Octuplets Mom vs. Your Arguments
by Doug TenNapelOctuplets mother Nadya Suleman, is getting death threats, which is to be expected in today’s culture of rational debate. Maybe she’s crazy or irresponsible, I don’t know. Her decision to have 14 children doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the public outcry from all sides against her. But none of the arguments against Suleman are quite as vacuous as the empty bumper-sticker dogmas held by the left. The mother of octuplets exposes how these positions aren’t rooted in logic, but are held in convenience to achieve emotionally preferred ends.
It’s not sick to want to have 14 children. It is sick to wish them aborted, wish harm on the mother or assume she has done some great evil. I don’t know that having 14 children is a mistake, and neither do you. I’ve known plenty of people who were raised in abject poverty and came out just fine.
I don’t understand the argument that doctors should be able to abort as many embryos as they want but they’re only supposed to implant two at the max. Efforts are made to make two embryo implantation a new medical rule, complete with warnings of witch hunts to any doctors who might not obey the know-it-all culture.
Notice that Pro-choicers are fine with having the government come into our wombs when it comes to the number of embryos that can be implanted. That’s because the “government in wombs” bumper sticker was always a smokescreen.
Pro-choice men have no problem excoriating Suleman; they forgot their mantra about remaining neutral when it comes to “women’s issues” Another smokescreen.
What about not judging decisions made “between a woman, her doctor and God” as Nancy Pelosi puts it. Smokescreen.
If medicine can limit the number of implanted embryos, can we also limit the number of abortions a woman can have? Let’s start with a two abortion limit. See, this is why I call bullshit on Choicers. I’ll entertain criticism from Pro-lifers on Suleman, but the Pro-choicers don’t have an argument to stand on.
Some argue that they hate the idea of the state having to pay for Suleman’s children. But it’s these same Democrats who roll out the cause of poor children to raise our taxes for cradle to grave healthcare. They don’t have a problem paying for 14 million children, so I guess they just hate when 14 of them are at the same address. We can’t afford to pay for Suleman’s 14 children but we can fund Obama’s abortions-around-the-world program.
For three decades we’ve heard about woman power from liberal feminists. Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle, YES WE CAN! Then a lady on welfare has octuplets and it’s, “You can’t do it without a man!” “Women are too weak to take care of 14 children!” Then come the death threats.
Suleman serves as a cultural warning to what happens when we use technology to manipulate life. I don’t understand why we don’t show the same caution when dealing with birth control and abortion given their use is far more commonplace than Suleman’s “problem.”
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
85 Comments
I agree.
I don't suppose that it was the best decision-making ever… but does that have anything to do, at all, with the value of those children?
Plenty of people believe that I have too many children. When it comes to disapproval, paying for your own hasn't stopped anyone yet.
I disagree with your take on this partly. The revulsion over Octo-mom (at least a lot of it) is very conservative. Consider:
- It's not her income that bothers us, it's the fact that she sees nothing wrong with taking OUR money to make up the difference.
- It's not the lack of abortions that bother us, it's the DECISION to create those lives in the first place, knowing that they would certainly be at risk and at lease a few ofthem were statistically likely to die because they would be born so under-developed.
- It's not that strong women bother us, but we DO believe CHOOSING to have those children without a father deprives them of a critical component to their healthy emotional development.
I share your reluctance to knee-jerk with some law that would have prevented Octo-mom, as such laws are almost always so overbroad that they create more problems and injustices than they solve. But the importance of the pressure of culture – and the very correct disapproval of that culture – should not be ignored.
Wait, so you're saying that people on the left have …DOUBLE STANDARDS???
I guess that's what happens when you let emotions dominate your decision making.
As long as someone can afford all of their children, they don't have too many.
What a vacuous op-ed filled with ridiculous generalities. As if pro-lifers aren't full of a few "bumper sticker" mentalities themselves. And no, i don't think someone has the inalienable right to intentionally bring 8 premature babies into the world. The doctor who did this was motivated solely by profit. The procedure he performed was risky and unfair to those helpless babies. I think it is proper for the Board of Medicine to regulate such practices. And your attempt at making a case for the pro-life cause out of this story is weak at best.
I love coming on to this site and seeing what passes for good writing with right-wingers. You guys are a bunch of hacks, and this is why the Republicans sit where they are today: a regional minority party that has become completely irrelevant. The republicans will remain that way unless they make the rational decision to cut themselves lose from the dead-weight of extremists like Mr. TenNapel.
and by the way: that is a REALLY bad haircut he's got.
I have not made any death threats. But I believe her to be a mentally ill and attention whoring woman. An ethical doctor would not have implanted her with those six eggs (two are twins.) I would not have wanted her babies aborted, I would have wanted them to have had a more responsible, not sick mom.
If you don't think a woman has a right to bring a baby (or babies) into the world, then you cannot logically believe she has an inalienable right to terminate it, either.
But then, I wouldn't expect logic from someone who spends 2/3rds of their argument on weak ad hominems.
Actually, Republicans sit where they are today because they were acting like liberals when they had the White House and both houses of Congress. They will only become irrelevant if they keep acting that way.
And when did the term "regional" become such an oft used part of the liberal religion's vernacular? Hopefully it'll be phased out soon like the term "green collar jobs".
The thing that really bothers me about the "octo-mom" story is the idea that a woman who already has six kids would even be let through the doors of a fertility clinic. As a small-government conservative, I'm not advocating more regulation by the State, but it would be nice to think that the industry would self-regulate around sensible, morally consistent guidelines.
The other thing is the old, "if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" argument. Yeah, it's pretty self-absorbed and arrogant to do something like that knowing full well that you can't pay the bill and the taxpayers are going to be stuck paying for your 14 freaking children. All of which you chose to have in that special, petrie dish and roses way.
I have absolutely no sympathy for this woman. And this isn't a warm/fuzzy human interest story, in spite of what Katie Curic may say. It kind of makes me sick.
Actually, Republicans sit where they are today because they were acting like liberals when they had the White House and Congress. They will only become irrelevant if they keep acting that way.
And when did the term "regional" become such an oft used part of the liberal religion's vernacular? Hopefully it'll be phased out soon like the term "green collar jobs".
I agree. Granted… in real life, a person can't guarantee that their circumstances won't change.
There is also the issue that other people feel entitled to determine what counts as "affording." Used to be, if you had nine children like my grandmother did, they shared rooms and shared beds. Now, tossing three kids in a double bed is right out. Kids really aren't that expensive until they all have to have their own stuff, and not just hand-me-downs, and their own rooms and dance or music lessons.
But even if you can "afford" every child you have, there are certainly people who don't think you should have them. Children destroy the planet, you know.
Actually, Republicans sit where they are today because they were acting like liberals when they had the White House and Congress. They will only become irrelevant if they keep acting that way.
And when did the term "regional" become such an oft used part of the liberal religion's vernacular? Hopefully it'll be phased out soon, like the term "green collar jobs".
Typical liberal. Instead of actually stating an opposing case, he just begins with the name calling and calls the article bad writing. Apparently using facts and logic has completely escaped the liberal mind…it's all about emotional decison making. Liberals only like the liberties that they enjoy, and have no problem restricting the ones they don't.
Don't confuse the misguided liberal Hank with logic Orrin, or he might attack the fact that you don't have any hair on your head. The reason Republicans are now the minority is because they abandoned the conservative principles that got them in the majority. The way back for Republicans is simple: return to your roots of smaller government, fiscal conservatism, and valuing all life–even life of the unborn.
WOW! someone actually listens to what Katie Couric says?
I'm also bothered by her unrealistic expectations of her abilities to care for 14 children (8 infants!). She apparently has been taking it for granted that her mom would help. Her mom appears to be the sane one and is at her wits end with the situation. Now I hear she has a nanny who works more hours than she's actually paid to. I would be a bit suspicious of anyone wanting to attach themselves to this situation at this point. I suspect everyone will have an angle. It's just a huge mess and it makes me sad that she's getting the attention that she so obviously craves for all the wrong reasons.
If he makes THAT argument, the joke's on him – I grew it all back! Hah!
Agreed on the rest.
I cannot even bring this topic up between myself and a few of my friends right now, being that they're so pissed that I'm not as angry as they about Octo-mom. Some have said as much as "she should be dragged out into the middle of the road and shot." And they're OLDER Conservatives, mostly. Am I missing something here? Is it the age difference that keeps me from "getting it"? Because given the commoness of other liberal issues weighing against Conservatives at the moment, this one seems to be a drop in the ocean.
"The doctor who did this was motivated solely by profit"–Ah yes and the abortion mill doctors aren't. The–"passing for good writing" argument is unbelievably lame at best since it is the same "argument" the business uses to anyone conservative in nature. LOL Doesn't matter if it IS good, if the subject tinges to the right. ( you KNOW who you are!) You morons don't see the tricks your minds play on you still. A sad detail left out.
Actually they were talking about Katie 'Curic.' Totally different person.
I don't see why she can't just give them babies up to adoption or whatever – there's lot's of queer parents want kids and can't have 'em, if she can't take care of her sixteen kids then they should get 'em! And it's lookin' like she can't take care of 'em very well.
I have eleven children and would not be opposed to fourteen for myself, let alone for someone else.
Implanting eight embryos does put those children at an extreme risk of life and health. I think it should come under the same heading as other forms of assault and abuse to other children–and prevented.
But I get oh, so, weary of our country jumping on every extreme rarity and demanding regulation and laws to prevent it.
Couldn't have said it better, Wag. I can only hope that Social Services takes those kids away from this looney tune. She's missing everything but tin foil on her head.
The only problem there, Old_Tom, is that people these days are hardly "sensible" nor "morally consistent." Therefore, it'd be difficult for self-regulation. But Governmental regulation is almost always worse.
At some point, we have to realize that the world is broken, and there are people who are evil, stupid, and Democrats in it. Personal responsibility has to win out. It's sad that this woman has to drag eight innocent children along with her as she discovers this fact.
"Regional party" means that the GOP has become so monolithic that its main support appears to be only the Deep South and parts of the Plains. In the last election, you lost the entire Northeast, the entire Great Lakes, the entire Upper Midwest, the entire mid-Atlantic a great deal of the Rocky Mountain region, and the entire West Coast. Each passing election, the GOP coalition becomes more and more marginalized with their slash and burn 50% +1 mentality towards governance.
Ah… that would refer to the deep comments of Ms. "I won" Pelosi. Now she wants a sit down with the Pope? He should bring back the inquisition. As to the Octopus, I think since the doctor decided to do this thing, he should be on the hook financially until all of them reach 25. That might deter other Frankenstein's to think twice before altering the plumbing..
No! You forget that you can't let queer people do anything in relation to family! They can't get married, and God forbid that they adopt children! Then we'll just end up with more and more queers, and we know how bad that is for the country!
</right-wing rant>
I think the point that's being missed when classifying this in terms of pro-life or pro-choice is that she's already had 6 children and is already on welfare. Yes, you (the author, or whomever else) may know people that grew up in poverty and came out OK, but the statistics are vastly against those that grow up in those sorts of environments. They are more prone to crime and to have a lack of education, which of course isn't helped by the fact that conservatives seem to think that it's wrong to use government money to help those in extraordinary situations.
Personally, I don't think it's wrong for a woman to have as many (or as few) children as she wishes, but we also have to keep this in the realm of sanity. In the same manner that free speech doesn't extend to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, allowing a woman to have as many as she wishes shouldn't extend to letting a woman have 8 children (when she's already a single parent on welfare with 6 children). That's just being silly.
In addition, one of the reasons that pro-choicers do support abortion is exactly for situations like this. When you are already struggling in life, having 8 children isn't going to do much to help the situation. For a lot of people, this would be undue stress that would only result in bad things happening to the children and the mother. Now I could understand if every pro-lifer went out and adopted 5 children that are currently in the foster care system, or volunteered to pay for the expenses of women like this one, but for the most part, they don't. It seems that the conservative brand of caring about life is just letting them come out of the womb and then having them fend for themselves (of course, if they make it to 18, then they should just join the military).
This is what disturbs me with the entire pro-life argument. In essence, what you wish to do is to throw your values from your religion on every citizen in America. You can argue about the life of the child ad nauseam, but the main point is you don't want people having sex unless they're married and ready to have children. This isn't the 19th century, and people (you can say sadly if you wish, but there's no helping it) have moved past those values and embraced a more liberal lifestyle. If the marriage is only between a man and a woman thing and the only having sex with your spouse works for you, then that's good for you. It's certainly honorable to not just go around knocking up every woman you see. However, you aren't going to force everyone in the country to do that, so until I see these pro-life groups start gathering funds to take care of children born from rape, random condom breaking, or casual sex, I honestly think they should keep quiet about a woman's choice in having a child.
</left-wing rant>
That being said, no matter how pissed off someone is about the lady having all of these children, it's quite disgraceful to be sending death threats her way and wishing harm on her and the children. It's sad to see people doing that in 2009, but you know, this is a country in which a lot worse has happened in the past, so it isn't too surprising to me.
I thought I read on numerous news websites that she was on government assistance. Can anyone confirm this? This is not a conservative or liberal culture war like everyone wants to make it out to be. Implanting embryo's is like have sex, you better be responsible for the life you bring into this world!
I understand that the "Doctor" who performed this procedure has yet another woman of similar circumstances impregnated with 4 to 6 embryos.
This person needs to have his license revoked.
That definition makes sense, but the flaw is that it implies an absolute state things, and dismisses the pendulum swing after four to eight years. That's why I think the use of the term is lame; it's being proclaimed after one election. I mean, come on, it was John McCain!
Here's a really good interactive map that demonstrates the pattern in past cycles. Check out 1996:
http://www.270towin.com/
Death threats?Where and by who?
I'm sure LAPD has tracked the IPs and charged those responsible for threatening to kill someone right?
I don't believe anything she says.
JLP
This might be something you've missed in the last 40 years but… birth control? Heard of it? It's been a very long time since sex with anything that moves had to include the risk of pregnancy.
And I'm still trying to comprehend the notion that I should be responsible for children conceived from casual sex rather than those who had casual sex. You did include that as a separate category from condom failure. So… in your world it's rational to expect those who object to abortion in the case of casual sex without bothering with birth control, to have to be the responsible party?
Wow.
"In addition, one of the reasons that pro-choicers do support abortion is exactly for situations like this. When you are already struggling in life, having 8 children isn't going to do much to help the situation."
I don't think anyone could justify murdering any of the original 6 children she already had, right? Therefore murdering one of the 8 new ones before they were born is just as wrong.
Murdering children because of the irresponsiblity of their parents is not right. It's not the child's fault how they came into the world.
Brilliant! Thank you!
Part I
Jeez, I so don't want to be a buzz-kill…but can we please stop embarrassing ourselves?
Why would anyone even wish to make the crazy-octoplet-circus-lady a poster woman for the pro-life cause? Doug, dude, I just can't imagine what you're thinking here.
No, there's nothing wrong with choosing to have a lot of children. My pseudo-aunt Peggy and her husband have twelve children. They're great parents, and somehow she still looks fantastic to boot. If you can swing that, my hat is off to you.
Obviously it's disturbing that Nadya Suleman is getting death threats. (Though, personally, if I had six children and eight infants, I wouldn't consider death much of a threat — you would have do a LOT better than that to scare me).
Part II
I would have thought that pro-lifers would be pleased that the medical community is allegedly considering limiting the number of embryos implanted during IVF, as women often choose to abort "extra" embryos if more than two or three are viable, in order to maximize the chances of survival for one or more of those babies. Most responsible women I know have refused to have more than two or three implanted in the first place for just that reason — they don't want to abort.
Part III (sheesh, this word count thing is brutal)
But back to Nadya…"Maybe she's crazy or irresponsible"? Oh, yeah, maybe. Honestly, is there any chance at ALL that she isn't mental? Let's recap: A single woman with six children she can't support, deliberately implants eight more children in her womb. There's no "whoops!" involved here. She did this on purpose. On what planet is that a good call? On what planet is she is a responsible mother? No one can care for eight infants, period, never mind be an actual mother to them. I guess the other kids can just go suck ice. This is so deeply tragic that I find myself making light of it, though in truth it's very sad, and very sick. Every one of those children should be probably be taken away from her asap.
If anyone ought to be getting death threats it's the unscrupulous doctor who took her money and destroyed any hope of a decent life for her six previous children.
She has beenon Workmans Comp since 1999, bad back. Three of her kids get SSI, she get foodstamps and day care aid. Also she has been getting student loans. This is why the people in CA. are outraged. We are paying for her fullfillment of a fantasy;
I would love to ask the woman who wanted to have those babies, why she thinks they will offer her anything, but heart ache? Kids dont offer a ticket to ride, they are individual from day the moment they breath, and I think, we cant ever really love them, until we have let them live on their own. They do grow up, and write books about mommie dearest…
OOPS Forgot to mention the WIC. and of course Medical
That definition makes sense, but the flaw is that it implies an absolute state of things, and dismisses the pendulum swing after four to eight years. That's why I think the use of the term is lame; it's being proclaimed after one election. I mean, come on, it was John McCain!
Here's a really good interactive map that demonstrates the pattern in past cycles. Check out 1996:
http://www.270towin.com/
That definition makes sense, but the flaw is that it implies an absolute state of things, and dismisses the pendulum swing after four to eight years. That's why I think the use of the term is lame; it's being proclaimed after one election. I mean, come on, it was John McCain!
Here's a really good interactive map that demonstrates the pattern in past cycles. Check out 1996:
http://www.270towin.com/
By the way, show some respect. You're talking about the man who created Earthworm Jim.
Hey, show some respect. You're talking about the man who created Earthworm Jim.
Where are you getting this demographic information? You cite the blanket opinions of "Pro-choicers," specifically calling out "Pro-choice men" for their obvious hypocrisy in claiming to stay out of the female-centric abortion debate while they have "no problem" excoriating Suleman for her choice to have 14 babies.
Who are you talking about? These seem like blatant assumptions, thrown out for convenience to polarize the partisan masses without regard for a legitimate statistical basis. What does that kind of speculation do to further the Pro-Life stance? It's certainly not conducive to the greater good of a Conservative society, which might actually be achieved someday were it not for the unfailing insistence of relying on empty conjecture to perpetuate the Us vs. Them mindset that totally obstructs any hope for a constructive dialogue between the two general political persuasions.
I am not "pro-abortion," though I do not think it should be made categorically illegal, nor do I believe the issue at large is merely black-and-white and cut down the middle between moral absolutes. I do find the anti-abortion sentiment that Suleman expressed with such impassioned reactionary certainty during her interview with Ann Curry, who finally asked the frankly appropriate question she'd been dodging: whether the obviously delusional Suleman — who blithely lied her way through Curry's series of plaintive, straightforward questions about reconciling her maternal fantasies with the practical ability to raise and support 14 children — ever considered "selective reduction" after getting the official word about her shocking fetal populous.
Here, and only here, Suleman came emotionally to life, rearing her head back and finally contorting her default facial expression — an uncanny ringer of the Joker's ripped-wide smile — at the mere mention of "selective reduction," an admittedly transparent euphemism for the abortion of superfluous in-vitro fetuses. This reaction, however humanizing a moment it was, speaks volumes about Suleman's delusional sense of morality.
Her argument that human life beings at conception, at that very moment of God's miracle being manifest for a happy mother, might have cast a compelling and powerful angle onto the abortion debate had Suleman not spent the preceding 45 minutes so firmly convinced of her righteous maternal purpose — which she solicited and perpetuated herself, playing God, in a sense, it could be argued — that all manner of dead serious suggestion concerning the rough road ahead simply bounced off Suleman's rigidly peppy demeanor, answering back with her pair of suspiciously plasticine lips, an unnerving sense of rehearsed articulation nailing her words not to actual reality (money will no longer be an issue once Nadya "finishes my schooling," sometime down the road, in "a year, year-and-a-half," when she graduates with a psychology degree and is loosed into the "real world" where a Bachelor's Degree in Psych apparently affords a family of 15 all the comforts of fantasy's dictation, but to the mother's own la-la-la version of the real world.
For someone so obviously affected by the mere mention of prospective abortion, even in the ethically looser test-tube terrain, Suleman regards her living, breathing children with a wildly indifferent attitude toward reality and its practical implications, insisting on remaining in her fantasy world where babies are like dolls, the plastic playthings she names and dresses up real pretty and multiplies by 14 because that's how many kids she's always wanted. They're God's blessing. She had nothing to do with it.
AS LONG AS Men still run this place, descrimination against the – "unworking" mom– that does not make money will remain. We women must do everything now, we must be perfect, and having kids is not good enough, well maybe 14 is!! I love the tax breaks, does anyone know how good they are? do the math on 14- This is the new america, that profits from war, brutality and the selling of the soul on digital–televisions and internet sites the world over. We opened the " box", we saw what we should not have, and now we have the kids to prove it, anyone can do anything they want, and if you squeak loud enough someone with money will shut you up.
.
"If you cant trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"
Suleman is clearly disturbed, and the doctor who performed her fertilization should have realized this and referred her instead to a psychiatrist.
When we "forget" our morality in reproductive matters, we risk our humanity. Abortion, mass fertilization and soon Eugenics: the Sequel. Coming to a clinic near you!
You know, I'm an independent and pro-choice (although I do support the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act) and while part of me says, "Hey, have as many kids as you want, as long as you can support them. It's not my business." The other part of me agrees with Ms. Flynn: Is this woman crazy? She already has six kids, now she has eight more, and she has no job or husband. And guess who has to foot the bill?! I do think the death threats are a bit much (as they are in most cases).
But hey, stranger things have happened. One of these kids could be president one day. I just hope she realizes it won't be easy. Not for a loooong time.
"Suleman serves as a cultural warning to what happens when we use technology to manipulate life. I don’t understand why we don’t show the same caution when dealing with birth control and abortion given their use is far more commonplace than Suleman’s “problem.”
Agreed Doug. But Octomom's extreme example is as illuminating as it is ominous. PEOPLE reported her six figure disability settlement as the windfall that set this bizarre wish fullfillment in motion. But how can an occational 'student' with little or no employment history (compare her scruitinization with Joe the Plumber?) so easily 'make history'?
I agree with Maura. It's surreal that she has a publicist, and talks of a reality TV program in the works.
I agree and I am all for parents having as many children as they wish (providing they stay off welfare) but back in the day, before reliable birth control women had multiple children ONE AT A TIME, not 8 at once.
Except for a few rare exceptions I do not think this is what nature intended. I also don't understand why a mother would deliberately decide to possibly condemn her children to life-threatening diseaeses/prematurity/death.
The Suleman sideshow is yet another facet of the fallacy of "choice" trumping both the right to life and the obligation to adhere to reality.
The abortion 'right' is not about freedom of choice, but freedom from consequences.
Let's be real. The doctors inseminated Nadya Suleman because they had a pretty fair notion that this whack-job would sue them if they refused. "Freedom of choice" now means freedom to make up one's own reality, where one can have octuplets and get a gig on Oprah and sell the book rights, or abort them if the whim grabs you. Using Suleman as an example of pro-life thinking is absurd.
These eight babies are innocents. Pro-lifers will defend their right to exist, at the same time that we condemn the carelessness of their conception.
Contra Gabe,
Recognition of the right to life as an inherent right is essential to "the greater good of a Conservative society." If society is free to move the bar as to who is entitled to rights and who isn't, then no one has them. Such a society is antithetical to the conservative notion that society exists to serve its members, and not the other way around.
LOL! I remember playing Earthworm Jim!
Haaaang on. She carried 8 babies with a bad back? Either her back isn't that bad, or that doctor needs a kick in the butt for implanting so many embryos in a woman who can't work because of her bad back!
"Maybe she's crazy or irresponsible. I don't know." Really? You lost me at that point. Someone has six kids, lives with their parents, is unemployed and then arranges to have eight additional kids. You can actually conceive of a scenario is which see is acting like a responsible adult?
More interesting is that you decided to make this a post about abortion. Yes, the woman is having babies, so, okay, there's an angle to talk about abortion. There's also an angle to talk about someone who feels they can indulge their "feelings" and "emotions" without any consequences.
Of course, I don't think she should be subject to death threats. Nor, do I think government should approve of how many kids you can have. But, as a taxpayer, I want a huge effing cause of action against whatever insane fertility doctor went against the "natural" order of things to juice her with embryos. (And where do the social cons come down on that question? Not far off growing babies in a petri dish, is it?)
I have wondered about the ferocity of responses against this woman in various chat rooms and comment pages around the web. If you apply the very basics of the pro-choice argument to the situation (her body, her choice), then why the outrage? Is it the money? …California taxpayers are paying over $775 million just on Medi-Cal healthcare for illegal immigrants (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap2-2009... so why the fuss over 14 more kids (born to a legal citizen, no less?) Is it out of fear for the welfare of the children? People have exploited their children for years, and some of the time the public eats it up (some would accuse John & Kate plus 8 of doing that…)
I do believe that if the woman who mothered these children was of more stable mind and situation, the outrage wouldn't be nearly so severe…and I personally do feel that this woman needs professional help. But I also agree with Mr. TenNapel, that "Pro-choicers don’t have an argument to stand on", because when they express outrage, it sounds as though it comes right down to the $money$. In 2006, Planned Parenthood made a $55.8 million profit, not to mention all the children taxpayers didn't have to worry about paying for who would have wound up on some sort of gov't assistance.
I have wondered about the ferocity of responses against this woman in various chat rooms and comment pages around the web. If you apply the very basics of the pro-choice argument to the situation (her body, her choice), then why the outrage? Is it the money? …California taxpayers are paying over $775 million just on Medi-Cal healthcare for illegal immigrants (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap2-2009... so why the fuss over 14 more kids (born to a legal citizen, no less?) Is it out of fear for the welfare of the children? People have exploited their children for years, and some of the time the public eats it up (some would accuse John & Kate plus 8 of doing that…)
I do believe that if the woman who mothered these children was of more stable mind and situation, the outrage wouldn't be nearly so severe…and I personally do feel that this woman needs professional help. But I also agree with Mr. TenNapel, that "Pro-choicers don’t have an argument to stand on", because when they express outrage, despite their "her body, her choice" mantra, it sounds as though it comes right down to the $money$. (Case in point, In 2006, Planned Parenthood made a $55.8 million profit, not to mention all the children taxpayers didn't have to worry about paying for who would have wound up on some sort of gov't assistance.)
I have wondered about the ferocity of responses against this woman in various chat rooms and comment pages around the web. If you apply the very basics of the pro-choice argument to the situation (her body, her choice), then why the outrage? Is it the money? …California taxpayers are paying over $775 million just on Medi-Cal healthcare for illegal immigrants (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap2-2009... so why the fuss over 14 more kids (born to a legal citizen, no less?) Is it out of fear for the welfare of the children? People have exploited their children for years, and some of the time the public eats it up (some would accuse John & Kate plus 8 of doing that…)
I do believe that if the woman who mothered these children was of more stable mind and situation, the outrage wouldn't be nearly so severe…and I personally do feel that this woman needs professional help. But I also agree with Mr. TenNapel, that "Pro-choicers don’t have an argument to stand on", because when they express outragetowards this woman, it goes against the whole "her body, her choice" mantra, it sounds as though it comes right down to the $money$. (Case in point, In 2006, Planned Parenthood made a $55.8 million profit, not to mention all the children taxpayers didn't have to worry about paying for who would have wound up on some sort of gov't assistance.)
I have wondered about the ferocity of responses against this woman in various chat rooms and comment pages around the web. If you apply the very basics of the pro-choice argument to the situation (her body, her choice), then why the outrage? Is it the money? …California taxpayers are paying over $775 million just on Medi-Cal healthcare for illegal immigrants (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap2-2009... so why the fuss over 14 more kids (born to a legal citizen, no less?) Is it out of fear for the welfare of the children? People have exploited their children for years, and some of the time the public eats it up (some would accuse John & Kate plus 8 of doing that…)
I do believe that if the woman who mothered these children was of more stable mind and situation, the outrage wouldn't be nearly so severe…and I personally do feel that this woman needs professional help. But I also agree with Mr. TenNapel, that "Pro-choicers don’t have an argument to stand on", because when they express outrage towards this woman, it goes against the whole "her body, her choice" mantra, and it sounds as though it comes right down to the $money$. (Case in point, In 2006, Planned Parenthood made a $55.8 million profit, not to mention all the children taxpayers didn't have to worry about paying for who would have wound up on some sort of gov't assistance.)
I don't care how many children anyone has, but they should be able to provide for them at their own expense and should not expect the taxpayers to do this. This has been my stance since I was old enough to understand that some of our neighbors were lazy welfare rats. Suleman thought she was going to be greeted as the lay person's Angelina Jolie. Angelina can provide for her brood, that's the difference. This woman is just plain irresponsible. She wanted to have this many kids because her life growing up was lonely? PUL-eeze. She's self-absorbed and that's all.
So , this argument is selective? We can only discuss the woman who produces 8– babies at a time. _- I see–MEN –You deleted my arguement on how the government pays $$ to those who are either, pro–give up your life in war, or pro– I can inflict death on others, in war, but I cannot own my own body in this –war on women. And the woman who had abortions to create art is she on here? Do we really think this is an osolated case–this is about the reality that women own power in the womb, and MEN will fight for it, until they can do it themselves.
"House of the Scorpion"
, by Nancy Farmer, reminds you , if this is what is going on in the USA in plain site, you dont even want to know what is going on in countries that dont have to debate their morals on the Brietbart website
Bumper sticker logic! Awesome! Sooooooo deep.
You could make the same claim about the "choice" to kill your one day old infant. You could make the same claim about the "choice" to raise your kid in the same house you cook meth in – should we let you "choose" that as a vocation?
And since the left doesn't want to let me choose what to do with my own money, property, weaponry, etc., forgive me if I'm unimpressed with your commitment to "choice."
Think a little, man. Go read the back of your car, but this time exercise a little critical thinking about all those supposed profundities.
Is it just me or was none of that English?
And you can't spell Demon without men….
Man, I can ALMOST do the tinfoil thing. But I think I spell too well to actually pull it off.
What "pro-choicers" are you referring to? There's been no "pro-choice" commentary on the subject and you don't even offer an example in your piece. This is just a baseless attack on pro-choice people. Being pro-choice means having decision-making abilities in your reproductive life–including the right to end a pregnancy or begin one (or eight). Show me one example of a pro-choice leader saying anything contrary to this. This is a reckless attack.
And do you have any evidence at all that the babies aren't cared for adequately? You don't. But you advocate taking them away? Because Mom is a loon? Heaven help us if that ends up being the standard Child Services is held to. Being taken away means getting split up from siblings, and those relationships matter, too. Nevermind statistics about children who are abused in foster care.
The 'evidence' are the pictures of that cramped, messy house with food smeared on the walls and ripped sheets on the windows and children's beds crammed into rooms they can barely turn around in, NO place for 8 tiny babies who will need round-the-clock care, two disabled children whom the grandmother cares for instead of the mother, NO job, plastic surgery so that the mother looks like an actress she's never met, refusal to marry the father of her babies so that the children are deprived of a father, bills so high with just 6 children that the grandfather is forced to leave the country to find a job to care for grandchildren his daughter won't get a job to afford, mental health warnings from psychiatrists who say that the mother suffers from depression and disassociation, a psychobabble rambling by the mother herself to a tabloid revealing that she doesn't give a damn about the emotional cost her children are paying and only cares about her own fantasies of making babies, etc. Need I go on?
This is a sad and sick situation. She is not mentally stable to do this and I agree that the doctor responsible should have to suport this litter of babies. They will require millions of dollars of support, as they will probably be in special ed classes and have to be supported all of their lives. Most will probably not be adoptable because there is a strong possibility that they will require special care all of their life. Most people cannot handle that. Many divorces come about due to such child needs. Who would marry this nut case? A Family should have as many children as they can afford to the extent it will not harm the mother. Period. I had a neighbor with 11. I never saw toys, bikes in the yard. They never caused problems in the neighborhood. All went to Catholic school, all were sent to college, with several becoming doctors, lawyers, and other professions. They could/did afford and control such a large family. If one cannot afford children, they should not have them. I had ONE.
Well stated Doug!
The hypocrisy of the Femi-Nazi's knows no bounds!
As a responsible parent working hard to take care of my two children with my wife (and we certainly want more!) it does bother me that a single parent with not ability to really take care of her 14 children without government assistance and subsidies. Yet I'd never wish harm on the woman or her children. We live in a sick and twisted world where having children is considered selfish unless you keep the number of children under the Al Gore/Global Warming Alarmist/Communist Chinese approved quota; after you have a good career and lots of sex with multiple partners first.
Has anyone actually verified the death threats? Not to be harsh, but I hope we're not taking the word of a mentally ill woman who spent her last dollar (plus a bunch of ours) to add to the six children she already couldn't take care of. Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we actually had a mainstream press we could trust?
I can only presume that the author of this post is not from SoCal, or else gets his news by carrier pigeon from Borneo.
Recent revelations include the fact that she's been scamming the state of CA for disability for better than a decade, evicted from one house, and now about to lose a second one, and has therefore neither home, job, nor any other stable means of support for any of her children other than panhandling or grifting.
No matter how high-tech it is, that's *what* it will be.
I'm doggedly pro-life, but if the lunatic Left ever wanted a poster child for abortion, it is this woman.
She is disturbed and seriously more than half a bubble off plumb level, and that's a professional medical judgement, not just casual off-the-cuff snark.
Putting her in an article for anything other than comedy relief cannot but drag any argument made by the author to the bottom of the pond of logic in short order, where such article should mercifully gasp out its last bubble, and then be silent.
Great points Maura! Love your point of view and voice. Its a big reason I keep visiting Big Hollywood. Keep the posts coming.
I don't care how many kids you have, as long as you don't want my money to raise them.
It takes a village, unfortunately. I feel sorry for her kids.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
Des,
the reason why I wrote this piece was because the publicity group dropped her because not only did they receive over 100 death threats, but their clients unrelated to Suleman started getting threats.
Suleman isn't what fascinates me…it's our culture's knee jerk response of hatred, judgement and proclamation of her insanity that interests me. I'd probably trace it back to the zero population growth (ZPG) hysteria inserted into our narrative since the 60s and carried on today in Climate Change dogmas.
It's the Pro Choicers specifically who jettisend their arguments so quickly in this case. I'm waiting to hear a few Pro Choicers post in support of Suleman's absolute right to do this to her body regardless of the health of her offspring. Fascinating.
It's not that she had the kids. The issue is that she had them artificially. She so did not have to do that. She deliberately got herself knocked up. Those kids would not be here if she had let nature take its course, which was no course. Now that the kids ar here, well, they need care and love and all of the things taxpayers don't need to pay for (other than for their own own families) these days. So that is why people hate her. I know I can't stand the sight of her.
==Murdering children because of the irresponsiblity of their parents is not right. It's not the child's fault how they came into the world. ==
In the immigration debate, Libs like to argue that children of the illegals shouldn't have to pay for the crimes of the parents.
In the pro-choice = pro-abortion = wrong-choice debate, Libs like to argue that the unborn children SHOULD pay for the crime of the parents.
I'm very much on the side that says there's too man damn humans sucking up food, air and resources on this rock as it is, and that anyone who's NEVER looked at one of these baby-laden possum-women with just a LITTLE bit of disgust hasn't been to a movie theater in the daytime recently.
BUT, as far as I'm concerned, crazy-lady here can have as many kids as she damn well wants. Free country. BUT I don't wanna pay for any of it. Let her have her brood, and let the nine (fourteen) of `em survive on their own merits like everyone else. If she/they can do it? Awesome. Good on her. Hurrah for triumph over the odds. If not, well… Natural Selection, man.
The author clearly knows little about Octomom. The main outrage is that we, California taxpayers, have been and will continue to pay for this menagerie of 14 children, their mother, and most likely her parents (her mother is currently $23,000 behind in mortgage paymernts, and she declared bankruptcy and lost another home 2 years ago) for the rest of their lives. Octomom has been on "disability" for a bad back for 10 years now, but has gone through 6 pregnancies since then (there is one set of twins and the current brood of 8). She went on TV with Ann Curry and lied about not being on public assistance. The outrage stems from her behavior, not the 14 children resulting from that behavior.
Well, if we know it's accurate, then the next question is why. First, there are crazy people among us, and I'm sure a portion of the calls came from the same type of people who always threaten famous people (literally no reason other than they're in the news). There are radically pro-life people, and I wouldn't put it past some of them to be so upset about the way she chose to conceive the kids (being implanted with 7 while already having kids) that they would do something as stupid as phoning in an anonymous threat. You're also going to find some whack-jobs who are upset that she's "abusing" her children by having 14 in a house that only has 3 bedrooms (and about to be foreclosed on). Toss in those who are pissed because she's obviously doing this with taxpayer's money, and you have enough idiots who have no idea how to express themselves in a way more mature than your typical junior high school kid (prank calls). It's sad, but unfortunately predictable.
As for any Pro-Choice people defending her rights, I wouldn't expect to hear from them. She's not going to stir up much enthusiasm for public defense (even if some feel that way privately, where's their motivation to go stand in front of a camera?), and the people who might want to garner political capital will shy away because of the very real possibility that she's crazy and a potential danger to the children. I'm sure there are people out there who support her absolute right, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to get on a show like O'Relly's and defend it.
Is Octomom the same woman, who, in a newscast sound bite, said that, cuz the Dear Leader, Obammy, was elected, she won't have to pay for anything — like gas for her car, nor the house payment — anymore? Or is that another one?
I have to respectfully disagree on this one. I don't see this lady as anything other than a drain on society. Responsibility by all parties was non-existent. It was irresponsible of her AND her doctor to make this decision, and the taxpayers are holding the bill.
Further, as the lovely Ann Coulter points out.: Victim of violent crime? Thank a single mother. Well in this case there are 14 potential criminals now. Kids with no father figures, kids with an obviously disturbed mother figure. It doesn't bode well for their future.
Do I think she should have aborted them after making the horrible decision to have 14 children? No. But you and I and even her own mother knows that she is incapable of providing these kids with a healthy environment to be raised in. Adoption would have let this bad decision bring happiness to some couples' lives.
In fairness to Doug, I don't think his post is condoning the actions of Suleman or making her the poster-child for the Pro-Life movement. It's his observation of the hypocritical and misplaced "WRATH" that this woman is enduring that he finds fascinating. I mean come-on guys, think. She only made press because of the sensational nature of her case. And it is sensational. But how many other welfare cases go by us un-noticed, week to week? And the government PROGRAMS that support those multitudes? Their wasteful fallouts DWARF those from Octomom!There will always be stupid, opportunistic people taking advantage of society's graces. Uncompromising conservatives spending government money wisely will reduce their behavior. Let's keep our anger in check here!
I agree, Doug.
I'm not happy if the rumors are true that she expected either the government or her slight notoriety/fame to get her money take care of the kids. Her family had stated that she (or they?) had the resources to take care of the children, which would be a better situation.
But these children are in the world now, and I pray that they are taken care of by their loving mother and family.
Meanwhile something does have to be done about a situation where women are implanted with many embryos just to have one child, ready to abort the others, or freezing fertilized eggs. It's time to stop breaking fetuses to make babies, so to speak.
You must be logged in to post a comment.