s/o on octuplet thread

[Danestress]

There has been a lot of criticism of this mother who has given birth to 8 babies.

 

I'm wondering if you would feel different if she were married to a man making $10 an hour in a job without medical benefits. Knowing that there is no way to support children on $10 an hour, and knowing that even two parents can't possibly take care of 14 children under the age of 7 without a lot of outside help, would you be comfortable criticizing the choice to have such a large family? Is it her marital status that most bothers people?

[bettyandbob]

I would feel no different.

 

If you can't fully support the children you have without public assistance, why are you having more?

 

Why did a doctor implant so many embryos over standard medical protocol, in a woman who already had children. He knew she had children because he had handled in vitro for 2 of her other children.

 

These issues would be problems whether or not she was married. They would be problems if her family income were over 100K, because some of her older children have disabilities.

[Snickerdoodle]

I think her case brings up a lot of moral issues that would not have to have been considered or dealt with as a reality had she not had the IVF.

 

I mean, once the embryos were created, the whole thing became a moral issue, didn't it? No one can fault her for thinking each one was a baby and as such what are her obligations then?

 

I guess then for me, the criticism comes from creating so many embryos and secondly taking the risk of implanting so many at one time.

[hsmomof2boys]

There has been a lot of criticism of this mother who has given birth to 8 babies.

 

I'm wondering if you would feel different if she were married to a man making $10 an hour in a job without medical benefits. Knowing that there is no way to support children on $10 an hour, and knowing that even two parents can't possibly take care of 14 children under the age of 7 without a lot of outside help, would you be comfortable criticizing the choice to have such a large family? Is it her marital status that most bothers people?

 

I too feel that there has been a lot of criticism of this mother in the media. There is also a lot of criticism for anyone who has a lot of children, including the Duggars and Jon and Kate.

 

I don't think that she meant to have 8 babies this time. She had 6 embroys planted with her other pregnancies, and at most got twins. I don't know if she is a Christian (she gave the babies Christian names), but she said that she had the embroys already and wanted to plant them. Maybe she felt that by not planting them, she was not giving them a chance for life. To me, at conception, they are human beings. Human beings in limbo. Here's a link about adopting other people's frozen embroys, called Snowflake Babies:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/28/national/main712541.shtml

 

I think that it's a miracle that 6 embroys became 8 healthy babies.

 

I myself don't think that the mother was acting responsibly, just that I don't think she knew that she would have 8 babies at once. I don't believe in abortion, so when she found out that she was carrying 7 (since 1 was a surprise), I also wouldn't have selectively reduced any of the babies. What are the odds that someone would really have this many babies at once--even if implanted with 6 embroys? It is a miracle that all survived.

 

Don't misunderstand me, I am not for this, what she (and especially what the doctor did) did was wrong--see my later posts. I just think the babies are miracles and she's going to have a lot of hard work.

Edited February 11, 2009 by hsmomof2boys
Left out part

[Tree House Academy]

I feel like she is not the only person out there to do this and yes, we are footing the bill (with our taxes) for many of these people...whether they are married couples or not. That is part of life and part of living in America. Her choices were not exactly smart or well thought out, but the kids are here now. It is not THEIR fault their mother is a loon.

[Snickerdoodle]

I for one can't imagine how anyone would be jealous of having 8 babies at once.

 

Are there such people? Wow, it's beyond my comprehension. 8 babies is a huge, huge risk to the mother as well as the infants. The womb was not meant to support such a high birth number.

 

Not to mention what it must do for future bladder control. :tongue_smilie:

[Kelli in TN]

If the couple already had six children at home, yes, I would think this a foolhardy decision to do IVF yet again.

 

The McCaughey, the Gosselin, and the Dilley families did not have six children at home when they sought help for fertility issues. So I do see it through a different lens.

[Danestress]

if it were just *one* more baby that she can't support? Two more? If she were married but her husband were unemployed, would you be as upset?

 

I'm not asking because I think it's somehow wrong to be distressed. I'm just curious about what makes people feel that way. Do you think it would be wrong if she had a husband but he were recently laid off?

[AprilTN]

The issue of the embryos almost had me convinced....until Ann Curry asked her about what her other children felt about the mom having more children, and she said that they were "so young" that they didn't have any input. Then Ann Curry asked her what she would have done if the kids had been older and expressed that they didn't want her to have any more, to which she replied that she would have not had any more children.

 

So which is it?

[Kelli in TN]

 

I wonder sometimes if some of the people who are outraged are a bit jealous because they themselves aren't the one who had the 8 babies at once..

 

 

:001_huh:

 

I will admit that I always secretly and not so secretly wished for twins, but 8 babies at once? No, I cannot imagine anyone being jealous of carrying 8 babies at once.

[hsmomof2boys]

I for one can't imagine how anyone would be jealous of having 8 babies at once.

 

Are there such people? Wow, it's beyond my comprehension. 8 babies is a huge, huge risk to the mother as well as the infants. The womb was not meant to support such a high birth number.

 

Not to mention what it must do for future bladder control. :tongue_smilie:

 

They may be jealous of all the attention she is getting, and the money she will potentially get (if she chooses to have a reality show, for instance). She's famous.

 

I for one wouldn't like to be pregnant with 8--my single births were hard enough on my poor old body! LOL

[BakersDozen]

I was contemplating the same thing as I read the posts about the octuplets. Literally every one of my friends is on welfare and popping out babies (anywhere from #6 to #10) and have no plans to stop. The only difference is that their babies are coming one at a time. For me the medical costs aren't as big an issue as I feel our government/insurance companies have made it almost impossible for the average person/couple to afford private insurance or pay out-of-pocket for health care costs, so for me saying that someone shouldn't have babies based on their ability to pay for medical costs isn't a very valid reason. What gets me are the other welfare areas such as WIC...when one can't afford to feed their current family the basic food necessities then why in the world is one bringing more kids into this world?? If one wants to continue procreating then that person could have the decency to take themselves off of taxpayer-funded food programs and feed their kids themselves. And they should not expect any handouts simply because of the # of babies they had, including outside help. Your baby(ies), your choice, your responsibility.

 

Implanting that many embryos bothers me A LOT, especially having gone through IVF myself. That was so reckless of both her and her doctor! I don't care if someone is married to a guy making 7 figures, that was a really stupid move and I only hope that women following this story and undergoing IVF themselves won't think that putting back that many embryos and ending up with 8 babies is a good thing. I hope her doctor comes under serious scrutiny/condemnation from the medical community. I know my RE wouldn't even take me as a patient unless I signed a paper that clearly stated his rule of no more than 2 embryos put back, 3 under unusual circumstances.

 

Her being unmarried actually doesn't bother me as much as the other aspects of the situation. I'm not sure why.

[Laura Corin]

For me, deliberately choosing to have children that you can't support is worthy of criticism. The marital status is not important. If she had accidentally become pregnant with more children she could afford, that would be a little different.

 

Laura

[hsmomof2boys]

I was contemplating the same thing as I read the posts about the octuplets. Literally every one of my friends is on welfare and popping out babies (anywhere from #6 to #10) and have no plans to stop. The only difference is that their babies are coming one at a time. For me the medical costs aren't as big an issue as I feel our government/insurance companies have made it almost impossible for the average person/couple to afford private insurance or pay out-of-pocket for health care costs, so for me saying that someone shouldn't have babies based on their ability to pay for medical costs isn't a very valid reason. What gets me are the other welfare areas such as WIC...when one can't afford to feed their current family the basic food necessities then why in the world is one bringing more kids into this world?? If one wants to continue procreating then that person could have the decency to take themselves off of taxpayer-funded food programs and feed their kids themselves. And they should not expect any handouts simply because of the # of babies they had, including outside help. Your baby(ies), your choice, your responsibility.

 

Implanting that many embryos bothers me A LOT, especially having gone through IVF myself. That was so reckless of both her and her doctor! I don't care if someone is married to a guy making 7 figures, that was a really stupid move and I only hope that women following this story and undergoing IVF themselves won't think that putting back that many embryos and ending up with 8 babies is a good thing. I hope her doctor comes under serious scrutiny/condemnation from the medical community. I know my RE wouldn't even take me as a patient unless I signed a paper that clearly stated his rule of no more than 2 embryos put back, 3 under unusual circumstances.

 

Her being unmarried actually doesn't bother me as much as the other aspects of the situation. I'm not sure why.

 

I also think that planting 6 embroys was a stupid move, yes she already had the 6 other children. I don't think it is right that she did this. I don't think it was right that the doctor did this. It was wrong--it's the fact that she did have them and that they survived, and 8 babies are here. There's nothing anyone can do about it.

 

I also hope that others don't follow in her footsteps. That would be tragic. I hope that this brings about some new laws concerning how many embroys can be planted into a woman per procedure.

[Murphy101]

not being married is only one of the negative factors in my opinion.

being married would not suddenly make her a model citizen to me.

[Kelli in TN]

if it were just *one* more baby that she can't support? Two more? If she were married but her husband were unemployed, would you be as upset?

 

I'm not asking because I think it's somehow wrong to be distressed. I'm just curious about what makes people feel that way. Do you think it would be wrong if she had a husband but he were recently laid off?

 

If she were married to an unemployed husband, had six children at home already, deliberately went through IVF to conceive again? Yes. I would consider it foolish even if it only brought about one baby.

 

If she were married, went through IVF in an attempt to have baby #7 and THEN her husband were laid off, I would still wonder at the wisdom of such an expensive procedure to gain a seventh child.

 

If she were married, went through IVF in an attempt to have baby #7 and her husband made $500,000 a year, I would still wonder at the wisdom of such an expensive procedure to gain a seventh child.

 

I guess what I am thinking here is that I am very glad we have the medical technology to help people who in the past could not become parents, but just because doctors can does not mean they always should. I think that these heroic efforts should be utilized carefully.

 

And please keep in mind that I come at this with a world view that believes in marriage (between opposite genders) as the best foundation for a family, and while I respect that other folks have a different opinion about that, mine is not going to change. So I do believe that her choice to deliberately conceive as a single mom was unwise and not in the best interest of her children.

[Shannon C]

The only thing I can applaud her for is not aborting. The babies are here now and there's not a thing that can be done. They need to be cared for, somehow. I hate to reward the mom in any way for this, but I'd hate to see these kids grow up to be on welfare, become criminals,etc because they were not taken care of. Can they be taken away? That would be hard too if they were separated. I don't know what the answer is. I just pray that they don't do a reality show and I hope that the mom does not become a tv childcare expert like she wants to be!!! She isn't going to have time to work, though. Oh the thought of here trying to feed all of those babies, give them and her other children individual attention... Ugh, I'm afraid their future is not very bright. She doesn't seem to have a lot of family, friends or church family to help her out(I missed the interview last night so correct me if I'm wrong). I'm praying for all of her children. Oh and her being single does make it worse for me, but in general, the whole situation is wrong.

[bettyandbob]

Like I said in my first post deliberately having anymore babies you can not support is wrong. When you already have 6 you have not been supporting you should not be deliberately trying to have even one more.

 

Whether or not it was 1 or 8, she should not have had more.

Whether or not she was married, she should not have had more.

 

And I can't believe anyone would say she gave birth to 8 healthy babies. It will be some time before we know if these babies are physically healthy. These babies were premature and low birth weight. They could all turn out physically healthy, but for now we don't know. We do however, get to foot the NICU bill.

 

Someone mentioned the Duggars. The Duggars support all their children. There is no comparison here.

[Heather in Neverland]

For me the biggest issue is that she is unmarried. I do not think it was medically wise to implant so many embryos but I can't judge the size of someone's family or the methods they use to have the children.

 

Plenty of women on this board have lots of kids and are struggling financially. Are we mad at them too? If they don't have insurance to cover the kids or are using public assistance are we bold enough to call them irresponsible? What if birth control is against their beliefs?

 

Is it that she has 14 kids? That she had 8 babies at once? That she is unmarried? That she used IVF to do it?

 

Several have said she "already" had 6 kids so she shouldn't have used IVF to conceive more. Are there any mothers on this board who "already" have 6 kids but still want more? Are they wrong if they get pregnant? Adopt? Use IVF?

 

I have two children. I want another one. We cannot conceive so we plan to adopt. Adoption costs about $25,000. Is that a waste of money since we "already" have 2 kids?

 

I read that she was not on public assistance. Is that true?

 

At any rate, the biggest things as I said is that she is not married and the medical risks that she faced (and may still face). But to say she "already" has 6 kids and shouldn't want any more is a slippery slope to me.

[Pamela H in Texas]

SHE seems to think it was her marital status. I disagree.

 

She and the doctor put her life and health and safety at risk as well as the babies' lives, health, and safety at risk. That, to me, is a problem. As I stated in the other thread, I did become a little more understanding last night because she had implanted that many each time and had come away with each IVF with just 0-2 babies. Of course she thought the same.

 

But the second issue is her not being able to take care of her own kids. She wasn't able to do it with 6, she can't do it with 14. And I think she's delusional (at best) to think she'll STILL get her degree in another year and make enough to support 14 kids. And then there are the issues of her mental/emotional state. Though I have no issue with people with mental issues having babies, they need to have certain things in place and she doesn't (she doesn't even acknowledge an issue worth addressing).

 

(note: this is less about her financial situation than her physical, mental, emotional ability. However, there is a difference in struggling financially and her situation also.)

 

No, I would not support a married couple who were incapable of taking care of their current children having 8 more, especially 8 more at one time.

Edited February 11, 2009 by 2J5M9K

[Julie in CA]

Is it her marital status that most bothers people?

Her marital status isn't what bothers me most about this case.

I think there should be some limits to what doctors will do, and providing fertility services to a woman who already has so many children is questionable. Providing fertility services that she can't afford when she already has 6 children is ridiculous. What was that doc thinking? If she went in for any other elective treatment, I don't think the doctor would not have done it unless payment was assured. There's something wrong with that doc.

 

Also, I think there's a point where purposeful birthing of children becomes not only negligent, but abusive. I don't know that we should draw a line with that, but the issue is something we as a society will be forced to explore. Imo, there's no way those kids can each receive the attention (both for physical needs and emotional needs) that they deserve, even if she stays home with them all of the time and spends every single minute on those kids. There's no way in nature that this could have happened, it was purposefully created in a medical setting devoid of morals and common sense. It probably won't be a popular opinion, but I think CPS should become involved in a *big* way. (ETA: I think thorough assessment of the mother's mental health and fitness for parenting would be a good place to start.)

Edited February 11, 2009 by Julie in CA

[Nestof3]

I would feel no differently. It is a reality that children cost someone money.

 

I know a family who has nine children and plan to continue to have more. He has a stable job with great insurance. Two of his children were in the hospital for over a week with many tests run. The bill exceeded $20,000, but they were only responsible for their $2,000 family deductible (an insurance policy many would salivate over, huh?).

 

He told them he could not pay any of it, nor could he be set up on a payment plan.

 

He had recently received an inheritance which he used to build a room onto his house, build a deck, and put two family members in braces.

 

To think that he could go a year with a family of 11 and not spend $2,000 for medical care astounds me.

Edited February 11, 2009 by nestof3

[Barb_]

I'm not exactly outraged at the situation...more like mildly exasperated. There are different levels of negative feelings and to answer your question, I suppose I feel more critical knowing she is a single mom. If she had a partner, at minimum she would have more built in help. The fact that she's single on top of all the other aformentioned circumstances was just the cherry on the sundae. The whole story is very Lifetime Movie of the Week.

 

Barb

[SnowWhite]

Personally, I think IVF itself is a procedure which should come with counseling and screening. If a person who receives a kidney transplant needs to go through that kind of process, how much more an IVF patient?

 

If this were an Angelina Jolie type person who could financially support scads of babies, I'd still raise an eyebrow over the wisdom of artificially bringing so many babies into the world, and wonder about the motivation behind growing a family that is already so full (6 kids, some of which have medical needs). (Not that there should have been any reduction done, that goes against my beliefs, but I believe IVF should be used responsibly, not for people who already have 6 children). It is one thing to accept children God sends "in the Natcheral Way" and a different concept completely to seek out children through medical technology. Since there are already so many children in the world who NEED homes and families, a mother with a true desire for a house full of children (particularly one who can fund IVF) should have no difficulty filling up her house with those in need.

[Once]

The only thing I can applaud her for is not aborting.

 

:iagree:

 

I feel IFV is a great tool for couples who are not having children of their own naturally. As with any technology there comes a responsibilty to use it wisely. Imo, this was not a wise use of the technology, married or not, employed or not. As I often say to my dh, "There are starving children in this world!!!!"

 

But I do feel that it was best not to destroy the embryos, maybe donating would have been a better route. I only partially understand the statistics and the numbers that take so I hear the arguement that nobody knew how many children she would actually give birth to but still....never should have been an option as far as I'm concerned. But what is done is done and she did not abort so it could be worse. :confused: Life is confoundingly imperfect.

 

She seems to want them, I'll give her that. But she will not be able to keep up (physically, financially or emotionally), no matter how much she wants to. I don't think she is crazy but definately lacking in forethought.

 

I wasn't part of the previous discussions but this is my 2 cents worth.

[Danestress]

I had my twins just a week or so after that woman in Iowa had 7 babies. Everywhere I went the entire first year of their lives, people would say, "aren't you glad it's not seven."

 

I guess I was glad it wasn't seven. But honestly, I thought the question was sort of sad and strange. Yes, I am glad I am not trying to deal with seven babies. Two was killer, lol. But I thought that mom, who as I understand it, did not use IVF and just took Clomid, probably *was* glad for each and every one of those childrens' lives. I'm sure she wasn't glad the day she found out there were seven of them, but it seemed sort of icky to me to talk about babies as if they are curses.

 

Anyway, I don't think anyone is jealous of 8 babies.

[bettyandbob]

Plenty of women on this board have lots of kids and are struggling financially. Are we mad at them too? If they don't have insurance to cover the kids or are using public assistance are we bold enough to call them irresponsible? What if birth control is against their beliefs?

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but if you are applying for food stamps then the money you have "saved" for IVF should be counted against your family's income to qualify. If you've got 10K you should be spending it on food and things for the children you have. Not doing so is selfish.

 

Just because you want more children doesn't mean you should have them. Here the financial reason is obvious. But I also wonder about what her reason were in the first place. According to her tired mother, she wasn't completely caring for the other 6. If She can't care for all the kids on her own why is she adding. That's the second obvious reason against this.

 

While I know some people on this board are struggling, many of them did not save up money for IVF to add to their families. Many of them were fine until the recent down turn. The recent down turn has affected families of all sizes. I don't fault a large family applying for food stamps after being affect by a layoff. Most of the comments on this board from struggling families, seem to be people who are trying to be responsible about spending.

 

I am of the opinion that a child needs two parents, but my strongest reasons against this woman are financial. She can't provide for these kids. I supposed she giving interviews and has a book deal and that will be her income, but will it be enough? If she were independently wealthy, or had an income that allowed her to support the children and pay for all the help she needs (nannies, etc because you can't work and watch the children at the same time) then I would be less disturbed. She went in knowing she couldn't support more children. She lives with her parents.

 

There's a huge difference between seeking artificial fertility treatments when you can't support yourself and seeking public assistance for your family after you've experienced a layoff. Public assistance should be short term--to help you get back on your feet. I can't believe that this woman will ever be free of public assistance. Even when these kids are school age, if they are all healthy, she won't be able to work fulltime. She cannot leave the oldest at 12 or 13 in charge of 13 younger siblings. If she works full time she will depend on subsidized childcare.

[catalinakel]

Children are a blessing from the Lord. I am so thankful that we got two live ones(I had four miscarriages after those two...)

 

But this woman has no business bringing more children under her roof. As she stated in the interview last night on dateline, she is surviving on foodstamps, student loans and disability checks for three of her other children. And has had some help from her parents, but that seems to be drying up. She said that she expects to get help.....and that she plans to work to pay for it all, including paying back the 50k in student loans she already has.

 

This poor woman does not seem to understand the implications of a life with 14 children, all under 7 and several with or potentially with special needs....who could but one who has gone down that path?

 

And, God bless America, she has all sorts of public assistance to fall back on. Hopefully this will get the attention of some of our lawmakers regarding issues of 'welfare reform".

 

Her own kids stated that they are not excited about all the new babies because, "mommy will be stressed all the time". Time will tell how her choices will affect those 14 little lives, not to mention her own. Let's just hope that she doesn't achieve celebrity status and become a role model for others who want the love that children provide, but aren't able to subsidize them on their own dime.

[hsmomof2boys]

Like I said in my first post deliberately having anymore babies you can not support is wrong. When you already have 6 you have not been supporting you should not be deliberately trying to have even one more.

 

Whether or not it was 1 or 8, she should not have had more.

Whether or not she was married, she should not have had more.

 

And I can't believe anyone would say she gave birth to 8 healthy babies. It will be some time before we know if these babies are physically healthy. These babies were premature and low birth weight. They could all turn out physically healthy, but for now we don't know. We do however, get to foot the NICU bill.

 

I mentioned that the babies were "healthy." I don't know if they are healthy or not, but that has been said in the media. It appears so far that they are healthy. One thing for sure is that they are all still alive, and that's a good sign.

 

Someone mentioned the Duggars. The Duggars support all their children. There is no comparison here.

 

I mentioned the comparison to the Duggars. I myself know that this situation is no comparison to the Duggars. I love the Duggars. I think their family is amazing. I like their television show. I was just repeating what I have read online at different places--there are a lot of different comparisons to the Duggars--just because the Duggars have a large family. Sadly, some people think that a person is not entitled to a large family if they desire it (I am referring here to the Duggars only, they are very responsible).

[Heather in Neverland]

While I know some people on this board are struggling, many of them did not save up money for IVF to add to their families. Many of them were fine until the recent down turn. The recent down turn has affected families of all sizes. I don't fault a large family applying for food stamps after being affect by a layoff. Most of the comments on this board from struggling families, seem to be people who are trying to be responsible about spending.

 

 

 

 

I get what you are saying about spending the money on IVF. But if there is a family with, say, 6 kids who, because of the recent economic downturn, is struggling financially and on public assistance of some kind, and they get pregnant again, do you feel the same way?

[bettyandbob]

I get what you are saying about spending the money on IVF. But if there is a family with, say, 6 kids who, because of the recent economic downturn, is struggling financially and on public assistance of some kind, and they get pregnant again, do you feel the same way?

 

No, it's not the same. I don't think it's responsible to purposely have children in this situation, but I do know all forms of birth control, short of abstinance or sterilization, have some inaccuracies and so this can happen even when the couple is not trying for it to happen. Additionally, getting pregnant by natural circumstance doesn't usually result in multiples and when it does it's multiple of 2 or 3 not 8. I know the woman previously did not have such large multiple births from IVF, but it's a risk every time.

[katemary63]

I for one can't imagine how anyone would be jealous of having 8 babies at once.

 

Are there such people? Wow, it's beyond my comprehension. 8 babies is a huge, huge risk to the mother as well as the infants. The womb was not meant to support such a high birth number.

 

Not to mention what it must do for future bladder control. :tongue_smilie:

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:Yeah, that just makes no sense. Being jealous of this situation would prove you as unstable as the mother herself.

[Retired]

sorry if you can't support your own children, then don't have them

 

I told my own sister this about 10 years ago, she was in a difficult marriage with one child and a dh who gambled etc. She kept saying she wanted another baby.

 

I point out told her if she had a baby, I and anyone else who held a job would be supporting her and her baby. She and her dh didn't have jobs.

 

She was mad and didn't talk to me for about 6 months. She has since thanked me several times for loving her enough to stop the insanity.

She has remarried and wants another child but realized she can't afford another child.

 

Sorry American grow up we all have wants. I would love a house full of kids but realize I couldn't afford them.

 

I don't care if she is single or married. She needs to support her own kids.

 

This nation has a big problem. I just want to feel good and what ever to make me happy. The government aka the people who work and pay taxes will make me happy by supplying me with food, clothing, and housing.

 

The women has mental health issues, she can't be thinking rationally. I really will be surprised if the states doesn't take the kids into foster care.

[Tracey in TX]

Six children at home and requiring food stamps already and her parents' donated home to raise her family...yes, I would criticize the choice. Her being a single mom is only a small part of the equation which makes her choices crazy.

[katemary63]

Deliberately having more children when you can not support the children you have is morally wrong. End of story. I don't care if you are married or not, employed or not, use infertility or not. If you can't take care of them, don't have them. I am not talking about those who come into bad circumstances after they have children. I am talking about people who purposely ( or accidentally through irresponsibility) have children when they are not caring for the ones they already have financially. It's a no-brainer.

I am also against IVF on moral grounds. I don't believe a baby should be conceived in a petri dish. I don't believe a baby should be frozen and left in limbo for years. I don't believe you should create several babies in the hope that SOME of them will live. The thought of it just makes me ill. It is my belief that every one of those "embryos" is a human being as valuable as you or I and that conception is a sacred thing that should take place within a mother's womb. JMO.

[Lisa R.]

Literally every one of my friends is on welfare and popping out babies (anywhere from #6 to #10) and have no plans to stop.

 

For me the medical costs aren't as big an issue as I feel our government/insurance companies have made it almost impossible for the average person/couple to afford private insurance or pay out-of-pocket for health care costs, so for me saying that someone shouldn't have babies based on their ability to pay for medical costs isn't a very valid reason.

 

Really? All of your friends are on welfare? They are all having their sixth or seventh baby and don't plan to stop? I'm curious as to where you live? I believe you, but am curious about this circle of friends. I guess I don't encounter that, and I'm curious that you do.

 

I have to disagree with you about insurance. While many people are uninsured in this country, the majority of families have insurance. Of course, if people have lost their jobs, this is a *huge* and unavoidable problem.

 

If people are fortunate enough to have full time work, employers typically pay for a large portion of the insurance premiums. In this way, the average person is able to handle the cost of childbirth or another hospitalizations. I'm not saying that health insurance costs or health costs don't take a chunk of a family's budget, but it is manageable when people have adequate health insurance.

 

Heath insurance is one of the main reasons why my husband is hesitant to go back to being self-employed. When he worked for himself, the insurance premiums were very high. We quickly learned that a self-employed individual has to make a higher salary simply to cover the added cost of an individual health insurance policy.

 

Again, if people have lost their health insurance due to a job loss, you have my sympathies.

 

Sorry to digress...

 

FWIW, I don't disagree with people having large families. I feel it's none of my business. However, I do have an issue with those who purposely increase their families and let the taxpayers foot the bill.

[SquirrellyMama]

if it were just *one* more baby that she can't support? Two more? If she were married but her husband were unemployed, would you be as upset?

 

I'm not asking because I think it's somehow wrong to be distressed. I'm just curious about what makes people feel that way. Do you think it would be wrong if she had a husband but he were recently laid off?

 

I think if she were married and her dh had been laid off after she became pregnant that is a entirely different story. She did this without a husband and without a way to support these children. If she did have a husband and they did this without a way to support these children it would be just as bad.

 

I don't care how many kids a family has as long as they can support them. I understand that people get laid off but she didn't have the income to begin with.

 

Kelly

[SquirrellyMama]

For me, deliberately choosing to have children that you can't support is worthy of criticism. The marital status is not important. If she had accidentally become pregnant with more children she could afford, that would be a little different.

 

Laura

 

I think an unmarried woman getting pregnant with more children than she can afford is also worthy of criticism.

 

Kelly

[Jenny in Atl]

I would not feel any different even if she was married and very wealthy. Six kids under 7(?) and she wanted more? I think there is a point when this wish for more kids goes so far beyond the best interest of the children she has already given birth to. Even the family many love here (gal with 20+) at least she spaced them out so their ages range enough, that the older kids help out. If humans were meant to have 5+ babies at a time, we would be doing so naturally. There is a reason that natural higher # multiples are very rare. Human babies need so much touch/in arms time or they fall to truly thrive. How can one mother give that to eight babies? I'm the most angry and the doctor involved though. The lack of ethics is shocking to me.

[kat19]

I wouldn't feel any different.

 

I watched her on Dateline last night and I just kept shaking my head thinking something is not quite right with her.

[Colleen]

I would not feel differently if she was married. I myself wasn't married when I became pregnant the first time. I was irresponsible, and my actions should be judged accordingly. If I had gone on the dole and continued having more children, that would have been all the more irresponsible.

 

Marriage in and of itself, though, is not the deciding factor here. I am very, very bothered when people choose to have more children while not financially supporting those already in their care. Which means I'm very, very bothered by some of my married friends' choices. Bothered when I've heard them say, "This is the best time to have another baby, while we have all our health care paid for [by the state]." Ahem.

 

Aside from this woman's marital and financial status, the story raises a host of medical ethics issues. She made poor choices, but so did the doctor(s) who proceeded with the IVF. I have many reservations about IVF, to be completely honest, but I understand that discussing those here will only serve to cause hurt and defensiveness for some people.

 

Btw, my observations about this case all based on hearsay as this board is the only place I've heard about it.

 

ETA: We haven't touched upon how our judgments play out with regard to those in underdeveloped nations. Clearly, there are many people bringing children into this world with virtually no means to support them. In many cases, these people have no opportunity to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. They live in a cycle of poverty. Some may not want children, or may not want more children. But others do have a natural desire to bear children. Should they be denied that privilege simply because they live in a financially depressed culture? Rhetorical question. And not entirely applicable to the situation we're discussing here, of course. In this case, the "octuplet woman" lives in a society that offers more opportunity. Just musing...

Edited February 11, 2009 by Colleen

[Mommy22alyns]

If you can't fully support the children you have without public assistance, why are you having more?

 

 

 

:iagree: This is what it boils down to for me. I don't care if she's single or married or a lesbian for that matter. What matters is that she already had 6 kids that she couldn't handle on her own (i.e., without public assistance of some sort) and now she has 8 more... that she can't handle on her own.

[BakersDozen]

Really? All of your friends are on welfare? They are all having their sixth or seventh baby and don't plan to stop? I'm curious as to where you live? I believe you, but am curious about this circle of friends. I guess I don't encounter that, and I'm curious that you do.

I live in AZ, in a small (but growing larger by the year) town and yes, I can honestly say that every one of my friends and every acquaintance I can think of is on gov't help. Where I went to college 75% of the couples were on welfare. What is disgusting is the gross, blatant abuse of the system, such as my friend who just had #9 and said she couldn't afford to pay the bill, yet they just finished building a huge 4 car garage with a fully-equipped rec room above it. They are on WIC yet manage to buy animals...horses!!! It is horrible, I hate it and it angers me to no end. But that's the way it is here.

 

ETA: Here's an example of how disgusting the welfare situation is here where I live. After #2 (we were on WIC/gov't healthcare for #1 and #2 as both those babies were HUGE surprises we were trying to prevent!) I went to the WIC office and said I was taking us off because we wanted more dc and wanted to pay for our choices - literally. The woman tried to convince me that what I was doing was wrong and actually argued with me, said I was being irresponsible! Same thing when I went to the office to take us off the healthcare program. No one applauded us for providing for our own dc, they tore us down instead. Nice, huh?

Edited February 11, 2009 by LuvnMySvn
missed a thought!

[lynn]

Adding to everything else she is received over 100,000 I think she said in disability payments over the years. Wouldn't one want to put that money into savings or something. Instead she said she has spent close to $100,000 on ivf?...

[Robin M]

I feel it is irresponsible either way.

 

Plus she is expecting the tax payers to foot the bill. Someone has even started a website for her where you can donate and help support her.

[Cheryl in NM]

There has been a lot of criticism of this mother who has given birth to 8 babies.

 

I'm wondering if you would feel different if she were married to a man making $10 an hour in a job without medical benefits. Knowing that there is no way to support children on $10 an hour, and knowing that even two parents can't possibly take care of 14 children under the age of 7 without a lot of outside help, would you be comfortable criticizing the choice to have such a large family? Is it her marital status that most bothers people?

 

Her marital status definitely bothers me. Children need a mother AND a father. This isn't the same thing as a women who leaves an abusive, adulterous or addicted spouse. This women chose to deprive her children of a father. I believe that is morally wrong.

 

As far as the nuclear family with Dad making $10/hour. I also believe that family should practice some birth control until they can better provide for their family.

[Nakia]

I don't care if she's married or not, she is clearly irresponsible, at best.

 

I saw on the web news that the family has set up a website and they are accepting donations. Here it is: http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/

:001_huh:

 

And for those wondering if she is getting government assistance, read it here.

[5kidsforME]

I don't care if she's married or not, she is clearly irresponsible, at best.

 

I saw on the web news that the family has set up a website and they are accepting donations. Here it is: http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/

:001_huh:

 

And for those wondering if she is getting government assistance, read it here.

 

I can't help but think that this is what she wanted, even expected all along.

[StaceyinLA]

but I just have to reiterate that I think my problem with all of this is how in the world she afforded in vitro in the first place. I mean, don't get me wrong, if she COULD afford in vitro, I don't begrudge her having in vitro. This woman is living on public assistance. In vitro is NOT an inexpensive medical procedure. She has had it more than once.

 

I have the same issue with Jon and Kate. They spent the thousands and thousands it took to have in vitro then asked for handouts when they had 6 babies. What is up with that?

 

Aside from the fact that I think it is just plain wrong for people to have litters of children (and no, I do NOT agree with reduction in any way, shape or form; morally I really don't even agree with in vitro, but that's a whole 'nuther ballgame), I just do not get how people manage to scrape up the money to have the procedures done and never seem to be able to support the kids on their own afterwards.

 

Yes it's expensive to have 6 babies at once. This is probably the reason that the Lord doesn't do that to women on a regular basis. I am just not sympathetic to these people at all.

 

And even if this woman had a husband making $10/hr, that would make no difference - they still wouldn't have reasonably afforded in vitro nor the cost of raising 8 kids at once.

[LibraryLover]

I am trying to take the question seriously.

 

Hmmmm... dh and I have 6 babies under 6, 3 with special needs.

 

So we implant 6 embryos?

 

Let me think about this...

 

Um, no.