WWTBAM Bored

I was not aware that the mother of the octoplets already had 6 children.

And was unmarried and living with her parents in a very small house.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/30/em ... index.html

Anyone know any more details?

I don't know any more than what I've read. It does seem from a distance, however, than any 30-year-old who already has six children should never be a candidate for implanted embryos from a fertility clinic (nor apparently need any fertility services at all.) At that, since such treatments are extraordinarily expensive and rarely covered by normal health insurance, I have to wonder who paid for all this.

christie1111 wrote:I was not aware that the mother of the octoplets already had 6 children.

And was unmarried and living with her parents in a very small house.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/30/em ... index.html

Anyone know any more details?

Whatever medical personnel helped her with the invitro, if they were aware of her situation, should be stripped of their degrees, charged with reckless endangerment, and abuse.

There is no way on this earth that this woman will be able to provide quality parenting to this many. She now has 14 children under the age of 10, and 12 of them are still in diapers!

I am angry

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

This is Grandma's take on having litters.

She owns two houses, and will not be on public assistance.

This story says the mother had worked in a fertility clinic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... linic.html

The story also implies that the babies' grandfather is the one with two houses, while she-who-gave-birth previously declared bankruptcy.

Something very strange is going on with all this.

I also have noticed that of the thousands of news stories on the internet, many include "facts" that conflict with the "facts" provided in different stories.

And was unmarried

Perhaps she has a girlfriend?

Perils of living in a free society...that's all I have to say.

She may be stupid, but as far as I can see, she didn't break any laws.

That said, I have a feeling that the rules governing said fertility treatments will be revised

silvercamaro wrote:This story says the mother had worked in a fertility clinic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... linic.html

The story also implies that the babies' grandfather is the one with two houses, while she-who-gave-birth previously declared bankruptcy.

Something very strange is going on with all this.

I also have noticed that of the thousands of news stories on the internet, many include "facts" that conflict with the "facts" provided in different stories.

I spoke too quickly. I did also read that she owed money on those two houses. But maybe grandad owns them. Either way, it sounds like there is a little bit of money in the family, and the part I was interested in was that she would not be asking for public money.

I am askance at fertility treatments to begin with, but I avoid the topic because lots of people use it and think nothing of it. I don't think it is wrong, but I am not sure it's good for our society to have it be common. I will bring it up inc lass this week and see what arguments the kids can marshall.

In this case, it does seem strange that someone with so many kids would want more, but that's none of my business as long as she is not asking me to pay for them.

Ritterskoop wrote:
In this case, it does seem strange that someone with so many kids would want more, but that's none of my business as long as she is not asking me to pay for them.

I agree with you. At the same time, my spidey senses are tingling. I guess I will have to wait 18 years (or longer, if she has more children) to be convinced that she -- or anybody -- has the means, the mental balance, and the parenting skills to raise this family successfully. I sincerely hope that she proves my lack of confidence to be misplaced. I don't mind being full of hooey when there's a happy ending.

Ritterskoop wrote:

silvercamaro wrote:This story says the mother had worked in a fertility clinic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... linic.html

The story also implies that the babies' grandfather is the one with two houses, while she-who-gave-birth previously declared bankruptcy.

Something very strange is going on with all this.

I also have noticed that of the thousands of news stories on the internet, many include "facts" that conflict with the "facts" provided in different stories.

I spoke too quickly. I did also read that she owed money on those two houses. But maybe grandad owns them. Either way, it sounds like there is a little bit of money in the family, and the part I was interested in was that she would not be asking for public money.

The story above says the family declared bankruptcy and that "Miss Suleman’s father - an Iraqi contractor - may be forced to return to work in his native country to help support his 14 grandchildren."

She is a metaphore for Congress and her kids, our money.

Bob Juch wrote: The story above says the family declared bankruptcy and that "Miss Suleman’s father - an Iraqi contractor - may be forced to return to work in his native country to help support his 14 grandchildren."

I am not eager to read a Daily Mail story about this topic. I feel they might be a little bit out of touch.

I am confronting my beliefs.

I am pro-choice - unwaveringly - pro-choice.

If she has the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, she has the right to create a pregnancy. It is her choice.

I am examining why I am cringing and befuddled and close to appalled.

If she is not raising the children on public assistance, what business is it of mine? It is her choice.

I am not liking what is going on with me about this.

I don't think it's clear yet that she is not receiving public assistance. From what I've been able to piece together, she is a bankrupt student who claims she's being paid to have in vitro babies. Something smells.

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

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

"She told me that all of her kids were through in vitro, and I said 'Gosh, how can you afford that and go to school at the same time?"' she added. "And she said it's because she got paid for it."

Garcia said she did not ask for details.

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

peacock2121 wrote:I am confronting my beliefs.

I am pro-choice - unwaveringly - pro-choice.

If she has the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, she has the right to create a pregnancy. It is her choice.

I am examining why I am cringing and befuddled and close to appalled.

If she is not raising the children on public assistance, what business is it of mine? It is her choice.

I am not liking what is going on with me about this.

The main thing that makes me cringe is that she's actually not just pulling a McCaughey like I originally thought when I heard 'yay, octuplets!' stuff.

It's that I think she's mentally ill and she's not getting any help for it. I can't remember the name of it (I'm sure somebody will toss a google assist here), but it's something like Munchhausen's by Proxy. I think Andrea Yates had a touch of it. Besides craving the attention, they also have a thing about babies. As soon as the baby isn't a baby anymore, they need another one (or eight).

Sort of like when people get a kitten or a puppy because it's sooooooo cute. Then after it's not so cute and the poop gets bigger they either just start ignoring it, or dump it off at the humane society and start up with another one that's sooooooo cute.

As far as there not being a law against whatever, certainly medical ethics would preclude doing such a procedure on somebody with a mental condition, which should have been obvious to one of the many doctors involved in this. I also can't imagine that, even if she does have insurance, they paid for those 48 physicians and staff that handled the birth. Somebody, somewhere, somehow is out money for her obsessions and the 48 attendees is a very small part of it..

I had the same thought, Fan. It's known as Munchausen by proxy syndrome (MBPS) - but that usually involves
illnesses in babies and children. Apparently she has never been married. However, there is so much stuff
swirling around out there, I don't when we'll ever get the real story.

I just heard that her mother is asking $2 million for an appearance on TV shows! Maybe she'll get it, who
knows? Guess in a free country, you can make money any way you want to as long as it's not considered
illegal.

kayrharris wrote:I had the same thought, Fan. It's known as Munchausen by proxy syndrome (MBPS) - but that usually involves
illnesses in babies and children. Apparently she has never been married. However, there is so much stuff
swirling around out there, I don't when we'll ever get the real story.

I just heard that her mother is asking $2 million for an appearance on TV shows! Maybe she'll get it, who
knows? Guess in a free country, you can make money any way you want to as long as it's not considered
illegal.

Ha, I should have known that if anybody besides me had the Munchhausen's thought, it would be my partner in tv true crime watching!

They had a Snapped the other night from Louisville and then the one right after that was from Colorado Springs! It's like they were doing it just for us....

Yes, great minds and all. I'm in withdrawal missing my weekly dose of Snapped.
I usually see 3 or 4 on Saturday morning, even though they're reruns.

Sisyphean Fan wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:I am confronting my beliefs.

I am pro-choice - unwaveringly - pro-choice.

If she has the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, she has the right to create a pregnancy. It is her choice.

I am examining why I am cringing and befuddled and close to appalled.

If she is not raising the children on public assistance, what business is it of mine? It is her choice.

I am not liking what is going on with me about this.

The main thing that makes me cringe is that she's actually not just pulling a McCaughey like I originally thought when I heard 'yay, octuplets!' stuff.

It's that I think she's mentally ill and she's not getting any help for it. I can't remember the name of it (I'm sure somebody will toss a google assist here), but it's something like Munchhausen's by Proxy. I think Andrea Yates had a touch of it. Besides craving the attention, they also have a thing about babies. As soon as the baby isn't a baby anymore, they need another one (or eight).

Sort of like when people get a kitten or a puppy because it's sooooooo cute. Then after it's not so cute and the poop gets bigger they either just start ignoring it, or dump it off at the humane society and start up with another one that's sooooooo cute.

As far as there not being a law against whatever, certainly medical ethics would preclude doing such a procedure on somebody with a mental condition, which should have been obvious to one of the many doctors involved in this. I also can't imagine that, even if she does have insurance, they paid for those 48 physicians and staff that handled the birth. Somebody, somewhere, somehow is out money for her obsessions and the 48 attendees is a very small part of it..

Kaiser is an HMO. They certainly lost money on her, but that's spread over all of their members.

kayrharris wrote:I had the same thought, Fan. It's known as Munchausen by proxy syndrome (MBPS) - but that usually involves
illnesses in babies and children. Apparently she has never been married. However, there is so much stuff
swirling around out there, I don't when we'll ever get the real story.

I just heard that her mother is asking $2 million for an appearance on TV shows! Maybe she'll get it, who
knows? Guess in a free country, you can make money any way you want to as long as it's not considered llegal.

Being a media whore is legal.

kayrharris wrote: I just heard that her mother is asking $2 million for an appearance on TV shows! Maybe she'll get it, who
knows? Guess in a free country, you can make money any way you want to as long as it's not considered
illegal.

Even if no one agrees to that appearance fee, she's got a heckuva Audition Hook i she ever wants to go the game show route.

christie1111 says:

I was not aware that the mother of the octoplets already had 6 children.

And was unmarried and living with her parents in a very small house.

As about 46 people have probably already told you (no time to read through all the comments right now) this has already been a debate on Nightline, & probably 6 other TV shows. I somehow am sure talk radio has covered it too.

The real question is not "how big is her house", or "but she isn't married", but why insurance is presumably paying & doctors are OKing invitro for someone who already has many children, presumably some with the current father.

The question brought up on Nightline, during the few minutes I was watching, is why they implanted 8 embryos into someone so young; that's a technique usually used on women who are much older, where the implantation of any embryo is far less likely to take.

As for the marital status, or house: Its often brought up that people who want to adopt are put through "are you suitable" ringers, but of course there is no such inquisition for people who just get pregnant, unless a complaint is made about how the are treating the child once its been born.

I am also of the camp that says it is someone's choice to create life in whatever way works for them.

That being said, I think the doctor is reckless for implanting that many embryos...because in someone that young, there is a chance that they will all take. So then what must be considered is what is going to happen to those fetuses as they grow. Clearly, you are not going to end up with 8 healthy 6 pound babies. So then you have to think, is it responsible to create a situation where you will have 1 - 3 pound babies being delivered, well before they are fully developed?

I don't care about her age, or her financial situation or any of that. Anyone is entitled to have children and if in vitro is what they want, for whatever reason, then they should pursue that. All I worry about is the innocent children who may be brought into the world to struggle with serious health issues as the result of premature delivery. I think a maximum number should be imposed. If you want 8 kids, maybe you'll have to go through it twice, big deal.

peacock2121 wrote:I am confronting my beliefs.

I am pro-choice - unwaveringly - pro-choice.

If she has the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, she has the right to create a pregnancy. It is her choice.

I am examining why I am cringing and befuddled and close to appalled.

If she is not raising the children on public assistance, what business is it of mine? It is her choice.

I am not liking what is going on with me about this.

Why? Do you think she should have been prevented from doing this?