS your business. You're funding her family.

Just throwing that out there.

[Green Goblin]

Left this in her comments

YOUR VAGINA IS NOT A CLOWN CAR. You have no true plans to take care of these children, outside of a halfass attempt to go back to school, despite the fact that you're needed at home to watch after them. Women find it hard to go to college after having just ONE kid. If you really had the raw nerve to go after just having eight, then odds are, you'd have already HAD your master's by now, you'd have a freakin' job and you wouldn't be out attention-whoring on Dateline and starting up a website to get sympathy donations for what was CLEARLY a voluntary choice to **** up your own life. Oh and can you say "Never going to marry ever"? You honestly think any guy is going to want to tie the knot with a woman who's got enough kids to fill up a classroom? I hope to hell that the children live a decent life, but that in no way exonerates you for your VERY bad lapses in judgement. I genuinely hope that you are well forgotten almost immediately. That your site receives little to know hits and you have to work your ass off like a SLAVE just to keep food on the table. I hope you have to live a life worse than a CONVICT for the next 18 years just so you realize what a STUPID decision this is.

[spunky-monkey]

A good many women do it in this country all the time, they have child after child, sitting on income support benefits from the state because they're too damn lazy to even aspire for a part-time job.

But the real tragedy here though is that our carefree lack of birth control has devalued human life - children have long stopped being a miracle and any one individual in a society of millions becomes utterly worthless. We've allowed ourselves to become an infectious disease that is slowly overwhelming this planet's biosphere.

Edited by spunky-monkey, 15 February 2009 - 01:05 PM.

[Selena]

If she goes out of her way to have 14 kids, and their lives are being paid for by tax dollars, and you pay taxes, then it IS your business. You're funding her family.

Just throwing that out there.

Ah, but again, it's completely legal under US law for her to do something like this. So in that way, no, it's not our business. Unless you make it illegal for women to have more than X number of children while they're in a certain income bracket. Until then, all the complaints and gossiping will amount to nothing.

Of course, doing that open up a whole 'nother can of political worms.

[Oberon Storm]

If she goes out of her way to have 14 kids, and their lives are being paid for by tax dollars, and you pay taxes, then it IS your business. You're funding her family.

Just throwing that out there.

It's an incredibly small drop in an incredibly large bucket of shit we should really be worried about.

[Raien]

I don't think taxes rise or fall depending on how many children this person has, so it doesn't directly affect me. But I think it does deprive other people who could use that money, and that's sad.

[Paxi]

Personally, I think it's interesting (not saying good or bad, just interesting) that having children is something our culture (and others of course) finds so important. If it happens, it happens...and that's inevitable. But people actually try to have them...in a struggling economy. Even if the economy as a whole weren't really stuggling, there would still be poor people out there trying to have children. Many people who aren't really fit to even care for children.

Why is it so important that everyone who ever lives is expected to contribute children to an already grossly over populated planet? Because you see, it is a thing of self-fulfillment. I would hope that nobody really has children thinking that they're fulfilling some duty, or doing the world a favor. You could give birth to a wonderful person who will change the world. Or you could give birth to a wonderful person who does nothing for the world as a whole except exist on it and maybe touch a small group of peoples lives. Though the individuals you give birth to may not effect the world as a whole in a positive nor a negative way, the increasing numbers are becoming negative. America's eating habbits are out of control as it is, and yet we bring more kids into this country and feed them that way when plenty or people in other countries would do well to be able to consume half as much. Idk...I have no problem with people wanting families. Life is a good thing and it's nice sometimes to watch a child grow, and see who they become. I'm not against having children, but I definitly think people should think about these things before hand and try making more responsible decision.

In vitro fertilization is still fairly recent practice and I could understand how it would bring about unexepcted results. That's ok. Shit happens. Gotta find out somehow. And hey, you know...6 kids...I personally think it's a bit ridiculous to have that many kids, but hey...it happens.

WHy in the WORLD WOULD you get IV AGAIN?!?! Are you insane?

ok for 1) that's that over-population I was talking about...to an extreme! I think it's bad enough that the vast majority feel obligated to have kids in the first place, but seriously...why would you want so many kids? You're not doing the world a favor. 2)The more kids you have the more you're hurting the ones you've got. Realistically: no job. no money. how in the world are you going to feed these kids? please let me know...because I'm one person and I can barely afford to take care of myself! 3) Kids need attention - they crave it - and in a family of 13 other kids they aren't going to get it - and they are going to either make your life hell or go into chronic depression at a young age. There is no way for one person to watch over that many kids. I'm sorry...I don't mean to use the word "Can't"...I don't like that word, but realistically...I really don't think you can.

This - none of my business? Think I shouldn't criticize? Look - I don't care what you do with your life as long as your bad decisions are only hurting you. That's your business...whatever. But that decision that woman made - to conceive 14 children - is going to have a chain reaction of hardship for both her and them.

True, it's a small drop in thew bucket for tax payers. But every little drop in the bucket....makes the bucket FULLER!
Hey, I'm all for Welfare (which even if she isn't on it, she's likely going to be). I'm all for helping people who are struggling. And no doubt, whether we like it or not...this family needs to be helped. No way around it. After all, it's not the kids' faults there mom had so goddamn many of them.

Sure, one family of 15 isn't the end of the world. But let's admit one thing right now - the last thing the world needs is MORE PEOPLE. Really. Not saying we should stop all births - but please do not feel like it's your job as a human being to father or mother a child. It isn't.

[Trisana]

I cannot relate to women like this at all, because I cannot imagine why anyone would want to force their bodies to create babies. I'm not even sure whether I'll want to try to have children after I'm married. It's just kind of, if it happens okay. If it doesn't it's cool.

[Paxi]

Personally, I don't think I even want to have kids. If I do then I will love and care for them as best I can, don't get me wrong...but I wouldn't opt for more. In vitro fertilization is very expensive, not guaranteed, and when not done properly, though I'm not totally against it, it brings about results such as this. In any case, my issue isn't with science, although they could be more responsible too, I think people need not be so selfish when making these decision. Ask yourself - do I really need six more mouths to feed? does the world really need six more people when it can't (or won't) even feed the people it's got? would....maybe one or two (if any) children suffice?

[wisp]

All animals theoretically have the biological instinct to procreate and thereby ensure that their genetic material will be passed into the world to continue living and procreating after they die. That's why it's so typical for most people to have children at some point or other.

Having said that, we also have thinking capacities and emotional capacities that sometimes lead us to the decision not to have children of our own (I don't plan on having children and have always felt, since childhood, that if I ever changed my mind, I'd rather adopt a child and give him or her a good home to grow up in).

This woman is most likely either driven more by biology than the average human being, or she is driven by the desire for taxpayer money to pay for her new offspring. Either way, the children have been born, so there's not much we can do about it at this point. Oh well for this one.

I do think that perhaps this case could be used to set a precedent for future situations, however. I think that while China's birth limitations are oppressive and non-functional, the US should similarly strive to set some sort of legal limitations on how many children anyone can have - preferably it should be based on income level and ability to provide adequately for the children. That's all I have to say on this topic. >.>

[Oberon Storm]

Lets shred the Constitution while we're at it.

[Dizzy]

From what I've seen... this woman must clearly struggle with identifying the differences between the romance of childbearing (having a large family), and the actual demanding reality of providing for that many children.

More or less, I believe her rationality is... broken? For lack of a better term.




Although motherhood and child rearing is a noble and wonderful thing, I firmly believe that giving birth to that many children and placing them in such a severely disadvantaged home setting is a purely selfish, if not an entirely negligent act on all parties involved.

Prior to Nadya Suleman's birthing of the octuplets, she was already facing serious debt.

And now, because she has given birth to the octuplets (giving her the responsibility of 14 children to raise, total), she has further increased financial strain on not only herself, but also on her family (including her parents and her children).

She has now placed her family at risk for starvation and home loss -- to name just a few complications that go hand in hand with monetary issues.

Should she lose her home entirely, I can see an erupting custody battle for the children between herself, her immediate family members, and the state.

Either way you slice it...

She is unemployed.
She is in serious debt (and who else is legally held responsible to take up the still-growing, unpaid debt when she has passed, but the children and the tax-payer?)
And because she is in debt, she is incapable of meeting the financial requirements of her children and her living quarters; and therefore she is incapable of providing a suitable living situation for her children.
And finally, she is clearly suffering from some sort of impulsive mental/personality disorder that is not only placing herself in danger, but also her family.

It is indisputable that she is a loving mother, but the simple truth is that this woman, Nadya Suleman, is clearly unfit to raise that many children.
Somehow I believe that this entire situation could have been prevented by setting up some sort of limitation to how many children one can have based on his or her capabilities to provide.

Edit: (Even if that sounds like a highly impossible and insane governmental/state restriction to uphold.)

Suleman is outright expecting the taxpayer, charity, and other family members to catch her before she falls, without actively seeking alternatives such as babysitting and employment.

Alas... the simple truth is that messy stories like Suleman's are not entirely preventable.

Edited by Enjeru, 19 February 2009 - 04:18 PM.

[Paxi]

All animals theoretically have the biological instinct to procreate and thereby ensure that their genetic material will be passed into the world to continue living and procreating after they die. That's why it's so typical for most people to have children at some point or other.

Having said that, we also have thinking capacities and emotional capacities that sometimes lead us to the decision not to have children of our own (I don't plan on having children and have always felt, since childhood, that if I ever changed my mind, I'd rather adopt a child and give him or her a good home to grow up in).

This woman is most likely either driven more by biology than the average human being, or she is driven by the desire for taxpayer money to pay for her new offspring. Either way, the children have been born, so there's not much we can do about it at this point. Oh well for this one.

I do think that perhaps this case could be used to set a precedent for future situations, however. I think that while China's birth limitations are oppressive and non-functional, the US should similarly strive to set some sort of legal limitations on how many children anyone can have - preferably it should be based on income level and ability to provide adequately for the children. That's all I have to say on this topic. >.>

Quick side note...just to put it out there: Thought it IS an individual decision, giving birth to 14 kids...there is no way that can be anything but horrible for your body.


We're undoubtedly a bit more advanced than most animals (known to us). We aren't merely the sum or our parts, and an evolution from such instincts has surely been made. I'm not denying that such instincts exist within us, but I couldn't accept that as any sort of justification.


As for a system regulating births, I don't know...call me Communist...but I really don't think that would be the worst thing. Don't be a selfish moron and have a kid just to have a kid, have a plan to care for them. Of course, that kind of rational thinking just escapes a great many people. I think such a system, like you said - based on income an the parents' capacity to take care of the children, would be favorable if done correctly. As in, it would have to bear in mind unusual circumstances and be open to exceptions. For instance, if someone were to have 6 kids when they were only trying for their first one...I mean, what would you do if they weren't financially capable...tell them to choose three and then take the other three away? That wouldn't go over so well...there would have to be some way of helping people like that...or at least giving them the chance to take care of their unexpectedly large family.

Oh, and for the guy who I believe said "let's shred the constitution while we're at it"....uhm, you are aware that that our "constitutional rights" are being taken away little by little, right? Our government finds loop holes, changes what it doesn't like. Our wonderful nation was founded on principles such as: EQUALITY, unless you're gay, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, yea...you're free to say it...if we really don't like it we'll just make sure nobody can hear you say it, NO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, what? death by lethal injection isn't cruel! And I also believe there is a part that once said that the President isn't exempt from the law, why isn't George Bush in prison? He's done some criminal things. Our constitution becomes more and more meaningless all the time. They can change anything they want. We really DON'T have much of a voice in it like was promised. Not to mention, the constitution was written based on old-fashioned ideals. It's a much different world now. People are a bit more educated now. Open minded. And as people become more educated, and more aware of history's shortcomings, it becomes necessary to revise.

At this point, yea...maybe you're right. Maybe we should just shred the constitution.

*insert self-righteous patriotic rant here*

Edited by Paxi, 19 February 2009 - 06:41 PM.

[wisp]

Lets shred the Constitution while we're at it.

How was this necessary, and how does it add to the discussion? I'm out of here. I should just learn not to post here.

[Oberon Storm]

How was this necessary, and how does it add to the discussion? I'm out of here. I should just learn not to post here.

If you're worried about the burden on the tax payer then reform the welfare system. That seems to be the biggest issue most of you are having. While I still believe that if she were married no one would have a problem. It would matter to only a few that they would still need assistance. If it is the burden to the tax payer you are concerned about then why don't more people raise a ruckus about everyone else that has a multiple birth. As I understand it almost none of them are natural. Yet most like to go all ooh goo gaga and call it a miracle.

No. Instead of reforming welfare so people like this woman will not recieve many benefits if any you would choose to impose limits on the number of children a family can have. So the number of children you have is going to depend on your tax bracket? How do you propose dealing with all the different situations that can and will pop up? How will this effect divorce situations or situations where the mother or father take off and abandon the family? Will there be penalties?

Then there is enforcement. When the family reaches it's legal limit and another unexpected pregnancy comes along what then? Forced abortion? Force the family to give the child up? Or maybe nip that whole problem in the bud by sterilizing mother and/or father?

What does any of this have to do with the Constitution? Privacy and equal protection under the law.

Oh, and for the guy who I believe said "let's shred the constitution while we're at it"....uhm, you are aware that that our "constitutional rights" are being taken away little by little, right? Our government finds loop holes, changes what it doesn't like. Our wonderful nation was founded on principles such as: EQUALITY, unless you're gay, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, yea...you're free to say it...if we really don't like it we'll just make sure nobody can hear you say it, NO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, what? death by lethal injection isn't cruel! And I also believe there is a part that once said that the President isn't exempt from the law, why isn't George Bush in prison? He's done some criminal things. Our constitution becomes more and more meaningless all the time. They can change anything they want. We really DON'T have much of a voice in it like was promised. Not to mention, the constitution was written based on old-fashioned ideals. It's a much different world now. People are a bit more educated now. Open minded. And as people become more educated, and more aware of history's shortcomings, it becomes necessary to revise.

At this point, yea...maybe you're right. Maybe we should just shred the constitution.

*insert self-righteous patriotic rant here*

Yes. The Bush administration did some pretty rotten things and so far seems to be getting away with it. But none of the examples given are examples of rights being taken away. Certain civil rights have never been granted to homosexuals, thought they should be. There are many different ways you can get your point of view out. If that wasn't true then those Loose Change morons wouldn't be around. I see nothing cruel and unusuall about lethal injection. They take the time to sterilize the fucking needles. The Constitution is easily enough revised I think. They have done it several times already.

Edited by Chief Fire Storm, 20 February 2009 - 02:22 AM.

[Paxi]

Yes, I'm so glad that they....sterilize the needles....that they...KILL people with. How kind of them.

Really? What's your point? Although, I suppose my point probably wasn't too clear either. I apologize. You see, that was merely my example for the death penalty, which in it's entirety troubles me a great deal. Personally, I think death by lethal injection would be an incredibly cruel way to be killed....it's just more psychological torture rather than physical torture.

Edited by Paxi, 04 March 2009 - 07:57 PM.

[Oberon Storm]

So your issue is with the death penalty period? We've always had the death penaty except for a very brief time. Again, it is not an example of rights being taken away.