@FuriousSterling: That's it in a nutshell. At least those people (some) hoard because they think they're rescuing that dog, that cat, who will die without them.
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).
@maude_flanders: Yes, you've certainly put it better than I could. In both situations, I feel worse for the animals and kids than I do for the so-called caretakers. They have zero control over the situations and are victims of others problems.
fuck this documentary: I can't wait for the documentary that comes 10 years ago where these kids and the Gosselin children get to give their point of view on all of this. I'm sure they'll all be remarkably comfortable in front a camera.
Is there not a risk that this is going to end up like one of those Romanian orphanages?
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.
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?
@maude_flanders: i wish people would think a little harder before throwing that out there. do you know what happens after "removal from the home"? they aren't dropped into a pile of rainbows and cupcakes. they're sent to foster homes, with strange adults, strange kids, and strange social workers who are then trusted to take care of them. A huge number of these kids are being abused in care by other kids and by foster parents. Even the foster parents who aren't abusing them are usually overworked, most of them are overcrowded and can't possibly support and supervise the amount of kids in care. Imagine Octomom without any love or familiarity or family.
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?
Poor kids. How freakn selfish is that? I'd rather not donate MY genetic child to a couple who cannot have one, I'd rather ruin 14 people's lives! But they are MY people and they belong to ME so I have a right to do whatever I want with them.
In the words of my grandfather "This bitch is crazy." I once had a small class of 6th graders and I wanted to kill myself. On average I have 25 kids per class and they're 14-20 and I still can't give them all the attention they need. I find out that some kid felt ignored, or left out or whatever. There is no way on earth she's doing even a mediocre job being a mom. Just because she can make babies doesn't make her a parent. I wish women like her would never get any credit for this type of display... so you can procreate! Big deal! So can I... but I'm responsible. I pity the teachers that will experience these kids when they get to school... all adhd, behavior issues, needing attention, learning issues etc etc. This psycho makes me so mad. So many people go through so much to have one baby that they cherish and this loca has 14 and she is guaranteed to fail at least 6 of them. Then they will inevitably grow up to become adults who's mother failed them and that becomes society's problem. I agree about not setting reproductive limitations and setting precedents etc but this is insane. I had a psycho student last year that was a total menace to society. A 12 year old 6th grader that would bully and taunt everyone in the class then sit under his desk after he cursed me out. I had them draw their family tree one day... he has 10 siblings ages 3-21 living in the same house with him and his 40 year old mom. No wonder when he gets to school he terrorizes everyone... it's the only time someone focuses on him. Ok... my rant is over. This woman really pisses me off.
@Miss_Teacher: I had them draw their family tree one day... he has 10 siblings ages 3-21 living in the same house with him and his 40 year old mom. No wonder when he gets to school he terrorizes everyone... it's the only time someone focuses on him. Ok... my rant is over. "
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.
@maude_flanders: I totally agree with you. I understand that in a farming society or something you probably would want to have a large amount of kids so you have a staff but I work in the South Bronx and there are no farms... I knew a girl with 3 kids and then she met a guy with 3 kids and together they had 3 more kids in 3 years (I wish I were making this up) and between the 2 adults there was half of a job. I remember telling her she basically owes me 2 of those babies considering that I'm sure I will be paying for them in some way because she and her brood live on every government program available. I asked her why she couldn't get a IUD or something and she shrugged her shoulders. I don't understand what goes through some people's heads. It is the height of selfishness and stupidity to populate the earth because you can with absolutely no thought as to what will become of those children. The ability to reproduce just is not enough to define a person as a "good" and/or "responsible" parent. I hate every minute of octomom, jon and kate, the duggars... all of them. It perpetuates the absurd and makes earth a harder place to live because one day all of those children will be adults and I can guarantee that 90% of them will have issues that effect the rest of us negatively. It's hard enough being a well adjusted individual with the outside influences we contend with without having to deal with stuff parents unconsciously (and consciously) put children through.
If you're unable to keep paying for your eggs to stay frozen in storage, how on earth do you expect to be able to pay for a baby, let alone eight/fourteen?
This drives me nuts because, let's say she did go to have some more kids: Nothing we can do about it. No law against having kids or the Duggars would be in deep shit. She's irresponsible to an extreme but...her body, her choice? Gah this woman makes me so made for making me want to be a hypocrite.
@CynicalPink: Actually, we could do something about it. There's no way in hell she can properly care for all those kids on her "income" and with the older ones being special needs, and the high potential for the new 8 to be special needs as well, she might lose them to protective services. Or maybe not, with all of her publicity they might leave the kids with her.
@nacktmusik: That's true, but putting them in to protective services is an after the fact solution. How do you legally keep her from knocking herself up again and causing more problems? I don't think you can. Not without violating some really basic rights and setting a nasty precedent.
@CynicalPink: I have to say, though I think the Duggars are more than a little nutso, they can take care of their little army without whoring them out on TV (they've done so anyway, but they raised a lot of them without it). I think if you can take care of them, which I think the Duggars can (partially because they have older kids who help out), then have at it. But, if you need to hire 4 people to help you manage on the regular, that's irresponsible.
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.
@CynicalPink: Well for one, places like England actually have laws that limit the number of embryo transfers a reproductive endo can do at one time, to avoid outcomes just like this. Most docs in the US are ethical and would never do such a crazy thing as hers, but that is one way to limit this type of shit from happening again.
@pinkcrickets: The Duggars scare the shit out of me for completely non-financial reasons. I was coming at it from a "if we're going to place a limit on how many kids you can have" thing. I still say it's emotionally irresponsible to be stealing your older daughters' childhoods by having them essentially raise anything over breastfeeding age, but I admit I'm very biased against them to start with.
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.
@WashingMyHair: But there *aren't* any legal repercussions for someone like Ms. Suleman who keeps getting assisted in her selfishness by those few doctors who aren't so ethical. She clearly found one before, I have no doubt she could find another. Fame is a powerful thing. I guarantee there's a doc with a failing practice out there who would trade his/her license for a moment in the tabloid sun by giving The Octomom her next brood.
@CynicalPink: She used the same doc for all of her 14 children. I don't know if one or two exceptions should make a law, but I don't know enough about those others that have boldly disregarded medical guidelines in this as Nadya and her physician did.
@CynicalPink: My grandmother was the oldest girl of 12. She told me that she had been raising babies since she was six. Getting married at 18 was an escape for her because she finally got to be in charge of her own house and decide when to stop having children.
Every single one her octuplets has the middle name "Angel," as though they're special little miracles from the heavens. They're the result of expensive medical technology! Their middle names should be "Science." [en.wikipedia.org]
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.
@rednrowdy: thanks be to jeebus for saying something, rednrowdy! i hate that when people call it murder and then refer to the child by the name that was given them AFTER the birth.
@kellybones: her whole scenario highlights why there needs to be a legal limit on how many embryos can be implanted at one time. three, for example, might be a good number to start with.
@rednrowdy: The overwhelming majority of docs only transfer 2 embryos at the most. I've heard of 3 in a few cases, but that's rare. Her doc was just as crazy as she is.
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.