Madonna, Angelina Jolie and Mia Farrow are not pumping out babies like their vagina are clown cars . They are not getting food stamps to feed their children. They are not raising [del]six[/del] fourteen children in their parents’ three bedroom apartment. They are working mothers who will give their children the value of working, not of living on food stamps and lawsuits.
I don’t understand the desire to have children anyway, so the concept of having that many on purpose when you clearly don’t have the means to care for them is completely insane to me. My vote is crazy.
Even setting aside the issue of her being a drain on public money, how is a single mother going to give all 14 children the individual attention they need?
Unlike the Duggars, who have a “buddy system” going on where older siblings look out for younger ones, 8 kids born at the same time precludes that from being a possibility.
Also, this just isn’t natural. Notice that women only have two boobs. I think that’s natures way of saying that two babies at any given time is all one woman is equipped for.
Count my vote as crazy. (But I have a bias, I thinking wanting kids at means you have to be just a tad nutty, so this woman is a complete loon.)
Why do you think it is better to adopt your way to 14 children than to birth your way to 14 children – or whatever she did? Why this obsession on what she uses her vagina for? Why does it even concern you? She could smoke cigarettes or shoot out ping-pong balls with her vagina for all that I think it matters.
So it is the welfare mother angle you find so disagreeable. I agree entirely. All parents should pay their own way. But if she sold her story for $2 million I suppose she is fine now. I don’t know how things are in the US, but around here $2 million would set you up comfortable for life without you having to work a day more. In any case, did she intent for octuplets?
Yes, I do think raising a child on welfare is a form of child abuse, like raising too many children in too small a house. I’ve seen too many welfare mothers whose children become welfare mothers.
Can $2M support 14 children till adulthood?
While I really don’t care what any woman does with her vagina, but I do think any peson who has children should be able to support them. And I do give kudos to people who adopt children instead of having more of their own.
Don’t like to think of myself as the judgemental type (who does?), but I vote for three parts insane to one part sociopathically selfish.
When hearing her talk about the prudence of having that many kids, her response had all to what she wanted and can do and will be able to do. But what about her kids? Can anyone argue that this is what is best for them?
One part of me feels sorry for her parents but another part makes me question their sanity as well. At some point, like after the 4rd kid, they should have realized their daughter was perhaps a tad addicted to having kids. They could stopped enabling her behavior by kicking her out and forcing her to support herself. Now granted there is a lot that we don’t know about their home situation and I fully realize that, but it seems as if they stood idly by and watched their daughter turn herself into a baby mill. There’s no way I would have put up with that in my golden years.
Except that with IVF, you have choices to make well before it comes to abortion. You can decide how many eggs to try to fertilize at one time, and you can decide how many to implant at one time. I think it’s insanity to implant 8 embryos at once…I can’t understand a reputable doctor doing it. Usually, when you hear about large sets of multiples, it’s caused by fertility drugs, not by IVF, because with fertility drugs, you don’t have that control over the outcome.
There is nothing wrong with large families!
This particular woman is, in fact, probably more than a little off her rocker judging by some reports I’ve seen of her medical history.
I’m usually the first one to defend large families, myself, but in this case, I think that there seems to be no forethought about what was going to happen if all 8 of those babies survived, and now that they have, how she is going to support 14 children. It’s a hell of a lot harder and more expensive than having them one at a time…you have to have supplies for 8 at a time, vs. handing stuff down from one baby to the next. I have a friend who is from a family of 11, and they only ever needed one crib.
I agree.
I don’t think this woman is crazy - merely foolish. The problem is, there’s at least some scientific evidence to suggest that the less competent someone is, the less capable they are of assessing their level of competence at a given task. Thus, while most of us look at this woman’s income, housing, and existing family, and conclude she cannot properly support any additional children - she simply can’t assess her own competence to raise children in that way. This is because she’s incompetence.
Cite: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL
While I don’t think it is proven, her mother has said she is addicted to having babies, and she has admitted that she thought having babies would help with her depression, so that is at least two pieces of evidence.
Jonathan
Actually there is a pretty big difference. Adopting 14 children is allowing 14 kids without a home to have a chance at being a part of a family and all the could-be benefits of this. Having 14 kids when you don’t have the means to care for them, is actually entirely the opposite. It is a solid case for adoption IMO.
That having been said, I don’t think anybody should be prohibited the right to procreate however they think it is best, UNLESS you are promising your offspring a life of misery. But then, people could debate what is miserable and what isn’t.
The 2million she may get for her story is not a valid argument against her sanity, since it happened after the fact. When she decided to go with all 8 embryos (already having 6 kids on wellfare), she excercized poor judgement, exhibited some brand of crazy, and in my opinion, qualifies her as an unfit parent (if for no other reason, a poor example to follow).
The only think I can say in her favor is: So many UNWANTED children are born every day - at least it seems like she really wants these kids (if for the wrong reasons perhaps).
I wish people would let the damn story die.
Sorry for the double post but, one last thing: Those 2 million will never cover the cost of raising 14 kids. Just the hospital bills from the birth of the last 8 plus child care for the 14 are going to burn through that money like wildfire. Not taking into account food, shelter, transportation, clothes, etc. Lets not even get into education and what not.
Crazy or not, she’s irresponsible as hell.
Those other single moms on welfare are irresponsible too, but this is orders of magnitude worse. The doctor who agreed to do this is just as disgusting. This should be illegal.
I think fertility treatments in general are a vile perversion of nature. Stories about 60 year old women having giant litters of babies already makes my stomach churn. Now this? This is a horrific trend. The world is over-populated as it is.
If these kinds of souped up fertility treatments are going to allowed, there should be a law mandating that no more than one live birth can be allowed to result. Once there’s a viable embryo, all others should be destroyed in vitro.
I’ll go with irresponsible and obsessed with delusional icing for now. If and when she decides to have a few more, off her effin’ rocker.
I heard (relatively) early on in the development of the story that the octuplets reprresent the last eight embryos she had on ice, so it would appear that this will be the last time.
Of course, new information seems to be coming out daily, so that may not still be operative. For all I know, she has several dozen more embryos available. Next time, she might go for twelve, and do it in the full view of the public spotlight.
She could be the David Blaine of IVF moms!
I’ve been so curious to know why they didn’t implant them 2 or 3 at a time, vs. all at once…you would think even having 3 sets of twins or triplets would be easier than having 8 all at the same time.
I thought I heard that she wanted them all implanted so they each had a chance (maybe she figured she couldn’t do any more after this last round).
That’s the part I don’t get…if there was a reason the doc thought that she shouldn’t have more than one more pregnancy. Because I know she didn’t want to “waste” any of the embryos, or selectively reduce (which, as you know, I totally get). But it seems like if you are concerned with giving them each a chance, they’d each have MORE of a chance if they were only in there with one or two others, vs. all eight at once.