NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure there have been past threads on this, but I just saw the "octuplets mom" on Dateline. An unemployed single woman artificially having 14 kids!! As much as I believe in freedom, particularly reproductive freedom, there is a role for responsibility.

Octuplet mom says she's done having babies (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/10/state/n210559S45.DTL&type=health)

Tuesday, February 10, 2009
(02-10) 21:05 PST Los Angeles, CA (AP) --

Fourteen is finally enough for the Southern California mother of octuplets who already had six other children.

Nadya Suleman said in an NBC "Dateline" interview aired Tuesday that she's done having children after going through six in vitro fertilizations that resulted in four single-births, one set of twins and the octuplets.

"This is a message, I believe, from God that you are done," the 33-year-old Suleman said. "I never in my wildest dreams imagined (my family) being this big."

Suleman said the same doctor implanted six embryos for each of her pregnancies, though the last procedure was more successful.

After NBC News Anchor Curry asked why Suleman decided to have all eight children, she responded, "I believe all children are our blessings from God and to allocate that role to a doctor, to dispose of a life, is incomprehensible to me."

Before the octuplets, she already had two girls and four boys ages 2 through 7.

Suleman, who is divorced and unemployed and lives with her parents in nearby Whittier, said she intends to pay for her children's needs by finishing her master's degree and finding work as a counselor. She said that will take a year or two, and in the meantime she plans to use student loans.

"I personally do not believe I'm irresponsible," she said. "Everything I do revolves around my children."

Suleman also said she dreams of going back to her old life, before she had the octuplets on Jan. 26 at a Bellflower hospital and endured a firestorm of criticism and media frenzy.

With long dark hair, full lips and a love for a large brood of children, Suleman has been compared to actress Angelina Jolie — a link the mother claims she's too busy to consider.

"I have never even thought of Angelina Jolie, except the last time I saw a movie. That, I think, was years ago," Suleman said. "This is so far away from the place I am right now, to think of any celebrity." (emphasis added)

Ew. *Shudders with antipathy.* And comparing her to Angelina Jolie (who, incidentally, also makes me shudder with antipathy - but at least she's employed and most of her brood is adopted).

I think that this person has a psychological disorder. For her to counsel anyone would be a travesty.

Hey, God's gonna save her, right?
"I will do the best I possibly can. In my own way, in my own faith, I do believe wholeheartedly that God will provide in his own way."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/nadya-suleman-w.html
It appears Nadya Suleman has turned to a book, the Bible actually, when it came to naming her octuplets! The babies’ names are: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jonah, Josiah. Maliah, McCai, Nariah and Noah.
http://www.examiner.com/x-260-Seattle-Parenting-Examiner~y2009m2d9-Nadya-Suleman-has-released-the-Octuplets-names?comments=true

I'm sure everyone here appreciates the irony of letting God do what God does best, especially in regards to fertility and natural childbirth.
<.<
>.>

What a DUMB annoying lady.

In before the right wing rants about welfare queens.

In before the right wing rants about welfare queens.
Doesn't the right wing have that whole pseudopiety locked up as one of their bulletpoints?
They'll love the press.

She's breeding like she just got off the Ark and smoking crack and stealing your money and blah blah blah! Damn you Gauthier, you stole my thunder!

I'm sure there have been past threads on this, but I just saw the "octuplets mom" on Dateline. An unemployed single woman artificially having 14 kids!! As much as I believe in freedom, particularly reproductive freedom, there is a role for responsibility.

Octuplet mom says she's done having babies (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/10/state/n210559S45.DTL&type=health)

Tuesday, February 10, 2009
(02-10) 21:05 PST Los Angeles, CA (AP) --

Fourteen is finally enough for the Southern California mother of octuplets who already had six other children.

Nadya Suleman said in an NBC "Dateline" interview aired Tuesday that she's done having children after going through six in vitro fertilizations that resulted in four single-births, one set of twins and the octuplets.

"This is a message, I believe, from God that you are done," the 33-year-old Suleman said. "I never in my wildest dreams imagined (my family) being this big."

Suleman said the same doctor implanted six embryos for each of her pregnancies, though the last procedure was more successful.

After NBC News Anchor Curry asked why Suleman decided to have all eight children, she responded, "I believe all children are our blessings from God and to allocate that role to a doctor, to dispose of a life, is incomprehensible to me."

Before the octuplets, she already had two girls and four boys ages 2 through 7.

Suleman, who is divorced and unemployed and lives with her parents in nearby Whittier, said she intends to pay for her children's needs by finishing her master's degree and finding work as a counselor. She said that will take a year or two, and in the meantime she plans to use student loans.

"I personally do not believe I'm irresponsible," she said. "Everything I do revolves around my children."

Suleman also said she dreams of going back to her old life, before she had the octuplets on Jan. 26 at a Bellflower hospital and endured a firestorm of criticism and media frenzy.

With long dark hair, full lips and a love for a large brood of children, Suleman has been compared to actress Angelina Jolie — a link the mother claims she's too busy to consider.

"I have never even thought of Angelina Jolie, except the last time I saw a movie. That, I think, was years ago," Suleman said. "This is so far away from the place I am right now, to think of any celebrity." (emphasis added)

She is the living embodiment of a maiesiophiliac fantasy. Seriously this is like something that came out of one of those gnarly pregnancy stories they love to write. :eek:

She is the living embodiment of a maiesiophiliac fantasy. Seriously this is like something that came out of one of those gnarly pregnancy stories they love to write. :eek:

**backs away slowly from SL**

:eek:

Suleman: The economy's fucked. There's no more work. We're destitute.
Children: Ohhhhh.
Suleman: I'm afraid I have no choice but to sell you all for scientific experiments.*

When life imitates art.

*Abridged from The Meaning Of Life by Monty Python, just so I don't run up against any protection laws.

What about the doctor that agreed to help her?

Suleman: The economy's fucked. There's no more work. We're destitute.
Children: Ohhhhh.
Suleman: I'm afraid I have no choice but to sell you all for scientific experiments.*

When life imitates art.

*Abridged from The Meaning Of Life by Monty Python, just so I don't run up against any protection laws.

*insert Ifreann's Threadwinner pic here*

What about the doctor that agreed to help her?

He has a lovely machine that goes 'Ping'

What about the doctor that agreed to help her?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4587633/Octuplets-doctor-investigated-by-American-Society-for-Reproductive-Medicine.html
Here's the arsehole here.

What about the doctor that agreed to help her?

My bad. That quack is an even greater menance. Hopefully, something will be done about him:

Medical group examining Beverly Hills fertility doctor in octuplets case (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/the-american-so.html)

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine said it is going to look into the case of the Whittier mother who gave birth to octuplets last month -- and who now has 14 children.

The mother, 33-year-old Nadya Suleman, went to a Beverly Hills doctor, whose fertility treatment led to the birth of her octuplets -- and her six previous children.

West Coast IVF Clinic is run by Dr. Michael M. Kamrava, who has declined to comment about the case. The California Medical Board previously announced an investigation, and the reproductive medicine society is now following suit.

"We are pleased that the California Medical Board has announced they will be investigating this matter, and we are prepared to assist them in any way we can," said R. Dale McClure, president of the society, in a statement.

"We too have contacted Ms. Suleman and the physician named in the interview in order to learn more about the circumstances leading to her octuplet pregnancy. Only when we obtain and evaluate such information will we be able to determine an appropriate course of action," McClure added.

According to federal records reviewed by The Times, of the 61 procedures Kamrava conducted in 2006 -- the most recent data available -- only five resulted in pregnancies and only two of those resulted in births. One of those births was Suleman's twins.

**backs away slowly from SL**

:eek:

Don't worry, out of the hundred I've read only about five or six involved tentacles. There is nothing to fear. :)

He has a lovely machine that goes 'Ping'
You gonna do that to every other thread too, or just this one?
Not that i'm complaining.
Get that cat outta here!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4587633/Octuplets-doctor-investigated-by-American-Society-for-Reproductive-Medicine.html
Here's the arsehole here.

Yup, he has a preggo fetish, he wants to see her grow large. The urge blinded his sense of legality and practicality I fear. :(

Yup, he has a preggo fetish, he wants to see her grow large. The urge blinded his sense of legality and practicality I fear. :(He was further inspired by AVP: Requiem, no doubt.
http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/18/63/82/98/18841430.jpg

You gonna do that to every other thread too, or just this one?
Not that i'm complaining.

In my first year I did go through a phase of answering everything using quotes from imdb.com, it became a little tiresome, for me in terms of looking up the right quote, and probably for others as well.

I think if I put an effort into it, I could be reasonably amusing but, well, effort dude.

In my first year I did go through a phase of answering everything using quotes from imdb.com, it became a little tiresome, for me in terms of looking up the right quote, and probably for others as well.

I think if I put an effort into it, I could be reasonably amusing but, well, effort dude.

Yeah, i did that too. Not imdb, but my 5 cardinals. Then i got into smilies and it all got fucked up.
Now, i'm only a tarnished husk of a man, laboured in breath and exhausted in wit, awaiting the endless end, the occasional twitch being the only distraction from the inevitable.

Doesn't the right wing have that whole pseudopiety locked up as one of their bulletpoints?
They'll love the press.

This woman is their wet dream. If she had chosen to abort some, they'd be screaming about how she's a babykiller. But since she seems to express a pro-life view and kept all of them, they get to call her a parasitic welfare queen instead.

He was further inspired by AVP: Requiem, no doubt.
http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/18/63/82/98/18841430.jpg

More like Xtro (http://www.sumo.tv/watch.php?video=3323632)

This woman is their wet dream. If she had chosen to abort some, they'd be screaming about how she's a babykiller. But since she seems to express a pro-life view and kept all of them, they get to call her a parasitic welfare queen instead.It seems that my Predalien reference is more accurate than i'd first assessed.

My understanding is there were only three succesful treatments, of which she expected none to produce more than one child each.

More like Xtro (http://www.sumo.tv/watch.php?video=3323632)Yeah, i watched that. I always thought she got raped by an eggplant.
It was disturbing, but hey, i was in junior high, and sex was already awkward, to say nothing about PETA .. erm, vegisexuality.

Yeah, i did that too. Not imdb, but my 5 cardinals. Then i got into smilies and it all got fucked up.
Now, i'm only a tarnished husk of a man, laboured in breath and exhausted in wit, awaiting the endless end, the occasional twitch being the only distraction from the inevitable.

It's a Mr. Death, dear. He's here about the reaping.

It's a Mr. Death, dear. He's here about the reaping.
Does he have an appointment? My Blackberry's down. Perhaps he'd like some Earl Gray & a scone for the moment.
Wait, gotta go change a diaper too.

Is there any number of children a woman can have that WON'T get her labeled a menace?

I've got zero, and I've been told I'm destroying the world by being childless.

For the decade that I was an only child, my mother was routinely told that having an only child will predispose the kid to grow up maladjusted and turn into a serial killer.

After my brother was born, my mother was yelled at for "buying into all that zero-population shit" by having only two children. She also was yelled at for being too old when she had my brother (she was 39). She also was yelled at for leaving too many years between babies.

A friend of mine has two sets of twins and is yelled at for having too many kids, though. Maybe three is the sweet spot?

Except that I know women who have three kids who get yelled at because they aren't putting family first by having as many babies as God sees fit to send them...

Nobody yelled at this woman when she had six kids and couldn't support them, but now she had 8 more and people yell at her. So six kids might be a good number. But what about the numbers between six and fourteen? Where's the threshold?

Is there any number of children a woman can have that WON'T get her labeled a menace?

I've got zero, and I've been told I'm destroying the world by being childless.

For the decade that I was an only child, my mother was routinely told that having an only child will predispose the kid to grow up maladjusted and turn into a serial killer.

After my brother was born, my mother was yelled at for "buying into all that zero-population shit" by having only two children. She also was yelled at for being too old when she had my brother (she was 39). She also was yelled at for leaving too many years between babies.

A friend of mine has two sets of twins and is yelled at for having too many kids, though. Maybe three is the sweet spot?

Except that I know women who have three kids who get yelled at because they aren't putting family first by having as many babies as God sees fit to send them...

Nobody yelled at this woman when she had six kids and couldn't support them, but now she had 8 more and people yell at her. So six kids might be a good number. But what about the numbers between six and fourteen? Where's the threshold?

Its a stupid and repetitive cycle Bottle. People complain no matter what. personally I don't care that she has 14 children; saves me from having to worry about procreating.

Is there any number of children a woman can have that WON'T get her labeled a menace?

No.

Nobody yelled at this woman when she had six kids and couldn't support them, but now she had 8 more and people yell at her. So six kids might be a good number. But what about the numbers between six and fourteen? Where's the threshold?

In a pluralistic society people have different standards. You're bound to go against someone's standards in something as important as childbearing.

I think that if people were aware how many kids she had then more people would have yelled at her before this.

Is there any number of children a woman can have that WON'T get her labeled a menace?

Any number. But it must be in a sealed container with a small amount of poison and a rapid growth hormone in separate vials where it cannot be observed. It then becomes a Schroedinger baby, and no matter what the people have to scream about, just tell them it's in a state/number opposite to what they're yelling about.

Is there any number of children a woman can have that WON'T get her labeled a menace?

I've got zero, and I've been told I'm destroying the world by being childless.

For the decade that I was an only child, my mother was routinely told that having an only child will predispose the kid to grow up maladjusted and turn into a serial killer.

After my brother was born, my mother was yelled at for "buying into all that zero-population shit" by having only two children. She also was yelled at for being too old when she had my brother (she was 39). She also was yelled at for leaving too many years between babies.

A friend of mine has two sets of twins and is yelled at for having too many kids, though. Maybe three is the sweet spot?

Except that I know women who have three kids who get yelled at because they aren't putting family first by having as many babies as God sees fit to send them...

Nobody yelled at this woman when she had six kids and couldn't support them, but now she had 8 more and people yell at her. So six kids might be a good number. But what about the numbers between six and fourteen? Where's the threshold?

I think you're wise enough to recognize that the people calling you a "menace" for having no kids are not the same people calling this woman a menace for having 14 kids. For that matter, if anyone calls you a menace for not having kids again, point out this woman and explain how she's picking up the slack for you and 5 other women.

I think you're wise enough to recognize that the people calling you a "menace" for having no kids are not the same people calling this woman a menace for having 14 kids.

Actually...many of them ARE exactly the same people.

The people who rant about how evil it is for me to be childless at my age are often precisely the same people who rant about the evils of women like this who have "too many" babies.


For that matter, if anyone calls you a menace for not having kids again, point out this woman and explain how she's picking up the slack for you and 5 other women.
In my experience, people who call women "a menace" based on how many children they choose to have are interested in yelling at women and telling them they're bad. They aren't interested in rational discussions or reasoning.

I think that if people were aware how many kids she had then more people would have yelled at her before this.
That's kind of my point.

There will never be a shortage of people who are eager to tell a woman that she's wrong for having however many kids she has.

Actually...many of them ARE exactly the same people.

The people who rant about how evil it is for me to be childless at my age are often precisely the same people who rant about the evils of women like this who have "too many" babies.


In my experience, people who call women "a menace" based on how many children they choose to have are interested in yelling at women and telling them they're bad. They aren't interested in rational discussions or reasoning.

Then I have to ask, why do you surround yourself with such angry, irrational people?

Then I have to ask, why do you surround yourself with such angry, irrational people?

Because they make up the majority; you can't avoid them.

Because they make up the majority; you can't avoid them.

I've certainly never heard a single person tell me I'm destroying the world by not settling down and having kids yet, so I wonder where all these people that make up this supposed majority live.

I've certainly never heard a single person tell me I'm destroying the world by not settling down and having kids yet, so I wonder where all these people that make up this supposed majority live.

There are ones near you that are irrational and angry about something else, I promise; all you have to do is look. I'm saying the majority of people are angry and irrational, not that they are all angry about the same thing.

In a pluralistic society people have different standards. You're bound to go against someone's standards in something as important as childbearing.

I think that if people were aware how many kids she had then more people would have yelled at her before this.

*raises hand*

I would have.
Now I'm just hoping those kids will have a semi-happy childhood, despite everything. Cause their mom doesn't come across as very stable, all things considered.

What about the doctor that agreed to help her?


I'm wondering how she was able to pay for in-vitro fertilization for all of her children,but cannot support herself.

I just read that her first six children-all under the age of 7 right now- all came from in-vitro.

It seems like her priorities are out of order.

And it seems like both she and the doctor could have been more responsible.

I have three kids now, all concieved naturally and I'm very concerned about our ability to raise and support and give each the attention they need and deserve.
Can you possibly care for and give the attention to that many children ?
Can you even remember their names ?

I'm trying not to judge her as I certainly havent made all perfect decisions in my life.
However-I have a problem with tax money supporting this many children.

Its not like her circumstances changed and some twist of fate had her unable to support her family. This was decided while rec welfare/foodstamps/whatever

After NBC News Anchor Curry asked why Suleman decided to have all eight children, she responded, "I believe all children are our blessings from God and to allocate that role to a doctor, to dispose of a life, is incomprehensible to me."



Am I the only one seeing the biting irony of that particular statement?

*raises hand*

I would have.
Now I'm just hoping those kids will have a semi-happy childhood, despite everything. Cause their mom doesn't come across as very stable, all things considered.

I think she's trying to be like those creeps with the TV show.

I'm wondering how she was able to pay for in-vitro fertilization for all of her children,but cannot support herself.

I just read that her first six children-all under the age of 7 right now- all came from in-vitro.
[/QUOTE]

Taking the risk of sounding like a pervert, maybe it wasn't an in-vitro fertilization...

At the same time, I'm sorry to see initial interest in her story turning sour so quickly.

Initially, people were interested and I'm sure lining up to make donations-as they often do- Car seats, diapers, formula, money-the usual.

But when all the facts come to the surface, I think some of this charity dried up.

ultimately, the children will suffer. They still need the stuff.

If she had adopted all of these children, she would be a hero.

But-no one would have ever allowed that-14 kids is just silly.

Funny how you can be artificially impregnated with that many, though.

i have 2 trains of thought on this crazy woman.

1) i dont think they are going to let her take the babies home. she has no room for them, she has no help, she has no money. it is impossible for her to take care of them in the situation she is in now.

she has to spend the next month or 2 (the time it will take for the babies to be ready to go home) getting some fool to give her a ton of money (wont that money have to go to the several million dollars of hospital bills?), a new giganitic house (which she wont be able to pay the property taxes on), an army of people who are willing to help her take care of the babies, and the basic necessaries for 8 babies--car seats, diapers, clothing, bottles, cribs, etc.

2) you (meaning anyone) cant give her money. she will use it to make more babies. she is crazy. she says she is done making babies but you cant believe a crazy person.

and yeah i dont know that i would call her a menace but i do know that it is impossible for a single mother to care for 14 children under age 8. that makes her irresponsible to the family she already had. it makes her irresponsible to her mother who has had the burden of caring for her other 6 children for at least 6 months.

im pretty sure that i would have turned a disapproving eye on her when she had her second child by ivf--it is enormously expensive and took much needed resources away from the child she already had. i know i would have thought her wrong for doing it a 3rd time. that would have been judgemental of me. but when you have 6 kids and go for another by implanting 6 more embryos, i am very comfortable with calling her irresponsible and crazy. she had no money, no way to support them, no reasonable way to take care of the special needs kids she already had. her parents begged her not to do it. and she risked her life in a pregnancy that would have left 6 kids orphans. that is far beyong simple "wrong".

this whole thing pisses me off.... im a single mother and i get dirty looks because of women like her who believe they can live off the system... its time to look at how shes going to raise those kids and im not just talking finacially.... she needs to have a mental exam done as well.... that many kids in a family with just her and someones bound to get hurt....

i have 2 trains of thought on this crazy woman.

1) i dont think they are going to let her take the babies home. she has no room for them, she has no help, she has no money. it is impossible for her to take care of them in the situation she is in now.

she has to spend the next month or 2 (the time it will take for the babies to be ready to go home) getting some fool to give her a ton of money (wont that money have to go to the several million dollars of hospital bills?), a new giganitic house (which she wont be able to pay the property taxes on), an army of people who are willing to help her take care of the babies, and the basic necessaries for 8 babies--car seats, diapers, clothing, bottles, cribs, etc.

2) you (meaning anyone) cant give her money. she will use it to make more babies. she is crazy. she says she is done making babies but you cant believe a crazy person.

and yeah i dont know that i would call her a menace but i do know that it is impossible for a single mother to care for 14 children under age 8. that makes her irresponsible to the family she already had. it makes her irresponsible to her mother who has had the burden of caring for her other 6 children for at least 6 months.

im pretty sure that i would have turned a disapproving eye on her when she had her second child by ivf--it is enormously expensive and took much needed resources away from the child she already had. i know i would have thought her wrong for doing it a 3rd time. that would have been judgemental of me. but when you have 6 kids and go for another by implanting 6 more embryos, i am very comfortable with calling her irresponsible and crazy. she had no money, no way to support them, no reasonable way to take care of the special needs kids she already had. her parents begged her not to do it. and she risked her life in a pregnancy that would have left 6 kids orphans. that is far beyong simple "wrong".

Movie rights, I bet Lifetime or Fox would gobble it up. Or maybe even Sci-Fi.

Movie rights, I bet Lifetime or Fox would gobble it up. Or maybe even Sci-Fi.
someone will offer her something but its a huge risk. she isnt a sweet woman who accidentally ended up with 14 children. she is a nut. the public doesnt love nuts.

yeah she can probably get a reality show like the anna nicole smith "her life is a freaking train wreck" show. i dont know how well the public would take to it. but she is starting out a few million dollars in the hole so the company would have to upfront $5million or more just to have her be able to take the babies home.

she isnt going to get rich off this.

What about the doctor that agreed to help her?

What about it? He's only doing his job. If the bitch can't afford it she shouldn't have consulted him. Is it wrong? Ehh...kinda. Should it be his concern though? Not really.


Just my take on the matter. *nod*

someone will offer her something but its a huge risk. she isnt a sweet woman who accidentally ended up with 14 children. she is a nut. the public doesnt love nuts.

yeah she can probably get a reality show like the anna nicole smith "her life is a freaking train wreck" show. i dont know how well the public would take to it. but she is starting out a few million dollars in the hole so the company would have to upfront $5million or more just to have her be able to take the babies home.

she isnt going to get rich off this.

She probably could, but in that case I would definitely call for social services to get involved.
Her kids will have a hard enough time growing up with the mom and all their siblings, the last thing they need is to be portrayed as freaks on telly.

someone will offer her something but its a huge risk. she isnt a sweet woman who accidentally ended up with 14 children. she is a nut. the public doesnt love nuts.

yeah she can probably get a reality show like the anna nicole smith "her life is a freaking train wreck" show. i dont know how well the public would take to it. but she is starting out a few million dollars in the hole so the company would have to upfront $5million or more just to have her be able to take the babies home.

she isnt going to get rich off this.


Public doesn't love nuts eh? How do you explain Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, et al? Sure they don't get positive press, but in that world the saying goes "Theres no such thing as bad press". If she gets any attention at all, people WOULD watch the show. I bet the guys who did the "Hogan/Brooke Knows Best" show or hell even that abysmal travesty "Kardashian" are having a wet dream thinking of the possibilities.

Public doesn't love nuts eh? How do you explain Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, et al? Sure they don't get positive press, but in that world the saying goes "Theres no such thing as bad press". If she gets any attention at all, people WOULD watch the show. I bet the guys who did the "Hogan/Brooke Knows Best" show or hell even that abysmal travesty "Kardashian" are having a wet dream thinking of the possibilities.
they better get to it. she needs money right now. millions of dollars.

i wonder how many more babies she'll have if they give her money that isnt tied to the care of the children.

they better get to it. she needs money right now. millions of dollars.

i wonder how many more babies she'll have if they give her money that isnt tied to the care of the children.

Zillions.

Zillions.

Maybe we should force her t be sterilized.

Maybe we should force her t be sterilized.

This is precisely why I'm in favour of a "Breeding License".

Hey, God's gonna save her, right?

Originally Posted by article
"I will do the best I possibly can. In my own way, in my own faith, I do believe wholeheartedly that God will provide in his own way."
I'm sure everyone here appreciates the irony of letting God do what God does best, especially in regards to fertility and natural childbirth.
<.<
>.>

indeed - I cannot even comprehend the level of self-delusion of people who say things like that.

"Oh, i have my faith..." yeah, honey, where was it when you wanted those kids in the first place? If you REALLY believed God would provide, then couldn't you have waited until HE put 8 embryos in your womb?

I hate it when people say stuff like that.

Is there any number of children a woman can have that WON'T get her labeled a menace?
No, and there's nothing you can do after you have them that doesn't get you labeled a menace either.

Go to work- you've abandoned them

Stay home- you coddle them

Public school- you're apathetic and dooming them to failure

Private school- you're spoiling them and not teaching them about "real life"

Home school- you're sheltering them

Eat meat- you're teaching them genocide

Vegetarian- pushing your values on them

Let them do what they want- you're letting them run wild

Impose what they should do- you're too controlling

Dress them in clothes that "go together"- you're stifling their creativity and personality

Let them dress themselves- you're letting them dress like sluts/whores/gang members/ragamuffins and you're a bad parent

etc. etc. every single decision.

It was her choice to make. If she wanted to have those children, that was her choice. If on the other hand, she had wanted to abort, that would have also been her choice. Some people are fine with having no children; some like to think of their uterus as a clown car.

So long as she cares about all equally, does what is reasonably right for all, who are we to judge. It her her life, and so long as her children are cared for, no one but her should have a say. (Note: this part excludes the father because he wasn't there, so, naturally, it would be just her choice).

It seems almost everyone's a bloody critic.

I personally believe it was her choice to make, and it is not up to the rest of society to decide for her.

No, and there's nothing you can do after you have them that doesn't get you labeled a menace either.

Go to work- you've abandoned them

Stay home- you coddle them

Public school- you're apathetic and dooming them to failure

Private school- you're spoiling them and not teaching them about "real life"

Home school- you're sheltering them

Eat meat- you're teaching them genocide

Vegetarian- pushing your values on them

Let them do what they want- you're letting them run wild

Impose what they should do- you're too controlling

Dress them in clothes that "go together"- you're stifling their creativity and personality

Let them dress themselves- you're letting them dress like sluts/whores/gang members/ragamuffins and you're a bad parent

etc. etc. every single decision.
i dont know why they let women raise children at all, we are so bad at it.

I personally believe it was her choice to make, and it is not up to the rest of society to decide for her.

It would be, if she hadn't decided to let society pay for them...
I'm usually one of the more socialistically-minded people here, but I think making the conscious decision to raise 14 kids on benefits is taking the piss.

What the liberal media have thus far failed to cover is that not only does she have too many children of her own, she also steals and eats children from Christian families in the neighbourhood. Furthermore, she uses mind control to coerce decent, upstanding people from around the world into having abortions. She also planned the 9/11 attacks, discovered time travel, went back in time, gave Karl Marx the idea of Communism, killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, causing the First World War, and then jumped back through time to the later 1930s and used her demonic powers to possess Neville Chamberlain and make him appease Hitler.

What about the doctor that agreed to help her?

Doctors. Plural. An entire fertility clinic.

If you are all so concerned about the welfare of the children, maybe you should chip in your selves.

I have to agree she was being rather careless having so many children when she has no way to support them. I think people should be able to have as many and as few children as they like, but only when they have means to SUPPORT THEM. A stable income, food, shelter, clothing. She probably is a bit loony and will mooch the welfare system, but I can always have hope maybe she is trying to do the right thing and get her education.

If you are all so concerned about the welfare of the children, maybe you should chip in your selves.

I have to agree she was being rather careless having so many children when she has no way to support them. I think people should be able to have as many and as few children as they like, but only when they have means to SUPPORT THEM. A stable income, food, shelter, clothing. She probably is a bit loony and will mooch the welfare system, but I can always have hope maybe she is trying to do the right thing and get her education.

Meh! I've said it before, if we all waited to have kids until we could afford them, then only the super rich would have kids.

If you are all so concerned about the welfare of the children, maybe you should chip in your selves.

I have to agree she was being rather careless having so many children when she has no way to support them. I think people should be able to have as many and as few children as they like, but only when they have means to SUPPORT THEM. A stable income, food, shelter, clothing. She probably is a bit loony and will mooch the welfare system, but I can always have hope maybe she is trying to do the right thing and get her education.

A bit loony? Try enormously loony.

Fertility clinics should not be allowed to indulge obvious nutjobs.

Meh! I've said it before, if we all waited to have kids until we could afford them, then only the super rich would have kids.

Indeed. How do you know if you can "afford" your kids anyway.......I mean my kids are fed and clothed, but I'm sure other kids eat "better" and have "better" clothes.

Indeed. How do you know if you can "afford" your kids anyway.......I mean my kids are fed and clothed, but I'm sure other kids eat "better" and have "better" clothes.

Indeed yes, I have two and I still can afford them. Still I think we'll have them for about 5 maybe 6 more years and then they'll be gone, I'll be able to afford them then!:D

Does that work thr other way too? If I'm suddenly not able to afford my children, should I give my kids away?

Or maybe sell them. I could sing "Boy for Sale" as I paraded him through the streets.

It would be, if she hadn't decided to let society pay for them...
I'm usually one of the more socialistically-minded people here, but I think making the conscious decision to raise 14 kids on benefits is taking the piss.

We don't know that yet. A student loan means it's a loan, which will have to pay back. Until she is actually living off the hard work of others, it's too soon to judge.

Is there any number of children a woman can have that WON'T get her labeled a menace?

I've got zero, and I've been told I'm destroying the world by being childless.

For the decade that I was an only child, my mother was routinely told that having an only child will predispose the kid to grow up maladjusted and turn into a serial killer.

After my brother was born, my mother was yelled at for "buying into all that zero-population shit" by having only two children. She also was yelled at for being too old when she had my brother (she was 39). She also was yelled at for leaving too many years between babies.

A friend of mine has two sets of twins and is yelled at for having too many kids, though. Maybe three is the sweet spot?

Except that I know women who have three kids who get yelled at because they aren't putting family first by having as many babies as God sees fit to send them...

Nobody yelled at this woman when she had six kids and couldn't support them, but now she had 8 more and people yell at her. So six kids might be a good number. But what about the numbers between six and fourteen? Where's the threshold?

You make a fair point. Although I wouldn't have supported this woman's choice to have six children by IVF either, I don't have a rational threshold for "well, she could have X children and that's ok, but X+1 is too many."

Part of what scares me about this woman is not just her copious breeding, but her belief that she is on some kind of mission from God in doing so and her rather flippant attitude concerning how she is going to care and provide for all these children.

It was her choice to make. If she wanted to have those children, that was her choice. If on the other hand, she had wanted to abort, that would have also been her choice. Some people are fine with having no children; some like to think of their uterus as a clown car.

So long as she cares about all equally, does what is reasonably right for all, who are we to judge. It her her life, and so long as her children are cared for, no one but her should have a say. (Note: this part excludes the father because he wasn't there, so, naturally, it would be just her choice).

It seems almost everyone's a bloody critic.

I personally believe it was her choice to make, and it is not up to the rest of society to decide for her.

1. It is absolutely her right, but that doesn't mean she is immune from criticism for how she exercises that right.

2. Given that she is receiving forms of welfare to support herself and her children, her choices are effecting more than just herself and her children.

3. Although I could well be proven wrong, I question her ability to care adequately for all of these children. Her decisions impact them as well.

We don't know that yet. A student loan means it's a loan, which will have to pay back. Until she is actually living off the hard work of others, it's too soon to judge.

She already is receiving food stamps, SSI, and Medi-Cal.

Octuplets could be costly for taxpayers (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-octuplets11-2009feb11,0,1790195.story)
As a single parent with no income, Nadya Suleman could receive thousands of dollars a month in government assistance. And the Medi-Cal bill for her newborns is mounting.

By Kimi Yoshino and Jessica Garrison
Los Angeles Times
February 11, 2009

Nadya Suleman has 14 children, including newborn octuplets. She has no job, no income and owes $50,000 in student loans.

Still, the 33-year-old Whittier woman said she's confident that she can afford to raise her huge family, insisting she can do it without welfare. In an interview Tuesday with NBC, she said she could use student loans to make ends meet until she finishes graduate school and gets a job.

But Suleman faces what are likely to be millions of dollars in medical bills alone, and it's increasingly likely that taxpayers will foot many of those bills.

Her family is eligible for large sums of public assistance money. Even before she gave birth to the octuplets Jan. 26, Suleman was receiving $490 in monthly food stamps, and three of her children were receiving federal supplemental security income because they are disabled.

Lowell Kepke, a spokesman for the San Francisco office of the Social Security Administration, said that a single parent with no income qualifies for up to $793 a month for each child with a physical or mental condition that results in "marked or severe functional limitations." That money is used for support and maintenance of the family, and Suleman would not be required to specifically account for how it is spent.

If Suleman's disabled children received the maximum payment, she would get nearly $2,900 a month in state and federal assistance, including the food stamps.

Suleman's octuplets qualify for Medi-Cal, California's healthcare program for the poor. Three sources told The Times that Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Bellflower had requested reimbursement for care of the eight premature infants.

Reimbursement rates for the octuplets were not immediately available. However, 2007 records show that Southern California hospitals received an average of $1,198 per day, per patient.

Tony Cava, a spokesman for the California Department of Health Care Services, said that for a baby in a hospital's neonatal intensive care unit, that amount would probably increase.

Using the 2007 average as a low estimate, Kaiser would be eligible for a combined $9,584 per day in Medi-Cal reimbursement. The babies, who are 16 days old, have already racked up a conservative $153,344 in Medi-Cal costs, not including their delivery. Kaiser doctors have said they will remain hospitalized for seven to 12 weeks. If they stay for seven weeks, the cost would be $469,616. If they stay 12 weeks, the cost would be $805,056.

Kaiser gathered 46 doctors, nurses and other medical professionals together to perform the delivery. It's unclear how much that cost and who will pay.

Suleman told NBC that she planned to go back to Cal State Fullerton, where she is earning a master's degree in counseling. Once she receives the degree, she said, she will get a job and be able to financially support the children.

Suleman used to work as a psychiatric technician at Metropolitan State Hospital, where she suffered an injury in 1999. During a riot involving 20 people, a patient overturned a heavy wooden desk on her back. After the incident, Suleman only briefly returned to work and she continued to experience ongoing back problems from a herniated disc.

Between 2000 and 2008, she received $169,353 in temporary disability payments, a workers' compensation spokeswoman said.

Her workers' compensation file, obtained by The Times, indicates that a doctor hired by the state to evaluate her believes she is now eligible for permanent disability. The state stopped making temporary disability payments Aug. 28. But the records show that she would receive payment for permanent disability. State officials said no determination has been made yet about the amount or duration of her payments.

Suleman insisted to NBC's Ann Curry in an interview taped Tuesday that she's not seeking a public handout.

"I'm not living off any taxpayer money," she said. "If I am, if it's food stamps, it's a temporary resource. And I was so reluctant. I very much so look forward to the day when I am not getting any kind of help with food stamps, which I believe will end when I graduate in about a year or year and a half."

Suleman also said she hopes that two of her children will soon no longer be disabled.

She said she has $50,000 in student loans that she will eventually have to repay.

Suleman also bristled at suggestions made by some commentators that she was being irresponsible for having so many children with no income or partner to help raise them.

"No. I am not being selfish. . . . If I were just sitting down watching TV and not being as determined as I am to succeed and provide a better future for my children, I believe that would be considered to a certain degree selfish," she said.

Suleman said she was married once. But the relationship ended when she realized "that I wasn't in love at all with him. I was in love with having children."

Suleman's ex-husband, Marcos Gutierrez, a produce manager at a salad company, declined to comment extensively about his ex-wife but said she's a good person.

"Nadya, she is a person with a great heart. . . . She's a nice person, with great love for her kids. That's all I have to say," he said.

Meanwhile, medical experts continued to question Dr. Michael Kamrava, the fertility specialist believed to have treated Suleman. Although she did not mention him directly, she named his West Coast IVF Clinic in Beverly Hills as the place where she sought treatment.

Dr. R. Dale McClure, president of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, said the association has contacted both Suleman and Kamrava to learn more about the circumstances leading to her pregnancy.

"Only when we obtain and evaluate such information will we be able to determine an appropriate course of action," McClure said.

As for Suleman, she told NBC that she doesn't plan any more children. "100%. 200, 300 400%. Yes, done," she said.

What about the doctor that agreed to help her?

And who the hell paid for it? IVF isn't cheap. Did she pay for that out of student loans as well?

And who will pay for those children. Work as a counselor, even if she manages to finish school and start doing it, isn't going to bring in enough to take care of 14 kids, especially considering that she will need to pay for child care for all of them while she works.

A bit loony? Try enormously loony.

Fertility clinics should not be allowed to indulge obvious nutjobs.

That is the biggest thing that confuses me in this; most doctors do NOT implant that many embryos, do they???? Maybe I'm not up on the current methodology, but my understanding is that, due to the increase in cases of multiple births, they no longer implant more than are reasonably likely to be carried to term and healthy - three at the most.

Anyone else know whether this is true? Cuz if the doctor is equally culpable of irresponsibility, he should have his practicing license taken away (research, however, is something different).

My understanding is there were only three succesful treatments, of which she expected none to produce more than one child each.

Why would she have such an expectation? IVF and fertility treatments regularly produce multiple births - particularly when so many embryos are used (6 is more than standard these days).


Is there any number of children a woman can have that WON'T get her labeled a menace?

How about a number that she can actually support and care for?

Nobody yelled at this woman when she had six kids and couldn't support them, but now she had 8 more and people yell at her. So six kids might be a good number. But what about the numbers between six and fourteen? Where's the threshold?

I didn't know about this woman when she only had six kids she couldn't support, so I really couldn't say anything about it.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/89/249270409_664e6841fa.jpg

It was her choice to make. If she wanted to have those children, that was her choice.

It was. And it is now her responsibility to care for all of them - something she is incapable of doing.

So long as she cares about all equally, does what is reasonably right for all, who are we to judge.

And this is the kicker. She hasn't done what is "reasonably right". And she isn't capable to provide for them. That is the nature of the criticism leveled against her.

I personally believe it was her choice to make, and it is not up to the rest of society to decide for her.

Why not? It's the rest of society who will have to either take care of those children or allow them to starve to death.

Why not? It's the rest of society who will have to either take care of those children or allow them to starve to death.

Actually, it seems to be her parents in this case. Which makes her decision making even more questionable, if you think about it.

she intends to pay for her children's needs by finishing her master's degree and finding work as a counselor

Aye, and sure who wouldn't give her a job counselling on personal issues.

Actually, it seems to be her parents in this case. Which makes her decision making even more questionable, if you think about it.
No, she gets food stamps, medicare, and social security for most of her children.

No, she gets food stamps, medicare, and social security for most of her children.

She is apparently ALSO living with her parents, who happen to oppose her breeding efforts.

EDIT: I am entirely unclear on how she has managed to receive welfare, while having assets sufficient to pay for all these IVF treatments. :confused:

She is apparently ALSO living with her parents, who happen to oppose her breeding efforts.

EDIT: I am entirely unclear on how she has managed to receive welfare, while having assets sufficient to pay for all these IVF treatments. :confused:

Well, if you had called Planned Parenthood earlier, we could have held her down and used the Shop Vac on her uterus...

well, if you had called planned parenthood earlier, we could have held her down and used the shop vac on her uterus...

wtf?

wtf?

I suggest that the state's interest in not paying for shitloads of babies should trump the right of an idiot to undergo IVF to have massive numbers of babies.

And if we catch her in the act, we should perform a forced abortion.

If you are all so concerned about the welfare of the children, maybe you should chip in your selves.

I have to agree she was being rather careless having so many children when she has no way to support them. I think people should be able to have as many and as few children as they like, but only when they have means to SUPPORT THEM. A stable income, food, shelter, clothing. She probably is a bit loony and will mooch the welfare system, but I can always have hope maybe she is trying to do the right thing and get her education.

I'm certain we all will chip in. She's certainly on welfare unless she gets a 10 or 20 million dollar movie deal or somesuch. It takes a lot of coin to raise 14 kids.

And this is the kicker. She hasn't done what is "reasonably right". And she isn't capable to provide for them. That is the nature of the criticism leveled against her.

Ah, "reason", how I loathe thee. :)


Why not? It's the rest of society who will have to either take care of those children or allow them to starve to death.

...yet the rest of this society is quite willing to oppose abortion in many situations. It's just as Bottle pointed out; a woman is damned if she has an abortion; she's damned if she doesn't and allows her uterus to be a clown car. It really should make up its mind.

Ah, "reason", how I loathe thee. :)




...yet the rest of this society is quite willing to oppose abortion in many situations. It's just as Bottle pointed out; a woman is damned if she has an abortion; she's damned if she doesn't and allows her uterus to be a clown car. It really should make up its mind.

She could stop having sex with a turkey baster. :p

Notice how the Pro Life movement is deafeningly silent on this matter. Clearly since they are not condemning it en masse this means they in fact condone and support overpopulation.

She could stop having sex with a turkey baster. :p

If only the dildo would have taken her back...

If only the dildo would have taken her back...

And she was cheating on both with a cucumber on the side. Now it's a pickle of course.

Notice how the Pro Life movement is deafeningly silent on this matter. Clearly since they are not condemning it en masse this means they in fact condone and support overpopulation.

I thought they were anti-IVF cause embryos are typically destroyed (or at least frozen and unused) during the procedure?

...yet the rest of this society is quite willing to oppose abortion in many situations. It's just as Bottle pointed out; a woman is damned if she has an abortion; she's damned if she doesn't and allows her uterus to be a clown car. It really should make up its mind.

I don't dispute that much of our society has unreasonable views towards reproductive issues.

However, I would point out that this woman didn't accidentally get pregnant and then choose not to have an abortion. She sought out IVF specifically in order to get pregnant.

I thought they were anti-IVF cause embryos are typically destroyed (or at least frozen and unused) during the procedure?

Oddly, those in favor of banning abortion and/or embryonic stem cell research are generally not opposed to IVF.

However, I would point out that this woman didn't accidentally get pregnant and then choose not to have an abortion. She sought out IVF specifically in order to get pregnant.

When IVF is used, more than one embryo is use because generally, not all will take. In her case, it seems that eight did. She had been encouraged to abort some, but chose not to. I wager that there was some of the pro-life culture nagging at her in the back of her mind when the doctor made the suggestion.

I'm certain we all will chip in. She's certainly on welfare unless she gets a 10 or 20 million dollar movie deal or somesuch. It takes a lot of coin to raise 14 kids.


Oh yeah, just watch. She will get a big new home and SUV (if she drives) from donations, a gift or some such book deal as you say. She was a topic on Dr. Phil today and they had her spokesperson on. Talking about the living conditions ... moms 3 br 2 ba home and how there is no way they can all live there. Had to fluff that audience up before she makes her appearance on Queen O's show.

When IVF is used, more than one embryo is use because generally, not all will take. In her case, it seems that eight did. She had been encouraged to abort some, but chose not to. I wager that there was some of the pro-life culture nagging at her in the back of her mind when the doctor made the suggestion.

That's irrelevant, though. She already had 6 children she couldn't support. She never should have been going through IVF in the first place. Even if the procedure had resulted only in 1 child, it would have been an irresponsible choice.

That said, it is my understanding that the standard procedure for IVF these days is to use 2-3 embryos, because the efficiency of the process has been greatly improved. 6 is well above the norm, leaving me to wonder if she was intentionally going for multiple births.

My father in law had 13 siblings and they ate rats. TRU STOREE.

Oh yeah, just watch. She will get a big new home and SUV (if she drives) from donations, a gift or some such book deal as you say. She was a topic on Dr. Phil today and they had her spokesperson on. Talking about the living conditions ... moms 3 br 2 ba home and how there is no way they can all live there. Had to fluff that audience up before she makes her appearance on Queen O's show.

Ugh, I just read MORE about this today. As a California taxpayer who's about to lose her job (and probably won't see a cent of unemployment), it makes me ill that my money is helping support this woman's selfish, irresponsible decisions.

She'd be smart to talk to anyone BUT Oprah. Oprah's going to eat her alive.

Ugh, I just read MORE about this today. As a California taxpayer who's about to lose her job (and probably won't see a cent of unemployment), it makes me ill that my money is helping support this woman's selfish, irresponsible decisions.

She'd be smart to talk to anyone BUT Oprah. Oprah's going to eat her alive.
even the today show isnt all that nice. the interview was very soft but every day they keep mentioning what she lied about and what her true situation is.

We don't know that yet. A student loan means it's a loan, which will have to pay back. Until she is actually living off the hard work of others, it's too soon to judge.

I'm not too sure now, but didn't the article say she feeds the other 6 kids on foodstamps already?

She currently gets 490 a month in food stamps. Anyone who sends donations to this troll should be beaten. She made the decision and now tax-payers and "good sumeritans" have to pick up the tab? Like Louis CK said, "Suck a bag of dicks" lady. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/12/octuplets.mom/index.html

I'm not too sure now, but didn't the article say she feeds the other 6 kids on foodstamps already?

The articles I had read earlier didn't say that, but I see it now. However, people complain about society taking care of her children; why not complain about having to spend tax dollars to educate every single child? After all, that's going to the care of someone else's children.

Besides, we're all in this together.

She currently gets 490 a month in food stamps. Anyone who sends donations to this troll should be beaten. She made the decision and now tax-payers and "good sumeritans" have to pick up the tab? Like Louis CK said, "Suck a bag of dicks" lady. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/12/octuplets.mom/index.html
if you send her money she will save it up to make more babies. she already horded her disability money for that purpose leaving her parents and the government to pay for her already born children.

The articles I had read earlier didn't say that, but I see it now. However, people complain about society taking care of her children; why not complain about having to spend tax dollars to educate every single child? After all, that's going to the care of someone else's children.

Besides, we're all in this together.

We are, and I've no problem paying for that. The way I see it, it's not so much a fee as more an investment in each single child. It's good for everybody.

HAVING that many kids without being able to even pay for their most basic needs, such a food, clothing, etc. is something else altogether.

Using tax money to pay for common needs - such as educating children, health care, etc. - is something we as a society agreed on. We also agreed on providing for people who cannot provide for themselves, regardless of the reason why.
For one of those people to then turn around and slap society with the load of having to provide for an additional 14 individuals for no other reason than sheer selfishness ... well, I personally find it morally wrong.

Mind you, I'm not advocating canceling benefits for her or her kids.
I'm not sure I would advocate any for of legal action against her at all.
I'm just stating that in my opinion, what she did was selfish and irresponsible in the extreme.

Notice how the Pro Life movement is deafeningly silent on this matter. Clearly since they are not condemning it en masse this means they in fact condone and support overpopulation.

Yes, the Shop Vac approach would have saved us a lot of money.

Tying together the two previous posts, I would suggest investing money in the one thing that has definitely proven to lower birthrates: educating women. Statistically, as women get more educated, they have less children.

So, if we want to save the state some money on child-related investments, we should educate the females as much as possible. It would be a better long-term investment then, say, the Shop Vac approach.

Tying together the two previous posts, I would suggest investing money in the one thing that has definitely proven to lower birthrates: educating women. Statistically, as women get more educated, they have less children.

So, if we want to save the state some money on child-related investments, we should educate the females as much as possible. It would be a better long-term investment then, say, the Shop Vac approach.

A Shop Vac is pretty cheap.

A Shop Vac is pretty cheap.

A bottle of Coke is even cheaper

This thread makes me sad :(

Yay for relevance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wujlieYG47s&feature=channel_page)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katherine-thomson/does-nadya-suleman-think_b_165617.html

It's starting to look more and more like an American tragedy.

How could she afford fertilization treatment in the FIRST place? Shit's expensive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4587633/Octuplets-doctor-investigated-by-American-Society-for-Reproductive-Medicine.html
Here's the arsehole here.

no, tell us how you really feel about him. Don't sugarcoat it now!

Anyone else think he bears a strinking similarity to Dick Cheney?

no, tell us how you really feel about him. Don't sugarcoat it now!

Anyone else think he bears a strinking similarity to Dick Cheney?

Only if it turns out he used a shotgun to implant those eggs into her uterus.

Only if it turns out he used a shotgun to implant those eggs into her uterus.

Dick Cheney's little egg hunt. :p

I hope the state intervenes and removes the children from her care. Atleast until she gets extensive mental health treatment. She is clearly unhinged. She chronically lies. She is somehow paying for IVF when she can't afford to support the children she already has. She's having expensive plastic surgery (where is all this money comming from??) to look like Angelena Jolie. And, it now seems, she has been sending letters to Jolie for well over a year gushing about how wonderful she is. I hope this poor woman gets the mental help she so badly needs. This is so sad for that entire family.

From CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2009/02/14/sbt.octuplet.mom.cnn?iref=videosearch

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/89/249270409_664e6841fa.jpgWin.
'Bout time you started pulling your weight, Whispering Legs. :p

no, tell us how you really feel about him. Don't sugarcoat it now!
Not many good things to say, honestly.

Only if it turns out he used a shotgun to implant those eggs into her uterus.
Also, a win. *bows*

No, she gets food stamps, medicare, and social security for most of her children.

....on top of what she gets off her parents.


She also said of paying for the six kids she has already been helping to raise that "my retirement check goes every month. it's just gone."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/16/angela-suleman-octuplet-g_n_167194.html

I hope the state intervenes and removes the children from her care. Atleast until she gets extensive mental health treatment. She is clearly unhinged. She chronically lies. She is somehow paying for IVF when she can't afford to support the children she already has. She's having expensive plastic surgery (where is all this money comming from??) to look like Angelena Jolie. And, it now seems, she has been sending letters to Jolie for well over a year gushing about how wonderful she is. I hope this poor woman gets the mental help she so badly needs. This is so sad for that entire family.
interesting, that last bit. Especially considering her apparent off-hand comment when compared to Jolie, that she 'hadn't been to the movies in years' and thus didn't know what Jolie looked like.

From other reports, she got the money for her plastic surgery from a $167,000 payout she received over back injury claims. She told no-one about this money, not even her own parents. Meanwhile, she's got a $50,000 student loan and 6 kids under <7 to care for. So of course the most obvious thing to do is spend the lot on making yourself look like a movie star and finding a doctor whose ethics are so low he's happy to turn you into the human equivalent of a female swine.

interesting, that last bit. Especially considering her apparent off-hand comment when compared to Jolie, that she 'hadn't been to the movies in years' and thus didn't know what Jolie looked like.

From other reports, she got the money for her plastic surgery from a $167,000 payout she received over back injury claims. She told no-one about this money, not even her own parents. Meanwhile, she's got a $50,000 student loan and 6 kids under <7 to care for. So of course the most obvious thing to do is spend the lot on making yourself look like a movie star and finding a doctor whose ethics are so low he's happy to turn you into the human equivalent of a female swine.

Get all the kids out of there before she ends up killing them, that's what I say. This woman's going to be a bigger meltdown than Andrea Yates.

interesting, that last bit. Especially considering her apparent off-hand comment when compared to Jolie, that she 'hadn't been to the movies in years' and thus didn't know what Jolie looked like.

From other reports, she got the money for her plastic surgery from a $167,000 payout she received over back injury claims. She told no-one about this money, not even her own parents. Meanwhile, she's got a $50,000 student loan and 6 kids under <7 to care for. So of course the most obvious thing to do is spend the lot on making yourself look like a movie star and finding a doctor whose ethics are so low he's happy to turn you into the human equivalent of a female swine.

'slipped through the cracks of the mental health care system', or something.

Even in the best of circumstances, raising that many young children would be difficult. As it is, 3 of the first batch have difficulties of one degree or another. Personally I don't give a rats ass about the 'tax payers expense', just the well being on the children.

Her proper name now is Octomom. Her superpower is raising kids who will be in jail soon.