Grandma: Octuplets mom obsessed with having kids

[Nagishkaw 510]

LOS ANGELES – The woman who gave birth to octuplets this week conceived all 14 of her children through in vitro fertilization, is not married and has been obsessed with having children since she was a teenager, her mother said.

Angela Suleman told The Associated Press she was not supportive when her daughter, Nadya Suleman, decided to have more embryos implanted last year.

"It can't go on any longer," she said in a phone interview Friday. "She's got six children and no husband. I was brought up the traditional way. I firmly believe in marriage. But she didn't want to get married."

Nadya Suleman, 33, gave birth Monday in nearby Bellflower. She was expected to remain in the hospital for at least a few more days, and her newborns for at least a month.

A spokeswoman at Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Medical Center said the babies were doing well and seven were breathing unassisted.

While her daughter recovers, Angela Suleman is taking care of the other six children, ages 2 through 7, at the family home in Whittier, about 15 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

She said she warned her daughter that when she gets home from the hospital, "I'm going to be gone."

Angela Suleman said her daughter always had trouble conceiving and underwent in vitro fertilization treatments because her fallopian tubes are "plugged up."

There were frozen embryos left over after her previous pregnancies and her daughter didn't want them destroyed, so she decided to have more children.

Her mother and doctors have said the woman was told she had the option to abort some of the embryos and, later, the fetuses. She refused.

Her mother said she does not believe her daughter will have any more children.

"She doesn't have any more (frozen embryos), so it's over now," she said. "It has to be."

Nadya Suleman wanted to have children since she was a teenager, "but luckily she couldn't," her mother said.

"Instead of becoming a kindergarten teacher or something, she started having them, but not the normal way," he mother said.

Her daughter's obsession with children caused Angela Suleman considerable stress, so she sought help from a psychologist, who told her to order her daughter out of the house.

"Maybe she wouldn't have had so many kids then, but she is a grown woman," Angela Suleman said. "I feel responsible and I didn't want to throw her out."

Yolanda Garcia, 49, of Whittier, said she helped care for Nadya Suleman's autistic son three years ago.

"From what I could tell back then, she was pretty happy with herself, saying she liked having kids and she wanted 12 kids in all," Garcia told the Long Beach Press-Telegram.

"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."

Garcia said she did not ask for details.

Nadya Suleman holds a 2006 degree in child and adolescent development from California State University, Fullerton, and as late as last spring she was studying for a master's degree in counseling, college spokeswoman Paula Selleck told the Press-Telegram.

Her fertility doctor has not been identified. Her mother told the Los Angeles Times all the children came from the same sperm donor but she declined to identify him.

Birth certificates reviewed by The Associated Press identify a David Solomon as the father for the four oldest children. Certificates for the other children were not immediately available.

The news that the octuplets' mother already had six children sparked an ethical debate. Some medical experts were disturbed to hear that she was offered fertility treatment, and troubled by the possibility that she was implanted with so many embryos.

Others worried that she would be overwhelmed trying to raise so many children and would end up relying on public support.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_re_us/octuplets

The eight babies — six boys and two girls — were delivered by Cesarean section weighing between 1 pound, 8 ounces and 3 pounds, 4 ounces. Forty-six physicians and staff assisted in the deliveries.

[johndecka 0]

LOS ANGELES – The woman who gave birth to octuplets this week conceived all 14 of her children through in vitro fertilization, is not married and has been obsessed with having children since she was a teenager, her mother said.

Angela Suleman told The Associated Press she was not supportive when her daughter, Nadya Suleman, decided to have more embryos implanted last year.

"It can't go on any longer," she said in a phone interview Friday. "She's got six children and no husband. I was brought up the traditional way. I firmly believe in marriage. But she didn't want to get married."

Nadya Suleman, 33, gave birth Monday in nearby Bellflower. She was expected to remain in the hospital for at least a few more days, and her newborns for at least a month.

A spokeswoman at Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Medical Center said the babies were doing well and seven were breathing unassisted.

While her daughter recovers, Angela Suleman is taking care of the other six children, ages 2 through 7, at the family home in Whittier, about 15 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

She said she warned her daughter that when she gets home from the hospital, "I'm going to be gone."

Angela Suleman said her daughter always had trouble conceiving and underwent in vitro fertilization treatments because her fallopian tubes are "plugged up."

There were frozen embryos left over after her previous pregnancies and her daughter didn't want them destroyed, so she decided to have more children.

Her mother and doctors have said the woman was told she had the option to abort some of the embryos and, later, the fetuses. She refused.

Her mother said she does not believe her daughter will have any more children.

"She doesn't have any more (frozen embryos), so it's over now," she said. "It has to be."

Nadya Suleman wanted to have children since she was a teenager, "but luckily she couldn't," her mother said.

"Instead of becoming a kindergarten teacher or something, she started having them, but not the normal way," he mother said.

Her daughter's obsession with children caused Angela Suleman considerable stress, so she sought help from a psychologist, who told her to order her daughter out of the house.

"Maybe she wouldn't have had so many kids then, but she is a grown woman," Angela Suleman said. "I feel responsible and I didn't want to throw her out."

Yolanda Garcia, 49, of Whittier, said she helped care for Nadya Suleman's autistic son three years ago.

"From what I could tell back then, she was pretty happy with herself, saying she liked having kids and she wanted 12 kids in all," Garcia told the Long Beach Press-Telegram.

"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."

Garcia said she did not ask for details.

Nadya Suleman holds a 2006 degree in child and adolescent development from California State University, Fullerton, and as late as last spring she was studying for a master's degree in counseling, college spokeswoman Paula Selleck told the Press-Telegram.

Her fertility doctor has not been identified. Her mother told the Los Angeles Times all the children came from the same sperm donor but she declined to identify him.

Birth certificates reviewed by The Associated Press identify a David Solomon as the father for the four oldest children. Certificates for the other children were not immediately available.

The news that the octuplets' mother already had six children sparked an ethical debate. Some medical experts were disturbed to hear that she was offered fertility treatment, and troubled by the possibility that she was implanted with so many embryos.

Others worried that she would be overwhelmed trying to raise so many children and would end up relying on public support.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_re_us/octuplets

The eight babies — six boys and two girls — were delivered by Cesarean section weighing between 1 pound, 8 ounces and 3 pounds, 4 ounces. Forty-six physicians and staff assisted in the deliveries.

How many is Too Many?

You could have as many kids as you want, if you could take care of them.

The kids are not pets.Shouldnt be selfish. Shoul think abt their future.

Also , its not a Supper lotto Jackpot, hoping one of them grow up to be

Super Rich.

Some just wanna keep having kids coz of welfare check they get and tax write off.

Couple should have plan for kid/s they are going to have.

We shouldnt ask for Gov for hand out, we should be able to take care our ownselves.

LOS ANGELES – The woman who gave birth to octuplets this week conceived all 14 of her children through in vitro fertilization, is not married and has been obsessed with having children since she was a teenager, her mother said.

Angela Suleman told The Associated Press she was not supportive when her daughter, Nadya Suleman, decided to have more embryos implanted last year.

"It can't go on any longer," she said in a phone interview Friday. "She's got six children and no husband. I was brought up the traditional way. I firmly believe in marriage. But she didn't want to get married."

Nadya Suleman, 33, gave birth Monday in nearby Bellflower. She was expected to remain in the hospital for at least a few more days, and her newborns for at least a month.

A spokeswoman at Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Medical Center said the babies were doing well and seven were breathing unassisted.

While her daughter recovers, Angela Suleman is taking care of the other six children, ages 2 through 7, at the family home in Whittier, about 15 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

She said she warned her daughter that when she gets home from the hospital, "I'm going to be gone."

Angela Suleman said her daughter always had trouble conceiving and underwent in vitro fertilization treatments because her fallopian tubes are "plugged up."

There were frozen embryos left over after her previous pregnancies and her daughter didn't want them destroyed, so she decided to have more children.

Her mother and doctors have said the woman was told she had the option to abort some of the embryos and, later, the fetuses. She refused.

Her mother said she does not believe her daughter will have any more children.

"She doesn't have any more (frozen embryos), so it's over now," she said. "It has to be."

Nadya Suleman wanted to have children since she was a teenager, "but luckily she couldn't," her mother said.

"Instead of becoming a kindergarten teacher or something, she started having them, but not the normal way," he mother said.

Her daughter's obsession with children caused Angela Suleman considerable stress, so she sought help from a psychologist, who told her to order her daughter out of the house.

"Maybe she wouldn't have had so many kids then, but she is a grown woman," Angela Suleman said. "I feel responsible and I didn't want to throw her out."

Yolanda Garcia, 49, of Whittier, said she helped care for Nadya Suleman's autistic son three years ago.

"From what I could tell back then, she was pretty happy with herself, saying she liked having kids and she wanted 12 kids in all," Garcia told the Long Beach Press-Telegram.

"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."

Garcia said she did not ask for details.

Nadya Suleman holds a 2006 degree in child and adolescent development from California State University, Fullerton, and as late as last spring she was studying for a master's degree in counseling, college spokeswoman Paula Selleck told the Press-Telegram.

Her fertility doctor has not been identified. Her mother told the Los Angeles Times all the children came from the same sperm donor but she declined to identify him.

Birth certificates reviewed by The Associated Press identify a David Solomon as the father for the four oldest children. Certificates for the other children were not immediately available.

The news that the octuplets' mother already had six children sparked an ethical debate. Some medical experts were disturbed to hear that she was offered fertility treatment, and troubled by the possibility that she was implanted with so many embryos.

Others worried that she would be overwhelmed trying to raise so many children and would end up relying on public support.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_re_us/octuplets

The eight babies — six boys and two girls — were delivered by Cesarean section weighing between 1 pound, 8 ounces and 3 pounds, 4 ounces. Forty-six physicians and staff assisted in the deliveries.

How many is Too Many?

You could have as many kids as you want, if you could take care of them.

The kids are not pets.Shouldnt be selfish. Shoul think abt their future.

Also , its not a Supper lotto Jackpot, hoping one of them grow up to be

Super Rich.

Some just wanna keep having kids coz of welfare check they get and tax write off.

Couple should have plan for kid/s they are going to have.

We shouldnt ask for Gov for hand out, we should be able to take care our ownselves.

[PlatyPius 5]

Breeders sheesh.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think discussions about particular cases forward the debate very much. One can argue until one is blue in the face about whether THIS person did the right thing, the wrong thing, or whatever the hell you want to argue thing but in the end pointing fingers and saying that this is what is wrong with society relies on a very simplistic analysis of one person's decision.

[mRx 16]

In theory, a person should be able to have as many kids as they want.

But where the problem comes in, and where most of the legitimate opposition arises from, is the likely possibility of public support. Which is basically the subsidation of this woman's desire to reproduce.

Public support is paradoxical, as it's revenue can only be generated by the seizure of private wealth.

If Americans weren't forced to give up the wealth they create to support what the powers determine to be righteous, then a woman's birth to octuplets would be celebrated as a miracle, and nothing more.

[Nagishkaw 510]

0ne of the main factors of why I never had children was that I knew I simply could not afford it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, more emotive terminology 'seizure' of private wealth. One would think we were serfs in the middle ages!

Are you an advocate of no government? No social intervention at state/federal level? The problem with this idea that social problems are a result of too much activity by the government is that it's simply not true. Social problems result from the fact that humans live in social groups. The only way to eliminate that is to eliminate our current way of life entirely.

A certain amount of self reliance is absolutely a good thing, but it isn't all there is. We live in a society and therefore we rely, knowingly or not on other people to maintain our standards of living. Some people do sucker the life blood out of society, but it isn't always the poor that do this. Our societies are flawed, that is absolutely true and it is a good thing to continue to strive to make our societies better but they can't be excellent for those who are wealthy and pitiful for those who are not.

Cases like this are not normal, they aren't even measurable in statistical terms so again, to suggest that this is somehow illustrative of societal ills and therefore another notch in the argument for lower taxes and less reliance on larger organizations to support those who go through periods of unemployment, or other economic hardship is puerile.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Breeders sheesh.

[Donna A 4]

wasnt there another story yesterday where the grandpa said the parents are well off? i think people are making things up as they go and we will never know the real truth.

[Danno 1,228]

Let's suppose "The Obama Change" has already taken place.

We have universal health coverage, would this lady be able to have 1,3,5,8,14 children all of which were the product of vitro fertilization, under the

single healthcare system we are now headed for?

Those from countries which already have the one big health-care program administered by the Govt. what are the Rules there for producing these types of costly pregnancies?

Is there a limit... who decides?

[mRx 16]

Ah, more emotive terminology 'seizure' of private wealth. One would think we were serfs in the middle ages!

Are you an advocate of no government? No social intervention at state/federal level? The problem with this idea that social problems are a result of too much activity by the government is that it's simply not true. Social problems result from the fact that humans live in social groups. The only way to eliminate that is to eliminate our current way of life entirely.

A certain amount of self reliance is absolutely a good thing, but it isn't all there is. We live in a society and therefore we rely, knowingly or not on other people to maintain our standards of living. Some people do sucker the life blood out of society, but it isn't always the poor that do this. Our societies are flawed, that is absolutely true and it is a good thing to continue to strive to make our societies better but they can't be excellent for those who are wealthy and pitiful for those who are not.

Cases like this are not normal, they aren't even measurable in statistical terms so again, to suggest that this is somehow illustrative of societal ills and therefore another notch in the argument for lower taxes and less reliance on larger organizations to support those who go through periods of unemployment, or other economic hardship is puerile.

I don't believe in societal engineering. I also believe government should have a clearly defined, limited role in our lives. Social intervention, no matter how noble we are taught to believe it is, is not in the best interest of society. I'll expound on this.

We are an unequal society. It is because of this great unequalness that we have varying skill sets, levels of inventiveness, and superiorities and inferiorities to each and every person within society. If we were all completely equal, in every way, then we would all be naked and homeless, grunting at each other, and there would be a sustained economic staleness, as there would be no reason to attempt voluntary exchange, as we all produce the same things in the same quantity and quality. Societal engineering, be it granting additional rights, taking wealth from one person and giving it to another, all attempts to create an equalness of society. One that can never be achieved, nor should be attempted.

Now, I do believe that government expenditures can be of no ecomonic value to society. Of course, I do believe that some government expenditures are necessary, albeit still a depradation on the economy, though. But, redistribution of wealth(could'nt use a more ubiquitous term), works against society, in both the wealthy, and poor.

Redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, while seemingly righteous and noble, creates negative ripples throughout the economy. Taking money from a company owner just means he has less money to consume (immediate economic stimulus), invest (prolonged economic stimulus), and save (future economic stimulus). Everytime a dollar voluntarily passes hands, an economic exchange has bettered lives, for each of those people has valued the other item greater than the one they had. As I see it, economics really is that simple. Now, when a dollar is forcefully taken, it destimulates the economy. For that dollar cannot go toward what it was intended for, and the intention of that dollar is virtually forgotten, as the voluntary exchange for it never took place.

Now, although equally as detrimental to the economy, but more detrimental to society is the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. This form of taxation is hidden and ruthless: Inflation. When the government introduces new money into the economy, it holds the same purchasing power of each dollar already in circulation. This money passes from the Fed to the Treasury and to big corporations and banks, in effect, the first people to touch those fresh bills are the richest. As the money makes it's way through the economy through exchanges and transactions, it effectively bids up the prices of existing goods and services, as there are more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services. As expected, the poor and poverty stricken are the last to touch this new money, and by then, the prices have already risen, while their income has remained the same. So the poor steadily get poorer, as their standard of living declines. This is how I see economic intervention creating social problems. The poor of today are way poorer than what my parents and grandparents considered poor. Inflation can be thanked for that.

Not to evade the point; Say we eliminate all the coercive redistributions, return to a free economy, and have a limited government with maximum liberty for her people ( the fundamentals of Liberalism), then should the government standby idly, and not aid the poor for the betterment of society? I'm not peurile (as you say), as to suggest that there will not be any poor people in a society. Of course there will be, although without inflation, the definition of poor will definetely be changed. I just believe that private contributions, the voluntary giving of charity, has done far more good than any bureaucracy has ever done, this is because bureaucracy is not an internal part of society, no matter how much it tries to be.

The two leading political parties in America, while both promoting big government differ only in social beliefs and more importantly economic class. The Right subsidizes big corporations using inflation, which slowly impoverishes the middle and lower economic classes, whereas the Left, subsidizes the opposite direction. Both have been proven fallacies, and some actually suggest a "happy medium" of both types of intervention. I think that the "happy medium" can only be achieved in the absense of any such intervention.

[alienlovechild 75]

Her daughter's obsession with children caused Angela Suleman considerable stress, so she sought help from a psychologist, who told her to order her daughter out of the house.

The daughter's has a mental problem but we're not supposed to question the the wisdom of IVF with six kids already. The clinic that did this was irresponsible but takes a non-judgemental stance. A lot of doctors will draw the line and not do procedures simply because the patient says so.

"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."

Paid? To have the kids and to raise them too?

Nadya Suleman holds a 2006 degree in child and adolescent development from California State University, Fullerton, and as late as last spring she was studying for a master's degree in counseling, college spokeswoman Paula Selleck told the Press-Telegram.

I doubt the salary can support 6 let alone 14 kids.

The news that the octuplets' mother already had six children sparked an ethical debate. Some medical experts were disturbed to hear that she was offered fertility treatment, and troubled by the possibility that she was implanted with so many embryos.

The doctors the procedure wasn't successful because the objective is to have a healthy baby not produce a freakshow.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, more emotive terminology 'seizure' of private wealth. One would think we were serfs in the middle ages!

Are you an advocate of no government? No social intervention at state/federal level? The problem with this idea that social problems are a result of too much activity by the government is that it's simply not true. Social problems result from the fact that humans live in social groups. The only way to eliminate that is to eliminate our current way of life entirely.

A certain amount of self reliance is absolutely a good thing, but it isn't all there is. We live in a society and therefore we rely, knowingly or not on other people to maintain our standards of living. Some people do sucker the life blood out of society, but it isn't always the poor that do this. Our societies are flawed, that is absolutely true and it is a good thing to continue to strive to make our societies better but they can't be excellent for those who are wealthy and pitiful for those who are not.

Cases like this are not normal, they aren't even measurable in statistical terms so again, to suggest that this is somehow illustrative of societal ills and therefore another notch in the argument for lower taxes and less reliance on larger organizations to support those who go through periods of unemployment, or other economic hardship is puerile.

I don't believe in societal engineering. I also believe government should have a clearly defined, limited role in our lives. Social intervention, no matter how noble we are taught to believe it is, is not in the best interest of society. I'll expound on this.

We are an unequal society. It is because of this great unequalness that we have varying skill sets, levels of inventiveness, and superiorities and inferiorities to each and every person within society. If we were all completely equal, in every way, then we would all be naked and homeless, grunting at each other, and there would be a sustained economic staleness, as there would be no reason to attempt voluntary exchange, as we all produce the same things in the same quantity and quality. Societal engineering, be it granting additional rights, taking wealth from one person and giving it to another, all attempts to create an equalness of society. One that can never be achieved, nor should be attempted.

Now, I do believe that government expenditures can be of no ecomonic value to society. Of course, I do believe that some government expenditures are necessary, albeit still a depradation on the economy, though. But, redistribution of wealth(could'nt use a more ubiquitous term), works against society, in both the wealthy, and poor.

Redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, while seemingly righteous and noble, creates negative ripples throughout the economy. Taking money from a company owner just means he has less money to consume (immediate economic stimulus), invest (prolonged economic stimulus), and save (future economic stimulus). Everytime a dollar voluntarily passes hands, an economic exchange has bettered lives, for each of those people has valued the other item greater than the one they had. As I see it, economics really is that simple. Now, when a dollar is forcefully taken, it destimulates the economy. For that dollar cannot go toward what it was intended for, and the intention of that dollar is virtually forgotten, as the voluntary exchange for it never took place.

Now, although equally as detrimental to the economy, but more detrimental to society is the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. This form of taxation is hidden and ruthless: Inflation. When the government introduces new money into the economy, it holds the same purchasing power of each dollar already in circulation. This money passes from the Fed to the Treasury and to big corporations and banks, in effect, the first people to touch those fresh bills are the richest. As the money makes it's way through the economy through exchanges and transactions, it effectively bids up the prices of existing goods and services, as there are more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services. As expected, the poor and poverty stricken are the last to touch this new money, and by then, the prices have already risen, while their income has remained the same. So the poor steadily get poorer, as their standard of living declines. This is how I see economic intervention creating social problems. The poor of today are way poorer than what my parents and grandparents considered poor. Inflation can be thanked for that.

Not to evade the point; Say we eliminate all the coercive redistributions, return to a free economy, and have a limited government with maximum liberty for her people ( the fundamentals of Liberalism), then should the government standby idly, and not aid the poor for the betterment of society? I'm not peurile (as you say), as to suggest that there will not be any poor people in a society. Of course there will be, although without inflation, the definition of poor will definetely be changed. I just believe that private contributions, the voluntary giving of charity, has done far more good than any bureaucracy has ever done, this is because bureaucracy is not an internal part of society, no matter how much it tries to be.

The two leading political parties in America, while both promoting big government differ only in social beliefs and more importantly economic class. The Right subsidizes big corporations using inflation, which slowly impoverishes the middle and lower economic classes, whereas the Left, subsidizes the opposite direction. Both have been proven fallacies, and some actually suggest a "happy medium" of both types of intervention. I think that the "happy medium" can only be achieved in the absense of any such intervention.

All very interesting but

I wasn't speaking in defense of either political ideology.

[Peikko 1,575]

Whether you believe in 'social engineering' or not is somewhat irrelevant, unless you are advocating a radical alternative, which you are not. You seem to think that simply by removing all constraints on business that everything will magically become hunky dory.

I don't think anyone has come up with a way to happily accommodate the population size we currently have, let alone the exponential growth that is required to support the capitalist economic modal and yet we hide behind all these short term 'answers' as if that will some how save us from what is going to happen eventually.

I don't have an answer either, I just recognize that the problem is a lot bigger than whether society should accept gays as equal partners, or not

[Peikko 1,575]

Her daughter's obsession with children caused Angela Suleman considerable stress, so she sought help from a psychologist, who told her to order her daughter out of the house.

The daughter's has a mental problem but we're not supposed to question the the wisdom of IVF with six kids already. The clinic that did this was irresponsible but takes a non-judgemental stance. A lot of doctors will draw the line and not do procedures simply because the patient says so.

"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."

Paid? To have the kids and to raise them too?

Nadya Suleman holds a 2006 degree in child and adolescent development from California State University, Fullerton, and as late as last spring she was studying for a master's degree in counseling, college spokeswoman Paula Selleck told the Press-Telegram.

I doubt the salary can support 6 let alone 14 kids.

The news that the octuplets' mother already had six children sparked an ethical debate. Some medical experts were disturbed to hear that she was offered fertility treatment, and troubled by the possibility that she was implanted with so many embryos.

The doctors the procedure wasn't successful because the objective is to have a healthy baby not produce a freakshow.

Who says you aren't supposed to ask questions as to the wisdom of any or all of these decisions? Has someone put a muzzle on you? What you hope to gain by examining the motivation of one person is the more important question, in my opinion. As I said, earlier, making any sort of political point out of these extreme examples of human behaviour is ridiculous. Now, if you could prove that for example the fertilaztion clinic that allowed for her procedure to take place uses public money systematically to produce mulitiple pregnancies in single, unemployed women, you might have a case.