Forum Index
»
Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers
Octuplet mom: Can you justify that level of anger in public?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Now we've totally gotten off the topic, but seriously, what happens in Europe if you're not white? |
Sabray
Member Offline
Member Offline
|
Honestly I think this woman is completely selfish and OUT OF HER MIND!!! To me she is abusive and neglectful. To the system as well as to these children she has given birth to.
However I would never wish her dead or anything of that nature. I believe you reap what you sew. Everything for a reason. She is the one who has to live with this, not anyone else. I pity her greatly and feel very sorry for those children. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous wrote: The difference with the Octomom situation is that she put the health of 8 tiny babies in serious jeopardy by doing what she did. THe alternative would have been to: 1) Destroy the embryo's but due to her belief that embryos are life, she did not want to do that. 2) Implant only 2 at a time - she did not want to freeze the embryo's because the thawing out process destroys many embryo's Would it have been better to have those embroyo's destroyed or frozen and run the risk of having them not survive the thawing out process? THIS thought process by octomom is what I have a problem with. Seriously, if your belief is that all embryos generated through the IVF process must be implanted at one time, regardless of how many there are, because it isn't morally permissible to destroy or freeze them -- then you have no business doing IVF in the first place. It absolutely, without a doubt, would have been better to have those embryos destroyed or risk them being destroyed in the thawing out process. Much better than even the possibility of causing severe health problems in your potential children. If you don't believe that, then don't do IVF. |
Anonymous
|
Here are my thoughts:
1. I do see some difference in having several children the old fashioned way and 8 at one time. First, this woman must have spent a lot of money just getting pregnant whereas the other single mothers referenced here probably didn't. Second, and this is one of the most important things in all of this to me, is the fact that she really put her life and that of the babies at risk. 2. The public is lashing out because she is seeking so much attention. Once a person puts herself out there, whatever the motivation (in this case it could be monetary assistance and donations), negative attention will come with that. 3. The doctor is certainly equally, if not more so, at fault here. I really hope he is prohibited from practicing medicine because obviously he is not making people's lives healthier and better with the methods he is using. 4. Yes, she most definitely needs mental health treatment as the woman is clearly living in an alternate reality. |
Anonymous
I am not the one who said Europe was great if you were white, but I tend to agree. I lived in the UK with my Asian husband, and let me tell you, there was no loosing him in a crowd. People would stare at us, and make comments all the time. When we were in Germany, it was worse. To add to it, there was another couple, who had a white wife, and an Asian husband, and our tour guide would totally get us confused. I doubt she confused who was married to whom because we were all American. Oh, then there was the time when I was young and single, in Germany alone, and I was approached by some neo-Nazis on a train. I was completely uninterested in everything they had to say, and grabbed my stuff and changed cars. Honestly though, I have spent time in Germany, Austria, England, and Ireland, and I don't find people to be any nicer there than here. |
Anonymous
I did think before I typed and I meant what I said. I don't think it's scary at all to give the state authority to go in and take children away from unfit parents- isn't that what child welfare workers do? I'm not advocating a George Orwell "1984" big brother state where the government watches everything you do and will take your kids away at the drop of a hat (which I think is what you're implying from your abundant use of the word "YIKES"). I'm actually not one for major government intervention at all. BUT, when you have a ridiculously overt case like Nadya's where there is very little possible way this woman can adequately care for 14 kids under the age of 8 on her own and she most definitely seems unstable (I think a psychiatrist should evaluate her to be sure but that is my best guess), then absolutely, the state should think very seriously about giving those babies to more, fit, mentally-stable parents. When I said "We have too many people in society who can't have kids and should and far too many who have kids and shouldn't," that's absolutely a true statement. I'm not talking about every Tom and Mary Smith who might yell at their kids too much. I'm talking about the egregious cases in society where kids are not adequately being cared for and should be taken away. Do you really think that a single and most likely mentally unstable mother can adequately look after 14 kids? I'm not a child welfare worker, and ulitmately they should decide, but I can understand why people are up in arms and think the state should take a long, hard look at the case. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
Hmmm, that is interesting. I actually thought Europe was a bit more racially tolerant than we are here. I have a black friend who is married to a white man in the UK and she says that she doesn't even think about race when she's over there. She is much more cognizant of it in the US though. She said (and obviously this is just her experience) that Europeans tend to make less of a big deal about race than Americans. I asked her if any part of her voting for Obama would be that she would want to see us elect the first black president and she said, it's just not a big deal to her what the color of his skin is. I was so surprised by this because it seemed to be so much more significant to my black friends in the states. Ah, anyway, thanks for the response. It's just an interesting side-topic. |
Anonymous
Does your friend live in London? London is such an international city, but the rest of the UK is not as diverse. |
Anonymous
Usually people like you don't donate very much anyhow. I'm curious, what charities do you donate to? |
Anonymous
None of your business. Who I do choose to donate to is up to me. It's my money after all. I reject the ridiculous notion started in this thread that somehow I have an obligation to give to Octomom. That same sentiment is why we have run-away jury verdicts in this country. That big corporation can afford to pay so let's give those people suing them some money even though that company did nothing wrong. The company can afford it. If I wanted to subsidize 14 kids, I would have had another 12 of my own. And, yes, I could afford to. |
Anonymous
Not the poster you quote but I am wondering what you mean by your "people like you" statement? You mean, the kind of person who actually advocates a level of personal responsibility? Giving money to this woman would be like giving an alcoholic whiskey. Do you think she would even spend it on the kids? The most charitable thing that could be done for this woman is for the state to intervene and terminate her parental rights until she receives the psychiatric help she clearly needs. This is a woman who somehow manages to spend money on manicures, expensive make-up, multiple IVFs and, I believe, plastic surgery, but cannot support her brood. Why would anyone donate to her and and reward her poor decisions? |
Anonymous
So only allow IVF for those people without any religious convictions? And if you have religious convictions and are infertile, too bad so sad? Sheesssh, thank goodness you're not in charge. |
Anonymous
Allowing her babies to receive help through donations is not enabling her behavior. It's recognizing that she may have some psychological issues but being able to separate our emotional reaction to her from her babies' needs. If a drug addict mom has a drug baby, do we not allocate state assistance to help her drug baby? Of course we do. Will that mean that it now enables the drug mom to keep doing drugs? And what do you suggest is a better alternative - don't feed the babies and let them die, all 8 of them? If that is what you are proposing, then you are not just cold hearted, you are barely human. So 'people like you' is a reference to all those people who are so holier than thou and so full of hate and intolerance and compassion that they don't want any needy person to get any money or assistance. Just wait until you are 86 and not able to work and in need of Medicare because you thought it was a great idea to get a 2 year college degree in fashion merchandising and was never able to save up enough money to support yourself in old age. At that time, I wonder if you'd want someone telling you "Hey, buck up lady, where's your sense of personal responsibility? Why didn't you save up enough money to care for yourself? " Nadya clearly has some psyc issues. None, however, that warrant terminating her parental rights. Before you go throwing around phrases like that, think. Terminating parental rights is a legal term. There is a wealth of case law and codified state law to define what it involves and who it can be used for. I am amused when people throw this term around as if they understand what it really means. Terminating parental rights is often reserved for extreme neglect or abuse such as with drug addicts, extreme physical abuse, complete neglect. The kind of neglect that woudl give rise to terminating parental rights might be a parent who does not change a diaper for days and therefore a child develops an infection, an extremely malnourished child, a child whose fever turns into seizures because the parent never took the child to a doctor or gave the child any meds. People who have a giving heart don't hold a qualifications list over the head of someone in need. Whether they be a drug addict or a mom with psyc issues who has 14 kids with invitro, they are seen by giving people as people who may have issues but are still in need of help. They deserve a right to be fed, to be clothed, to receive psychiatric treatment, to have their babies be cared for. People who don't get psych treatment sometimes do crazy things. People with severe psych issues who can't afford treatment and don't get state assistance can go on to murder, rape, assault, commit arson, and commit worse crimes if their problems are left untreated. Nadya had issues, clearly, and I think the result of her getting invitro is because she never got treatment for her issues. So the solution is to get her psych help, not to wish her to die and for her children to be motherless. |
Anonymous
I'm not the poster here either and I second wondering what this person meant by saying "people like you don't donate very much anyhow." How the heck would you know? And who are these "people like you?" Do you mean people who "have wealth?" If that's the case, that's just ridiculous. Or like pp said, people who have some decent level of personal responsibility? |