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.

 

Octuplet Mom Defends Her ‘Unconventional’ Choices

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
May I ever so kindly ask why the flak it's your concern?

Why are you so into other people's lives? Is yours so pathetic you have to look to people who are doing something interesting and daring to feel an emotion.


Well, certainly says something about yourself.




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
She is pretty.
Maybe some attention seeking millionare will marry her.
These sorts of men are always proposing to pretty women who get press of any sort. Maria Oswold got proposals from all over the world.
Models who are on magazine covers get them daily.
The 14 kids would be 14 additional "feathers" in the guy's cap.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Don't know if this has been linked yet, but it has some hard numbers on what the taxpayers of California will pick up for the "octopus":

www.breitbart.com...


Suleman, whose six older children range in age from 2 to 7, said three of them receive disability payments. She said one is autistic, but she has not disclosed the other youngsters' disabilities, and refused to say how much they get in payments.

In California, a low-income family can receive Social Security payments of up to $793 a month for each disabled child. Three children would amount to $2,379.

The Suleman octuplets' medical costs have not been disclosed, but in 2006, the average cost for a premature baby's hospital stay in California was $164,273, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The average cost for just one cesarean birth in 2006 was $22,762 in California. Eight times that equals $1.3 million.

For a single mother, the cost of raising 14 children through age 17 ranges from $1.3 million to $2.7 million, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is struggling to close a $42 billion budget gap by cutting services, declined through a spokesman to comment on the taxpayer costs associated with the octuplets' delivery and care.

Suleman received disability payments for an on-the-job back injury during a riot at a state mental hospital, collecting more than $165,000 over nearly a decade before the benefits were discontinued last year.

Some of the disability money was spent on in vitro fertilizations, which was used for all 14 of her children, Suleman said. Suleman said she also worked double shifts at the mental hospital and saved up for the treatments. She estimated that all her treatments cost $100,000.


Also, I can't understand how a person who claims a back injury bad enough to get $165,000 in payments from disability can carry 8 babies.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I am very interested in how bad the disability of some of her children are that she without disregard of her unborn decided to have more children that obviously some of the 8 will also can be disable.

It is something definitely wrong with her eggs if she have more than one child already with disability problems.

This nothing short of irresponsible by her and her doctors.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Four pages of opinions, and no one grasps the real problem. The biological father is not in the home.

I'm sure there is some guy out there somewhere that would have loved to have a huge family, and would work hard to support them. Did she seek him out? No.

Look at the stats of what not having the biological father in the home does to children.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
No - the real problem is there are 14 children who need to be cared for.

No matter what their mother did - - they had no choice - and have done nothing wrong.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Look at the stats of what not having the biological father in the home does to children.


I am so sick of this mentality. There is a major reason there are so many fatherless homes. In the majority of cases - the father leaves.

I am so sick of women getting blamed for everything. When is the last time your read a headline about the problems of growing up in a single father home??

The only ones I've read - - are tributes to the father.

Back to subject.

This woman is obviously not mentally stable. But that doesn't mean she is not a loving mother. These children need to be taken care of - - no matter what it takes.



[edit on 13-2-2009 by Annee]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


She had these kids through IVF....in other words, she used a sperm donor. I didn't realize that the test tube would be a good fatherly influence. :shk:

She says that she knows the donor, he is a friend, and has no interest in being in the childrens' lives. She has proven to be fast and loose with the truth, so I don't know how much stock I put into anything she has to say.

But, the kids were not conceived naturally, so there is not a father to speak of. It was a sperm donor.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Either mental problems or she cunningly planned this to profit from the children, she knew that this will bring the media attention to her.

In a nation like ours that people are addicted to talk shows and outrageous news she would fit nicely.

Even write a book about her "birth experiences and ordeals"


Bingo! I think you nailed that one.. You see I was invited over to my moms house for dinner.. She watches TMZ, and the insider..
They had this woman on.. And already she is reaching her way to fame from exploiting her children.
They even claimed she looks like Angelina Jolie.. And this woman must have not only had the money to have these kids.. But also enough money to have plastic surgery done aswell..


This comes right from the pits of TV land.. And they will exploit her and her kids to the full extent they can!
But seems she is okay with that.. As they plan on finding her a man, pay her way threw all this.. And to boot make her a star!!

Gving others the idea, that its okay to have this many kids.. And you TOO can become famous for being this way..


Originally posted by marg6043
This nothing short of irresponsible by her and her doctors.

Sadly enough I belive all this to be a ploy.. The doctors who she sought after injected her with all sorts of drugs so she could have this many kids.

I do not want to enject to much of my own feeling on this.. As all of my feelings about this woman is negtive.. And is why I loath TV, and what it does to people..
Sickening IMO.


[edit on 13-2-2009 by zysin5]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Ahhh ... there is no defending this woman's actions... nor is there any way to defend the fertility clinic or the so-called medical professionals who helped her do this.

The woman belongs in a mental institution or prison.

The "medical professionals" need to have their licenses revoked at the very least.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by annee
 




No - the real problem is there are 14 children who need to be cared for. No matter what their mother did - - they had no choice - and have done nothing wrong.

I am so sick of this mentality. There is a major reason there are so many fatherless homes. In the majority of cases - the father leaves. I am so sick of women getting blamed for everything. When is the last time your read a headline about the problems of growing up in a single father home?? The only ones I've read - - are tributes to the father.



Without a doubt Ms. Nadya Suleman has shown total disregard for herself, her off-spring and her community. Unmarried. Unemployed. On “total” disability for 10 years. Currently the recipient of upwards of $2,800 a month tax free in benefits for her 6 prior children. Under current rules that could rise to $9,000 a month, tax free. So maybe she’s not so dumb? $108 G’s a year tax free is equal to $140 G’s earned income. PLUS a NO COST to her Medicaid card to cover her brood of children on the taxpayer's tab. That is worth another $75,000 a year!

The Department of Agriculture - it administers the food stamp program - estimates that it will cost US taxpayers about $3 m. to raise her family of 14 to age 18.

I think everyone who knows a bit about her situation agrees she is suffering from a treatable mental or emotional disorder. She is smart in some areas but not in responsible parenthood. She is studying to be a clinical counselor. It is a common medical folklore that medical students often seek the speciality that addresses their own problems.

But alas, we have 14 innocent people and 1 idiot. However much we disdain her conduct, it is her medical professional - the doctor who implanted her multiple fertilized eggs - who ought to bear the financial burden of his handiwork!

My FINAL solutions is this: Help Nadya, but more, help Nadya’s 14 children who have a sick mother. Appoint a conservator so that all the money she - Nadya - receives is held in escrow for the children’s benefit. Let’s take the profit motive away from Nadya so she can devote full time to raising 14 children!

On help. I'm thinking like Home Aides or Housekeepers, a couple of young people paid $8 to $10 an hour to help change diapers, and feed the children. And keep the house tidy for the other occupants. And an LPN or even an occasional RN to give Nadya a half day off at least once a week. And maybe a weekend per month off. No useful purpose is served by beating her down! Lend a hand, help her up. Hey, it's only money!

BLAME? Let’s FINE the good doctor - apparently without medical ethics - the full $3 m. and suspend his medical license until it is paid in full. Let’s put him on permanent probation that if he repeats this, he is OUT of business.

Then we can move on, putting this bazaar (ludicrous) event behind us. news.yahoo.com...


[edit on 2/14/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
All I can say is wow. I'm almost speachless on this one. This woman should not be allowed to keep these children. I hate to say that about any mother, but IMHO, I think she is using her children for publicity to extort money from every avenue she can. It's more than discusting. These kids are going to need so much attention and support, and she is not going to be able to provide it. It's beyond sick.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Beege24
 




All I can say is wow. I'm almost speechless on this one. This woman should not be allowed to keep these children. I hate to say that about any mother, but IMHO, I think she is using her children for publicity to extort money from every avenue she can. It's more than disgusting. These kids are going to need so much attention and support, and she is not going to be able to provide it. It's beyond sick.



I expect that issue will come up often. Her own mother is bailing out apparently because the workload will be more than any one or two full time mothers and grandmothers can handle. If Nadya gets enough help she may be able to pull it off. I know of one family of 9 who made it great! I've heard of others of up to 11 who also succeeded. But in all cases I know about the children were staggered so the 8 year old could help the 1 year old and so on.

Although at first blush I am not sure 7 and 8 year old children should be assigned what is properly a parental responsibility I don't know that any of those who have had to act in that capacity ever regretted their contribution to the family. Some may go along, some may not.

I do think that only a person who has had a multi-child family experience should be counseling and or judging Nadya. Merely to have a PhD, MD, JD, MSSW or so on is not enough qualification to put you in the advice giving or judge's seat. IMO.


[edit on 2/14/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


She had these kids through IVF....in other words, she used a sperm donor. I didn't realize that the test tube would be a good fatherly influence. :shk:

She says that she knows the donor, he is a friend, and has no interest in being in the childrens' lives. She has proven to be fast and loose with the truth, so I don't know how much stock I put into anything she has to say.

But, the kids were not conceived naturally, so there is not a father to speak of. It was a sperm donor.



I am starting to wonder what legal resource the friend might have here.

If he is a sperm donor through a clinic he might have signed his rights away but I don't know if that applies if he donated right to Nadya.

I think "rape" is not the right word per se because she did not force intercourse with him but I do not think he consented to this kind of IVF; I wonder if he has the right to sue her or at the very least distance himself from being named the father in the legal sense?

He certainly shouldn't have to be made to pay support for all of them, unless it is found that he condones these actions she took.

This is a gray area here... because while she might have the right to "do what she wants with her uterus" she misused someone else's sperm to do that. It strikes me as rediculous as a man trying to get out of a rape by saying he had the right to fertalize someone's eggs with his sperm, the woman's feelings be damned.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I don't know that I can say much that hasn't already been said. This woman is ridiculous. She is an end result of today's society. There was a time in the US where people were raised to be self-sufficient and not expect anything from anybody. You lived or died on your own two feet. This idiot just assumed that someone else would take care of her. It'll be OK though, Obama will pay her mortgage and car payments, I'm sure.

Sadly, this is where the US is heading. All you have to do it spend 5 minutes reading the thread about the "stimulus" bill and it becomes obvious. People should be complaining that congress is putting us into debt that we will never recover from. Instead, a full 80% or so of the posters are just angry that they aren't getting a bigger handout. I think I was born about 100 years too late...I can't stand the lack of responsibiity for one's self in today's society.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beege24
All I can say is wow. I'm almost speachless on this one. This woman should not be allowed to keep these children. I hate to say that about any mother, but IMHO, I think she is using her children for publicity to extort money from every avenue she can. It's more than discusting. These kids are going to need so much attention and support, and she is not going to be able to provide it. It's beyond sick.


The children need their mother. Nadya may exist in an illusionary world - but these babies and children need their mother.

Yes - there needs to be "Conservatorship of a Minor" put in place for each of her children. And the mother must undergo counseling and whatever else is needed.

I'd rather tax payers foot the bill now - - to make sure they grow up loved - cared for - educated - etc. Then have them flounder into adulthood and be a burden on society later.

They can't be sent back. There are no do-overs. They are here.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Annee]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueTriangle
 




This woman is ridiculous. She is an end result of today's society. There was a time in the US where people were raised to be self-sufficient and not expect anything from anybody. You lived or died on your own two feet. It'll be OK though, Obama will pay her mortgage and car payments, I'm sure.

Sadly, this is where the US is heading. All you have to do it spend 5 minutes reading the thread about the "stimulus" bill and it becomes obvious. People should be complaining that congress is putting us into debt that we will never recover from. I think I was born about 100 years too late. ..I can't stand the lack of responsibity for one's self in today's society.



Debt. Hmm? Where were the complainers today when Bush43 was running up a HALF TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT EVERY YEAR for EIGHT years? And granting huge tax cuts to the Rich and Famous. R&Fs. And fighting a PAINLESS War for 7 years "on the cuff" with no end in sight? Methinks today's complainers are really not serious but just want something to say.

Well, painless but for the 4,340 men and women who died in it. And counting. Q. For how long should KIA in War on Terror go on Bush43's tab before we assign those losses to Pres. Obama?

NO help for the little guy who may feel overwhelmed by the complexity of today's society. But 100s of billions for the SMART guys who mucked this up anyway. That is not fair.

Actually, I'm not sure that oft told tale of self reliance and self advancement was ever true for 90-95% of the population. I think that is more a pat yourself on the back urban legend propagated by the hustlers who want to justify an open field?

I can’t help bur remember 1) needless railroad accidents killed 5,000 men every year for decades after the Westinghouse air brake would have stopped those but Cornelius Vanderbilt refused to pay the money to install them, and 2) over 5,000 men died per year working at Andrew Carnegie’s steel mills when OSHA rules have stopped 99.99% of fatals in the industry. This was BEFORE America adopted workers compensation laws. Injured workers went on the scant public dole or just DIED. (America never records a death as by starvation. Why is that? You know there are bound to be 100s if not 1000s who have died of starvation. Hmm).


[edit on 2/14/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
This woman is ridiculous. She obviously just wanted her 5 minutes of fame. And she cant even raise the kids on her own. Nor does she have the money to pay for food for all of them.

And how is she going to give enough love and attentions to each one of those kids? Poor babys.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
...I am so sick of this mentality. There is a major reason there are so many fatherless homes. In the majority of cases - the father leaves.
...

Untrue. No matter how much Oprah wants you to believe it. Even if it WERE true, how much responsibility should the mother bear for mating with an unreliable male? Are you proposing that women should have all the rights that men have, with none of the responsibilities?

Here's fact for you. 70% of divorces are initiated by women. Of those, the vast majority are *NOT* due to abuse or abandonment.

Women SHOULD be blamed because, "Guess what?", they bear the responsibility of mating with reliable, good men who are providers and protectors of family. All the whining and quoting Oprah and Dr. Phil will not change this basic biological FACT.

The woman in question CHOSE to have 14 kids WITHOUT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER in the home. There is no dispute of that.

If you care to educate yourself, do some web searching, and find out the stats that go with children being in single-mother households. Here are some things to look for specifically.

1) How much more likely they are to be criminals.
2) How much more likely they are to be drug users.
3) How much more likely they are to be high-school dropouts.
4) How much more likely they are to become pregnant outside of marriage.
5) How much more likely they are to be abused.
6) How much more likely they are to have psychological problems.

Here's the kicker (and the one that you won't believe). As a group, do you know who the most dangerous person is to a child? The biological mother when the biological father is not present in the home. Followed closely by the biological mother's boyfriend(s). Know who, as a group, are the LEAST likely to harm, abuse, or kill kids? The biological father! (Even lower as a percentage than total strangers.)

Those facts do not change because you do not wish them to be true. They do not change just because you "FEEL" they shouldn't be true. They do not change because you think they make women look bad. They do not change because you "are tired of women being blamed".

Educate yourself.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


OK step away from Anne Coulter's literary breast for a moment.

The statistics you posted there are so flawed...

If you compare a household where the father is not present at all of course the mother/mother's boyfriend/strangers are going to be more harmful!

It's like saying, "Mothers are so much more harmful to their children than their great-great grandparents!" How can you compare the harm 1 family member who is always present to another one that isn't?

Statistically speaking, the people who have the most contact with the child will be the most harmful to them, just because there is more contact.

I will not disagree with you that single parenthood is not an ideal situation but for many it is the only choice. I object to the notion that it is all the woman's fault too.

As for the mother's boyfriend causing harm I think that is mostly a socialogical effect. Consider the double standard. On one hand we say it is wrong to be a single parent because of the kind of things you just posted--many woman feel pressured to remarry even though it isn't in her or her children's best interests, because it is considered more socially correct to have a step parent than to be a single parent.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join