The idea of her being a humanitarian is absurd. It’s like bombing someone so that you could pull them out of the rubble and claim you’re doing it to help them. You’re creating the situation that needs to be rectified, then wanting credit for rectifying it.
She’s selfish. She wants to fill some gap in her life or satisfy some nutty urge at the cost of having children who won’t have the support (financial or emotional) that they need. She’s an extreme example of what a vast number of people do. The whole idea that people seem to have that having a kid is for the kid’s benefit is bizarre, illogical, and absurd to me.
If you want to make a positive difference in the lives of children, adopt. The world has no shortage of kids running around - insisting that you need to have your own in order to spread love or whatever your purpose is is egotistical, selfish and arrogant. Chances are your gene pool is not a beautiful and unique snowflake. Adopt a kid and better the life of someone who’s already stuck in this world - you don’t need to create your own problem to solve when there are already so many running around with more need.
There are a lot of medical conditions we “fix” because they aren’t life threatening but improve the quality of life. I had surgery for carpal tunnel. My sister had IVF. Both improved our quality of life (well, I don’t think my CT surgery did much for me - it wasn’t a net gain) and were done to fix a point of pain in our lives.
I went through infertility treatments, but stopped before the IVF point and adopted. Then had a surprise baby. The pain a lot of people have at being childless is real, and I assume that the drive to have that child biologically is also real (it wasn’t for us).
However, in all medicine there are ethical considerations. And there are ethical considerations in child rearing as well. No reputable adoption agency would allow you to adopt eight babies at once (unless there were extreme extenuating circumstances) - we would have had to have our son in our home a year before we could bring home another child. Transplanting six eggs doesn’t seem ethical to me because in the event they do take, that’s too many kids at home at once.
Crazy. She’s absolutely crazy, and on top of that, she’s not a good person (unless being a welfare leech, parent leech, and student loan defrauder are symptoms of mental illness as well).
She’s holding those poor kids hostage. No one is going to withold sympathy from those kids, and she’s taking advantage of that fact.
I’m liberal on most issues, but I’d have no problem with the state pulling every one of those kids at out of that home. They’re already living in a group home situation. At least with foster care, they won’t necessarily be under the care of an absolute wackjob.
The scary thing is that this woman can have other children. No doctor is going to knock her up now that her pictures have been plastered everywhere, but nothing is stopping her from having more kids the old-fashioned way. If there was ever a case for forced sterilization, this is it.
I read that she thought she could get 2 million for her story. From who I do not know. But that was apparently part of the plan. Have a litter of kids and make out financially.It creates a conundrum for many. You don’t want the children to suffer but you do not want to reward her stupid behavior either.
Well, that’s why I said I don’t agree with it. My problems with it are ethical ones that **Dangerosa **notes. My understanding is that IVF is so costly a process and the chances of the implanted zygotes actually surviving and developing was small enough to justify planting multiple at a time, thereby increasing the likelihood of a successful pregnancy with less cost and time expended.
The ethical dilemma, though, is what if all the zygotes are successful? It’s not as big of a deal if it’s 2 or 3, but six? Additionally, what happens if you start with a high number of zygotes and not only do all survive but several split? I would support legislation limiting the number of zygotes implanted at one time to eliminate these unnatural pregnancies that forces a woman to choose whether to selectively reduce for health and/or practical reasons. I think two is a reasonable limit; limiting IVF to only producing quads.
So, what I disagree with here is the physician’s ability and decision to implant six zygotes. I feel legislation to prevent this from happening is needed. I also feel her choice not to selectively reduce was a poor one, although I at the same time I feel that her right to make that, IMHO, selfish choice ought to be protected.
Wouldn’t you say that epidemics are nature’s way of thinning the population, to make the remaining population stronger and less susceptible to diseases less likely to spread? Sounds a perfectly sound biological reason for epidemics.
I’d let it slide if you had said “slightly higher”, even though this is not conclusive. Once you control for multiples and a woman’s age (both of which correlate to birth defects), most studies find no difference or only slightly higher differences (but still very low altogether).
Multiples can be controlled. You take out what you put in (usually less). I doubt right now this woman’s claim that they “only” put in six. More likely they put in more than 10, and 8 survived.
To be fair, it seems to be a subject of disagreement among scientists. Although, I believe it’s safe to say that the chances of birth defects significantly increases in pregnancies with many multiples, which is an even greater controversy within the community.
I’ll ask for a cite for this. What do you mean by multiples can be controlled? And on what basis do you suspect that she didn’t have splits?
That was my point. Frank’s claim of “high” birth defect rates is not supportable. There was one study last year that showed about a two fold overall increase (while still very low overall), and it is unclear if they controlled for maternal age. Also, they found the rates of birth defects for IVF twins was actually lower than standard twins. And this is the first, of quite a few, studies to show any effect at all.
The rates of twins in IVF is obviously much higher, but this is generally because more than one are implanted. This splitting, while higher in IVF, is not much higher, and is still pretty rare. However, the rates of implantation and live birth, while variable clinic to clinic, are somewhere around 50% or less.
This is what I base my guess on. If they put in six embryos, they would be much more likely to lose one or more than to gain one or more. I’m not saying her claim is impossible, but based on her truth accuracy record, and the numbers, it seems unlikely.
Multiples can be contolled means that if you put in one or two embryos (as most reputable places do) you are much, much more likely to get out one or two babies than you are to get four. The latter would be extremely unlikely.
(by the way, we had a positive pregnancy test off an IVF cycle yesterday, and I’ve done my research!)
And this is why many IVF clinics will implant two embryos with each cycle, and “sell” a package that includes three implantations if you need it. You have a pretty good chance of having a baby at the end of three cycles, a decent chance at twins, a marginal chance of triplets - and almost no chance of a litter.
Most cases of quints and above aren’t happening due to IVF but due to fertility meds in the pre-IVF stage. When I Fertinex I ovulated eleven eggs in one cycle. Lucky me, I had implantation issues and never conceived on fertility drugs, but it isn’t hard to see how you can end up having quints or more in those circumstances.
ETA: Congrats on the positive test. May this mean a happy healthy baby in a mere 40 weeks or so.
Mia Farrow has four biological children. The other 10 were adopted, most of them being hard-to-place children. There were two others she paid to bring to the United States and when she found out they were profoundly retarded, she allowed them to be adopted by other families without cost.
She has always worked and she has never been on welfare or asked for one nickel from the public.
Comparing this 14 child mother to Mia Farrow is just ridiculouse and an insult to Mia.
To put it another way, here are (approximate, and influenced by many external factors) odds for any given implanted embyro:
live birth 49.5%
no implantation/miscarriage 49.5%
splitting into two 1%
Sure, it’s mathematically possible that they put in six not only did all six flip the coin and make it to live birth, but two hit the jackpot and split. But, it’s more likely they put in more than ten and eight made it.
Her claim is provable. If she’s telling the truth, she has two sets of identicals. If not she has eight fraternals.
I am well aware of everything you wrote about Mia Farrow. I never said she took public assistance which in my opinion, does not make her any better than Nadya Suleman. The comparison comes from the fact that she “collects” children like Nadya Suleman. A particular problem among some single women who really ought to seek professional help to help understand why they feel the need to fill something in their empty lives with an unusually large amount of children. If you feel you should help kids, have three maybe four either by adoption or whatever. But 14 like Mia and Nadya? This is madness! It also cannot and never can give the individual attention each child especially a special needs child deserves from their mother. Instead, like Nadya you get public assistance or like Mia you hire nannies. Either way, in my opinion it’s really not the children these women are truly thinking of but themselves.
If there was ever a case for legal birth control, this is the icing on the cake.
Let’s see: six kids- 50% supported on the state’s dime already, single mom, no house, no real job, confounding financial factors, etc.
Not only is she one of the bottom 2% of America I would like to see reproduce any more, it’s ridiculous that it’s come this far already. A sure sign that ‘Idiocracy’ is going to come true, probably within our lifetimes.
It’s like when a kid brings home a stray dog. One stray, it’s cute. The whole pound, it starts to become a problem. Only these aren’t dogs, she’s not a kid and there’s no pound to return them to.
I don’t think you can compare Mia and Nadya just because they have the same number of kids. Not anymore than you can compare Nadya to any foster parent with a large household. That isn’t to say that foster/adoptive parents can’t be hoarders, but there are people who truly have big hearts, love kids, and want to help those who need help. And because they are truly good-intentioned, they wait till they have money and willing help (which I doubt Nadya’s parents are). That’s where the insanity comes in.
Unfairly or not, financial means matter to this discussion. Mia Farrow could have had fourteen severely handicapped children, but they would be 14 severely handicapped children with non-tax-supported nannies and round-the-clock care. They would be her burden, not society’s. It sounds cold to boil this thing down to money, but that’s what it is. Good citizens do not intentionally make burdens of the state.
I don’t know. I just think there is more to being a good mother than whether or not you take assistance. (I hope my entire post didn’t boil down to comparing the two of them just because they have the same amount of kids. If so I guess I wasn’t clear)
Well, you’re one word succinct question cracked me up. My Catholic upbringing reared its ugly head there, didn’t it? I guess I equate a certain selflessness to having children. Silly I know but there it is.
Well, of course a parent can be “good” while taking welfare. But being a good parent doesn’t translate into being a good person or being a responsible citizen.
There’s nothing shameful about needing public assistance. Even if one’s own actions are directly involved (as in, needing support after divorcing an abusive spouse). But as far as we know, Nadya had no intention of ever supporting her very large family on her own dime. She intended for the state of CA to be her “husband” from the very beginning. How is that anything other than callous? If she’s willing to do something as undignified and immoral as this, then what’s to say she won’t further sacrfice her family’s condition for other goals? I’m thinking a person who’s this way won’t stop at anything to get attention, and that puts her in kids in jeopardy (like Munchausen’s by proxy).
Of course I’m judging her. Why not? Why is so bad to look at this woman and say, “You know? She just ain’t right!” We have plenty of reasonable justification for believing this, but no evidence of the opposite.
Crazy and despicable. I feel truly sorry for her poor parents. An unemployed single mother with six children has no business getting in vitro for even one more child.
Also, Mia never had more than 2 infants at one time–her twins, and then she adopted a girl three months younger than her third son. She was married when she first started adopting. Her children were all conceived naturally.