Octuplet mom: Can you justify that level of anger in public?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:quote] My "source" is that I'm Arab and grew up in the Middle East (although not Iraq). The fact that she's unmarried is unheard of. Her method of impregnation is irrelevant. Religion, here, is secondary to culture. I don't care if she's Muslim or Christian.

And I'm only speaking of Arab culture here, because it was mentioned by someone else. I realize only her father is Arab and she grew up in the States. In my experience, however, first generation Arab American families do not act like this. It is completely bizarre.

I don't think I ever said that her being unmarried is typical of Arab culture but that's what you are bringing up. What I said was that it is not uncommon for Arabs to have or want many children. Then I also mentioned that she's a Christian Arab, not a Muslim Arab and you wrote to say "That's absolutely not true." I understood this to be in response to my assertion that she is not Muslim. This has been a very long thread so I might have gotten some posts mixed up, but this is my understanding of our discussion.

Her parents names are Ed and Angela. These are not Muslim names. I don't know of any Muslims with these names. They usually have names such as Muhammad, Ali, Mahmood, Aziza, Fatima, etc...so likely her parents are not Muslim. This is what I was commenting about.

As for her bizarre behavior, I don't think anybody is arguing she's a bit bizarre - whether she's Arab, from Zimbabwe, or China. But the deep desire to have many children is common in Arab culture. I'm a Muslim, though not Arab. I go to our mosque (like a church) where many families have numerous children. The Imam of our mosque, the religious leader who is also Arab, is one of 7 children. Younger generations are less likely to have so many children if raised in the U.S. but among traditional Arabs having a lot of children isn't a shock. Now maybe not 14 and maybe not through invitro while single, but this goes to her psych issues and that's not under protest here.

Assalamu alaikum, Sister.

We're talking about two different things for sure. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding. Her father is absolutely Christian. I have no idea about her mother, who is not Arab in any event.

My point was, as poorly as I made it, that among Arab families, marriage must happen first before babies. Regardless of religion. A woman would suffer a less-than-perfect marriage in order to have her children. They do so every day. Children are very much wanted, for sure.

I, as an Arab, just cannot wrap my mind around the fact she was having children (multiple!) out of wedlock. It is inconceivable to me and I would die a thousand deaths if my daughter, born here, ever did that. Child after child, year after year. It's a disaster in an Arab family. This is not to say that out of wedlock births don't happen here in the US among Arab families -- they do. And when they happen, in my experience, the families rally around the daughters and help raise the babies. But it happens once. Not six times. Not 14.

Now, how first generation Arab American families deal with the cultural differences in the States, that's the subject of many books and too long to get into here. However, Nadya's behavior is so gross, so over the top, it just cannot be comprehended.

Salaam, yes you are correct. She clearly has some issues that perhaps only a psychiatrist (not a psychologist as Dr. Phil is) can handle. And you are also correct that this it is almost unheard of for an Arab to have children out of wedlock, Christian or Muslim it wouldn't matter. Arab culture is traditional. Marriage comes first, then children.

separate issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be a good show. I read earlier today that the hospital and social workers are evaluating whether or not she should be allowed to take the babies home.

Beginning with how do you even transport 8 special needs ICU infants? Feel sorry for the other kids and for the grandparents. They're old and need a break.

I agree the gparents need a break. But that link of the grandma bashing her daughter on TV is horrible. That's private family matters not to be put on display to shame your daughter or to be used to get public approval or support. IF that relationship wasn't ruined, that grandma has certainly permanently ruined it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the points brought up on this page were discussed pages ago already.

Foreclosure began Feb. 9th. She got pregnant 9 months before this before the family was in dire financial straits - as I understand. May be wrong but this is from what I read.

Many families have their kids in daycare or preschool for 40 hours a week. They don't always give them their undivided attention all during the day because they're working.

She's immature and need psych help, you'll get no argument from me on those points. But her actions do not rise to the level of terminating parental rights. If you just read up on what would truly give rise to terminating parental rights you would understand that as nutty as Nadya may be, she shouldn't be considered for such an egregious measure.

No matter what you think of Nadya, I wish people would separate feelings against nadya from help for those babies. Your attitude only makes it harder on those newborns.

Do you really believe that a family is not in dire financial straits until foreclosure begins? Really? I shudder to think of the state of your finances.

Don't bring up my personal finances. I'm a lawyer and my husband is a doctor. I don't need or wish to work right now. So no need to shudder for me. But getting back to the topic at issue, Nadya got pregnant around the same time as grandma stopped making payments on the house. No information exists as far as I am aware that the family was hurting financially prior to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, the topic is fine, I just find it alarming that people are spending this much time debating it.

FWIW, i think people should just leave this woman alone, already. I can understand how it might tug on some people's heartstrings to think 8 babies (or 14 children) may be in danger of neglect, but most of the posters are just interested in spewing hate. And even those who support seem like they might want to move on to something else now. Social services will be monitoring, and clearly the sharks are circling this woman (both those who would pretend to help aka "angels in waiting" and those writing death threats and dr. dingdong aka dr. phil) and so are the supporters. Move on, the story is over.

Everyone has an opinion on this, but you can go back and forth a million times without resolving it. You're not going to make someone stop hating other people, nor are you going to convince someone who supports her that they should give hate a chance. So why bother beating the dead horse? It's starting to stink a little bit.

I'm the OP. I think you hit the nail on the head with this comment. I really do not like to see hate proliferate these forums and grow as an infestation in peoples heart. There will always be people in our world who make bad decisions. I think most people who make profoundly bad decisions often have underlying psychological issues or suffer from a lack of education or are just ignorant of their mistakes. I maydislike what they have done and how it has put these babies in difficult circumstances, but this level of hate spewing on this forum makes me wonder where the patience and forgiveness is for the frailty of human character. People don't even want to help Nadya's babies because they are unable to tear themselves from all this hate-mongering to recognize that those babies are innocent though. And also to recognize that hate resolves nothing but, instead, can be like a cancer to your soul.

My purpose in this post was to try to extinguish at least some of the hate and to ask people to have more patience with her very bad decisions in life. I am sure it won't stop all people from hating Nadya but I sure hope that this hate eventually dissipates in some.

[Anonymous]

clearly the sharks are circling this woman (both those who would pretend to help aka "angels in waiting" and those writing death threats and dr. dingdong aka dr. phil)

I'm confused. Are you saying that the Angels In Waiting offer is not legitimate? Perhaps I missed a news story . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

clearly the sharks are circling this woman (both those who would pretend to help aka "angels in waiting" and those writing death threats and dr. dingdong aka dr. phil)

I'm confused. Are you saying that the Angels In Waiting offer is not legitimate? Perhaps I missed a news story . . .

I think the lawyer for them is a publicity hound -- she made them an offer they couldn't refuse (since she called CPS and complained about them and then went public). So either Nadya and her kids live under their thumb or they threaten -- doesn't sound like legitimate "help" to me. This was in the ET link someone provided earlier. The group, in the same breath as promising to help the kids, sought donations. You can bet some of those donations pay their lawyer! Just seemed pretty sketchy to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the topic is fine, I just find it alarming that people are spending this much time debating it.

FWIW, i think people should just leave this woman alone, already. I can understand how it might tug on some people's heartstrings to think 8 babies (or 14 children) may be in danger of neglect, but most of the posters are just interested in spewing hate. And even those who support seem like they might want to move on to something else now. Social services will be monitoring, and clearly the sharks are circling this woman (both those who would pretend to help aka "angels in waiting" and those writing death threats and dr. dingdong aka dr. phil) and so are the supporters. Move on, the story is over.

Everyone has an opinion on this, but you can go back and forth a million times without resolving it. You're not going to make someone stop hating other people, nor are you going to convince someone who supports her that they should give hate a chance. So why bother beating the dead horse? It's starting to stink a little bit.

I'm the OP. I think you hit the nail on the head with this comment. I really do not like to see hate proliferate these forums and grow as an infestation in peoples heart. There will always be people in our world who make bad decisions. I think most people who make profoundly bad decisions often have underlying psychological issues or suffer from a lack of education or are just ignorant of their mistakes. I maydislike what they have done and how it has put these babies in difficult circumstances, but this level of hate spewing on this forum makes me wonder where the patience and forgiveness is for the frailty of human character. People don't even want to help Nadya's babies because they are unable to tear themselves from all this hate-mongering to recognize that those babies are innocent though. And also to recognize that hate resolves nothing but, instead, can be like a cancer to your soul.

My purpose in this post was to try to extinguish at least some of the hate and to ask people to have more patience with her very bad decisions in life. I am sure it won't stop all people from hating Nadya but I sure hope that this hate eventually dissipates in some.

I'm the one you quoted above -- I kept coming back to this thread and the other threads about the woman in their earlier stages and was disheartened by so many people who were filled with hate. Even some expert doctor out there called the children "a litter" and "like dogs" and another editor in Miami calling them "eight expensive problems" or something like that. (I'm not quoting directly, but you get the idea). Then all of these people here with such intense anger for her and, like you say, don't care if the children suffer. For me, it's also alarming the number of posters who would allow the state to take the children away without giving the mother any kind of chance to provide care. I wonder if they realize the gravity of giving the state that kind of control, or have considered the fact that some day such power could disrupt their own families.

I just hate to keep posting on this thread, though, because each post just riles up the haters, and it seems like it's attracting random googlers and not the usual perhaps vicious but not necessarily quite as stupid DCUMs. Anyway, just my thoughts. I wish we could convince people not to hate so deeply. I was watching Chris Matthews (not normally my favorite commentator) after the SOTU and the Republican Response and I think it was he who criticized Bobby Jindal for trying to play on the people's anger against those who think govt is inherently bad. And he said "news flash: usually in a downturn the people resent the poor, but this time around people resent the rich." Seems like that mentality shift didn't make its way onto these boards...not that I think we should let our feelings on either side ever dissolve into hatred.

I guess my problem with this thread is it's really depressing. I'm sorry for telling the voices of reason on here to stop posting -- I just think it's so futile. (sigh)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Then all of these people here with such intense anger for her and, like you say, don't care if the children suffer. For me, it's also alarming the number of posters who would allow the state to take the children away without giving the mother any kind of chance to provide care.

How do you think that Nadya will be able to care for her kids? It's already known, not financially. As far as the 24-hour day is concerned, will she single-handedly change diapers and feed the infants round-the-clock without sleep of her own? Who will feed and care for her "older" 6 kids between the ages of 2-7.

I think people do care that her children will suffer, that is why they are so riled up.

[Anonymous]

Okay, so I just read through 10 pages of posts (note to self: find something more productive to do at nap time). Except for a few exceptions, I really do not see much hatred here directed at Nadya. I see a lot of outrage regarding her actions and decisions. I see a ton of concern for her children. Just because some people are advocating the idea that the state take the children away, does not mean they are seeking to do it to punish Nadya. I think these people believe that it is what is in the best interest of the children. People have serious concerns about her ability to care for these children (and I'm not just talking about putting a roof over their head and food on the table). Maybe this is the right answer, maybe not. But I think it is an interesting discussion point. I think there are a good number of people who are interested in helping the babies as long as it can be done in a manner that does not enable the mother to continue her course of poor decisions.

[Anonymous]

I guess hatred is in the eye of the beholder.

I agree with those who say these babies should be adopted out to mentally stable people who can afford to love and take care of babies the way they deserve. This situation is very different than inner-city single moms or families with 10+ kids. NO it's not because inner city moms always seem to be using state assistance as are many families with much larger families.


"It’s terrible that taxpayers have to support this nut job. It’s even more despicable that she is asking for donations when just a few days ago she was caught in video shopping at Nordstrom!! The state should take her children away"

"Op's thoughts of "What's done is done now let's help her out" is not a solution either. Why? So that some other nut job can go out and have 8, 9, or 10 litter of babies at once to get their 15 minutes of fame and a lifetime on the government dole? Don't even drag single mom's into this equation. It's apples and oranges. Single mom's aren't crazy or dumb enough to have a litter of babies to collect welfare. Nadya is not the same as Brangelina or the Duggars with 18 kids; I don't approve of the Duggars' 18 but at least they took 18 years to create them. "

I could go on, but I'm tired of trying to convince people.

Termination of parental rights is a very serious issue. Yes, it may be hard for her to care for those children, but the state cannot just presume that someone cannot. And, btw, lack of financial resources is not a legal cause for termination of parental rights -- thank god!

She is getting donations and will get help. If not, then CPS will have justification in intervening. Until then, let her be.

[Anonymous]

PP here. Sorry, I did a bad job of showing where I was quoting from the forum. Here's another try at that:

I guess hatred is in the eye of the beholder. Here are examples of sentiments I found hateful. There are more, but I don't have th patience or stomach to sift through all of them.

"I agree with those who say these babies should be adopted out to mentally stable people who can afford to love and take care of babies the way they deserve. This situation is very different than inner-city single moms or families with 10+ kids. NO it's not because inner city moms always seem to be using state assistance as are many families with much larger families."

"It’s terrible that taxpayers have to support this nut job. It’s even more despicable that she is asking for donations when just a few days ago she was caught in video shopping at Nordstrom!! The state should take her children away"

"Op's thoughts of "What's done is done now let's help her out" is not a solution either. Why? So that some other nut job can go out and have 8, 9, or 10 litter of babies at once to get their 15 minutes of fame and a lifetime on the government dole? Don't even drag single mom's into this equation. It's apples and oranges. Single mom's aren't crazy or dumb enough to have a litter of babies to collect welfare. Nadya is not the same as Brangelina or the Duggars with 18 kids; I don't approve of the Duggars' 18 but at least they took 18 years to create them. "

I could go on, but I'm tired of trying to convince people.

Termination of parental rights is a very serious issue. Yes, it may be hard for her to care for those children, but the state cannot just presume that someone cannot. And, btw, lack of financial resources is not a legal cause for termination of parental rights -- thank god!
She is getting donations and will get help. If not, then CPS will have justification in intervening. Until then, let her be.

[Anonymous]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2009/03/06/sbt.octumom.911.call.cnn