Grandma: Octuplets mom obsessed with having kids

[Scott & Lai 12]

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

Same here.

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

So, unlike medieval serfs, when government officials come by demanding we fork over our hard-earned money, we can tell them to go ** themselves??

[Peikko 1,575]

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

Same here.

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

So, unlike medieval serfs, when government officials come by demanding we fork over our hard-earned money, we can tell them to go ** themselves??

Medieval serfs got nothing back, well, they got the ability to drudge in the fields in peace until they were required to wage war. I think their position was a lot worse. Still, you want to opt out of tax paying, go right ahead, I am not going to stop you.

[mRx 16]

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

When you remove all government restraints on a market, that doesn't mean that the basic and natural laws governing markets disappear too. The market is only what we make it to be, as individual consumers within a market. Our decisions regulate the economy.

I really don't think population would have any negative effect on a free market economy; In fact, I think it would be beneficial. More goods and services would be introduced due to the increased population. If our dollar was based on a commodity specie, and not inflated, then the increased goods/services due to population increase would cause prices to drop, as the same amount of currency in circulation would be chasing more goods and services. But as you can see, prices have gone up, and so has population, which is contradictory to what a natural unhampered market would have done. This ominous sign proves the dangerous road the American economy is headed towards.

So, in my opinion, the way to fix this is quite simple: let the market run itself, and let our decisions as consumers guide the market.

I know I've strayed this thread dramatically off-topic, and I apologize.

[flicker 5]

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.

i agree,,we have to meet income req to bring one fiance to usa but this lady cant take care of the children she already has and now we <taxpayers> will pay for the other 8 on top of the 6 she had already untill they all 14 get out of college,,if they go ,,,oi

[alienlovechild 75]

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.

You for one. A lot of people blindly use the term "don't judge" without examining any outcomes. Here, an unstable woman decides to have more kids she's can't support but I get the standard response that must know the entire life history before I can say anything. Check out the thread about the father who murdered his family. Different issues but similiar ideas about any placing all blame on the actor. Someone else is somehow responsible if one decides to have too many kids or kill them all off.

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.

I suppose there aren't too many kids in this country with irresponsible parents? This is just an extreme example. I doubt public funds were used for the IVF but there's no way her kids won't be eligible for a host of government programs based on her income.

Should I go out and father multiple kids? I can do it without taking government funds.

Edited February 1, 2009 by alienlovechild

[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

When you remove all government restraints on a market, that doesn't mean that the basic and natural laws governing markets disappear too. The market is only what we make it to be, as individual consumers within a market. Our decisions regulate the economy.

I really don't think population would have any negative effect on a free market economy; In fact, I think it would be beneficial. More goods and services would be introduced due to the increased population. If our dollar was based on a commodity specie, and not inflated, then the increased goods/services due to population increase would cause prices to drop, as the same amount of currency in circulation would be chasing more goods and services. But as you can see, prices have gone up, and so has population, which is contradictory to what a natural unhampered market would have done. This ominous sign proves the dangerous road the American economy is headed towards.

So, in my opinion, the way to fix this is quite simple: let the market run itself, and let our decisions as consumers guide the market.

I know I've strayed this thread dramatically off-topic, and I apologize.

The 'market' is not a natural force it's a human invention. This whole notion of the 'consumer' and the power of the consumer is an invention of capitalism and this idealistic notion of a self regulating market, unfettered by governmental influence nor any regulation whatsoever is remarkably Utopian in concept and as such I am quite certain it cannot exist outside of an economic modal. I mean, it's all very nice to imagine that somehow a 'natural balance' will swing into action if we keep our grubby little governmental hands out the pie, but the only examples of what might happen in an unregulated market don't bode well for its success. I wouldn't like to imagine what would happen to say, medicinal drugs or food! It's bad enough now, when we do have regulation.

How would a free market run itself on the global scale? Oh, of course, once everyone 'sees the light' and buys into the free market concept, the world will settle into a comfortably sustainable pattern with enough resources for a self regulating population.

Right...

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

You for one. A lot of people blindly use the term "don't judge" without examining any outcomes. Here, an unstable woman decides to have more kids she's can't support but I get the standard response that must know the entire life history before I can say anything. Check out the thread about the father who murdered his family. Different issues but similiar ideas about any placing all blame on the actor. Someone else is somehow responsible if one decides to have too many kids or kill them all off.

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.

I suppose there aren't too many kids in this country with irresponsible parents? This is just an extreme example. I doubt public funds were used for the IVF but there's no way her kids won't be eligible for a host of government programs based on her income.

Should I go out and father multiple kids? I can do it without taking government funds.

Incorrect, I said to do so in order to make a political point was nonsensical. I have quite pointedly not rendered a judgment one way or another so you have no idea what I think about this particular woman and her circumstances.

The second part of your answer is equally disingenuous. There are irresponsible parents, but here's the problem, currently there are no guidelines as to what makes a responsible adult (Hmm, I wonder why?). Therefore there is no mechanism to deal with those who fall short of this invisible yardstick.

As to whether you should father multiple kids, that is quite simply up to you.

[mRx 16]

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

When you remove all government restraints on a market, that doesn't mean that the basic and natural laws governing markets disappear too. The market is only what we make it to be, as individual consumers within a market. Our decisions regulate the economy.

I really don't think population would have any negative effect on a free market economy; In fact, I think it would be beneficial. More goods and services would be introduced due to the increased population. If our dollar was based on a commodity specie, and not inflated, then the increased goods/services due to population increase would cause prices to drop, as the same amount of currency in circulation would be chasing more goods and services. But as you can see, prices have gone up, and so has population, which is contradictory to what a natural unhampered market would have done. This ominous sign proves the dangerous road the American economy is headed towards.

So, in my opinion, the way to fix this is quite simple: let the market run itself, and let our decisions as consumers guide the market.

I know I've strayed this thread dramatically off-topic, and I apologize.

The 'market' is not a natural force it's a human invention. This whole notion of the 'consumer' and the power of the consumer is an invention of capitalism and this idealistic notion of a self regulating market, unfettered by governmental influence nor any regulation whatsoever is remarkably Utopian in concept and as such I am quite certain it cannot exist outside of an economic modal. I mean, it's all very nice to imagine that somehow a 'natural balance' will swing into action if we keep our grubby little governmental hands out the pie, but the only examples of what might happen in an unregulated market don't bode well for its success. I wouldn't like to imagine what would happen to say, medicinal drugs or food! It's bad enough now, when we do have regulation.

How would a free market run itself on the global scale? Oh, of course, once everyone 'sees the light' and buys into the free market concept, the world will settle into a comfortably sustainable pattern with enough resources for a self regulating population.

Right...

The market is not a human invention but more like the effects of our economic actions as consumers. A market is not something tangible, but it's the interactions we make as consumers and producers.

I don't understand how a natural free market only works in concept, in theory, in Utopia, or in a vacuum. I really don't. The individual actions of consumers make, break, and shape businesses. This is an economic fact. The market rewards success with profits and sales, and punishes inefficiency, low quality, high prices, and practices individual consumers deem unworthy of engaging in transactions with, with losses. These basic principles apply from paper cups to even food and medicine. This "cutthroat, dog-eat-dog" world provides us with the highest quality and the lowest price for every product. This is all based on our choices as consumers. These choices we make determine the market regardless of what coercive regulation is placed on it. Until the government can precisely control each and every economic decision of every citizen, the free market will eventually find it's way around the Leviathan.

As for the effects of a free-market on an international scale, it is irrelevant whether or not other countries follow suit or "see the light". We would end the tariffs, import quotas, sanctions, and other protectionist xenophobic controls that promote inefficiency, and raise prices.

The quality of life we have would skyrocket, our prices would drop if inflation ended, and if foreign countries continued to inflate, they would be artificially overvaluing their currency, which would greatly stimulate exportation from the US to these countries. We would be inadvertedly exploiting their regulatory economic structures. Kind of similarly to what China is doing to us, only they are undervaluing their currency, and impoverishing their people because of it.

[alienlovechild 75]

Incorrect, I said to do so in order to make a political point was nonsensical. I have quite pointedly not rendered a judgment one way or another so you have no idea what I think about this particular woman and her circumstances.

I didn't make a political point as I didn't suggest some kind of legislation to regulate situation. If you can't even begin to form an opinion on this issue it boggles the mind why you'd decide to post about it.

The second part of your answer is equally disingenuous. There are irresponsible parents, but here's the problem, currently there are no guidelines as to what makes a responsible adult (Hmm, I wonder why?). Therefore there is no mechanism to deal with those who fall short of this invisible yardstick.

Better check the laws or I hope you're a great parent that won't run into problems. In this country, child neglect or abuse are crimes so there guidelines at least on extremely poor parenting. Of course lots of kids have parents that aren't criminal but a lot of parents can have kids but shouldn't have it yet society may ultimately end up dealing with the kids in school or prison. Because their aren't strict government guidelines for parents it's not a good thing to do a crappy job raising your kids.

Thanks. I'm sending you (and other taxpayers) the bill for the child rearing of all the kids I want but won't support. That's what happened to a lot of kids so we aren't talking about a tiny minority.

[Peikko 1,575]

Incorrect, I said to do so in order to make a political point was nonsensical. I have quite pointedly not rendered a judgment one way or another so you have no idea what I think about this particular woman and her circumstances.

I didn't make a political point as I didn't suggest some kind of legislation to regulate situation. If you can't even begin to form an opinion on this issue it boggles the mind why you'd decide to post about it.

The second part of your answer is equally disingenuous. There are irresponsible parents, but here's the problem, currently there are no guidelines as to what makes a responsible adult (Hmm, I wonder why?). Therefore there is no mechanism to deal with those who fall short of this invisible yardstick.

Better check the laws or I hope you're a great parent that won't run into problems. In this country, child neglect or abuse are crimes so there guidelines at least on extremely poor parenting. Of course lots of kids have parents that aren't criminal but a lot of parents can have kids but shouldn't have it yet society may ultimately end up dealing with the kids in school or prison. Because their aren't strict government guidelines for parents it's not a good thing to do a crappy job raising your kids.

Thanks. I'm sending you (and other taxpayers) the bill for the child rearing of all the kids I want but won't support. That's what happened to a lot of kids so we aren't talking about a tiny minority.

Not rendering an opinion in a thread does not by default mean I do not have one. I have chosen to keep it to myself for my own reasons.

Secondly, I clearly stated, there is no yardstick to measure whether an adult is responsible enough to have children and this is by no accident, a point which I also made. However, quite rightly in my opinion, there are minimum standards of care for children and when a parent fails to meet these minimum standards, there is recourse to legal action.

However, that relates in no way to whether or not this woman should have had a further multiple birth while already being a parent to X number of children, as there is no suggestion anywhere that this woman has failed to care for her existing children. Nor is there yet evidence that she has broken any rules or laws of any sort.

The last part of your post is mindless, I have no interest in addressing it.

[Jasman0717 9]

Obsessed

[Dr. Obvious 49]

I enjoyed the article where the mother was talking about interviewing with Oprah next week. She hopes to raise $2 million dollars to care for the 14 children and she hopes to launch a Supernannylike TV career. It seems that she was just using this stunt to make money a la Jon and Kate plus 8.

There seems to be some speculation now that she stole drugs from the fertility clinic she worked at to conceive the litter. That seems far more plausible then 7 IVF treatments (she claims IVF for each pregnancy she has had so far, which obviously doesn't make any sense on a single grad student's salary).

I'll judge all I want, a single, unemployed grad student living with her parents with six kids, yeah, that is just who I want to see raising 14 friggin kids. She obviously has the resources to care for them on her own without her father going back to Iraq to make money (or to run away?) or recourse to welfare/whoring herself on TV for money. I think this is completely disgusting and appalling what she has done.

[Nagishkaw 510]

I enjoyed the article where the mother was talking about interviewing with Oprah next week. She hopes to raise $2 million dollars to care for the 14 children and she hopes to launch a Supernannylike TV career. It seems that she was just using this stunt to make money a la Jon and Kate plus 8.

There seems to be some speculation now that she stole drugs from the fertility clinic she worked at to conceive the litter. That seems far more plausible then 7 IVF treatments (she claims IVF for each pregnancy she has had so far, which obviously doesn't make any sense on a single grad student's salary).

I'll judge all I want, a single, unemployed grad student living with her parents with six kids, yeah, that is just who I want to see raising 14 friggin kids. She obviously has the resources to care for them on her own without her father going back to Iraq to make money (or to run away?) or recourse to welfare/whoring herself on TV for money. I think this is completely disgusting and appalling what she has done.

[Dr. Obvious 49]

Here is the article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle5627531.ece

[rebeccajo 14]

Sounds like another case of 'parenting' for a living - ie prostituting your children for a buck.