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

There are so many children without homes and families. If she wanted more kids, why didn't she adopt or become a foster parent? I just think it's selfish to make babies when there are so many needy children out there.

Originally posted by Mynaeris
reply to post by bodrul

 

"She told me that all of her kids were through in vitro, and I said 'Gosh, how can you afford that and go to school at the same time?"' she added. "And she said it's because she got paid for it.""

I can see the outcome already, the woman will end as a mental case, her children in foster care and pay by tax payer and the criminals that used her as a breeding guinea pig will be jailed.

Well that is how it should end.

reply to post by marg6043


agreed
soon the debts will pile in and it will be something the goverment wont be able to bail her out with



reply to post by Mynaeris


wow,
stupid question but how the hell did she afford to be treated to have kids in the first place? doesnt the prceedure in its self cost a fortune,
and the doctors who perfomed it, are they retarded or something?

isnt this ment for people who cant have kids and dont have any kids of their own, not what seems to a Kid collecter looking at them like peices possesions

[edit on 31-1-2009 by bodrul]

reply to post 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,

But the problem is not that person desides to have as many kids as he wants, it is with laws that allow financial backing blindly. I definetly think that social laws that were supposed to be a safety net only in time of need are now tearing up in attempt to hold people who use it all they life should be changed. To change the laws that regulate money distribution is public matter and you have every right to speak and act against it.

But nor me nor you have the right to tell people how many kids they can have. There were families with lot of children throughout the history with worst conditions. You think that laws are unfair - act to change them. I agree by the way. But desicion on who deserves to have children and how much is not for us to make.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by ZeroKnowledge]

[edit on 31-1-2009 by ZeroKnowledge]

I understand that it's people's right to have as many kids as you want, but this is ridiculous. Here in Vegas, you're only allowed to have...is it three dogs? Or four? Anymore than that, you have to have special permission. Sorry people, no more dogs, because we can't be sure that you'll take care of them properly, but go ahead and keep punching out those kids.

This woman needs to realize that this is reality, not some dream world. Who does she think is going to pay for her children? She lives with her mother and already six children and to bring more into the world is just selfish and irresponsible. I suppose it won't be much longer before we see them on "Home Makeover."

And their house is how small? Let me just mention, that my house is only a bit tinier than the one they are all living in, and that's getting too cramped for my three kids, husband, me and three pets.

Shame on her! How dare she bring even more children into that already tiny environment. She needs to get her head checked, and all of those people who helped or encouraged her to go through with it, need to have their heads examined as well. How does she expect to give these children the best love and care they deserve? And someone mentioned that one of her six was autistic? One would have figured that would be time consuming enough.

I don't care if you want twelve kids. If you're unemployed, single and living with your parents, what you need to be doing is working to get yourself in a better place.

Women/people like her disgust me. Those poor children deserve better.

This case is the polar opposite of the abortion debate. In the abortion debate we discuss whether women have the right to decide whether to terminate the life of an unborn child, in this case we are debating whether women have the right to have as many children as she wants to whether she can or can't financially and emotionally support them. In both cases men don't seem to play a role. It's a woman's body and she can do with it whatever she wants.

As a woman I say - yes, it's your body but this is about other living beings that we are dealing with both in the abortion and the right to spawn litters Having 14 children is an irrational and psychotic choice when you are on disability, have six children, one with autism, cost the government hundreds of thousands in medical care, live with your parents, no father for the children, have hundreds of thousands in debt...

I can definitely see how it would be her business that she has 14 children she doesn't have the ability to raise.

reply to post by LysCat


Rediculous - it is. But it is her choice that she is entitled to make. If she knew that nothing would be paid to her by social survices i am sure that desicion was different. Desicion is still hers.
And as for poor kids and how they would live in crowded place - well they would be alive, first of all. As opposed to not be alive. So i am pretty sure that they support her desicion.
Right to own a dog is not compared to right to procreate given by God (or nature).People have kids in much worse conditions and it is still their right.

Originally posted by Mynaeris
This case is the polar opposite of the abortion debate. In the abortion debate we discuss whether women have the right to decide whether to terminate the life of an unborn child, in this case we are debating whether women have the right to have as many children as she wants to whether she can or can't financially and emotionally support them. In both cases men don't seem to play a role. It's a woman's body and she can do with it whatever she wants.

It is an interesting comparison.

I think many people here feel that she shoudl at least have reduced the number of fetuses--if only to ensure a healthier start for the ones remaining.

That is if they don't say she shouldn't have been pregnant to start with.

Here we have people saying she does not have the right to get pregnant again, especially with drugs, but (in principal) neither does she have the right to abort a child.

Of course I think this was highly irresponsible, for any woman, but it's intersting to see the argument turned on its head like this. Even kind of absurd--obviously 14 is too many in her (or almost anyone's) situation, but it is a scary precedent, to try to decide overall how many children a woman "Should" have.



Off of that topic, it is woman like this that inspired me to make the "Adoption is not a good alternative to abortion" thread a while back.

I have known a few woman who became "Baby Collectors" after they gave a child up for adoption, thinking they would eventually make one like the child they gave away. It would not surprise me if this is her case.

reply to post by asmeone2


On the other hand I have met numerous women who considered abortion to be birth control. Once is a mistake, twice you're an idiot, thrice maybe you should be spayed ( this is about abortion).

This woman's breeding habits is totally out of control especially when the country is in this economic crisis. She should be made to get a job, no freeloading and breeding.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by Mynaeris]

reply to post by Mynaeris


Yes those woman irritate me too. Abortion should be an absolute last resort for cases of true accidents combined with an actual inability to support the child, if it must be used at all.


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.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


I'm not saying that there aren't worst situations out there. And maybe if these 14 children were all a surprise, I might have reacted differently. The fact of the matter was, she had six kids, and she made a conscious decision to have more in a multiple amount. That's what I have an issue with. She can't possibly give every child the love and affection that they deserve. And even if they are living, they are still being neglected in one form or another.

reply to post by Mynaeris


I've read your posts through various threads and I actually agree with you on this.

I'm not criticizing a woman's right to have children, but the country is in a bad shape. If women are going to be irresponsible enough to have that many kids, then she needs to be able to take care of them!

Geez, those of us who stopped at zero or one kid think we are being helpful to the world in not contributing overpopulation and use of resources.

Then all it takes is ONE woman like this to undo all of the good that FOURTEEN of us were doing.

Makes me sick.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by LostNemesis]

Let's remember people that this woman children were no conceived by natural means, they were done in a medical facility with only a doctor a nurse maybe, and a syringe.

That is not god's will but man's experimenting to be like gods.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by marg6043]

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.

reply to post by LostNemesis


Yes I believe the facility and staff where she was receiving the in vitro fertilization and fertility drugs are under investigation.

reply to post by marg6043


I hope so.... If the other poster was right about the bill being some $800,000 so far... Well, SOMEBODY needs to be held accountable to the tax-payers.

That is going straight to our national debt, because the tax payers are already too strained as it is.

Let me assure you that the infertility community (of patients) are very upset with this woman and her utter selfishness. In her immature insanity she has endangered reproductive rights for millions of couples seeking treatment for a very real medical problem.

Adoption is much more expensive and invasive than most basic infertility treatments. And, having worked with child protective services in the past, if you are not trained and have a certain personality, you should not attempt adoption of an older child through foster care. Also, private adoption in many jurisdictions is so arbitrary as to make the very health conditions that lead to infertility reasons to deny potential adoptive parents.

There is something terribly wrong with this woman. The average clinic freezes embryos at about 2 to 3 at a time. Why on earth there were 8 at the same time? That goes against every medical guideline in a woman with 4 successful IVF pregnancies - including two twin births! No respectable Reproductive Endocrinologist in the USA would transfer more than one embryo in hopes of it implanting (if they could implant embryos, they could solve more infertility issues than they currently do) and resulting in a healthy singleton or twin birth. Anything over twins is considered a failure!

I suspect medical fraud - possibly identity fraud.

How did she do this with someone paying? Only thing I can think of is a shared cycle where she donated half or more of her eggs from a stimulated cycle to another couple. There was a "sperm donor" involved somehow. It is implied that it was a fellow employee at the fertility clinic. I have to wonder if the two colluded to "steal" embryos that had been slated for a destructive thaw.

Something is really, really wrong here.

Trust me, the majority of the infertility community wants this woman and any doctor - if in the USA (not a given) - who is involved investigated and possibly prosecuted. She should be pilloried for endangering reproductive rights and allowing fear-mongerers and worry-trolls yet another aberrant story in their arsenal against another's freedom.

Ultimately, there is medical malpractice involved. The only way there isn't is if 2 embryos magically split into eight babies - which nothing in these reports has implied.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by mlowsley]

Originally posted by Swatman

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Who is anyone to decide how many kids should person have? I can understand if you would advocate that no financial aid shoud be given to faimies with a lot of kids and single parent. This is clearly a public matter since it is a public money. But how many kids a person has - is private matter.

\

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.

California answer? Where did that generalization come from? : )

I'm in California - and I am appalled at this turn of events stemming from obvious mental illness and a medical society that bulks at helping the regular Joe on the street without insurance but is fine with bringing 14 children into the world by a woman who has clearing lost her mind.

The other California answer.

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.