14 Children, All On Welfare (Stop Smiling Already, Doctors)
Gotta love the shit-eating grins on the faces of the doctors. Wake up, nitwits. This isn't a happy occasion -- not for the children of this single welfare mother and not for the rest of us.
It took 46 doctors and staff members at Kaiser to deliver this obviously unfit mother's second litter of children -- octuplets. (Now I see why my Kaiser premium is so high, despite the fact that I'm almost never sick and rarely use my medical care.)
Meanwhile, the lady clearly needs mental health care, not the fertility treatments she got. Philip Sherwell writes for The Telegraph:
Miss (Nadya) Suleman and her children live with her parents in the Los Angeles suburb of Whittier and even her long-suffering mother sounded exasperated with her daughter's fixation on surrounding herself with children. "I wish she would have become a kindergarten teacher," she said.She also said that she disapproved of the decision by her divorced daughter, whose former husband is not the father of any of the children.
"It can't go on any longer," she told Associated Press. "She's got six children and no husband. I was brought up the traditional way."
There were frozen embryos left over after her previous pregnancies and her daughter did not want them destroyed so she decided to have more children. Her mother and doctors have said the woman was told she had the option to abort some of the embryos and, later, the fetuses, but she refused.
Allison Frickert, a friend Miss Suleman, said the mother-of-14 was not seeking potential fame or financial benefit. "There was no overriding situation, other than having more children to love," she said. "Her whole life, she couldn't wait to be a mom. That was her No 1 goal."
She once told another neighbour that she wanted 12 children. "She told me that all of her kids were through in vitro, and I said 'Gosh, how can you afford that and go to school [college] at the same time?'" Yolanda Garcia told the Long Beach Press-Telegram. "And she said it's because she got paid for it."
It was also reported that all 14 children are from the same donor, a neighbour, who unsuccessfully asked her to stop using his sperm after he got married recently.
An ethical debate is raging in America about why so many embryos were implanted in a woman aged under 35, particularly if the doctor or clinic involved knew that she already had six children. She only started to attend the Kaiser Permanente clinic, where the children were born, when she was three months pregnant and her mother said she does not know where the IVF procedure was performed.
Incredibly, MSNBC (video here) reports that one of the six children she already had is autistic:
'How can you afford that'Yolanda Garcia, 49, of Whittier, said she helped care for the mother's autistic son three years ago.
"From what I could tell back then, she was pretty happy with herself, saying she liked having kids and she wanted 12 kids in all," Garcia told the Long Beach Press-Telegram.
"She told me that all of her kids were through in vitro, and I said 'Gosh, how can you afford that and go to school at the same time?"' she added. "And she said it's because she got paid for it."
Garcia said she did not ask for details.
The mother holds a 2006 degree in child and adolescent development from California State University, Fullerton, and as late as last spring she was studying for a master's degree in counseling, college spokeswoman Paula Selleck told the Press-Telegram.
Her fertility doctor has not been identified. Her mother told the Los Angeles Times all the children came from the same sperm donor but she declined to identify him.
If child services doesn't step in immediately, something is terribly wrong.
By the way, do you know how much we taxpayers are likely paying for the autistic one alone? Saw a friend of mine last night who has an autistic child. He's four. She told me that she and her husband have spend $300K on their child so far, and they're careful to provide financially for his future, throughout his life. They don't expect the rest of us to do it for them.
via Kate Coe
Let's not forget this one, either. California....
Not that extreme cases like these are typical, but let's all take a moment to acknowledge that the will to motherhood is not a uniformly positive force in the world... It doesn't always carry through to responsible soulcraft, y'know? The feminine impluse to make babies often seems to be about demonstrating fertility rather than nourishing young souls.
Offtopic: Another great blog post from K: "Anything but a woman dating."
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at February 1, 2009 1:47 AM
An ethical debate is raging in America...
I'd say one side has already lost this debate. All that's left is for the loser to pay.
doombuggy at February 1, 2009 1:51 AM
This is why I am so against IVF.
Humans are not supposed to have litters for fuck's sake.
This bint is divorced. I wonder why? Could it be that she had six of SOMEONE ELSE'S kids, instead of her husband's?
Who wants to be that she's gonna try the stupid move of going after the sperm donor for child support?
brian at February 1, 2009 4:34 AM
The doctor who did the IVF should have his or her license revoked. This bitch needs to be sterilized. I saw on tv some lady that had IVF and ended up pregnant with 8 kids saying how god gave her the babies and she wasn't going to abort any of them, what a dumb ass, i never realized that along with the occassional impregnating of virgins god also now performs IVF. He truly is a miracle worker. I think the fertilization treatments that we have now are great for women that can't get pregnant on their own, but only if they can actually afford to provide for the children and have a man to be the daddy. This idiot now has brought 14 children into the world with no father and is on welfare, wonder how that litter is going to turn out as adults, how many do you think will end up in jail.
Nina at February 1, 2009 4:53 AM
Good luck with that. Present thinking is that she went to Mexico to get the implantation done (don't know how, but there it is) because supposedly no American fertility doctor would ever implant that many.
Although if it was an American doctor, I think drawing and quartering is more in order than a simple license revocation.
There is no acceptable reason for an unemployed single woman to be allowed to undergo fertility treatment of any kind.
brian at February 1, 2009 5:21 AM
There is no acceptable reason for an unemployed single woman to be allowed to undergo fertility treatment of any kind.
Afreakinmen, Brian! o.O
Flynne at February 1, 2009 6:37 AM
As prolife as I am, I am anti-fertility treatments. What idiot Dr did this? She's obviously mentally ill, even her mom recognizes this. Kudos to the Gma for telling her daughter when the babies got home she was gone. At least she's not enabling this nonsense. I had twins, and am about to have 4 kids total, so I damn sure KNOW of what I speak when I say no one mom can do that alone. Not 8 babies, not 13 kids. There are families who can handle that many kids, but very few. And they are FAMILIES. And no one can handle that many babies. There's a reason humans and other primates don't have litters.
I am not for destroying embryos or aborting them after implanting (I am for not lab-creating them in the first place) but there are donation programs in place for people with more made than they can use.
If you can not pass on your genetics unassisted, there is a reason. Whether you're a single woman or a couple, nature rarely gets what's best for the survival of the species wrong. People need to accept that and find other ways to parent if they must.
The kids are fucked. Sad.
momof3 at February 1, 2009 6:41 AM
Oh, and it does seem that the medical community is pretty uniformly against this. They are saying the delivery (the babies surviving) is amazing and it's great none died, but they don't seem to be endorsing this nonsense.
momof3 at February 1, 2009 6:43 AM
Present thinking is that she went to Mexico to get the implantation done (don't know how, but there it is) because supposedly no American fertility doctor would ever implant that many.
Except it sounds like she had one batch of embryos whipped up 8 years ago, and has had all of her pregnancies through implanting from that batch. (Allegedly, these embryos were the last of them, and there may have been fewer than 8 implanted - it's apparently medically plausible that it may have been more like 5 or 6 implanted, and the years of fertility drugs she's been on led to some of them splitting into twins.)
Unless she had some reason for going to Mexico in the first place, they wouldn't have had her remaining embryos to implant. (I suppose American facilities could have weeded her out for her mental instability from the start.)
But the part of it that gets me is that the facility doing the implanting knows how many embryos they've implanted in her over the last 8 years. They are *completely* complicit in this. Too bad there's no mechanism for making them reimburse Medi-Cal....
TheOtherOne at February 1, 2009 7:37 AM
You can't get blood from a stone.
brian at February 1, 2009 8:18 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/01/14_children_all.html#comment-1624455">comment from momof3I had twins, and am about to have 4 kids total,
Congrats. And I guess there'll be a blogname change.
Amy Alkon at February 1, 2009 8:40 AM
Meanwhile, we have been fighting with Blue Cross for three months to pay for my wife's pre-approved mamogram... and my insurance won't help with my broken teeth becuase they don't pay for prosthetics (a bridge is required).
Eric at February 1, 2009 9:00 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/01/14_children_all.html#comment-1624457">comment from Amy AlkonMeanwhile, check this out, by John Harlow, in the Times of London:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5627531.ece
Amy Alkon at February 1, 2009 9:03 AM
How much would 15 one-way tickets from LA to Baghdad cost? If anyone was willing to start a fundraiser, I'd be glad to contribute...
Martin at February 1, 2009 9:19 AM
> The kids are fucked
They'd/he'd/she'd have been fucked anyway for not having a father.
> There is no acceptable reason
> for an unemployed single woman
> to be allowed to undergo
> fertility treatment of any kind
This continues the authoritarian fantasies from the other thread. As if you'll be asked by any woman whether her deployment of her fertility is "acceptable". It's like that guy who was telling Amy to make babies a few weeks ago. People are all for these top-down social structures, until they find themselves on the underside.
There's this exciting new principle in my conversational life, and I'd like to share it with you, the readers of Amy's blog, on this beautiful Sunday morning. And the principle is this: When people are talking about all the grave problems we face as a species or a nation or a city, people don't dream of solving those problems, or even talk about solving them; they dream, and talk, about taking control.
I hope that's not too obvious. But it's gotta be the best evidence of Freudian ego-craft you can see on a daily basis. People want to take control because they know that if they solve the problem without taking control, they won't have any power, but if they take control and then solve the problem, there might be some power left over when it's done.
Great principle, ain't it? You can borrow it, if you want. No need to thank me.
Listen, this is a repugnant story and we should all be pissed.
Amy's right about that photograph. The smiles on the doctor's faces have important information about how doctors see their mission. They want to specialize in the morality of it all: they only want to worry about their one little part of the process, a very particular medical outcome. (That, and they were probably ego-buzzed like crazy from looking into all the camera lenses.)
Try to remember that when you're old and suffering in the hospital. You'll be down to two fifths of one kidney, an 8th of a lung, no tear ducts, a syncopated heart beat, creeping neoplasms throughout the GI tract, and circulation failure in the extremities. And the doctor will dance into your room on a Sunday morning with a clipboard and bright eyes and say "Great news! It looks like we've got that pneumonia under control!" They're only into it for the sport.
(And then they'll bring you hospital food for lunch.)
But as we rage against this woman, let's try to remember that it isn't just feminine nature that's working against us.
I'd bet $20 that there's a guy in her high school class who's sired 14 children without being a loving father to any of them.
> there'll be a blogname change.
Whose blog?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at February 1, 2009 10:11 AM
Not to mention the mortgage payments on her shoe.
Jim Treacher at February 1, 2009 10:14 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/01/14_children_all.html#comment-1624463">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]momof3 is soon to be momof4. And as repugnant as I find this, we can't control other people's bodies. However, once children are born, they can be removed from unfit parents. And should be.
Amy Alkon at February 1, 2009 10:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/01/14_children_all.html#comment-1624464">comment from Jim TreacherNot to mention the mortgage payments on her shoe.
Funny -- until you think again about who's most likely paying them, which is most likely the rest of us.
Amy Alkon at February 1, 2009 10:18 AM
> > there'll be a blogname change.
>
> Whose blog?
OK, Got it, nevermind.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at February 1, 2009 10:19 AM
every little thing that comes to light on this makes my eyes grow wider in astonsihment...
but on the upside, Amy, whoever was arguing a few weeks back on how everyone should have kids... on the average this woman has balanced out a lot of people... /sacasm.
I would be less upset if this had happened the old fashioned way, but this woman had to have an army of modern science to help her. Who PAID for it all?
SwissArmyD at February 1, 2009 10:46 AM
but let's all take a moment to acknowledge that the will to motherhood is not a uniformly positive force in the world.
Exactly. Men want sex and women want kids (statistically speaking). When men resort to rape they're supposed to go to jail (and should), but when women go too far they are paid and praised for it and we don't even have a negative word to label it. Strange.
Shawn at February 1, 2009 12:07 PM
> we don't even have a negative
> word to label it
Dude.
Dude.
Dude, sing it. Word. Dude.
Listen, if someone asked you or almost anyone you know what the dark side of masculine nature was, sexual or otherwise, you'd come right back with a thoughtful, perhaps lengthy, and probably accurate answer.
But ask any woman what the dark side of feminine nature is, and she'll squint at you as if you'd just drifted into Cantonese. Or she'll say, "It's just that women are so nurturing and compassionate that they get blindsided by the heartless patriarchy...."
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at February 1, 2009 12:57 PM
This is why I am so against IVF.
Humans are not supposed to have litters for fuck's sake.
Actually, Brian, these days you're far, far less likely to end up with "litters" using IVF than you are using fertility drugs alone. The McCaughey septuplets were fertility-drugs-and-sex babies. The Houston octuplets were fertility drugs babies. Etc.
Now, back in the early years of IVF, doctors would indeed transfer large numbers of embryos into women, with the thinking that the more embryos, the more chance of a successful pregnancy. That's how the Dilley sextuplets were born. But there were some pretty definitive studies showing that transferring large numbers of embryos for IVF doesn't increase the chance of a healthy pregnancy with at least one living baby - it increases the chance of high-order multiples (i.e. anything over twins). Doctors don't like high-order multiples. They're dangerous and less likely to boost doctors' live birth/survival rates than are singleton or twin pregnancies.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has laid out a policy that basically caps the numbers of embryos transferred at four, and uses a complicated scale to determine how many will be transferred. If you're a fertile 25-year-old who's using IVF only to avoid passing on the genetic disease that your first child has, your doctor will probably advise you to have only one transferred. If you're a 44-year-old woman whose husband with the previous vasectomy had to have sperm taken from his testicles with a needle, and you promise to undergo selective reduction if necessary, you may get four. In Europe, some governments do cover the costs of a few rounds of IVF...but they also limit the number of embryos that can be transferred to one or two.
Now, with fertility drug use alone a woman's ovaries do get monitored, and women are told to abstain from sex if too many eggs seem ready to pop. Some women ignore this admonition; that's how that bunch of octuplets that was conceived in the UK several years ago that all died was conceived. Sometimes the monitoring isn't as good as it should be. Sometimes bizarre things happen; Mrs. McCaughey, apparently, didn't seem to be releasing too many eggs when she got knocked up with the septuplets. Now, weird things can happen with IVF - you can have two embryos transferred and have one of 'em split into identical triplets, leaving you pregnant with four kids (happened to one blogger I read). But, in general, there's more of a risk of high-order multiples with fertility drugs alone than with IVF, because there's less control.
I'm aware that you're not really a fan of any significant fertility intervention, Brian, and so my answer to your question was a little disingenious...but I did want to get the basic point out there. IVF costs more on the front end than fertility drugs alone, but it can end up costing less on the outcome side by reducing the number of preemies in high-order multiple pregnancies. I'd say it's an issue awaiting a well-done study; assuming that some insurance policies will cover some fertility treatment (Clomid, for example), it might be more cost-effective overall to cover one or two rounds of IVF and limit the number of embryos transferred. $15,000 for IVF seems cheap when you compare it to multiple millions of dollars for micropreemies' long-term care. (Or, insurance could just not cover any fertility treatments. Or Viagra. Or minor allergy drugs. Or...you get the idea. I'd be okay with that, but I'm in a minority.)
I was wondering who on earth in the U.S. would have transferred eight embryos into the womb of a woman in her early 30s who has previously had no trouble getting pregnant through IVF; if it really took place in Mexico, I guess that answers my question. I've heard of people doing IVF in South Africa to save on cost; I guess Mexico was closer.
I'm cutting the doctors who actually got the babies out a little slack, though. I'm sure when they first heard about the pregnancy, they thought they'd probably end up with several dead babies. What they learned from this pregnancy will probably help them keep alive other preemies in the future. And hell, they weren't the ones who knocked up this crazy chick who lives with her hyper-enabling parents.
But yeah, this isn't an occasion for rejoicing. Anyone who thinks hyper-litters is a good idea is functionally insane, and that functional insanity doubles when you can't even support the horde of children that you have. I doubt that anyone paid for the IVF but her and her family - U.S. insurance typically doesn't cover IVF, and it REALLY doesn't cover IVF at sketchy out-of-country clinics - but we're sure as hell paying for it now.
Two more minor notes (addressing things I haven't seen here, but have seen elsewhere):
1) Embryos aren't "implanted" into a uterus. They're "transferred," at which point doctors hope they implant. No one has figured out how to actively implant embryos into a human uterus.
2) *Identical* multiples (like the identical quads in Texas a few years ago) generally are the result of freak chance rather than fertility treatments; also, unless identical multiples have separate placentas, it's almost impossible to "reduce" some without "reducing" the others. That having been said, identical high-order multiples are pretty rare. Trivia note: The Dionne quintuplets were identical.
This lecture on the American fertility industry has been brought to you by the letters I, V and F, and the number 8.
(Nope, never have been through fertility treatment. I just read up on a lot of weird things. What I've learned about fertility treatment has convinced me that, if I can't get knocked up the old-fashioned way, I'm heading straight to an adoption agency, but I've known plenty of intelligent, reasonable people who chose the treatment. None ended up with EIGHT babies, though. Ye gods.)
marion at February 1, 2009 1:16 PM
I've heard that she worked in a fertility clinic, and might have been an egg donor, thus the spare cash and the spare embryos. This theory makes a lot of sense to me, which is just about the only thing that does in this whole sorry mess. I'll bet the latest implantation was a sort of under-the-table or behind the barn procedure. I don't like IVF, and while I know lots of people who used it or other fertility drugs (Clomid twins abound in my social circle), I still think it's creepy. And if you've ever shared a work space with someone going through it, let's just say hormonal doesn't begin to cover it.
And thankx, Mr. Crid. I take back all the mean things I ever said. Or most of them.
KateC at February 1, 2009 1:39 PM
There was a young lady who lived in a shoe
For which she paid nothing (thanks Freddie; Fannie too)
Jim Treacher at February 1, 2009 1:47 PM
Who wants to be that she's gonna try the stupid move of going after the sperm donor for child support?
With fourteen kids on the tab, who wants to bet the court will hit him up for at least something. After all, someone's got to pay for this unemployed woman's choices and we know it won't be her.
Conan the Grammarian at February 1, 2009 1:57 PM
Crid:
Look, the bitch be livin' off my wallet, you damn RIGHT I get a say in her "fertility deployment" and pretty much everything else bitch does with her shit life.
She don't like it? Get a job, bitch.
If we cannot completely eliminate welfare, then I want a hard requirement that to continue to receive money from the government you must submit to implanted contraceptive, and you must make a good-faith effort to find employment.
I do not want one more woman to be on the dole getting paid to make babies.
Like I said in the other thread, Crid, and as distasteful as you find it, people will NOT behave in a manner conducive to society unless they are forced to.
brian at February 1, 2009 1:58 PM
Conan - in order to do that, they'd have to legislate from the bench. Which, being California, they probably won't have a problem with. But I doubt they'd do so for the precedent it would set.
There are already legal protections in place for sperm and egg donors to prevent precisely the scenario you envision.
brian at February 1, 2009 2:00 PM
You mean like being forced to buy insurance, that kind of thing?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at February 1, 2009 2:04 PM
Crid - Why you gotta make every fucking thread about me? I'm starting to think you're obsessed.
brian at February 1, 2009 2:08 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/01/14_children_all.html#comment-1624488">comment from Jim TreacherThere was a young lady who lived in a shoe For which she paid nothing (thanks Freddie; Fannie too)
What would you say is the level of contribution to our current financial disaster by those who forced lenders to extend loans to those who couldn't pay? I guess I'm asking for your estimation of what caused our current crisis? (A breakdown of elements and how much each contributed to it.)
Amy Alkon at February 1, 2009 2:47 PM
What would you say is the level of contribution to our current financial disaster by those who forced lenders to extend loans to those who couldn't pay? I guess I'm asking for your estimation of what caused our current crisis? (A breakdown of elements and how much each contributed to it.)
Huh? I was agreeing with your statement that we're all going to be footing the bill for this wackjob.
Jim Treacher at February 1, 2009 3:05 PM
"If we cannot completely eliminate welfare, then I want a hard requirement that to continue to receive money from the government you must submit to implanted contraceptive, and you must make a good-faith effort to find employment.
I do not want one more woman to be on the dole getting paid to make babies.
Like I said in the other thread, Crid, and as distasteful as you find it, people will NOT behave in a manner conducive to society unless they are forced to."
Love it, Brian. Extra kids while on welfare should not mean a bigger check.
I've got a 1500+ member mamas yahoogroup I belong too. Most are lurkers, so one can't be sure of their opinions. But of the ones who post, I and I alone think that society should NOT have to subsidize other's life choices. Is your job soul-killing and unfulfilling? Society should pay your healthcare and food and child enrichment so that you can be an "artist". You got cancer? No, you shouldn't take a financial hit, no! Society should! You were "irresponsible" enough to get pregnant while unemployed? (her quote marks, not mine) hell yes society should pay your healthcare and daycare and housing-it's for the kid! Grrrrrr, the stupidity is rampant. And scary.
Loved the fertility primer Marion, informative, thanks. ID twins are a roll of the dice as far as we know right now, although there's some research suggesting you have a higher risk your first cycle off the Pill, so it makes sense that hormone treatments coursing through you might up the odds as well. But that's as much as I can contribute here :)
momof3 at February 1, 2009 3:13 PM
> you gotta make every fucking
> thread about me?
You're most reliably wrong. It's a statistical thing
> I'm cutting the doctors who
> actually got the babies out
> a little slack, though.
Point taken. I didn't mean, above, that the doctors should have done anything but their best when the patient (and patients) appeared.
> if I can't get knocked up
> the old-fashioned way, I'm
> heading straight to an
> adoption agency
My oldest friend in the world and his wife went through the treatment for their daughter, who's gorgeous and healthy. People always ask why the don't do it again, but they say it was grueling.
Eight is too many kids. This is the best Octopus story of the weekend.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at February 1, 2009 3:25 PM
Hey M3-- 4 kids is too many! Off with your head!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at February 1, 2009 3:26 PM
I suggested a 250,000 cash bond be put up for every child over number 4 to cover society's cost, see Mental Patients Must Not Be Allowed to Have Kids.
bernie at February 1, 2009 4:28 PM
By the way, do you know how much we taxpayers are likely paying for the autistic one alone? Saw a friend of mine last night who has an autistic child. He's four. She told me that she and her husband have spend $300K on their child so far, and they're careful to provide financially for his future, throughout his life. They don't expect the rest of us to do it for them.
via Kate Coe
I cannot tell you how shocked I am by the ugliness of this observation. Would you like all of the parents like myself-parents who work hard and are college educated yet do not earn more than $50,000 a year, and who had NO IDEA that we would have autistic children-would you like us to just euthanise our children to save you poor overburdened taxpayers money?
I'm sorry that I do not earn enough money to pay out of pocket for my childrens education, or for their very expensive psych meds.I'm even sorrier that I have wasted untold hours of my life admiring the wit and insight of a woman who would proudly post such a chilling observation on her blog.
There is no invitro test to detect autism. Also, the rate of '1 out of every 165' is very recent-when my oldest daughter was diagnosed, the rate was '1 out of every 500'.
[For you sick bastards who are ready to jump all over me because I had another child-I was ALREADY pregnat when our pediatrician began to suspect there was something 'wrong'with my oldest-we did not get a diagnosis until the third trimester, and I had my tubes tied IMMEDIATELY after delivering my second daughter-who is autistic as well.]
I understand that the idea of any woman who has six children, one of whom is autistic, having even more children is absolutely disgusting.But to throw in mention of these two wonderful friends who 'don't expect the rest of us to do it for them.' is even more disgusting.
I expect my society, which is the wealthiest and among the most educated in the entire world, to value the life of ALL of it's citizens, and to not view those who experience true, unavoidable hardship as a burden.I've been paying income taxes since I was 16 years old-and I've never looked at disabled people who need financial aid as thieves. AMY?
Denise Preziosi at February 1, 2009 5:23 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/01/14_children_all.html#comment-1624512">comment from Jim TreacherI was agreeing with your statement that we're all going to be footing the bill for this wackjob.
I know. I just hate the way we get stuck paying for stuff like this.
I just find our current financial situation mystifying and I try to get people who understand it better than I do to explain it to me. Sorry for the incoherence.
And if anybody can offer any sort of overview on the various things that led to our current economic crisis, and how much of a part each played, I'd really be interested.
Amy Alkon at February 1, 2009 5:26 PM
Not when you can support them, educate them (not even using public education, so HA! not taking your taxes!) pay for their healthcare, etc, it's not. If I were on welfare, then fuck yeah, 1 would be too many. If nature had deemed that I was unworthy of passing genes to the next generation, then paying $50k or more to buy a pregnancy would be too much too, whether it was 1 baby or 4 or 8.
I sometimes wonder about the link between forcibly combining genes that nature wouldn't, and the rise in say, autism. I know a lot of fertility moms, having multiples we all stick together for our sanity however we got them, and a really high percentage of them have autism spectrum kids.
Feel free to whack my head off when I ask you to pay your share for my 4. Then I'd deserve it!
momof3 at February 1, 2009 5:26 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/01/14_children_all.html#comment-1624514">comment from Denise PreziosiBy the way, do you know how much we taxpayers are likely paying for the autistic one alone? Saw a friend of mine last night who has an autistic child. He's four. She told me that she and her husband have spend $300K on their child so far, and they're careful to provide financially for his future, throughout his life. They don't expect the rest of us to do it for them. via Kate Coe I cannot tell you how shocked I am by the ugliness of this observation. Would you like all of the parents like myself-parents who work hard and are college educated yet do not earn more than $50,000 a year, and who had NO IDEA that we would have autistic children-would you like us to just euthanise our children to save you poor overburdened taxpayers money?
Don't get your panties in a wad over nothing. I'm not suggesting you euthanize your child. I'm not suggesting anything about autistic children and their parents in general. Specifically, I'm suggesting that a woman who already has an (expensive-to-care-for) autistic child (among many others) who is being paid for by the rest of us should not bring eight more children into the world for the rest of us to pay for.
Doesn't that sound reasonable to you?
Amy Alkon at February 1, 2009 5:29 PM
Absolutely...
Here it is though: We're leaving all this stuff up to government and the law. But because we're Americans, we're really touchy about letting government interfere with our most personal business.
So it works out that leaving everything to government means doing nothing at all. 'K? This octopus woman is going to get away with it... again. There will be no punishment, just a mess for everyone else to clean up.
As a pissy pseudo-libertarian, I'm not entirely unhappy about that. A nation that lets people do what they want reproductively has allowed me to live the child-free life that I dreamt of in my own youth. And the ability to make playful choices without getting approval from a committee is one of the things that makes America great.
But I feel bad for the kids, who at this hour seem likely to grow up in poverty and/or foster care. They should have expected better protection from this kind of fate in a society as strong and good as ours.
Say what you want about the churches, but it's easy to imagine that if this woman had been raised in a tighter community —perhaps including the discipline of religious observance— this misconduct wouldn't have been allowed to happen.
I don't want America to become an Amish tribe, but wouldn't it be better if there were strong enough social ties between us, including shame and shunning, to work against this kind of behavior?
Don't you wish someone had gotten all up in her face? A preacher, a busybody neighbor, a know-it-all sister.... Somebody?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at February 1, 2009 5:56 PM
I don't wear panties anymore. They're far too expensive as I'm trying to save all of my money to pay for my girls to have a private nurse at home rather than get shuffled into a state run home after I die :)
Denise Preziosi at February 1, 2009 5:57 PM
The disgusting thing about this is that this bitch now expects to get sponsorships and endorsements.
The first time I heard about that "Jon and Kate plus 8" show, I cringed, because I knew that some stupid whore was going to try to duplicate it because everybody seems to want to be famous now.
brian at February 1, 2009 6:10 PM
momof4, thanks for providing the world with four future responsible taxpaying citizens. We can use 'em.
My oldest friend in the world and his wife went through the treatment for their daughter, who's gorgeous and healthy. People always ask why the don't do it again, but they say it was grueling.
Oh yeah, the people I know who have gone through it said it was dehumanizing in the extreme. However, some of them ended up with beautiful kids as well. As for the idea that fertility treatment is playing hob with nature, well...in the tribes left in the world where women still start having babies around 16-17 years of age, infertility is almost unheard of. Birth control and delaying pregnancy into the 20s - not to mention into the 30s and the 40s - both represent a profound interference with the "natural" course of things. I'm a fan of having that option, as a 30something childless and single professional chick, but it is an interference with the way that humans lived for most of history. So are glasses. So are ear tubes. So is heart surgery. I can say with great confidence that transferring eight embryos into a woman's uterus is unacceptable intervention, but given that I have been the beneficiary of some (much lower-level intervention), I'm reluctant to be too firm at deciding what is and isn't acceptable.
Plus, I have a hard time believing that everyone who conceives naturally is "meant" to pass their genes along. There's a trial going on in the area where I live of a woman and her husband who beat her daughter from a previous relationship to death and tossed her tiny body into the sea. The mother has a second kid with the killer husband; apparently evolution has deemed her more worthy than some others. (The people in my area deem the two of them worthy of shotgun blasts to the head, but that's another issue.)
Also, I may have mentioned this before, but...I read a blogger who has 33 kids. Yes, 33. Only one is a bio-kid, though - the rest are adopted from foster care (including several sibling groups). If you really want to be the Old Woman/Man Who Lives in a Shoe, there are ways to do so that don't involve bringing tons of new kids into the world who you can't support. I actually think the octuplets' grandmother expressed it best when she wished that her daughter had become a kindergarten teacher if she wanted to be surrounded by kids. People who like being around tons of kids but who don't have extensive funds can do so in ways that contribute positively to society. Conceiving 14 kids you can't support and banking on a media deal to pay your bills isn't one of them.
marion at February 1, 2009 6:45 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/01/14_children_all.html#comment-1624527">comment from Denise PreziosiPhew! Glad we cleared that up, Denise! P.S. My sister works with autistic kids and gets amazing results. She insists that the parents are present at her sessions, because she works on helping the parents work better with the kids. If you're in or close to San Francisco and you want her contact info, please e-mail me.
Amy Alkon at February 1, 2009 6:46 PM
There are TONS of shows on TLC and Discovery Health and the like now about huge families. I'd like to see one-just ONE show-about a family who lives in a way they can afford. Wouldn't THAT be something to emulate!
That Duggar family, who lives in a ginormous house now, lived for maybe 20 years in a rented 3 bedroom house. Moved into their big house when TLC started filming them and paid for it. So they lived with 3 bedrooms for up to 16 people, in the final years there. Insane. But people won't see that, will they? oh no, they'll see the huge house and custom travel bus etc. and want it.
momof3 at February 1, 2009 6:47 PM
It's "Idiocracy" in action- the idiots are out-breeding the brains and pretty soon Luke Wilson will be the world's smartest person.
Porky at February 1, 2009 6:53 PM
Seriously, momof3, you're throwing cancer in there with life choices? You're one hard-assed, reproductive machine. I'm gathering you would have been against "reduction" in the case of the clearly crazy momof14, since you're adamant in your opposition to abortion (and, apparently, also to adopting one of those unwanted babies you insist be born while having yet another one of your own.)
JulieA at February 1, 2009 7:15 PM
So all of this is yet another on my long list of reasons why I would never, ever be a sperm donor.
Cousin Dave at February 1, 2009 8:03 PM
I have to say I dont belive the 1 out of 165 stat on autism, sounds too much like the 1 out of 4 women had been raped lie.
Or that every boy in america has ADD and ADHD and needs meds and elecrtoshock to make them act more like drones.
Autistic used to mean one thing, now it seems it covers everything upto something as benign as shyness
lujlp at February 1, 2009 8:09 PM
lujip: Well, part of the reason for the growth in autism is the expansion of the definition. Kids with Asperger's who previously would probably have just been considered odd are now considered autistic, for example. However, there's also the fact that a number of kids who would previously have been diagnosed as "retarded" are now diagnosed as autistic, because parents find it easier to accept that their kids are autistic. There ALSO seems to be some relationship between the age of the biological father and the prevalence of autism. Remember all this the next time some wild-eyed person insists that vaccines cause autism (which they don't, according to every single reliable study done on the subject and to statistical analysis of when the autism "epidemic" really took off).
As for ADHD, it's currently overdiagnosed in upper-middle-class kids and underdiagnosed in lower-middle-class kids. It's sad to hear of relatively normal little boys being dosed up; however, my ADHD friends who didn't get medicated until adulthood all wish they'd had Adderall or Ritalin much, much earlier.
marion at February 1, 2009 8:44 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/01/14_children_all.html#comment-1624563">comment from marionmy ADHD friends who didn't get medicated until adulthood all wish they'd had Adderall or Ritalin much, much earlier.
Count me among them. I would've taken classes in college where paying attention was essential instead of those I could write my way out of.
I was just talking about the "disease model" with friends. I don't see ADHD as a disease, merely a different form of brain function. I'm different from many people, and some things are very easy for me and kind of exciting with the brain I have and other things are more challenging. And work works much better on 10 milligrams of Ritalin, although I don't like taking it.
The great thing about getting diagnosed with ADHD as an adult is realizing that some of the things I have difficulty with aren't just fuckups on my part, but things that people who have brains similar to mind have difficulty with. So, I write everything down and I pay my bills right away so I don't forget, and I have my health insurance direct-deducted so I don't let it lapse. And Gregg gets it pretty well. He likes to joke, "Do I have your divided attention?" And because I recognize that I'm, I guess, clinically impatient, if I'm feeling impatient, I don't get witchy with him; I just tell him I'm impatient and we should talk about whatever another time. Or, for example, today, I had him deal with something on my server account because they have all these passwords all over the place on a sheet, and it's easy for him to figure out how to log in and accomplish what needed to be accomplished, and frustrating and hard for me.
Amy Alkon at February 1, 2009 10:56 PM
Amy, you asked about anyone who can explain what contributed to the current financial mess we find ourselves in.
This fellow's blog has several posts which help explain his opinion on the matter. I've found it helpful.
http://abriefhistory.org/?p=610
brett at February 2, 2009 1:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/01/14_children_all.html#comment-1624606">comment from brettThanks, Bret, will take a look.
Amy Alkon at February 2, 2009 6:20 AM
Fourteen births!? Jeez, at this point she should be able to do a high kick and fire a kid into a catcher's mitt.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 2, 2009 8:25 AM
"The disgusting thing about this is that this bitch now expects to get sponsorships and endorsements."
I can see how Swift or Armour or Oscar Meyer, mayeb even Jimmy Dean, might be interested in that.
Jim at February 2, 2009 9:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/01/14_children_all.html#comment-1624641">comment from JimI could see how they'd be interested if this were some hard-working couple who couldn't have children and for some inexplicable reason had a litter of them.
Amy Alkon at February 2, 2009 9:16 AM
What happened to my comment? Grrr. Yes, I think that people who are uncovered through their life choices, who get cancer (or some other expensive illness) , and then expect the rest of us to shoulder the expense while they themselves go on as usual, are selfish and stupid. Maybe people need fewer cell phones and more insurance policies? Fewer meals out?
I am against abortion, doesn't mean I have to be willing to raise an irresponsible woman's kids. I am also against drunk driving, but do not have to drive every drunk home from the bar.
"Plus, I have a hard time believing that everyone who conceives naturally is "meant" to pass their genes along. There's a trial going on in the area where I live of a woman and her husband who beat her daughter from a previous relationship to death and tossed her tiny body into the sea. The mother has a second kid with the killer husband; apparently evolution has deemed her more worthy than some others. "
Actually, her parenting ability has nothing to do with her genetic fitness level. Would that it did, we'd have a different looking social landscape, for sure.
momof3 at February 2, 2009 10:28 AM
No, Amy - those are packing houses that handle pork. The might endorse her as a prize sow. As someone upthread mentioned, litters of this size are non-human. In fact not even one species in the entire Primate order has litters.
Jim at February 2, 2009 1:27 PM
Momof3/4 - You are a hypocrite. I don't see you offering to raise the children of rape victims -- but I have heard you defend the rights of those children to be born. How exactly were those women behaving irresponsibly? No, you just want to demand that other women have limited rights and take no responsibility yourself for limiting those rights.
I look forward to the day you're momof5.
So is it now your claim that all cancer victims are without insurance. You really are uninformed. You can have great insurance and the hardest cancers can still bankrupt you in about a minute. You can -- hey, read anything about the economy? -- lose your job and your coverage just like that. (Sorry, but cobra can price out even people who want insurance.)
Good thing you and your baby daddy have every single contingency possible covered for the rest of your lives. I hope -- and I mean this -- that your kids never get sick, seriously sick, one after another -- and you suddenly find yourself unable to make ends. Because I don't want a single penny of my hard-earned tax dollars helping your family, ever -- which appears to be exactly how you want it.
People can do everything right --- work, pay taxes, get insurance, etc, for decades -- and still in an instant fall into unfortunately impossible circumstances.
JulieA at February 2, 2009 2:06 PM
sorry i am too lazy to read all the above posts so i apologize if i am repeating what others said.
There is no shortage of humans. Therefore taking extra steps to create humans in humans who can not do it for themselves is silly.
Can't concieve? ADOPT! yeah the current laws make this hard but for those who just gotta have kids there are lots of kids about who would be much better off if they just had parents.
Jim at February 2, 2009 2:17 PM
Okay, maybe this crowd here on amys blog is not as radically "progressive" as other sites like Feministing, but is anyone but me seeing the old hypocrisy warning bell coming on? We're not trying to force our values/morals on her and her choices are we? What about her right to choose? Unbelievable how her right to choose to have 14 kids is being totally grilled, yet if she had 14 abortions everyone would be defending her "choice".
It's her body isn't it? Can't she do with her body what she wants?
And no, she won't get child support from the donor. That is just silly. The only way she could get money was if he wanted a relationship with the kids and/or signed the birth certificate. So, fortunately, the donor is off the hook. I hope his name never comes out...
mike at February 2, 2009 2:37 PM
"It's her body isn't it? Can't she do with her body what she wants?"
Sure, if others didn't have to pay for it. Nobody's attacking her right to have 14 kids, they're attacking her making others unwillingly foot the bill for raising her 14 kids. If she was wealthy and paying for them herself we wouldn't be complaining.
DavidJ at February 2, 2009 3:01 PM
" We're not trying to force our values/morals on her and her choices are we?"
We are in, fact. Society should do more of that, and shame people when they go wrong. The values of being self-sufficient as opposed to a financial drain on society are the biggies here. If you can add something to society beyond caring for yourself, that's a bonus, but please don't be a resource-suck.
And many of us would damn sure not be defending her "choice" to have 14 abortions, either. Both are stupid in the extreme.
JulieA is an idiot, who also on the side likes to create strawmen from words I didn't say and then argue against them. I never said all cancer patients are insuranceless, dumbfuck. I said those who choose to be, and THEN GET SICK, should not expect us to foot the bill. Their health, their responsibility, minus some pretty damn rare extreme cases. Can't pay cobra? Then how on earth would you pay 50% income tax to pay for socialized healthcare??? Or is it just those who have the audacity to be successful in life that should pay for others?
My kids have been sick, and in the NICU. My insurance paid, and what they didn't we did. Because oh, I don't know, they're MY kids, not anyone else's. Why on earth should you pay for them? If it means I lose my house paying the bill, and have to drastically downgrade my standard of living, then that's what has to happen. Because I am responsible for me and mine, not society.
No, I do not think that you should "make up for" the horror of being raped by killing a child. So what? You don't have the right to kill your rapist, why should you be able to kill a child? And the rapist is at least at fault, the baby is not.
I may or may not be mom of 5 someday. If I decide we can afford it and want to. You'll notice I would NOT make another kid were I broke.
momof3 at February 2, 2009 3:21 PM
Mike -
She can do whatever she wants with her body so long as it does not cause anyone else to bear the burden of her decisions.
Given the circumstances, she could have remained completely childless and not been a burden on society. None of her 14 children were accidental pregnancies, they were all completely intentional.
And she knew that she had no way to cover the costs of raising these children.
Therefore, she ought to lose them to someone who can afford to raise them properly, and should have her reproductive abilities turned off until she learns to use them responsibly.
But this one? She did this expecting to make a payday for the notoriety of having given birth to eight babies at once.
Which to me is no more intelligent than using the PowerBall as your retirement plan.
brian at February 2, 2009 3:36 PM
Momof3 - Thank you for confirming what I wrote.
You would in fact force women to have the babies of their rapists -- but your concern for human life ends at those climbing out of your womb once, now twice, now. . .
Now let me quote what you pretend was a strawman:
"I and I alone think that society should NOT have to subsidize other's life choices. Is your job soul-killing and unfulfilling? Society should pay your healthcare and food and child enrichment so that you can be an "artist". You got cancer? No, you shouldn't take a financial hit, no!"
And, no, you didn't pay your baby's full NICU cost. The hospital eats a lot of it based on deals with the insurance company, society eats some of it (because many hospitals aren't for-profit) and I don't think I'm wrong in saying that preemies typically qualify for FREE county or state services regarding motor development and other skills in which they may lag. I assume you didn't avail yourself of a single one of those -- or public preschool.
I buried a good friend recently who lived a long life making decent money doing great things for kids and died a long death that quickly ate up all that money. How could he not afford cobra? Come on, even name callers know the answer to that one. And it's funny, but I don't remember him mentioning socialized medicine while he was letting go.
And, no oh wise one, you would never make another kid if you were broke. Neither would I. And, like I said, it's a wonderful wonderful thing that you and baby daddy have every single contingency covered in case of whatever happened to you and yours. You give no credence to chance or bad fortune or. . .Good luck with that.
JulieA at February 2, 2009 3:49 PM
Correction (not that anyone cares): My friend did have medical insurance but still couldn't afford some of the treatment he needed. It's a fallacy that that covers everything. Deductibles for non-generic drugs have to be met, there are caps on everything, anything deemed experimental is out the window unless you fork over for it yourself. . .
JulieA at February 2, 2009 4:13 PM
What a mess.
I really want to know what this woman means by saying that she's "getting paid for it." Is she going to sell them once they turn into surly pre-adolescents and aren't cuddly anymore?
Incidentally, momofwhatever, there's an interesting article in the Washington Post today about the debate over legislating coverage for autism through health insurance plans. You see, when you produce defective children (or preemies), *you* aren't shouldering all of the financial burden for them, even if you'd like to think you are because you have medical insurance. Given the way our tax and healthcare system works now, you can't legitimately claim that you and you alone are bearing the cost for your children. Even if you aren't cashing in on the majority of the benefits, your children are still a tax-hiking shibboleth used by politicians to justify sucking more of the resources of other producing citizens.
Incidentally I fit into the "defective children" category as well, but feel free to take offense anyway. Fortunately my defects are so awesome I can't reproduce, which is a bummer, because I was going to pop a few out, keep them chained in the basement and throw down some cans of Alpo every once in a while, and rake in the tax deductions and other public program goodies.
hamsa at February 2, 2009 5:45 PM
Well, let's see: my house is fully insured, even against flooding even though I don't live where those are likely. I am very close to finishing up my post-BA Rn degree, as a back-up or for when I decide not to stay home anymore. RN's can't walk down the street without getting hired, and that will continue until we bury the last of the boomers, so I can work if I need to, if DH loses his job. Not that that's likely, seeing as he's pretty high in his field, talentwise, which is keeping MRIs and other high-end medical equipment running.
We have short and longterm disability insurance, life insurance on both of us, savings, live below our means, and family who would help out, like families are supposed to, as opposed to random taxpayer strangers. Oh, and my mom lives on a pretty isolated farm, so even if society crashes and we're sent back to the dark ages, we can eat. And we have the guns to defend it :) SO yeah, I think we've got most possibilities covered. It's what smart people do. Name-calling is something I do when people misquote me, especially on bad days like today. Try reading what people actually post before firing off responses to arguments not made.
OH, and no my preemies did not qualify for SSI or need any catch-up care after release. They do not attend public school, so try again. Hospitals charge insurance what they need to make for the service provided. They charge others more, because they need to make up for non-payers somehow. When I've had bills to pay, I've never once had them refuse to negotiate them down, since I was obviously going to pay.
Cry me a fucking river for the women who just have to kill a kid cause their own life is so unfair. I've been raped, killing a baby wouldn't make it go away. Which is not to say I have no concern for human life after birth. I have little concern for people who have chosen-let's hear this one last time since you seem pretty thick-CHOSEN not to be covered, who then whine when the bills come in. Which is somewhat related to this thread topic since she CHOSE to have babies she could never afford. And expects us to shell out for.
I don't give a rats ass what excuses legislators use to cram more taxes on us. They might decide to raise taxes to fund brunettes bleaching their hair blond because hey, who wouldn't rather be blonde? Doesn't mean people with dark hair cause the tax hike. The asshat legislators did.
momof3 at February 2, 2009 6:19 PM
The single welfare mother of 14 kids in this article makes me totally sick. But smug, self-righteous, bigoted, reactionary, utterly ignorant diatribes against anyone, under any circumstances, getting IVF or artificial insemination make me even sicker.
Gail at February 3, 2009 9:49 AM
Then be sick, Gail.
I've been pulling the wagon all my life, and this self-centered bitch just threw eight more people on the back.
What's my incentive to give a fuck about her?
brian at February 3, 2009 10:29 AM
Maybe it's good that something like this has happened...I've always wondered why there hasn't been more discussion of the ethical ramifications of IVF. I think it's a topic people are afraid to touch. After all, there's really no restriction on who can get IVF or for what reasons, providing you have the money to pay for it. I personally wouldn't get IVF, even if having children was an option for me, although I don't think that it's always a bad decision like some people do.
And speaking of the I-pays-my-own-ways! argument-no, you don't. I pay taxes in my state that support Medicaid and SCHIP as well as a variety of other programs. The only people eligible for these programs are children, parents, or disabled people. I don't qualify for any of them, but that doesn't stop legislators from demanding that I shell out more money to cover more conditions in programs that I won't ever benefit from. I got to help subsidize a former coworker's elective C-section and following medical care (after watching her drink, smoke, and knowing that she smoked marijuana throughout her pregnancy) because she qualified for assistance under a program funded by state taxes, taxes that I pay and that she is exempt from.
hamsa at February 3, 2009 10:30 AM
I reserve the right to judge anyone who deliberately conceives a child that she or he knows that she or he cannot support, whether:
*the conception is natural or achieved in a lab
*the child is the first or the 14th of the would-be parent in question
*the parent is married or unmarried.
And, Gail, I suggest you talk to some medical professionals or laypeople who are knowledgeable about fertility medicine. Because 100% of them will tell you that any woman who has experience with IVF and knows that she can consistently get pregnant through it, yet demands to have EIGHT embryos transferred to her uterus in hopes of getting a book deal, is functionally insane. The doctor who agreed to it is worse. This isn't someone who accidentally got knocked up and is going on welfare for a couple of years so that she can go to nursing school and support herself and her child.
I could see how they'd be interested if this were some hard-working couple who couldn't have children and for some inexplicable reason had a litter of them.
I think the McCaughey family already has that sewn up. Yeah, they "just" had septuplets who all lived, and they did use some fertility assistance (as they did with their first pregnancy that just produced one kid), but they don't seem crazy.
hamsa, I've read a lot of discussion of the ethical ramifications of IVF - and fertility science in general - over the years. Many people have battled it out over the smallest aspects of fertility science, ranging from IVF to use of donor gametes to the hiring of host wombs. Many European countries have restricted various aspects of fertility science. What you haven't seen is *U.S. federal law* restricting fertility science - just industry standards (and malpractice law!). Which I'm glad of. Everyone is in favor of regulation of fertility science until their kid gets sick and needs a bone marrow donor - oh, look, the laws of our country prohibit testing of embryos that would let us provide one easily! We're heading to the Wild West of the U.S., thank you. (True story, in multiple cases.) If you disagree with me, think of the politician you most disagree with on everything - and then imagine that man or woman making rules governing the intersection of science and your fertility. Especially given the overlap between abortion/reproductive choice issues and fertility issues...
marion at February 3, 2009 7:21 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/01/14_children_all.html#comment-1624836">comment from marionWise words, marion. I'm with you.
Amy Alkon at February 3, 2009 9:45 PM
Wait, are you seriously advocating having a baby for "parts"?
brian at February 4, 2009 6:11 AM
"Which I'm glad of. Everyone is in favor of regulation of fertility science until their kid gets sick and needs a bone marrow donor - oh, look, the laws of our country prohibit testing of embryos that would let us provide one easily!"
Yes, she is advocating having a kid for parts. Cause you know, you love the one that's sick so much, but the one you make to help it is just a bunch of cells. Sick.
Or, better yet, let's cannabalize babies for parts to keep OLD people alive! That really makes sense!
momof3 at February 4, 2009 7:54 AM
"Or, better yet, let's cannabalize babies for parts to keep OLD people alive! That really makes sense!"
It's a very common practice. Infant parts grafted onto the elderly.
Baby eyeballs, in particular, even though they roll around loose in the adult socket.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 4, 2009 12:02 PM
Funny Gog. But the # 1 reason people talk about using embryonic stem cells is parkinsons. Not a real big issue in the young.
momof3 at February 4, 2009 6:01 PM
More info about this awful woman:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap_on_re_us/octuplets
kishke at February 5, 2009 7:22 PM
"using embryonic stem cells"
Right, but embryos aren't babies -- so where does the cannibalizing babies thing come from?
Maybe I missed something.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 5, 2009 8:31 PM
"And, Gail, I suggest you talk to some medical professionals or laypeople who are knowledgeable about fertility medicine. Because 100% of them will tell you that any woman who has experience with IVF and knows that she can consistently get pregnant through it, yet demands to have EIGHT embryos transferred to her uterus in hopes of getting a book deal, is functionally insane. "
Uh . . . but I totally agree with you, Marion. I said that the woman with 14 kids makes me sick. However, I find it kind of disgusting that a couple of people on this thread would deny ANY couple, even a childless, loving couple that can fully pay for it, any kind of fertility treatments on the ground that they weren't "meant" to have children.
As sick as the woman with octuplets makes me, the smug attitude of those people about any type of fertility treatments to anyone makes me even sicker. I know several couples who had IVF (I am not one of them, by the way), and they are fantastic parents with fantastic kids -- maybe because they went to so much trouble to have them. I don't like to see them lumped in with this nutjob who had the octuplets.
Gail at February 5, 2009 9:07 PM
Hi! I'm not having any trouble. I'm using a Iphone and Im using Chrome as my browser. best of luck to you.
Horace Saurer at January 18, 2010 6:00 PM
Great stuff here :)
doug terrle at January 28, 2010 2:19 PM
Your post reminds me of when I was a boy growing up in Louisville. My old man used to say "When life give you lemons, make lemonade". But he was a hopeless drunk who never made much sense so I never paid much attention to him. Have a great day!
Errol Barrish at January 28, 2010 6:10 PM
as Dionte said, if they lower it to $50 Im in. Though I"d only use contacts/ical sync and find my i Phone. ryszar you are an idiot. The server is over loaded cuz people like you keep hitting "Check for updates".Cool tips thanks…..do you know if there"s an easy to find all the digital booklets with a smart playlist? This is Q2 data – before the iPhone 4 was released in Q3. The next quarter might look a wee bit differenThis is Q2 data – before the iPhone 4 was released in Q3. The next quarter might look a wee bit differen. Great review! I can say I"m tempted… not just by the case… (wink)! Ahaha, just kidding. God, I"m creepy.
free dvd riper at March 16, 2011 6:50 PM
Well... I don't think that will work. However we will check this out soon. This is similar to the whole politics this is just awesome. I didn't knew about that. But know this is clear for me.
Domy at July 12, 2011 6:23 AM
Leave a comment