Forum Quick View Panel

View Thread

Atheists Today » Easy Reading » The Rant Room
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Octuplets...
jayon
Octuplets, the word was not even in my firefox dictionary until now. She had gotten 6 embryos put in every single time she was trying for a kid. Where are the charges against the doctor? Isn't it only supposed to be two? Maybe I need to look at the laws again. It's possible that is just a guideline, but isn't that what guidelines are for? To keep this from happening? My biggest beef with this isn't even that she had eight. It's the fact that she was getting these procedures while already having 6 other children. I mean, really? You already have six kids, do you really need more? Ever heard of overpopulation? Yeah, you'll take care of them, you brought them into the world, but you shouldn't have in the first place. Don't encourage others to bringing in huge families into the world. Hell, my grandmother had fifteen kids. I wouldn't like it if she did that in today's society. Maybe it's just me. What say you?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/aUHn8x8wk_o&hl=en[/youtube]
 
catman
She is trying to start her own country, perhaps. It is absolutely appalling. No way can she take care of 14 children, and her 'explanation' was gibberish. I saw an interview with the kids' grandmother, and she thought it was nuts too.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Sinny
She is nuts. She will be able to care for them once she finishes School :wtf:
That money she got from her lawsuit won't last with 14 children to raise and send off to School for 18 years let alone College. Her family, friends and church can only do so much and sooner or later when those cute little babies grow out of the cute stage helping people will slowly drift away.

I have no doubt these children will grow up resenting her for having to wear hand me downs until they are old enough to get a job. Being a single parent will require her to work more and spend less time with her children. Plus add that to the question of what about the Father? Does he help with child support?

It's hard enough with two parents and to do this as one parent being responsible for them financially and emotionally is insanity. I want to see what happens when they are teenagers. I also have no doubt she will sooner rather than later apply for some kind of assistance and rely on organizations to help pay for their needs. It probably won't be reported since most of the time the media doesn't do a follow up. They might with this one and I sure they won't shay shit about her finances or she won't comply with an interview. A single (unmarried) woman in my State gets one year free medical care and everything for the baby. She gets free medical for herself for one year also. After that she's on her own. She has one year to get an education or married but this is only if she is unmarried and doesn't claim a Father to pay child support.

Why aren't there laws to prevent something like this? I know we have a right to procreate but to this point is unacceptable. Why was the Doctor even permitted to participate in this especially when her medical records have her condition of depression. That alone should have been a red flag not to allow this. I hope the medical board takes his license to practice medicine away from him permanently.
 
Bob of QF
I didn't watch the video, but I'm betting $1 that she's catholic....

Sheesh! Nuts is too kind--- she will need to improve several categories to qualify as "nuts"...!
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Cynic
Interesting how she supposedly was injured during a riot at a psychiatric hospital where she worked. I wonder if anyone has looked into the possibility that during that riot, she switched places with the real employee.
 
RayvenAlandria
Oh, I have a lot of issues with this scumbag. She is an attention whore who uses children to be in the spotlight. IMO, she's a con-artist who scammed workers comp and disability. Now she's going to use these babies to get her own reality TV show or something, just wait.

She makes me ill. IMO, she is addicted to attention and she had all these kids because during the procedures, pregnancies, and births she was the center of attention. She loved that so she kept doing it. There is no realistic way to give that many children proper attention.

Also, how did she pay for all these procedures? At one point she lived with her parents, who filed bankruptcy. So, where'd the money come from? These are also the same parents who she now claims gave her a horribly dysfunctional upbringing. Interesting. I wonder how they felt about her going on national TV and basically calling them lowlifes who gave her a bad childhood and using that claim to excuse why she can't seem to stop having children to *comfort* herself.

All of her children should be removed from her care.
 
Cynic
Her nonchalant attitude about taking risks is particularly telling. Anyone who prioritizes their own desires over others to that degree could easily swing the other way and start culling the herd when it became too much for her. I read about a woman recently who killed her 13 year old (or 8 -- can't remember now) daughter because her boyfriend told her it was him or her. WTF on both counts there.

If this woman felt growing up an only child was a problem, wait until she finds out what her child think about growing up getting no personalized attention because there's so damned many of them.
 
Bob of QF
Cynic wrote:
...If this woman felt growing up an only child was a problem, wait until she finds out what her child think about growing up getting no personalized attention because there's so damned many of them.


My dad *still* has self-esteem issues because of being one of eight, and being the last boy before the first girl.

And he's 77....
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
jayon
Bob of QF wrote:
Cynic wrote:
...If this woman felt growing up an only child was a problem, wait until she finds out what her child think about growing up getting no personalized attention because there's so damned many of them.


My dad *still* has self-esteem issues because of being one of eight, and being the last boy before the first girl.

And he's 77....


I almost want to start a new law to prevent crap like this from happening (tie her tubes or something), but I think the guidelines or whatever they have on the books were followed, this would never have happened. Plus, if the doctor were paying any attention he would have stopped the proceedure. You want to know where she got the funding to do this? Hell, she was probably doing the doctor. That's where the other two came from. Shit that's probably how she plans to raise these others, by being a prostitute. She's already got the exposure. I don't think anyone will want to sleep with her though because she'll just get pregnant again. Well, there are many other reasons too....
 
Hypatia
Surely the Drs. involved in this must have known she already had 6 kids and is a single parent and that she doesn't have a job, so by doing the last implantation procedure they're as much nut-tards as she is, except their actions are highly unethical, IMO.

This 'reason' or that 'reason' (excuse) - doesn't really matter - it doesn't make it alright for the children (completely the opposite), it's really all about her and filling her 'needs'. In attempting to rationalize her choices she did try the excuse that she was 'giving' herself to the children - that she would 'drop her life' for them if necessary. Oh yeah, that's another good way to get the bills paid and feed the kids. Sit in the floor surrounded by 14 kids and hold and hug them all, 2 by 2.

No, I think she was an escaped patient from the mental hospital, not an employee.

 
Doubting Thomas
I was withholding comment about this lady for a while until I learned all the facts, but my first gut reaction was that she was crazy first for getting embryos implanted when she already had 6 kids, and secondly for not terminating some of them when it was discovered that she had so many developing. And my other gut reaction was that she was crazy for getting implanted when she's living in a 3 bedroom home with her parents.

There were conflicting reports about the husband, one story said he was a contractor who was working in Iraq. But apparently, there is no husband, just an ex-boyfriend or something. So my gut reaction was correct.

Now, I think people should be allowed to have as many children as they want as long as they can take care of them. However, when you look at how overpopulated the world is and how much it costs to raise a child, it's crazy to have large families.

So, since this lady has no job and no home of her own, it's most likely going to be the taxpayers raising her kids for her. Like Sinny said, the charity will dry up once the cute little babies grow up, and in these hard economic times, there may not be a lot of charity to go around to begin with.
You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me and not you.
 
catman
I actually don't think people should be allowed to have as many children as they want, even if they can take care of them financially. Finances change, but overpopulation is athe biggest problem we have. This woman is a completely irresponsible and self-centered moron.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Doubting Thomas
Well I meant in a rhetorical sense, but nobody should want to have 14 kids. I just don't like the idea of a government agency dictating to people what kind of family they should have.

But I agree, overpopulation is a very real problem, and having 14 kids (or 19 like the Duggars) is just plain irresponsible. Not to mention that you can't give any single one of them the attention they deserve without depriving the others.
You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me and not you.
 
Bob of QF
Doubting Thomas wrote:
I was withholding comment about this lady for a while until I learned all the facts, but my first gut reaction was that she was crazy first for getting embryos implanted when she already had 6 kids, and secondly for not terminating some of them when it was discovered that she had so many developing. And my other gut reaction was that she was crazy for getting implanted when she's living in a 3 bedroom home with her parents.

There were conflicting reports about the husband, one story said he was a contractor who was working in Iraq. But apparently, there is no husband, just an ex-boyfriend or something. So my gut reaction was correct.

Now, I think people should be allowed to have as many children as they want as long as they can take care of them. However, when you look at how overpopulated the world is and how much it costs to raise a child, it's crazy to have large families.

So, since this lady has no job and no home of her own, it's most likely going to be the taxpayers raising her kids for her. Like Sinny said, the charity will dry up once the cute little babies grow up, and in these hard economic times, there may not be a lot of charity to go around to begin with.


You and me.

I propose a major restructuring of the tax credits for kids.

Give a modest credit for the first kid, say $1000.

Give 1/2 of that for the 2nd--- (hey, we have enough already), say $500.

Give nothing for the 3rd.

Penalize for the 4th-- $500 (notice this negates the credit for the 2nd).

Penalize for the 5th-- $1000 (notice this negates the 1st child's credit).

Double the penalty for each subsequent kid: $2000 for #6, $4000 for #7, etc.

Yes, it's "unfair" to the idiot Catholics who listen to their idiot-in-charge. So, what's your point? Those pukes are nuts anyway.... they need to be knocked down a peg or three...

The way I see it, only the very rich can really afford more than a coupla kids anyway....
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
catman
Bob: That's not a bad idea at all. Now that's what I call a 'progressive' tax! Although it's rather unfair to those who have no children at all, who deserve to be rewarded IMO, it's a big improvement.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Bob of QF
catman wrote:
Bob: That's not a bad idea at all. Now that's what I call a 'progressive' tax! Although it's rather unfair to those who have no children at all, who deserve to be rewarded IMO, it's a big improvement.


Okay: continue the theme; couples get a $2000 credit for having no kids... Grin
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
catman
That's it! That's the hot setup!Wink
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Cynic
The problem is, of course, that it amounts to a government-sponsored eugenics program aimed at the poor.
 
catman
It might keep those who can't afford to have children from having them, which isn't a terrible idea. In addition, many of those who are well off financially are miserly and would welcome a $2000 break. Also, wealth or poverty doesn't have a clear connection with genetics, unless you're referring to average incomes of whole races (or, whose daddy is rich and ma is good-looking).

I simply think that we should encourage people not to have children. There will always be more than enough who will do it anyway.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Cynic
It's hard to know where to begin -- it seems so wrong to me. Wanting to have children isn't just normal, it's a biological instinct. It's promoted in culture at every level. In politics, "our children" is the justification for everything. We all pay taxes to support children in various ways.

When we (or at least I) talk about "the poor", whether it's in terms of healthcare, taxes, or minimum wage, it's always good to remember that they will always exist. There's always going to be a class of people called "the poor". When various members of the GOP start talking about their "tough love" rationalizations for why we should do away with welfare, it's this fact that's most important. It doesn't matter how many people get better jobs and move up the ladder. First, not everyone is even capable of doing that. You know who I mean. And for everyone who moves up, another takes his place. Does anyone honestly think all these minimum wage jobs and other lower-paying jobs are going to just go away after everyone elevates themselves out of it?

So what we're talking about here is punishing a sizeable portion of the population for having children, which is both natural and encouraged, just for being part of a social class: the poor. Being poor isn't just a responsibility issue. Those jobs exist, and someone WILL work them. Conversely, those good jobs that we're talking about punishing people for not having are in limited supply and will remain so.

(This will always be the case -- I'm not referring in any way to the current enconomic disast-- I mean downturn.)

The haves aren't going to be discouraged by this -- they can handle it. The have-nots aren't either, because it's a biological and social imperative. So under this plan, the have-nots are not only going to have children when they can't afford it, but are going to be even further inconvenienced. Not having enough money to properly raise children is why welfare exists.

Personally, I think way to make the world better "for our children" is by raising better children. NOT having children isn't addressing the problem, it's avoiding the problem -- at BEST. To each his own. No one should have them if they don't want them, and there's nothing wrong (despite what I just said) with not wanting them. But suggesting people are somehow wrong for wanting them regardless of their financial status is just a little bit short-sighted, IMO.

To wrap my long-windedness up, I'd like to tie these two themes together. One one hand, we've got a judgment that "having kids is wrong". On ther other, we've got a judgement that "poor people should be financially punished for having children". (Remember -- this measure doesn't really impact the well-off.) Put them together and we're suggesting that "poor people shouldn't breed".

Is that the kind of message a responsible government should be sending to a large percentage of its population? Nevermind that anyone who succeeded in putting that bit of legislation through would be committing political suicide and it would be overturned in short order. If it were enforced a long time and actually succeeded in significantly impacting the poor-to-wealthy birth ratio, how would social attitudes toward the poor (who will always exist) fair?

And of course, then there's the fact that a disproportionate number of the poor in America are minorities, or of lesser intelligence, etc. I used the word eugenics, and there's a reason it's got a stigma attached to it.
Edited by Cynic on 02/11/2009 23:54
 
Jump to Forum: