It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Octuplets' Mother 'Obsessed with Children', Wanted 'One More Girl'

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mlowsley
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


There is a great deal about this story that just does not make sense.

Seriously.

None of this makes any real sense unless there has been massive fraud during this entire fiasco.

My personal fraud meter is going off the scale.


This is a monumental event. Here we are in a place - where we are finally taking a look at our personal - financial - spiritual level of responsibility - and something like this arises. There was a time when this kind of information would just be ok in the eyes of many. But times are changing.... and this event will change times.
It is no small event.

You are right - something is very wrong with this picture.




posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2

The intersting thing, here you have some people that say one cannot abort because the she can abort because it is her body, but in this case they are also saying she does not have the right to conceive again with her own body.


I would not say that is the argument. I think it is more like, people should not have to PAY for her to conceive again. If she wants to go out and get knocked up, thats ones thing. But to have the public pay for fertility treatments for someone who already has six children seems a bit much. Especially since she has no means of supporting any of them.

It is her body, if she wants to go make babies, fine. I disagree vehemently with having that many biological children in a crowded world, I think it is selfish and irresponsible, but those are personal opinions. However it just illogical to pay for treatment for someone to make babies they cannot afford to raise. If someone on public support continues to have children that were not there (including those in gestation) before they began receiving payments, I do not think the amount of assistance should go up one nickle if they have more. I believe in helping people out of trouble, I do not believe it is in societies best interests to give some people a paid position as brood mares.

Paying for a poor mother to use contraceptives or have an abortion makes sense economically. That helps cut down the cost to society of having to feed, clothe, etc., those possible children. Paying a poor mother to have children does not make any kind of economic sense. I dont think rich people should be subsidized for having children either. This isnt a class argument. However if they pay for private insurance that is between them and the company they have a contract with.

Just my two cents.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I do agree with you here. She definitely should not have been allowed to have this treatment on the dole. I can't get my head around that she was allowed to have IVF in the first place, I always beleived that was classified as an elective procedure.


Personally I do think it is irresponsible to have a lot of kids--and I am not going to try to define "a lot" absolutely but I think more than 5--even if one can afford it.

Aside from the fact that it's unneeded in this day and age, and, when multiplied over and over through many familes really does exacerbate overpopulation problems, I can say anecdotally that I think the children of larger families tend to be less happy and less able to actually function in the world.

Please don't flame me for that, if you did grow up in a large family. It has just been my observation that bigger families tend to extend less one-on-one time with each kid, and that the kids are often forced to act like miniature parents to care for the younger ones. I'm all for responsibility as children but I don't think that the kids shoud be picking up responsibilities which should go to the parents.


I hope this case will bring to light "baby addictions." I have always thought that this is a quantifiable psyciatric disorder, and one that should definitely be addressed even though it hitherto hasn't been PC.

No child deserves to come into the world to a parent who sees him as a part of a collection, and no woman truly "needs" another baby as I have heard many large brood moms say. It's great and admirable to want to be a mother but if a woman still "needs" a baby to fill up something inside of her when she has other children already then there is something wrong with her.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by asmeone2]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

I don't know what reputable doctor would implant 8 babies in a single woman who already has six kids. Many of those children could have died before birth. Each death would have been a tragedy.

To the doctor that is encouraging this womans' mental health issue by implanting multiple births. He/she should be investigated by the medical profession.


You hit the nail on the head!

Talk about dysfunctional behavior, on all parties involved!! Good Lord, my mother had the presence of mind to stop at 5 girls, and that was in the economic times when it was possible to pay all bills and have savings on one income!

Also, I know of one little girl born very prematurely, who survived without any disabilities and little medical care a short while after birth. OTOH, I know of two children who were also born not as premature but required extensive medical care (one a "million dollar" baby) and now suffer from extensive lifelong disabilities.

Premature birth can lead to lasting physical and learning disabilities, sometimes even slight, but never-the-less such effects. Even for children not born premature but with a disability, unless a parent is willing to devote the time and energy to offering the care needed (which can be overwhelming at times), the child's potential for a better quality of life is diminished.

If one of her other children is autistic...I'm flabbergasted! I have had the pleasure of having great conversations with a mildly autistic, gifted teenager; but OTOH I keep in touch with the grandparents of a 6 year old severely autistic child who has no verbal communication and has just lately decreased his habit of smearing his feces on walls.

God help this woman, because no one else did. God bless the babies born into this situation.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swatman

this is the typical liberal california answer that i come to shake my head at everytime i read it. sir, please take some money out of your bank account and send it to this nut case woman, because i refuse to pay for her and her addiction.


I think your getting out of topic in the stereotype you allege this opinion zero has comes from...But lets be clear, he's clearly defining the right of the individual to express his or her freedoms and mind you the taxes collected from us as citizens SHOULD be spent on children who had NO choice or say in the matter of where and when they were born INSTEAD of sending (for instance) the corporate fat cats on a vacation while the rest of us sweat out this terrible time in our economy. The point of her decision making being good or bad is moot. The children are here, born and alive. You are saying you would rather them starve, freeze, and die of illness otherwise preventable than contribute to the welfare of the populace which in this particular case involves this lady and her numerous children. Leave the stereotypes and generally insulting assumptions at the door if you're going to contribute to a discussion where origin of opinion is NOT the focus of discussion.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by desert
 


I doubt the prognosis will be as good for these. With 8 of them they had to have been born around 24 weeks at the most-- that is 16 weeks of cooking they didn't get.

Babies can be born about 6 weeks premature and not suffer any damage--mine were born around that time-- but anything less than that and you're looking at a long time in the hospital at the least, and severed disability if not death at worst.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Averysmallfoxx
 


But it's come out that those children were conceived with public money. That should NOT have happened. IT would have been different if she had had the treatments at a time in her life when she was stable and then had some hard luck and had to go on the dole. Not only are we the taxpayer being forced to pay for all these children for the rest of their childhood, probably, but our money was used to create them in a situation that was completely inappropriate.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2


I hope this case will bring to light "baby addictions." I have always thought that this is a quantifiable psyciatric disorder, and one that should definitely be addressed even though it hitherto hasn't been PC.



I agree with that concept that it is a mental disorder for some of these women. Perhaps along the lines of narcissism or Munchhausen's syndrome by proxy.

I do understand that those raised in a certain religious environments have a strong social pressure that may lead them to have more children than perhaps they would have liked. I think that is a shame as well, but for different reasons. And those from the days before birth control was widely available and highly effective are another story. So we cannot lump them all together and I know you didnt mean it that way, but I thought I would add that as a disclaimer.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


I absolutely agree with you. I don't believe this woman should have received IVF - but it is not clear that she got public money for it. There is an implication she acted as an egg donor while cycling for herself. This is not an uncommon practice. In the USA, this can usually include defrayed costs - or, if someone approached her in a private deal, they may have covered all the costs. There is no word whether this was done in the USA.

I really think there is some kind of medical or identity fraud involved with this.

No reputable RE would do this. She had a proven ability to grow transferred (it is incorrect to say implanted) embryos - they implant after being transferred in cases where pregnancy ensues.

This woman is an aberration and an abomination. Again, the consensus on the IVF boards on the internet is she is a selfish little moron - and that is much kinder than the actual wording.

Again, if 8 embryos were really transferred (this is still unclear) it is medical malpractice under the standards and guidelines of the professional associations overseeing reproductive technologies. I know of no reproductive endocrinologist who has not condemned the unknown physician.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by mlowsley]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostNemesis
reply to post by marg6043
 


Ya know what, I agree with you.

I am starting to feel completely under the belief that somebody needs to have their business/medical license revoked over this one.
No wonder they wouldn't comment to the media.


Why on earth would a MORAL decision of the mother in question be something a doctor should be able to supersede? Why would this Dr. be in trouble for doing what his patient asked? Its ultimately her choice to do with her body what she will INCLUDING becoming pregnant. Being a doctor is not being a moral authority and no amount of opinion will change that. What about those people who have body dismorphic disorder who just keep going back under the knife for the all sorts of completely unnecessary and might I add DANGEROUS surgeries. The doctor being the clear expert on the issue cant fight them on the issue, they do the job they are hired to do and that is that. This circumstance has nothing to do with anyone else's lapse in judgment is the mothers and hers alone....THAT is in and of itself still an issue I doubt anyone can definitively answer. I mean, who says she cant love all 14 just fine? you? me? who are we to judge? tax payer or not, the money is not what matters. Those 14 are alive now and more than anything they need their mom.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by Averysmallfoxx]

[edit on 31-1-2009 by Averysmallfoxx]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Averysmallfoxx
 


Deciding to have more children, when she clearly can't support herself, in a way that has a very high probablility of creating multibles, is a good start at not loving them IMO.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by asmeone2


I hope this case will bring to light "baby addictions." I have always thought that this is a quantifiable psyciatric disorder, and one that should definitely be addressed even though it hitherto hasn't been PC.



I agree with that concept that it is a mental disorder for some of these women. Perhaps along the lines of narcissism or Munchhausen's syndrome by proxy.

I do understand that those raised in a certain religious environments have a strong social pressure that may lead them to have more children than perhaps they would have liked. I think that is a shame as well, but for different reasons. And those from the days before birth control was widely available and highly effective are another story. So we cannot lump them all together and I know you didnt mean it that way, but I thought I would add that as a disclaimer.


I would not necesarily call it mental disorders for all the religious folks though I definitely think some baby addicts use religion to hide their disorger, if you know what I mean.

Either way it is irresponsible, regardless of how and why.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


I think more or less your throwing love out there as a variable that you can determine by effort or income or something in that sense. Are you saying that hardworking lowerclass families whom cannot regularly pay ALL their bills on time dont love their children? Bear in mind also that the method used for impregnation generally uses more embryos due to the LACK of success in most cases so they number is higher because the success rate is lower, she didnt intend to have a whopping 8 I am sure, she isn't crazy, read up on her educational background and such. Its just that she got pregnant and what is she suppose to do? kill them off?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
In case people on this thread haven't read the other thread about this woman wanting Oprah to make her a star, here is a quote from the media:

"Nadya Suleman, 33, plans a career as a television childcare expert after it emerged last week that she already had six children before giving birth on Monday. She now has 14 below the age of eight.

Although still confined to an LA hospital bed, she intends to talk to two influential television hosts this week — media mogul Oprah Winfrey, and Diane Sawyer, who presents Good Morning America. "

Oprah make me a star!


[edit on 31-1-2009 by Mynaeris]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
reply to post by asmeone2
 


I think more or less your throwing love out there as a variable that you can determine by effort or income or something in that sense. Are you saying that hardworking lowerclass families whom cannot regularly pay ALL their bills on time dont love their children? Bear in mind also that the method used for impregnation generally uses more embryos due to the LACK of success in most cases so they number is higher because the success rate is lower, she didnt intend to have a whopping 8 I am sure, she isn't crazy, read up on her educational background and such. Its just that she got pregnant and what is she suppose to do? kill them off?


I'm saying, basically, that if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

As for this particular lady, as I've explained in this thread and others pertaining to this subject, a medical reduction probably would have been the wisest thing to do. Not simply for economic reasons, but because being pregnant with that many babies at once poses a serious risk to the life of the mother and all the babies and better ensures all of their survival.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by asmeone2]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx

Why on earth would a MORAL decision of the mother in question be something a doctor should be able to supersede? Why would this Dr. be in trouble for doing what his patient asked? Its ultimately her choice to do with her body what she will INCLUDING becoming pregnant. Being a doctor is not being a moral authority and no amount of opinion will change that.


Yeah tell that to Dr. Kevorkian. You cant just do whatever you want to your body legally with medical help in this country. And no amount of opinion will change that, either. Apparently, we do not YET have laws regarding the number of fetuses that are implanted in a person. Hopefully this case will cause enough outcry to have some sensible limits put in place.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Lol. I think religion is used as a cover for a wide variety of mental disorders, so you will get no disagreement from me there.

Mind you I am not saying ALL religious people are mentally ill, those who wish to flame.

And, I have been scouring the internet for more information on her financial status. Although there are many, many people claiming that the taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill for this, I have not found one credible source who says that any tax money has been used to date to pay for her or her childbearing business.

So far she is just bankrupting her parents. And it appears that her embryo transferring adventures have something to do with "someone paying her" to do it. Her mother is quoted as saying something like that but no details are given. It sounds really weird and convoluted, and has something to do with the fact that she apparently worked at some fertility clinic. Possibly as an egg donor as someone else said.

I just wanted to say that it does NOT appear that she is sponging off anyone other than her parents at this point. When I first read the story and the surrounding comments both here and on some of the linked sites, I believed she was using tax dollars for this and I wanted to retract that now that I have taken the time to do some fact checking.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
This story toasts my cookies to no end! I'm sure some of you know my opinion on "free breeders." I think it is socially unconscionable in an over-crowded world with dwindling resources to breed any more humans. Don't tell me it's not over-crowed either. You are in denial of the facts if you think so. If you love babies/children I think that's great, so adopt or volunteer.

Think of the scholarships for bright, promising students that could be paid for with the money that is being spent on a litter of kids that, statistically, will grow up with some kind of problems. Anybody want to bet me this breeder HAS NOT produced the next Einstein? Not even close?

My neighbor called the Sheriff and told them I had "at least six dogs, and check out the horses too." I have four dogs and three ponies, all in good health, vaccinated, in good weight, and neutered. I wound up giving the cop a "dog and pony show" to convince him I wasn't some animal hoarder abusing animals.

After he left I thought, if I had twelve kids he wouldn't be out here and people would be blathering on about how "beautiful it is" that I reproduced like a rat.

The woman is a child hoarder with obvious mental problems. How in the world will she ever give these children the attention they deserve?



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
I think I'll wait for all the real Facts.

In the mean time - I believe these children (all of them) are loved.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
It is beyond me why any proffesional doctor would implant that many embryos to begin with, where she got the money to do invitro fertilization, 12-15 thousand dollars for each IVF, I know, I tried for years to come up with that amount of cash for it, never successfully carrying to term I was told in vitro may be my only chance at motherhood, I finally decided that if I could not afford the procedure I obviously could not afford the child itself, because 12-15 thousand is a drop in the bucket when it comes to raising a child now, and I would never live off the state or welfare.

I don't think this woman is mentally stable, and the doctor who allowed this should be fired for being so irresponsible. Why didn't he do interviews with her, order counseling, something, to pre-empt such a horrible decision?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join