Anonymous Mom, No Dads, + 14

[sweetwater]

Q: how could she afford to pay for the medical workups and implantations that led to this fiasco? Was it lawsuit income or the 'generosity' of the doctor? I haven't seen the answer anywhere, though I perhaps have missed it. Seeing red makes it hard to read, ya know. And will California build her an enormous shoe in which she and her brood may live? Just askin'!

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by sweetwater

Q: how could she afford to pay for the medical workups and implantations that led to this fiasco? Was it lawsuit income or the 'generosity' of the doctor? I haven't seen the answer anywhere, though I perhaps have missed it. Seeing red makes it hard to read, ya know. And will California build her an enormous shoe in which she and her brood may live? Just askin'!

Did you read the song lyrics, missy?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I'm not against the idea of population control, it has been used well into prehistoric times, but the issue becomes extremely tricky. In order to have a good population control system, we first need to find a saturation population based on an average standard of living. This works similar to designing a water treatment plant. If we do not know how much water is used per capita, no design will be successful unless by pure chance. Then resource regulation has to come into play. If we are going to start focusing on population control, regulating resources must go hand in hand or else the saturation population will drop and we will resource droughts for some people.

I strongly believe that without regulating both factors, population and resources, we can never produce an effective population control method. Obviously regulation control does not mean that each person can only have so many gallons of gas per day, but a national goal has to be set and met.

After getting our resource use goal, we can then determine how many people can live under that resource goal and make actions accordingly. If the population is not threatening the stability of the community, influential campaigns will be more effective. If the population is threatening the stability of the community, harsher methods should be used. It will be completely dynamic based on the situation on hand.

I greatly prefer this because it should not go against individual rights unless we are in great crisis because we will be looking at birth rates from a national level. If one person has 14 kids and 14 other families have one less kid then the average goal, we do not have a problem on a national level.


That brings me to my opinion on this issue. An increase of 10 children is not large on a global or even national level but the questions are whether she is the norm, we have the resources to handle that increase if it is the norm, and whether she as an individual can support her children.

On the national level, our population (USA) is increasing. For every woman having 5+ children, we do not seem to have 3 families having only one or even no children. But that is a different issue.

If she can not pay for more children, then I am against handing it money to her within our current system. If you are under welfare and show no signs of coming off, no extra money should be given for having an excessive number of children (5+ being excessive). If you are financially stable with 14 kids and then hit a roadblock and need to go to welfare, that is a different story.

All in all, I don't really care. Most people don't have 14 children and the extra money given to her won't effect me but I can see how this can be a problem if this happens to often.

In looking at population and population control, we also have to look at how much longer people are living nowadays. We keep extending life. Since people are living so much longer, that is another stress on the environoment. You can't have people living longer, and also have the population growing, especially when some people are choosing to have so many damn kids. And while it may be an anomaly to pop out 8 babies at once, there are a lot of people having more than 3 or 4 kids as well. And with fertility treatments, there are a LOT more people having 4 or 5 babies at once.

I think there is a big ethics issue here. I believe people have to look at the long term effects of their choices on the world at large, and not just think about what THEY want. There is a bigger picture here. And if people aren't willing to look at this on their own, then we have an obligation to the world community to force them to look at it.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by sweetwater

Q: how could she afford to pay for the medical workups and implantations that led to this fiasco? Was it lawsuit income or the 'generosity' of the doctor? I haven't seen the answer anywhere, though I perhaps have missed it. Seeing red makes it hard to read, ya know. And will California build her an enormous shoe in which she and her brood may live? Just askin'!

Apparently, before she became disabled, she saved all her money while working as a nurse or something. She is obviously educated, but she also obviously has mental issues.

One of her other 6 kids is autistic, another one is a "little" autistic and has disabilities, and another one has some other kind of disability. She receives disability from the state for those 3 kids. So why would a responsible doctor implant her with more embryos, knowing she already had three kids that were disabled in some way? He should be investigated for that.

[piercehawkeye45]

I think there is a big ethics issue here. I believe people have to look at the long term effects of their choices on the world at large, and not just think about what THEY want. There is a bigger picture here. And if people aren't willing to look at this on their own, then we have an obligation to the world community to force them to look at it.

Do you really think the world community is going to take this seriously? This issue is just so much about resources as it is population. Yes, the US and European countries might be doing well in keeping a slow or nonexistent population growth rate but we are completely unsustainable when it comes to resources. If more efficient methods and lifestyles were set up, it would be much easier to support our world population.

[TheMercenary]

Imagine that....

Taxpayers may have to cover octuplet mom's costs

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[classicman]

I heard mention of plastic surgery to look more like Angelina Jolie last night during a tv interview. She flatly denied it, but there were before and after pics by the station and she also caved on her "exaggeration" of not receiving assistance, welfare.
Its really too bad that there are children involved because this woman deserves ZERO from the taxpayers.

[Trilby]

This woman's real obsession is Jolie. She wants to look like her and have a bunch of children like jolie - only problem is she certainly doesn't have jolie's income.

Man. check the before and after photos of her on the web. I hope the doc that did this gets his license yanked.

[TheMercenary]

Nice. {not for weak stomachs, sfw}

http://www.tmz.com/2009/02/12/octomo...very-goodyear/

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Do you really think the world community is going to take this seriously? This issue is just so much about resources as it is population. Yes, the US and European countries might be doing well in keeping a slow or nonexistent population growth rate but we are completely unsustainable when it comes to resources. If more efficient methods and lifestyles were set up, it would be much easier to support our world population.

I think a lot of people are sufficiently upset about it to evoke some kind of change in policy for fertilization techniques. Fertility is supposed to be for people who have trouble conceiving, not for people who already have a bunch of kids.

And hey, I agree about the sustainability issue. That is my whole beef. Well, that and the fact that she can't afford the kids in the first place. Personally, the rate the world population has increased over the past 100 years, I don't believe we could sustain it no matter what we did.

[sugarpop]

oh, and apparently she now has a websight asking people for donations to support her kids.

[Cloud]

I can't bring myself to get too excited over this woman. People do weird and stupid things.

[glatt]

She's getting death threats now and the police are getting involved.

I think she has poor judgment, but she hasn't broken any laws. People need to leave her alone. It's one thing to discuss the idea of this woman on a forum, but sending her nasty e-mails and threatening phone calls is worse than what she has done.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If she makes a public appeal, she's asking for flack.
I'm ok with nasty emails, as long as they are signed and not anonymous, in response to the website seeking donations.

[classicman]

There are extremists in the world and they will make death threats or whatever else, but she asked for it by "begging" for donations. I can't wait to see when some *&^% celebrity gives her a lot of money. A little more fame, the daytime talk show circuit, perhaps a series about the kids and their trials.... :vomit

This type of behavior is what gives humans a bad reputation.

No she hasn't broken any laws, we cannot legislate morality or ethics. What she has done is a travesty.