Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 5:16 AM
Fri Dec 18
65 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan Morrissey
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/24/09
11/24/09
She doesn't want to raise children. If she did, she wouldn't have added another eight kids to the children she was already struggling with. She doesn't care about actually parenting. What she wants, now that she's got the spotlight, is more attention.
She's disgusting, but she's making money on that. I feel sorry for those fourteen kids, more so than I do for her (and I feel a LITTLE sorry for her, even though she's probably diagnosable for something and is making her kids and those with a stake in their welfare--i.e., the state--pay for it).
11/24/09
#tips
11/24/09
11/24/09
Just had to make fun of the typo.
11/24/09
I know that previous generations had a lot more kids, but not eight at once.
She is just bizarre, and there is something deeply unsettling about her but I can't quite put my finger on it.
11/24/09
Why should the state indulge a woman whose children could probably benefit from the presence (if not serious intervention/removal from the home) of child services anyway?
11/24/09
i'm not saying she isn't crazy. and i'm not saying it isn't warranted sometimes. but there's a serious, lonely, and sometimes deadly set of problems that occur after "removal from the home" that all of us well-loved morally outraged people ignore so we can feel the parents are being sufficiently punished for their inadequacy or negligence.
do you really think it costs less or is more helpful to sever all connections a child has (including the familiarity and comfort of other friends, family, teachers, neighbors) than to provide genuine and extensive support and education to the parents?
11/24/09
I mean, that's what I heard, anyways.
11/24/09
11/24/09
I'm with you. I think it takes a special sort of power to have a large family: either good luck, miraculous stamina and money, or else, criminal arrogance or plain old irresponsibility (anyone can get knocked up over and over and over) or delusion that your children will pay for, and total lack of accountability to anyone when it comes to your actual capacity to parent or provide for a family (wasn't Suleman struggling when she had SIX kids?).
Some people can work it out, sure...but most of the time I can't help but see it as evidence that someone has low standards and isn't thoughtful enough to anticipate focusing finite resources on a smaller quantity of children (thus, using birth control at some point during one's adult life/time as a parent). I don't understand how someone could tell themselves they want the best for their children (maybe they don't actually care much--that's the problem), then test themselves (and their other kids) by having more than...I dunno, five, six kids (hell, my threshold is actually three). Not unless you don't care about putting aside a college fund, or don't care if ALL of your kids go to college if they not too(not that college matters per se, but it's related to getting a job that pays better than minimum wage isn't it? Isn't it a bargaining chip in this economy?) or can't imagine a family emergency, like a job loss.
No offense to those of you from happy, stable large families. I have a hard time believing your parents or your family circumstances are typical, that things would work out swimmingly for the average middle or lower-middle class couple and their children if they had six, seven, ten kids instead of four or less.
11/25/09
#tips
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Also, I think you can stick to the her body, her choice - to have the kids. But if she can't take care of them, they can, and should be taken from her.
11/24/09
11/24/09
I just wish there was a non-evil way to keep Suleman from even having the damned kids. If they need to go in to protective services (which the special needs ones probably do), that's still a burden on the government that it would be nice not to have in the first place. As long as these kids are being born, its going to be society's job to provide for them. And not doing so would be cruel. I just wish there was a way to keep if from happening in the first place. Also I wish I had a puppy and some goldfish crackers.
11/24/09
11/24/09
#tips
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
[en.wikipedia.org]
11/24/09
you, again, missed the fucking point. it's not murder, it's ETHICS..a word that you might need to look up in the first place since you clearly don't know what it means.
you need prayer,
rednrowdy
11/24/09
11/24/09
#tips
11/24/09
11/24/09
Whoever wins … we lose.