Octuplet mom has 6 other kids!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's hard. But, look, right or wrong, the kids should not be made to pay/suffer for the mother's insanity. And, to be clear, I think she is selfish, insane, idiotic, stupid, moronic, etc.

I'm not so without compassion that I would deny these kids the assistance they need. Otherwise, your just setting things up for a lifetime of 14 people on welfare/assistance.

THe woman, however, should be sterilized (only 1/2 kidding).

I don't think anyone is saying her children should be made to suffer, unless their mother is proven to be an incompetent mom and her kids are taken away from her. Let her raise her kids as she sees fit, that is her right, but I don't think she should be enabled by becoming an instant celebrity. The media attention just makes the situation worse, IMO, and feeds the woman's need for acceptance and attention. Very sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This octuplet mom has an eerie resemblance to Angelina Jolie.

don't flatter her, she looks like Angie's ugly sister who got the short end of the DNA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This octuplet mom has an eerie resemblance to Angelina Jolie.

don't flatter her, she looks like Angie's ugly sister who got the short end of the DNA.

I don't think she is pretty, I just think she has an odd resemblance.

[Anonymous]

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/02/grandma-blasts-octuplet-mom-nadyas-not-capable.php

I have to shake my head on this one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/02/grandma-blasts-octuplet-mom-nadyas-not-capable.php

I have to shake my head on this one

Are you shaking your head at how terrible it is for this woman's mother to bash her to the media? The mother's media interview tends to make me think that Nadya's childhood was indeed disfunctional. Sad story all around. I feel for them all, the mother included. Clearly there are mental health issues. I don't think these people deserve our disdain -- they deserve our sympathy. And some privacy, but that's not going to happen...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I cringe too. Reproductive rights are not a cafeteria menu. The government should stay out of ALL reproductive rights.

But you know at some point that these 14 kids will need government assistance, whether it's thru healthcare, welfare, juvenile detention, special needs ... Government will get involved sooner or later thru these outlets. There NEEDS to be some legislation to control healthy fertile women using IVF to have 8 babies at a time. What if in a couple years, this same woman gets IVF again and delivers another 8? Who will care for them? Will they become wards of the state, go into foster care, etc.?

If this kind of thing happened all the time, maybe you'd have an argument that there were a legitimate state interest in how many multiple children attempted to have. However, the reason this particular incidence is so shoking is that it is extremely rare. Very few women deliberately attempt to conceive more children that they could realistically care for, and with assisted reporodction technology improving, the number of "oops" very large littlers of kids is also declining. Yes, moms are choosing to selectively reduce a pregnancy, and doctors are doing the scans before the otehr procedure to be sure that a regular amount of follicles are stimulated. (Sorry, don't know the correct terms).

And it is almost unheard of for a woman with 6 children under the age of 7 to deliberately get pregnant with 8 more children. This just isn't a problem that is goig on a lot of places in the US.

I *could* see someone saying that the use of government funds to pay for IVF and other expensive procedures should be limted, based on having a certain number of living children already, or soemthing like that.

But to involve the government in deciding how many children a woman should be allowed to bear using IVF --= on the grounds that she won't be able to care for them, and thus they will become the problem of the gvernment -- seems a very slippery slope.

Agree, bad idea to get the government involved. But there should be severe consequences for the physician who made this medical decision; e.g., medical license revoked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I cringe too. Reproductive rights are not a cafeteria menu. The government should stay out of ALL reproductive rights.

But you know at some point that these 14 kids will need government assistance, whether it's thru healthcare, welfare, juvenile detention, special needs ... Government will get involved sooner or later thru these outlets. There NEEDS to be some legislation to control healthy fertile women using IVF to have 8 babies at a time. What if in a couple years, this same woman gets IVF again and delivers another 8? Who will care for them? Will they become wards of the state, go into foster care, etc.?

If this kind of thing happened all the time, maybe you'd have an argument that there were a legitimate state interest in how many multiple children attempted to have. However, the reason this particular incidence is so shoking is that it is extremely rare. Very few women deliberately attempt to conceive more children that they could realistically care for, and with assisted reporodction technology improving, the number of "oops" very large littlers of kids is also declining. Yes, moms are choosing to selectively reduce a pregnancy, and doctors are doing the scans before the otehr procedure to be sure that a regular amount of follicles are stimulated. (Sorry, don't know the correct terms).

And it is almost unheard of for a woman with 6 children under the age of 7 to deliberately get pregnant with 8 more children. This just isn't a problem that is goig on a lot of places in the US.

I *could* see someone saying that the use of government funds to pay for IVF and other expensive procedures should be limted, based on having a certain number of living children already, or soemthing like that.

But to involve the government in deciding how many children a woman should be allowed to bear using IVF --= on the grounds that she won't be able to care for them, and thus they will become the problem of the gvernment -- seems a very slippery slope.

Agree, bad idea to get the government involved. But there should be severe consequences for the physician who made this medical decision; e.g., medical license revoked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has basically spent the last 10 years on disability, has minimal job experience, her only job experience is in low paying jobs, and she has shown that she makes questionable decisions. Finishing her masters degree is not going to get her a high paying job that would be required to support 14 children while working out of the home. As unfortunate as it is, it will probably be less costly for the taxpayers of California to have this woman go on welfare and be a SAHM than it would be to subsidize her return to work.

The daycare cost is based upon paying $280 a week for daycare for an infant.

With $280 a week you can get an au pair. Mind you that does not include the cost of housing the au pair.
On the other hand, it might be less costly to let her live off welfare instead of provide subsidised daycare, but that is not how the welfare system works. It does not work like that for even for mothers who have a lot less children.
Some people do not want a high paying job, what is enough for one is not enough for some one else. Others dream about a profession that will never be high paying and that is not so bad either. Low paying jobs is still job experience. She is employable. A working person should be able to afford her children. Maybe not the life of a king, but enough to get by. Once upon a time the slaves slept in sheds and labored the whole day in return for a plate of food. Workers today are in a much better position and can afford children and a life.

The California government is wasting a lot of money at all sorts of places, I would not worry about some kids subsidized daycare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The California government is wasting a lot of money at all sorts of places, I would not worry about some kids subsidized daycare.

Are you kidding? The subsidies and cost $$$ are not limited to daycare, as exhorbitant as it may be. The astronomical price tag is on a lifetime of welfare, health insurance, and special needs for her disabled octuplets, not to mention other costs that'll be associated with the previous 6 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/02/grandma-blasts-octuplet-mom-nadyas-not-capable.php

I have to shake my head on this one

Are you shaking your head at how terrible it is for this woman's mother to bash her to the media? The mother's media interview tends to make me think that Nadya's childhood was indeed disfunctional. Sad story all around. I feel for them all, the mother included. Clearly there are mental health issues. I don't think these people deserve our disdain -- they deserve our sympathy. And some privacy, but that's not going to happen...

I think Nadya's mother has the right to be pissed. She's been saddled with taking care of 6 children, in an already distressed situation and now, Nadya will be bringing home 8 more babies. All this after the mother had asked her not to impregnate herself again, when she can't even manage to provide for her current children. I agree with the grandmother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever her relationship with her own parents, she has no right to bring all these children into the world and then count on them and others to raise them for her while she pursues a Masters degree, a book and/or tabloid deal, and (sigh) a reality show that will only exploit those kids.

I would not fault anyone for pursuing a masters degree. I think that is a very good thing. How else is she going to provide for the kids, unless she has education that she can use to get a job.
And these book/tabloid deals, those are great for paying bills. After all the tax payer is not going to give her much.

I do not think she can be called selfish. You have no idea how many things she will have to give up for her kids sake.
All kids who need special needs schooling are entitled to get it. We live in a civilization. Nazi Germany eliminated the special needs kids from the master race. Those days are over.
And do not call special needs childrens mothers selfish. You have no idea what they are going thru or how many things they have had to give up.

Each to his or her own.

Then they need to do it on their own dime. In this case, it's not likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/02/grandma-blasts-octuplet-mom-nadyas-not-capable.php

I have to shake my head on this one

Are you shaking your head at how terrible it is for this woman's mother to bash her to the media? The mother's media interview tends to make me think that Nadya's childhood was indeed disfunctional. Sad story all around. I feel for them all, the mother included. Clearly there are mental health issues. I don't think these people deserve our disdain -- they deserve our sympathy. And some privacy, but that's not going to happen...

I could care less about Nadya. It is her mom whom I feel sorry for. She has to cared for these children and broke herself while Nadya goes and gets herself pregnant again. When is enough going to be enough?

[Anonymous]

She was wearing friggin acrylic nails in her TV interview. I only have one kid, and no room for something as frivolous as that in my budget. What a nut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She was wearing friggin acrylic nails in her TV interview. I only have one kid, and no room for something as frivolous as that in my budget. What a nut.

I was distracted by her "thoughtfulness" to look ravishing for the camera with her Joker-like lips, in addition to her itty-bitty nose that she didn't get from her parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was wearing friggin acrylic nails in her TV interview. I only have one kid, and no room for something as frivolous as that in my budget. What a nut.

I was distracted by her "thoughtfulness" to look ravishing for the camera with her Joker-like lips, in addition to her itty-bitty nose that she didn't get from her parents.

Not to mention the botox freeze.

I wonder how many extra shifts she has to do to pay for all her plastic surgery and her IVF treatments. Good God, is this enough for her?