Have you seen the interviews with the Octuplet's mom?

[Parrothead]

Volunteers usually come from within a church or local community. It's people who want to help. Whether or not they choose to help is up to each an every individual in her community.

You're missing my point. She KNOWS she can't provide for her children without aid, yet had additional babies. She may or may not be taking government assistance, but is taking money from her parents. They provided her home for her first 6 children.

Why do you believe she's owed a tv show like Duggars and Jon & Kate? I find both families questionable in the exploitation of their families. You're advocating yet another dysfunctional family to make money off their kids? And all the free stuff? Why is she owed that? It's up to each individual company as to whom they donate their goods. If the mother is questionable or represents controversy, the companies steer clear in order to avoid getting bogged down in any issues. Nothing about having HOMs (higher order multiples) obligates anyone to donate goods, services, or adoration.

 

I think you're looking through rose colored glasses for this delusional woman. Bless her children as they're in for a tumultuous life.

I don't believe she is owed anything from anyone. But things like diapers for two years, baby food, baby clothing companies generally come out to help families with mega-multiples.

 

The flack she is getting negates any chance of what is "normally" done. I don't see her having a snowballs chance in getting volunteers help with the babies much less diapers because of all the negatives associated with the controversy.

 

The things I'm seeing look to me as if people want this woman and her kids to fail. Or that because she is poor and has issues she shouldn't have the children.

 

From what little bit I've read, if those children are taken from her, she will just keep having more. There is some kind of strange need in her that way. And once you start regulating one person's right to reproduce... Well, look at the crisis in China.

 

I don't think she is owed a TV show, a book deal or even a baby swing. But I don't think she should be kicked when she is down. I don't think she should be analyzed by armchair psychologists. I'm trying very very hard not to do those things. This woman needs all the emotional support and prayers she can get. So do her kids. They need people to rally around her and help with what ever they need.

 

Just here on these forums, how many negative comments have been made about this woman. We are all moms who struggle in some way every blessed day. Why aren't we rallying around her to give what ever support we can even if it is only prayer or a second or third hand onesie? I just don't understand that. She has made different choices - quite possibly rash and not well thought out choices - but she is a mom who loves her kids the same way you and I love ours.

 

If I were closer I'd volunteer my time to go hold the babies. If I had the extra I'd give her $5.00 to go toward that baby swing. If I'd kept dd's baby clothes I'd box them up and send them to her.

 

One thing I won't do is kick her when she is down and desperately in need of help - emotional, mental or financial.

[Murphy101]

I don't like her mother's comments. I think her mother is disloyal, rude, inflammatory and media-seeking.

 

I agree. Her mother could have said no a long time ago. If she's tired and resentful and doesn't want to do it - then she doesn't have to. So enough of the martyr complex already. I hate the way she speaks about her own daughter. Even if I felt the same, I'd never speak of it to someone outside my family/home.

 

are not telling her how to spend her money, we're objecting to the way she's going to spend our money. There's no way she can support those kids herself. I'd bet my life that it's my tax money paying for their food, their medical care, their day care, their everything for the next 18 years. If she were financially self-sufficient and/or covered by private insurance through her employer (ha!), it would be one thing, but she's not.

 

why is it okay for a mother to do all of those things for her 3 or less kids, but a mother with more is irresponsible? I know many families that have had 1 child with disabilities of various sorts. It really doesn't matter how many kids you have, even ONE is outragiously expensive and very few can do it without assistance of some sort. Yet no one would tell them they should have aborted their babies to save the taxpayer the expense of that assistance. Well most wouldn't tell them that, I'm sure some would.

 

and it's her tax money too. we all pay taxes of some sort. I can't so much as buy a cup of coffee without paying a tax.

 

If this had been her first IVF treatment and she didn't have 6 other kids, the results would have been the same. a single mother with no home/income of her own up the proverbial creek. why would that be okay, but because she has 6 kids already it's not?

 

And IVF is given to single low income mothers all the time. My dh personally works with 3 lesbian women who have had it done. (trust me, no one where my dh works is making enough money to have that kind of spare change.) They don't have ANY medical reason keeping them from getting pregnant either. The only reason they aren't getting pregnant is because they aren't having sex with a man. So how ethical is it to give a single low income woman with no infertility problems IVF? And at least 1 of them had 3 children from a previous marriage before she "discovered herself".

 

I said it in another thread, I'll say it again. IVF is just plain WRONG. :sad:

 

Responsible moms raise their own kids and don't burden their parents by bringing in MORE mouths to feed without any prospects of an income or a home of their own. How long is the mom's money going to last? Don't her parents deserve to spend their retirement in the way THEY choose?

 

Sure they do if that's what they want then all they have to do is say, "Enough - get out!" and go their merry way. Let's not act like the grandparents have no choices here. They did and they do. Maybe if they'd done that a long time ago she wouldn't have had the option of doing IVF in the first place. I don't feel for them in the least. They are reaping what they've sown.

[catalinakel]

I don't believe she is owed anything from anyone. But things like diapers for two years, baby food, baby clothing companies generally come out to help families with mega-multiples.

 

The flack she is getting negates any chance of what is "normally" done. I don't see her having a snowballs chance in getting volunteers help with the babies much less diapers because of all the negatives associated with the controversy.

 

The things I'm seeing look to me as if people want this woman and her kids to fail. Or that because she is poor and has issues she shouldn't have the children.

 

From what little bit I've read, if those children are taken from her, she will just keep having more. There is some kind of strange need in her that way. And once you start regulating one person's right to reproduce... Well, look at the crisis in China.

 

I don't think she is owed a TV show, a book deal or even a baby swing. But I don't think she should be kicked when she is down. I don't think she should be analyzed by armchair psychologists. I'm trying very very hard not to do those things. This woman needs all the emotional support and prayers she can get. So do her kids. They need people to rally around her and help with what ever they need.

 

Just here on these forums, how many negative comments have been made about this woman. We are all moms who struggle in some way every blessed day. Why aren't we rallying around her to give what ever support we can even if it is only prayer or a second or third hand onesie? I just don't understand that. She has made different choices - quite possibly rash and not well thought out choices - but she is a mom who loves her kids the same way you and I love ours.

If I were closer I'd volunteer my time to go hold the babies. If I had the extra I'd give her $5.00 to go toward that baby swing. If I'd kept dd's baby clothes I'd box them up and send them to her.

 

One thing I won't do is kick her when she is down and desperately in need of help - emotional, mental or financial.

 

See, that is the thing, Chucki. I cannot agree with you because she is not a mom who loves her kids the same way I do....Love is expressed in action...and we take a look at what she has done, what she is doing and planning on doing and we say, judgementally, yes, THIS IS NOT LOVE. When we judge, we do so with eyes wide open and hearts of compassion and we discern that what this woman has decided to do as a mother is NOT WISE. History shows us that. The economy portends that. Her own history of not being able to care for her six thus far portrays that. And, yes, I believe that this woman and her circumstances need to be evaluated by child protective services because we do not have other examples of unemployed single mothers who have decided to do what she is planning to do who have thrived. Those children need to be protected. And I hate the idea of state intervention, but this is clearly a case where neglect is imminent and inevitable. Unless some benefactor comes in to save the day for her. Which could happen....but I do not believe that this would be what is best. Oh, yeah, and she is not WORKING POOR. I know plenty of people who are, and they are not endangering their children's safety and emotional well being......

[Tracey in TX]

Contrary what the media shows, HOMs do not normally get free stuff from companies. Certain families benefit because they're adorable, noteworthy, or the first in a local area. Volunteers are typically found through the church or synagogue. Compassion and donations only run so deep before the well runs dry. When is enough enough? By donating to this woman, it might appear as though one is advocating or accepting her choices. If her own parents discouraged her from this endeavor, and she has no partner to aid in co-parenting how could we possibly encourage this behavior? Are we also sending signals to the next needy person that it's okay and we'll support her, too?

There is nothing about this story that implies a healthy, functioning family. Her children will be funded by Californians for the next 18 years, assuming the newborns are all without delays or physical issues.

No, we should not kick her when she's down. However, she chose her path in life. Nobody forced her to quit college. Or have IVF. Six times. And have 14 babies. Without a spouse, a job, an income, a support system. She kicked herself down. And she's dragging innocent children alongside her. Her sanity is questionable, at best.

[HRAAB]

See, that is the thing, Chucki. I cannot agree with you because she is not a mom who loves her kids the same way I do....Love is expressed in action...and we take a look at what she has done, what she is doing and planning on doing and we say, judgementally, yes, THIS IS NOT LOVE. When we judge, we do so with eyes wide open and hearts of compassion and we discern that what this woman has decided to do as a mother is NOT WISE. History shows us that. The economy portends that. Her own history of not being able to care for her six thus far portrays that. And, yes, I believe that this woman and her circumstances need to be evaluated by child protective services because we do not have other examples of unemployed single mothers who have decided to do what she is planning to do who have thrived. Those children need to be protected. And I hate the idea of state intervention, but this is clearly a case where neglect is imminent and inevitable. Unless some benefactor comes in to save the day for her. Which could happen....but I do not believe that this would be what is best. Oh, yeah, and she is not WORKING POOR. I know plenty of people who are, and they are not endangering their children's safety and emotional well being......

 

I think it is one thing to make judgments based on a person's actions; but to make judgments about how much or how wrongly some loves is stepping over the line. I do not believe that you can accurately judge how someone loves based on their outside actions. Especially if she is suffering from some type of mental depression. I'm not about to judge her heart.

 

Janet

[Parrothead]

See, that is the thing, Chucki. I cannot agree with you because she is not a mom who loves her kids the same way I do....Love is expressed in action...and we take a look at what she has done, what she is doing and planning on doing and we say, judgementally, yes, THIS IS NOT LOVE. When we judge, we do so with eyes wide open and hearts of compassion and we discern that what this woman has decided to do as a mother is NOT WISE. History shows us that. The economy portends that. Her own history of not being able to care for her six thus far portrays that. And, yes, I believe that this woman and her circumstances need to be evaluated by child protective services because we do not have other examples of unemployed single mothers who have decided to do what she is planning to do who have thrived. Those children need to be protected. And I hate the idea of state intervention, but this is clearly a case where neglect is imminent and inevitable. Unless some benefactor comes in to save the day for her. Which could happen....but I do not believe that this would be what is best. Oh, yeah, and she is not WORKING POOR. I know plenty of people who are, and they are not endangering their children's safety and emotional well being......

 

Contrary what the media shows, HOMs do not normally get free stuff from companies. Certain families benefit because they're adorable, noteworthy, or the first in a local area. Volunteers are typically found through the church or synagogue. Compassion and donations only run so deep before the well runs dry. When is enough enough? By donating to this woman, it might appear as though one is advocating or accepting her choices. If her own parents discouraged her from this endeavor, and she has no partner to aid in co-parenting how could we possibly encourage this behavior? Are we also sending signals to the next needy person that it's okay and we'll support her, too?

There is nothing about this story that implies a healthy, functioning family. Her children will be funded by Californians for the next 18 years, assuming the newborns are all without delays or physical issues.

No, we should not kick her when she's down. However, she chose her path in life. Nobody forced her to quit college. Or have IVF. Six times. And have 14 babies. Without a spouse, a job, an income, a support system. She kicked herself down. And she's dragging innocent children alongside her. Her sanity is questionable, at best.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I won't be able to change your mind and you can't change mine. We can counter argue all day and get no where. And truth be told, today is one of my "every blessed days."

 

So before this thread gets locked up, just know I respect your opinions and do see where you are coming from. I do see. Hopefully you can or will see why I won't judge this family or advocate taking the children and putting them into the system.

[Parrothead]

I think it is one thing to make judgments based on a person's actions; but to make judgments about how much or how wrongly some loves is stepping over the line. I do not believe that you can accurately judge how someone loves based on their outside actions. Especially if she is suffering from some type of mental depression. I'm not about to judge her heart.

 

Janet

:iagree: You said that much better than I ever could have.

[AuntieM]

She seems ok with the situation.

 

I don't like her mother's comments. I think her mother is disloyal, rude, inflammatory and media-seeking.

 

She seems like a resourceful person...

 

 

Without even touching the birth right ethics of this, I will respectfully disagree with the above statements. If she'd had 14 children naturally, without fertility treatments that she sought out (and by the way, who paid for those, did she pay for that herself?), I would feel quite differently.

 

She's "okay" with the situation because she's blissfully (willfully?) ignorant of the burden and consequences it places on others.

 

I think her mother is speaking from a very troubled, stressed, overburdened heart. I am glad for her she feels free to vent!

 

Some may call her resourceful. I'd say leech is more appropriate.

 

Go ahead, lob your tomatoes, but that's what I think.

[catalinakel]

I agree...we disagree.

 

But Janet, as one who has suffered with depression for decades and yet is also raising children, I believe I can judge love based on actions...but I get my definition from the Author of Love, Who Himself is Love.....God so loved that he GAVE....love is not a feeling, it is action.....

 

now, granted, this woman has GIVEN birth to 14 kiddos, and this is no small feat, but given the circumstances of her life, it is hard to imagine how much more she has to give to these babies...

[Tracey in TX]

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I won't be able to change your mind and you can't change mine. We can counter argue all day and get no where. And truth be told, today is one of my "every blessed days."

 

ITA

Sending you positive thoughts and prayers for a better day ahead.:grouphug: (Yesterday was "one of those days" for us. It takes two days to recover. :))

[katemary63]

I think it is one thing to make judgments based on a person's actions; but to make judgments about how much or how wrongly some loves is stepping over the line. I do not believe that you can accurately judge how someone loves based on their outside actions. Especially if she is suffering from some type of mental depression. I'm not about to judge her heart.

 

Janet

 

OH YES YOU CAN! My father claimed all over the place that he "loved" me. He said it 15 times a day. He probably FELT lots of love for me. He "adored" me. But in the end, his actions PROVED that he didn't. ( yes, it's what your thinking). Come on people, love is ACTION. It is NOT feeling. Her actions are NOT LOVE. She is selfish and THAT is not love. We need to give the feeling that most people call love, a different name - get our definitions right. The Bible defines love as choosing to put another's well being above you own wants, needs and desires. It has nothing to do with how you feel. With this as the definition, I feel completely comfortable in saying that she does not love her children.

[Murphy101]

Contrary what the media shows, HOMs do not normally get free stuff from companies.

 

true.

 

When is enough enough? By donating to this woman, it might appear as though one is advocating or accepting her choices. If her own parents discouraged her from this endeavor, and she has no partner to aid in co-parenting how could we possibly encourage this behavior? Are we also sending signals to the next needy person that it's okay and we'll support her, too?

There is nothing about this story that implies a healthy, functioning family. Her children will be funded by Californians for the next 18 years, assuming the newborns are all without delays or physical issues.

No, we should not kick her when she's down. However, she chose her path in life. Nobody forced her to quit college. Or have IVF. Six times. And have 14 babies. Without a spouse, a job, an income, a support system. She kicked herself down. And she's dragging innocent children alongside her. Her sanity is questionable, at best.

 

one could say the exact same thing about ANY unwed mother regardless of how she got pregnant or how many kids she has. Yet they can get lots of assistance and the majority of the time it's looked on as a kind and neccessary thing to do.

 

She's "okay" with the situation because she's blissfully (willfully?) ignorant of the burden and consequences it places on others.

 

I think her mother is speaking from a very troubled, stressed, overburdened heart. I am glad for her she feels free to vent!

 

I wouldn't say she's ignorant neccessarily. It's entirely possible that she's looking at this as positively as she can because without hope it's mighty hard to survive tough situations. Don't we all do that? Haven't you ever been in a really hard time in your life where all you could do was your best and think as positively as possible to get through it? I know I have.

 

As for her mother, she's made some pretty stupid parenting choices herself. Sure she's allowed to feel regret and worry over that. And I have no issue with her venting - in private. To trusted family and friends. But to whine about a situation she can leave at any time and to publicly bash her own daughter on tv? No, I'm not okay with that.

[HRAAB]

OH YES YOU CAN! My father claimed all over the place that he "loved" me. He said it 15 times a day. He probably FELT lots of love for me. He "adored" me. But in the end, his actions PROVED that he didn't. ( yes, it's what your thinking). Come on people, love is ACTION. It is NOT feeling. Her actions are NOT LOVE. She is selfish and THAT is not love. We need to give the feeling that most people call love, a different name - get our definitions right. The Bible defines love as choosing to put another's well being above you own wants, needs and desires. It has nothing to do with how you feel. With this as the definition, I feel completely comfortable in saying that she does not love her children.

 

I absolutely disagree, so we will leave it at that. I would never feel comfortable in stating that another does not love her children. I leave that to another judge...

 

I wanted to add that I am very sorry for whatever it was you suffered from your father. I am not discounting your personal experience, but could not your personal experience cloud your judgment in this area? What if we wait 10 to 20 years, and then see about our judgments concerning whether she loves her children or not?

 

Janet

Edited February 10, 2009 by Ishki

[Murphy101]

Come on people, love is ACTION. It is NOT feeling.

 

I actually 100% agree with this.

 

I just don't see how killing them off as embryos would have been a more loving act.:confused:

 

Now, I do think the loving thing would have been for her to never have started down the IVF path with the first pregnancy, thus never creating a risk of putting babies/embryos lives at risk or of bringing them into a home without a married mother and father to care for them.:(

[katemary63]

Now, I do think the loving thing would have been for her to never have started down the IVF path with the first pregnancy, thus never creating a risk of putting babies/embryos lives at risk or of bringing them into a home without a married mother and father to care for them.:(

 

This is the exact unloving action that I was refering to.

[HRAAB]

I agree...we disagree.

 

But Janet, as one who has suffered with depression for decades and yet is also raising children, I believe I can judge love based on actions...but I get my definition from the Author of Love, Who Himself is Love.....God so loved that he GAVE....love is not a feeling, it is action.....

 

now, granted, this woman has GIVEN birth to 14 kiddos, and this is no small feat, but given the circumstances of her life, it is hard to imagine how much more she has to give to these babies...

 

I think I responded to someone else thinking it was you. As I said, we will just have to disagree on this one. ;) I do believe love is action as well as an invisible emotion of the heart. If someone is suffering physically (depression can impact a person physically), that can impact how they act and the decisions they make - especially towards those they love. I also have some very personal experience with this, someone very close to me. For outsiders, it would be easy for them to say this person does not love her children. As someone who knows this person intimately, I can, without doubt, say they are absolutely wrong. Ergo, I cannot judge if this woman loves her children or not. That has no bearing on the fact that I think her actions are highly irresponsible.

 

Janet

[catalinakel]

I actually 100% agree with this.

 

I just don't see how killing them off as embryos would have been a more loving act.:confused:

 

Now, I do think the loving thing would have been for her to never have started down the IVF path with the first pregnancy, thus never creating a risk of putting babies/embryos lives at risk or of bringing them into a home without a married mother and father to care for them.:(

 

No, killing them off as embroyos would not be a more loving act. Of course not. Abortion is not love...Putting children up for adoption is.

[Parrothead]

ITA

Sending you positive thoughts and prayers for a better day ahead.:grouphug: (Yesterday was "one of those days" for us. It takes two days to recover. :))

Thank you. I hope you will finish recovering today. :grouphug:

 

P.S. Boy I am glad I got out of here when I did. I only thought things were getting hot between us. :001_smile: I'm going to get the :lurk5: and see where the rest of this goes.

[Murphy101]

No, killing them off as embroyos would not be a more loving act. Of course not. Abortion is not love...Putting children up for adoption is.

 

it can be most of the time.

nt always.

 

would we ask any other mother to give up her children for the reasons being given for this woman? I wager most often not. Oh we'd understand if she did, but would we require it of her in order for her to say she loved them?

 

aside from that, adoption and foster care are really might not be good options for this situation.

 

adoption and foster care for a large number of siblings, or even 1 child with disabilities are not plentiful. Finding a home for a situation that has both those situations is nearly impossible. I personally, would think it just as tragic to see siblings divided up like a litter of unwanted puppies to various homes. And it's a sad truth that the children in need of development care will often have a had time placing. The same reasons a mother is scared to keep them are the same reasons many couples are scared to adopt them.

 

As for this being the solution to her being a burden on the tax payer. It absolutely would not be. Foster care and state adoption both receive more funds than the birth mothers would get if she kept them. In my state, adoptive parents of difficult to place children receive state funds monthly and other assistance to help offset the cost of choosing to adopt such children. It's an incentive to get permanent adopting homes for children that often otherwise would never get to leave the foster system. I'm not saying that the state is wrong to do that. I'm just saying that removing children from a mother that wants them and loves them is probably not the answer either.

[swellmomma]

The whole situation bugs me, I can see both sides very well. On one hand I do not agree with her choices to have more babies when she had 6 other little ones at home she struggled to provide for, I would feel the same way if she was still married. At the same time I don't like that she is getting thrown under the bus ONLY because she is a single mom. As a single mom myself who has opted to continue growing my family even without a spouse in the picture and using donors. Now I can see raising the kids without gov't support etc if she had stopped at the 6, after all I am doing so right now with my 4, but I think by jumping up to 14 in this way she will have no option other than asking for assistance. EVen if she was working in a lucrative job, the money needed to raise 14 kids is insane, and she would still at least some assistance like daycare subsidy, after all 11-12 of the kids would still be in fulltime care, only a couple are old enough for school.

 

I also can't stand the grandmother, yes she is tired of it all etc, I can see that, but what mother blasts her own daughter for the world to see? It's no wonder the woman felt that she didn't get any love growing up and felt the need to get that love through having children, if this is how her mother talks about her to the media what has she been telling her her whole life? I say this from experience, my mother is very much like the grandmother, quick to offer help(like babysitting on occasion in my case), then play the martyr card and insult me for days for putting her out, she was like this even when I was a child, letting me know daily how much of a burden I was to her, how I ruined all her plans. I am still dealing with the issues that come out that.

 

The baby's are here now, blasting the mother isn't going to change it. I also don't think that by offering prayers, emotional support or volunteer time is the same as condoning the behaviour, it is simply lifting her up to ensure the children (all 14 of them), have the best chances of having a healthy relationship with their mother.

 

Also a few pages back was comments about the state of the home with clothes scattered etc everywhere, We don't know what the condition of the home normally is, the mother has been in the hospital for the last several months. We don't know if she is normally a neat freak and takes care of the home, but right now the grandmother is kwim. Not to mention the fact that with 6 littles in the house, messes are to be expected.

 

I think that people are mostly ticked she is single and therefore are wanting her to fail looking at every little detail in a way they would not normally do so. This I have also lived through, the prejudices against single parents is strong in many, and it doesn't matter if that person has chosen to have 1 child or 14 out of wedlock they are still told, they should give their child(ren) up to "loving, financially stable COUPLES" . I think the same would have been said here even if she was a multimillionaire. I have a feeling more people are angry about her marital status when she conceived all of these children than a mess in the home, or medical bills etc.

[Joanne]

I think that people are mostly ticked she is single and therefore are wanting her to fail looking at every little detail in a way they would not normally do so. This I have also lived through, the prejudices against single parents is strong in many, and it doesn't matter if that person has chosen to have 1 child or 14 out of wedlock they are still told, they should give their child(ren) up to "loving, financially stable COUPLES" . I think the same would have been said here even if she was a multimillionaire. I have a feeling more people are angry about her marital status when she conceived all of these children than a mess in the home, or medical bills etc.

 

I've been a single mom. The situation with this mom would "ting" on my "off" radar regardless of her marital status.

 

Being single does, frankly, add to the challenges in a practical way. But I'm not judging it from that standpoint.

 

ETA: I should also add, though, that I've seen bias for married families where the fact that a marriage exists was the only criteria of evaluation over the other families involved. Married does not = better inherently.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Joanne

[unsinkable]

OH YES YOU CAN! My father claimed all over the place that he "loved" me. He said it 15 times a day. He probably FELT lots of love for me. He "adored" me. But in the end, his actions PROVED that he didn't. ( yes, it's what your thinking). Come on people, love is ACTION. It is NOT feeling. Her actions are NOT LOVE. She is selfish and THAT is not love. We need to give the feeling that most people call love, a different name - get our definitions right. The Bible defines love as choosing to put another's well being above you own wants, needs and desires. It has nothing to do with how you feel. With this as the definition, I feel completely comfortable in saying that she does not love her children.

 

I'm so sorry about your dad.

 

:grouphug:

[Bess]

it can be most of the time.

nt always.

 

would we ask any other mother to give up her children for the reasons being given for this woman? I wager most often not. Oh we'd understand if she did, but would we require it of her in order for her to say she loved them?

 

aside from that, adoption and foster care are really might not be good options for this situation.

 

adoption and foster care for a large number of siblings, or even 1 child with disabilities are not plentiful. Finding a home for a situation that has both those situations is nearly impossible. I personally, would think it just as tragic to see siblings divided up like a litter of unwanted puppies to various homes. And it's a sad truth that the children in need of development care will often have a had time placing. The same reasons a mother is scared to keep them are the same reasons many couples are scared to adopt them.

 

As for this being the solution to her being a burden on the tax payer. It absolutely would not be. Foster care and state adoption both receive more funds than the birth mothers would get if she kept them. In my state, adoptive parents of difficult to place children receive state funds monthly and other assistance to help offset the cost of choosing to adopt such children. It's an incentive to get permanent adopting homes for children that often otherwise would never get to leave the foster system. I'm not saying that the state is wrong to do that. I'm just saying that removing children from a mother that wants them and loves them is probably not the answer either.

 

 

 

But you are just talking about adoption through the foster care system. She could adopt them out privately. That would not lay a burden on the tax payers.

[lynn]

In defense of grandma. A woman most times gets married, has a family, raises that family, kids move out, retirement and a life of being free of repsonsiblity of raising children is planned, dreamed of, saved for. Then that dream that grandma has planned all her life is gone because now she has not choice but to help with grandchildren due. No retirement dreams fulfilled for her, yes she's mad, disgusted, has an attitude or whatever. What should she say or do? Maybe it should not be made public but grandma has a right to speak out however she chooses.

[LizzyBee]

No, killing them off as embroyos would not be a more loving act. Of course not. Abortion is not love...Putting children up for adoption is.

 

Wow, I'm just amazed at how many people have said that someone else should give up her children for adoption. Just. Wow.

[Bess]

Wow, I'm just amazed at how many people have said that someone else should give up her children for adoption. Just. Wow.

 

In certain circumstances I think that mothers should be counseled to give their babies up for adoption. If a 12 year old girl got pregnant, would you feel differently then? Being 12, she would not be capable (maturity wise, financially, etc. etc.) of taking care of a baby. That is how I feel about this mother. She has *proven* she is not capable of taking care of the children she already has, and has no plan in place to take care of the *next 8*! This should be one of those times where someone should talk to her about what might be best for those children, and yes, adoption makes sense for those children.

[catalinakel]

Wow, I'm just amazed at how many people have said that someone else should give up her children for adoption. Just. Wow.

 

Now you've gone and misunderstood me. I was responding to what martha had said-

 

"I just don't see how killing them off as embryos would have been a more loving act."

 

As if abortion was the only choice for this woman.

[cathmom]

I just don't know what this woman will do or how she could possibly handle it, even if there weren't possible mental/emotional issues. I have twins and for the most part, I took care of them myself when they were infants. I nursed exclusively. I was massively sleep-deprived. My older dc mainly took care of my then 2 yo. (He was 2 years 2 weeks when the twins arrived.) And my dh was earning the money. Taking care of them myself took years off my life I bet, and if I could go back, I would spend the money to hire myself some help. And we are talking about FULLTERM, healthy, 7.5 lbs at birth twins! Eight babies! With prematurity and medical issues! Plus 6 others under the age of 7, 3 of whom are apparently disabled enough to receive benefits!

 

If I were her, I would just want to put a pillow over my head and hide.

[Snickerdoodle]

With respect to destroying the embryos before implantation, selective reduction, adoption and keeping all of the babies, I think the running theme here is that once you go down the IVF road, there are hard decisions to be made. Some of those decisions may come at the front end and others at the tail end. No matter what you do, those decisions and their consequences are very very difficult.

[catalinakel]

Now you've gone and misunderstood me. I was responding to what martha had said-

 

"I just don't see how killing them off as embryos would have been a more loving act."

 

As if abortion was the only choice for this woman.

 

I am watching the dateline interview now, and realize that I misunderstood the situation with this mom. I didn't realize that ivf creates embryos...so then she had them implanted because they were hers. I get that. And wouldn't want them destroyed....I misunderstood. what else could she do? I have no idea......what a crazy world we have created!

[Lovedtodeath]

At the same time I don't like that she is getting thrown under the bus ONLY because she is a single mom.

 

You made a lot of good points, but I disagree with this one. She is not caring for and providing for her children, and wasn't before choosing to have more. She is burdening her parents, not supporting her children herself. That is not JUST being a single mom.

[HSMom2One]

I just watched the interview on Dateline while also reading this thread. I have to say I strongly agree with Chucki and Janet. Mudslinging is not going to change this situation at all. This woman and all of her children need tons of prayer.

 

Okay, I'm now ducking from the tomatoes that I'm sure are being aimed my way....

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

[crewmom]

I am watching the dateline interview now, and realize that I misunderstood the situation with this mom. I didn't realize that ivf creates embryos...so then she had them implanted because they were hers. I get that. And wouldn't want them destroyed....I misunderstood. what else could she do? I have no idea......what a crazy world we have created!

 

With 6 embryos she could have had 2-3 implanted at a time (the norm). She's only 33 years old which means she had plenty of time to have two or three more pregnancies. Instead she chose to have all 6 implanted at once. That's where my biggest problem lies with her and her doctor. The whole circus is messed up.

[Pamela H in Texas]

I didn't realize that ivf creates embryos...so then she had them implanted because they were hers. I get that. And wouldn't want them destroyed....I misunderstood. what else could she do? I have no idea.

 

There are a NUMBER of options.

 

First and foremost? She didn't have to have SO many eggs harvested.

She didn't have to have ALL the eggs fertilized.

She could have donated the unfertilized eggs.

She could have adopted out the fertilized ones.

She could have had fewer implanted at a time (because 6 is no longer acceptable) so even if she still would have ended up with 14 kids, it would have been over time, possibly when/in-a-way she could have cared for them appropriately on her own, etc.

 

Now, though most of the interview last night made me mad and feel sorry for the kids, I did have a little bit of fellow feeling for her. As one that has to deal with infertility, I feel for her. She also said that they had implanted 6 each of the previous times. She's had 5 IVFs go to term with 6 kids, one IVF lead to an ectopic pregnancy, and my dd said she also said two failed IVFs (I missed that probably through some of my ranting). It makes sense that if she's had 8 procedures, each resulting in 0-2 babies, that she would assume this one would lead to 0-2 babies. *I* would assume that much.

 

This story is playing on me BIG time. We got new insurance in January and it covers infertility treatment. We immediately set up an appointment despite the timing not being great for us. I had a full workup 2.5 years ago which actually showed me in better condition than I thought. Also, it only took a month or so to find out so it won't be all that long if they have to go back through all the testing. We'll find out tomorrow. One thing in our situation is that I would like to ovulate EVERY month which will mean fertility meds. I'm pretty sure that is a reasonable request. But I don't want a litter of babies (mostly because of the danger to myself and to them...if they came, of course I'd love each one and do my best as a mom). So I've been up for the last hour thinking of "please help me get preg Dr. H, but I don't want 6 (or 4 or 8!) babies at one time." Of course, with just one tube, I only have to worry about one ovary and it's unlikely that one ovary will have 6 follicles ready at one time even with meds.

 

And it is hard reading some of these threads and people's opinions. There are some things hubby and I are unwilling to do because of religious beliefs, but we are not part of the most conservative regarding fertility treatment. It hurts that people will state a certain procedure is just wrong. Maybe if they qualified it or gave some reasoning from the scriptures I'd change my mind about something, but generally, they can't/don't do that.

 

Anyway, so I still am very concerned about this family. I'm concerned about mom's health (esp mental). I'm concerned about the care of the children (though it was nice to see the house picked up). I'm concerned about the fertility doctor's role in this. But I do understand wanting children. I do understand the thinking that 6 implanted embryos results in 0-2 babies. And I do understand being judged by others.

Edited February 11, 2009 by 2J5M9K

[LaxMom]

Ok, first, please remember that I am the "fluffy socialist" of the group. I have no problem with public (or private) assistance and I believe that government's responsibility is to provide every citizen the tools they need to pursue their lives.

 

However

 

There are very, very bad decisions here. And lies. And irresponsibility.

 

According to Suleman, she does not (and would not) accept "government assistance". That's what she specified, "government assistance". That lie uncovered, she claims she doesn't see the food stamps or disability assistance (again, I have no philosophical opposition to either) for her three older, qualified, children as such. Uh, hello?

 

According to Suleman, she tried to get pregnant for seven years before looking into IVF. She's 33. Her oldest is seven. Let's do some math, shall we? Assuming that she didn't walk into a fertility specialist's office and come out pregnant, she's been trying since she was... 17? Earlier?

 

Her parents have a choice. They can sacrifice themselves or they can sacrifice her children. It is an untenable position that she has created for them. I cannot even begin to imagine their conflict over this, but I can say without hesitation that I would be angry at her most recent decision, in the same way that I would be angry if my child, with six children of her own, moved in with me and then decided she wanted to backpack through Europe for a few years and took off. How would this conversation play out, I wonder, if she was married and her husband was against having more, but she went ahead, with the same result?

 

Obviously, a single mother has the sole decision making capability, but in this case, she is NOT the head of household. She has no means of financial support, no home, six children, and has evidently decided to spend her nest egg (disability settlement) on having eight more, rather than providing for the existing six, some of whom have disabilities. It is likely, because of the circumstance of their birth, that the new eight will have significant disabilities, too. That likelihood would exist if only the six implanted embryos took, without splitting. It was a selfish, selfish decision, all about her, and all about what she wanted, right then.

 

 

Her doctors could have said no. They are within their discretion to do that. The "norm" is two embryos. Four is pushing it, but within the acceptable discretion of the attending physician (according to the reporductive health professional society), depending on the type infertility at hand, quality of the embryos, etc. In a patient who has had successful pregnancies already, I wouldn't think there would be any reason to hedge bets to that degree. (For the record, the Gosselins didn't have IVF, they did IUI which is a whole different ballgame and less predicable, from what I understand.)

 

This is not an "unfortunate" situation that has befallen a family. If I pour gasoline all over my house, strike a match and burn it to the ground, how many people are going to be sad for me because I am homeless? (Ok, I would have a home - in prison.) Nobody. Of course. The bad result would be the direct effect of my actions. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone could look at this and not see a train wreck at the hands of a reckless engineer, except that there are reproductive rights involved and, somehow, that negates the requirement for personal reponsibility and appropriate decisions.

 

/end rant

[LaxMom]

... As one that has to deal with infertility, I feel for her. ...

We got new insurance in January and it covers infertility treatment. We immediately set up an appointment despite the timing not being great for us. I had a full workup 2.5 years ago which actually showed me in better condition than I thought. Also, it only took a month or so to find out so it won't be all that long if they have to go back through all the testing. We'll find out tomorrow. One thing in our situation is that I would like to ovulate EVERY month which will mean fertility meds. I'm pretty sure that is a reasonable request. But I don't want a litter of babies (mostly because of the danger to myself and to them...if they came, of course I'd love each one and do my best as a mom). So I've been up for the last hour thinking of "please help me get preg Dr. H, but I don't want 6 (or 4 or 8!) babies at one time." Of course, with just one tube, I only have to worry about one ovary and it's unlikely that one ovary will have 6 follicles ready at one time even with meds.

 

And it is hard reading some of these threads and people's opinions. There are some things hubby and I are unwilling to do because of religious beliefs, but we are not part of the most conservative regarding fertility treatment. It hurts that people will state a certain procedure is just wrong. Maybe if they qualified it or gave some reasoning from the scriptures I'd change my mind about something, but generally, they can't/don't do that.

 

....

So you and your husband have discussed this, weighed the pros/cons, prayed, looked at the "worst case scenario" (high-order multiples) and have (I assume) weighed and planned for that. You, and your means of support ( financial, practical and emotional) have evaluated the situation. And you will come to a joint decision on what to do next. That is a very, very different situation.

[Sojourner]

Mudslinging is not going to change this situation at all. This woman and all of her children need tons of prayer.

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

 

After the initial disbelief and judgments this is where I keep returning to these past few days. These babies need prayer and good wishes and any help they can get to grow and thrive.

[katemary63]

Ok, first, please remember that I am the "fluffy socialist" of the group. I have no problem with public (or private) assistance and I believe that government's responsibility is to provide every citizen the tools they need to pursue their lives.

 

However

 

There are very, very bad decisions here. And lies. And irresponsibility.

 

According to Suleman, she does not (and would not) accept "government assistance". That's what she specified, "government assistance". That lie uncovered, she claims she doesn't see the food stamps or disability assistance (again, I have no philosophical opposition to either) for her three older, qualified, children as such. Uh, hello?

 

According to Suleman, she tried to get pregnant for seven years before looking into IVF. She's 33. Her oldest is seven. Let's do some math, shall we? Assuming that she didn't walk into a fertility specialist's office and come out pregnant, she's been trying since she was... 17? Earlier?

 

Her parents have a choice. They can sacrifice themselves or they can sacrifice her children. It is an untenable position that she has created for them. I cannot even begin to imagine their conflict over this, but I can say without hesitation that I would be angry at her most recent decision, in the same way that I would be angry if my child, with six children of her own, moved in with me and then decided she wanted to backpack through Europe for a few years and took off. How would this conversation play out, I wonder, if she was married and her husband was against having more, but she went ahead, with the same result?

 

Obviously, a single mother has the sole decision making capability, but in this case, she is NOT the head of household. She has no means of financial support, no home, six children, and has evidently decided to spend her nest egg (disability settlement) on having eight more, rather than providing for the existing six, some of whom have disabilities. It is likely, because of the circumstance of their birth, that the new eight will have significant disabilities, too. That likelihood would exist if only the six implanted embryos took, without splitting. It was a selfish, selfish decision, all about her, and all about what she wanted, right then.

 

 

Her doctors could have said no. They are within their discretion to do that. The "norm" is two embryos. Four is pushing it, but within the acceptable discretion of the attending physician (according to the reporductive health professional society), depending on the type infertility at hand, quality of the embryos, etc. In a patient who has had successful pregnancies already, I wouldn't think there would be any reason to hedge bets to that degree. (For the record, the Gosselins didn't have IVF, they did IUI which is a whole different ballgame and less predicable, from what I understand.)

 

This is not an "unfortunate" situation that has befallen a family. If I pour gasoline all over my house, strike a match and burn it to the ground, how many people are going to be sad for me because I am homeless? (Ok, I would have a home - in prison.) Nobody. Of course. The bad result would be the direct effect of my actions. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone could look at this and not see a train wreck at the hands of a reckless engineer, except that there are reproductive rights involved and, somehow, that negates the requirement for personal reponsibility and appropriate decisions.

 

/end rant

 

Even though your first sentence makes me shutter from the tip of my toes to the ends of my hair, :eek: I agree completely with everything else you've said. Feeling sorry for HER makes no sense at all!

[Murphy101]

So you and your husband have discussed this, weighed the pros/cons, prayed, looked at the "worst case scenario" (high-order multiples) and have (I assume) weighed and planned for that. You, and your means of support ( financial, practical and emotional) have evaluated the situation. And you will come to a joint decision on what to do next. That is a very, very different situation.

 

maybe so, but no one has any way of knowing those things unless someone volunteers the information. are you saying that everyone should have to explain themselves publicly in some way before or after? :001_huh: Should they be denied if they don't get public approval first?

 

Even though your first sentence makes me shutter from the tip of my toes to the ends of my hair, :eek:

 

:lol::iagree::lol:

[Lovedtodeath]

According to Suleman, she does not (and would not) accept "government assistance". That's what she specified, "government assistance". That lie uncovered, she claims she doesn't see the food stamps or disability assistance (again, I have no philosophical opposition to either) for her three older, qualified, children as such. Uh, hello?

 

Her parents have a choice. They can sacrifice themselves or they can sacrifice her children. It is an untenable position that she has created for them. I cannot even begin to imagine their conflict over this, but I can say without hesitation that I would be angry at her most recent decision, in the same way that I would be angry if my child, with six children of her own, moved in with me and then decided she wanted to backpack through Europe for a few years and took off. How would this conversation play out, I wonder, if she was married and her husband was against having more, but she went ahead, with the same result?

 

Obviously, a single mother has the sole decision making capability, but in this case, she is NOT the head of household. She has no means of financial support, no home, six children, and has evidently decided to spend her nest egg (disability settlement) on having eight more, rather than providing for the existing six, some of whom have disabilities. It is likely, because of the circumstance of their birth, that the new eight will have significant disabilities, too. That likelihood would exist if only the six implanted embryos took, without splitting. It was a selfish, selfish decision, all about her, and all about what she wanted, right then.

 

This is not an "unfortunate" situation that has befallen a family. If I pour gasoline all over my house, strike a match and burn it to the ground, how many people are going to be sad for me because I am homeless? (Ok, I would have a home - in prison.) Nobody. Of course. The bad result would be the direct effect of my actions. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone could look at this and not see a train wreck at the hands of a reckless engineer, except that there are reproductive rights involved and, somehow, that negates the requirement for personal reponsibility and appropriate decisions.

 

/end rant

:iagree: You said it all!

[Bess]

After seeing the Dateline interview with her, I have a different view of the situation. First, I thought that she was living *with* her parents, but it sounds like she is renting a second home from them. She says she is renting it too... even if she is not paying a lot, she is still paying rent. That's good. Also, I thought she was living off her disability payments even now... and that is not true either. She is living off student loans. No, not the brightest plan, but hey, at least she is not living on welfare. At least she accepts responsiblity in that area and realizes she will pay the loans off one day when she is able.

 

One question I still have is who is paying the medical bills?? Anyway, after seeing the interview I feel better about the whole thing, but obviously there are so many complications involved and I do still feel sorry for her...just like I feel sorry for a lot of people who make mistakes and then have to pay the consequences. It's sad to watch.

 

I enjoyed seeing her interact with her children... she does seem like she geniunely enjoys her kids. I wish her the best. Honestly, I do hope some magazine pays her millions of dollars for her story. Then the children could be provided for properly and they could all have some semblence of a normal life.

[Cherrie]

but why shouldn't Dateline pay her for the interview they all get paid and paid well I am sure. That story made them plenty and it is her story, her life how many tens of thousands of people tuned in to see what she had to say. I think Dateline did her a disservice to her and her children by not paying her I am sure other media would have.

 

She may of made bad choices but the babies are here now and I do not think that tiny house can hold 8 more babies. She needs to get income by what ever means she can. At the end of the program they said donations can be made online to a website set up for her where is Dateline's donation in these hard times I am sure they can afford to contribute a good sum.

[Tracey in TX]

but why shouldn't Dateline pay her for the interview they all get paid and paid well I am sure. That story made them plenty and it is her story, her life how many tens of thousands of people tuned in to see what she had to say. I think Dateline did her a disservice to her and her children by not paying her I am sure other media would have.

 

She may of made bad choices but the babies are here now and I do not think that tiny house can hold 8 more babies. She needs to get income by what ever means she can. At the end of the program they said donations can be made online to a website set up for her where is Dateline's donation in these hard times I am sure they can afford to contribute a good sum.

Many reputable news programs do not pay for interviews, other than the cost of transportation and lodging. While she could certainly use the money, having a paid first interview would look poorly on her. This was probably the best PR stint for her.

[HRAAB]

Even though your first sentence makes me shutter from the tip of my toes to the ends of my hair, :eek: I agree completely with everything else you've said. Feeling sorry for HER makes no sense at all!

 

Isn't 'feeling sorry for' different from feeling compassion and offering charity. Jesus had compassion for the sinner. He didn't make excuses for their behavior and say, 'oh, the poor just didn't know any better' or whatever, but had true compassion.

 

What needs to be dealt with is the fact that she has 8 babies - live babies with souls. How do we (general we) offer help, charity, without condoning her irresponsibility or saying 'what a great thing you did' since it wasn't? Or do we do nothing because after all it was her irresponsible behavior that got her into this situation.

 

I'm think in terms of if she was my neighbor or a member of my church or extended family/friends.

 

Janet