The mother of octuplets

 Like it or not, human reproduction is a fundamental right. No one should be able to force you to have or not have children. It treads into very dangerous territory. The 1 child rule in China being a good example. A lot of people should not have children - even one. Carla Hulmolka was convicted (along with her husband, Paul Bernardo) of kidnapping, raping and murdering teenage girls, including her own sister. She was eventually released and had a baby. People were outraged, but that was her right. Even a generation ago large families were not uncommon. In Quebec, where the population was rural and Catholic having a dozen kids was the rule not the exception. My best friend married a Quebec man who was one of 21 children. My mother was one of eight (non Catholic). These were not well off people and they did not get any special gov't support. Should the gov't have taken these children away? And what about people like Warren Jeff, Blackmore and other polygamists who have nearly 100 children. You might think this latest woman is selfish or simply crazy but she's not unique.

denise m

 Like it or not, human reproduction is a fundamental right. No one should be able to force you to have or not have children. It treads into very dangerous territory. The 1 child rule in China being a good example. A lot of people should not have children - even one. Carla Hulmolka was convicted (along with her husband, Paul Bernardo) of kidnapping, raping and murdering teenage girls, including her own sister. She was eventually released and had a baby. People were outraged, but that was her right. Even a generation ago large families were not uncommon. In Quebec, where the population was rural and Catholic having a dozen kids was the rule not the exception. My best friend married a Quebec man who was one of 21 children. My mother was one of eight (non Catholic). These were not well off people and they did not get any special gov't support. Should the gov't have taken these children away? And what about people like Warren Jeff, Blackmore and other polygamists who have nearly 100 children. You might think this latest woman is selfish or simply crazy but she's not unique.

Ahhh, yes.  BUT!  The big *BUT* here is these were not natural. These were all in vitro.... she had to PAY to have this done (and we are not talking chump change) and then she's living off public assistance.  That's where it get sticky.  No one is telling the Duggars they can't have 358 children (or however many they are up to now) .... they are doing it naturally and supporting them themselves.

When the taxpayers money goes to pay for her to have 14 children and she doesn't even have a home or a job.... well, that is what is making most of the population angry.  Not the children themselves.

 

denise m

Like it or not, human reproduction is a fundamental right. No one should be able to force you to have or not have children.

Absolutely you are so correct we don't need the government involved in that.  However, the issue is more about her doctor than her.  He should have went to the ethics committee right away and explained her situation - that's why the medical field has an ethics committee.

However, these children are here and she can't do it on her own even if she thinks he can so NOW the government has to step in and help, that is what children services is for.   I just hope the children are monitored well by these same services.

denise m

 Like it or not, human reproduction is a fundamental right. No one should be able to force you to have or not have children. It treads into very dangerous territory. The 1 child rule in China being a good example. A lot of people should not have children - even one. Carla Hulmolka was convicted (along with her husband, Paul Bernardo) of kidnapping, raping and murdering teenage girls, including her own sister. She was eventually released and had a baby. People were outraged, but that was her right. Even a generation ago large families were not uncommon. In Quebec, where the population was rural and Catholic having a dozen kids was the rule not the exception. My best friend married a Quebec man who was one of 21 children. My mother was one of eight (non Catholic). These were not well off people and they did not get any special gov't support. Should the gov't have taken these children away?

If the parents or guardians could not properly care for the children, then yes.  Adults may have the right to reproduce but children have the right to be provided with food, shelter, clean clothing that fits, medical care, and non-abusive care from their parents.

I have cousins that are now wards of the state because their parents are idiots who would not properly care for their children.

To me this has nothing to do with it simply being a large family--my husband comes from a family of 8 ( they were not well off but refused government help).  It has to do with the fact that this woman is now going to be taking care of 14 small children, 8 of which are infants and 3 of which have special needs, by herself with no real source of income other than disability.  If she somehow acquires superhuman powers and is able to do it, fine, but those kids have the right to certain treatment from their mother.  If she cannot provide it then I hope they find someone who will or those children will suffer.

I do not dispute the right of anyone to have children.  However, when taxpayer dollars are paying the bills, that's just not right.

I have said for YEARS that states should limit the number of childrn for whom welfare benefits will be paid.  When we lived in the deep South, I saw first hand how welfare had just flat become a way of life for many and that adding a child added to benefits and "free stuff".  I went to college in WV with a gal who considered her children "her only source of income", so forgive me if I'm not feeling terribly generous to folks who keep making babies that they can't afford to feed, cloth and provide with proper medical care.  And, EVEN WITH THIS WOMAN WERE INDEPENDENTLY WEALTHY....it's just wrong to bring so many children into this world who you simply cannot provide adequate care and attention for.

Three of the older children are disabled.  How many of these new babies will be severely handicapped?  I can't think of a single multiple birth case where ALL of the children were "normal" and healthy.  The higher the number of babies, or so it seems, the higher the number of children with serious problems.

As I have said repeatedly, my heart just aches for ALL these babies, all 14 of them.  But I'm furious with the mother and down right enraged with the doctor who made it possible.

glenmar

down right enraged with the doctor who made it possible.

This is where I put the blame as well. A Dr. should not even consider suppling this service to anyone in this woman's situation. She was one big Red Flag. He should be held accountable IMO and I would like to see him lose his license. At the same time this story hit the news, there was a somewhat similar story in Calgary where a 60 year old woman gave birth to twins. The Canadian Dr's refused her IF so she went to India, had the procedure and returned to Calgary for prenatal and the birth of her babies. This caused a lot of outrage because of her age - another debate?

The gov't has every right and an obligation to remove children from unfit parents or unfit environments. However they do not have any authority to stipulate who can or cannot reproduce. In the case of 'welfare babies' all the gov't can do is limit their financial support after the fact. Even people who have been convicted of terrible child abuse or even killing their children have the right to reproduce again and many of them do.(sadly) It might not be 'right' but it's the price we pay for ensuring our own freedom. There will always be those who abuse their rights for their own twisted reasons leaving the rest of us to pick up the pieces.

denise m

glenmar

down right enraged with the doctor who made it possible.

 

This is where I put the blame as well. A Dr.

I agree, maybe her "high profile" lawyer who took the case on for free for the children's rights should sue the doctor and then he can financially support all the children he created.  Which I wouldn't be surprised might happen eventually.  Did you know even the Grandmother went to this doctor and begged for him NOT to do this? He refused to listen.

Then if she wins a settlement the money from the Doctor should be put into a trust where only an executor can release payments to support the children and then social services needs to keep a close eye on this family and make sure she is caring for them.  The public is threatening companies who donate care items to the womans children. If the public would allow that then their diaper, formula, etc would be partially  taken care of and any money she gets can go toward their care and well being items.  The taxpayers would pay less...

I read yesterday that it would cost the taxpayers more money to place these children in foster care (1,000 per month, per child) than it would to help her support them herself.  And no one can just up and take her parental rights away and adopt them out.  So..  no matter the outrage this mom is going to get a chance to raise these children and the taxpayers are going to pay it.  So sue the doctor and entrust the money to someone who can manage it for the children so she can't spend it on herself.

She obviously isn't a rational thinking person and I can't help to believe she had motives, like large $$ income from kind of media blitz signing.

 A new report is out that the doctor implanted another woman, 49 yrs old and uninsured, with seven embryos and she is pregnant with quads  There is a pic of him...gaa, he gives me the creeps.  A fleeting thought crossed my mind that maybe he likes to see women hurt...(slap me).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,492304,00.html

 Are they sure the children aren't his? As in, he's using his sperm in place of that chosen/supplied by the woman? There have been cases of dr.'s with that type of superiority complex - or whatever you call that type of madness.

I think I read (if you can believe any of the stuff out there) that all of her children, are from a friend who donated his sperm years ago and the embryos implanted were frozen.  IF TRUE, this guy has 14 children and it makes me wonder if he knew what it would all lead to so many years later. 

From what I heard on TV.....The friend who donated the sperm offered to marry her at one time and she refused. He (along with her mother) begged the doctor not to implant these last 6 embryos that resulted in the 8 babies. Also, once they realized she was having 7 babies (the 8th was a surprise) she had the option of selective reduction but she said she's a Christian and could never do that.

I honestly am hoping for the best for all 14 of her children. I hate how everyone is calling the newest 8 "very healthy and strong"....those poor babies look tiny and helpless to me.

I'm upset at the doctor for going ahead with the reckless decision he and the mother made.

Regardless of what folks think the Constitution means, children have no rights.  Children as a whole are devalued in this country.  Social services agencies are overburdened for a number of reasons.  One of those reasons involves spending tax money on services for children be it protection, health care or education.  Individual people value their own children, the society does not value children as a class of people.  And if those children are disabled God please help them if there is a not a strong extended family to help meet their needs for life.  This situation is just another demonstration that the rights of adults always prevail, and the impact on children is downplayed or ignored.

I'm sorry but this entire story is a mess.  My wife just read in the paper that she has started a website asking for assistance.  She has no money, lives in a small house with her parents and has 14 children.  So tell me, who will support this family?  I can not dispute the fact that they have the right to reproduce... do they have the intelligence handle the consequences?  I doubt it.  I guess the good news is she can't have any babies for another 9 months... since it is her right to reproduce more babies.

Unfortunately her right to reproduce won't effect me or you by more a few cents or our tax dollars... the people that are effected are 14 (and counting) children who don't have a voice. 

Sure, I go along with the Doc being to blame... however there is enough of that to go around.

You know what I'm wondering....how is DSS not already involved? I mean, social workers watch TV, too, and must've seen her, the house, her situation....

BlackLabbie

You know what I'm wondering....how is DSS not already involved? I mean, social workers watch TV, too, and must've seen her, the house, her situation....

I believe they are involved but to the extent they will help make it work.  It is not the first choice to remove children just because the mother can't provide - it's more about helping a mother be able to provide for the children and staying a family.  That will mean everything from food, housing, special needs and medical.  Then if the mother can be declared unfit they will look at foster but thats a nightmare too.  And splitting the children will be the last resort.  This is why the CA residents are in protest because their tax dollars are going to be used for this family who people believe the mother didn't care to think about before getting in this situation.  Some believe that the mother wanted more kids because it would bring more money.  I don't know what her reasoning is and if she truly believes she needed more children to fulfill her need she is not mentally capable to rationalize such a decision.  This is a mess and what I want to see is where are they in 5 years?  How does this all pan out and will the children be ok - that is to be seen.