Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Octuplets & Being a single mother with 14 children.

1356720

Posts

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    poshniallo wrote: »
    No husband???

    But the good lord deems a male necessary!

    These children - are they illegitimate?

    Perhaps some kind of mark could be stitched upon her clothing?

    It's not an issue of "no husband" in order to fulfill the requirements of an invisible man in the sky. It's an issue of "no husband" with regard to: Who the fuck is going to pay for these little shits?

    If she wants to have a lesbian mistress? Great. Fine. That's awesome. But right now she doesn't even have that. She has no financial resources.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    So when you said that humanity would be better off without IVF, what you meant was what--that people should have fewer kids? Because those two things are not equivalent.


    The population is in no danger of dying out, so numeric increase is not priority. There are lots and lots of children without homes who are otherwise healthy and normal. IVF's availability decreases the number of "slots" available for those children. IVF's only real advantage, at this point in history, is based on what I consider to be emotional or cultural defficiencies in the parents, which I'm not especially keen on perpetuating to begin with.

    I don't value genetic relation whatsoever, and I don't have a positive opinion of those who do.

    Hopefully that clarifies my position enough.

    Look, the birthrate has stuff-all to do with our population problem. That's solely centred on a massive drop in the death rate, particularly among the very young. Ranting about the number of children being born in a world where the average birth rate in most places is only barely past replacement is stupid. We're in a demographic bubble, and in a few decades things will settle out provided we don't all go nuts in one direction or another.

    tmsig.jpg
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    No husband???

    But the good lord deems a male necessary!

    These children - are they illegitimate?

    Perhaps some kind of mark could be stitched upon her clothing?

    It's not an issue of "no husband" in order to fulfill the requirements of an invisible man in the sky. It's an issue of "no husband" with regard to: Who the fuck is going to pay for these little shits?

    If she wants to have a lesbian mistress? Great. Fine. That's awesome. But right now she doesn't even have that. She has no financial resources.

    What 'little shits'? So you hate the kids too now?

    Honestly, you are all coming off as the most judgemental small-minded busybodies I have ever seen.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    She pretty much needs a harem to keep up with the emotional needs of that many kids.

    Her very own village.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    So when you said that humanity would be better off without IVF, what you meant was what--that people should have fewer kids? Because those two things are not equivalent.


    The population is in no danger of dying out, so numeric increase is not priority. There are lots and lots of children without homes who are otherwise healthy and normal. IVF's availability decreases the number of "slots" available for those children. IVF's only real advantage, at this point in history, is based on what I consider to be emotional or cultural defficiencies in the parents, which I'm not especially keen on perpetuating to begin with.

    I don't value genetic relation whatsoever, and I don't have a positive opinion of those who do.

    Hopefully that clarifies my position enough.
    You... do realize that the only reason you, and all the rest of us, are here is due to genetic relation, right? Sure, there's the occasional oops baby and the occasional "It'll convince him to stay with me" baby, but the majority of us were born because at some point our parents decided they wanted to pass on their genes.

    From an evolutionary standpoint, orphans are failures, or the products of failures. Children of parents that were unable to provide for their offspring until the offspring could provide for itself. Were they chimpanzees or birds, they'd be dead. Now, since we're social creatures, and have developed a form of compassion nearly unseen in the natural world, we do what we can to care for unwanted babies. But there is no reason two people who want to raise a child should choose an orphan over giving birth to their own, other than it's something they want to do.

    ...the fuck? Its nice that you apparently live in a world where there's no such thing as accidental death or lethal diseases, but the rest of us here in realityland would like to point out that this post is ridiculous.

    tmsig.jpg
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Honestly, you are all coming off as the most judgemental small-minded busybodies I have ever seen.

    Have you no concern for the welfare of 14 children whose mother has no source of financial means to sustain them?

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    poshniallo wrote: »
    The 2-minute hate starts here!

    Christ, whatever happened to live and let live?

    Mothers are rarely afforded that luxury, for some odd reason.

    tmsig.jpg
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Honestly, you are all coming off as the most judgemental small-minded busybodies I have ever seen.

    Have you no concern for the welfare of 14 children whose mother has no source of financial means to sustain them?

    You don't - or are you sending them some money and nappies to help out?

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    From an evolutionary standpoint, orphans are failures, or the products of failures.

    Justify that statement. A child whose parents are killed by a drunk driver is an evolutionary failure?

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    Look, the birthrate has stuff-all to do with our population problem. That's solely centred on a massive drop in the death rate, particularly among the very young. Ranting about the number of children being born in a world where the average birth rate in most places is only barely past replacement is stupid. We're in a demographic bubble, and in a few decades things will settle out provided we don't all go nuts in one direction or another.

    I'm not really concerned about the birth rate. I merely noted that we don't NEED more children than are produced by those capable of reproduction on their own.

    What we DO need is better population ratios. Our resources as a whole are out of whack, and that includes the ratio of children to guardians.

    --

    Just an FYI: There's a reason I didn't respond to Math. Let's not let this thread get derailed from highly arguable into -absofuckinglutely crazy-.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • MalaysianShrewMalaysianShrew Registered User
    edited February 2009
    I once had to take a friend to get the morning after pill. We had to try two different hospitals(it was 4am) to get a doctor to prescribe it and then had to drive to the other side of town to find a pharmacy that wasn't known to refuse to fill it.

    All this and no doctor thought "wait, maybe I shouldn't put 8 embryos into this woman despite her wishes".

    I need to go to med school and just start slapping motherfuckers.

    Never trust a big butt and a smile.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Getting a PHD doesn't require significantly more than average intelligence. It's largely a matter of work and focus and often enough, cheating.

    Ethics and wisdom don't even factor into it.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Look, the birthrate has stuff-all to do with our population problem. That's solely centred on a massive drop in the death rate, particularly among the very young. Ranting about the number of children being born in a world where the average birth rate in most places is only barely past replacement is stupid. We're in a demographic bubble, and in a few decades things will settle out provided we don't all go nuts in one direction or another.

    I'm not really concerned about the birth rate. I merely noted that we don't NEED more children than are produced by those capable of reproduction on their own.
    Sorry, this doesn't work. You haven't bothered to even attempt quantification. Get some numbers. I'm pretty sure things aren't dire enough that preventing a few well-off people with dodgy uteri from breeding will end the world.
    What we DO need is better population ratios. Our resources as a whole are out of whack, and that includes the ratio of children to guardians.
    Not all that far out of whack. For one thing, legalised abortion means a shitload less kids in care.

    You're also ignoring a lot of demographic issues. Kids in care are disproportionately likely to be ethnic minorities, to be disabled in one way or another, and to be emotionally disturbed, whether as a result of being in care or from earlier in their lives. Most people flat out aren't capable of caring for the last two categories in particular, and there's nothing about the infertile that make them magically better parents.

    I get that you'd like to get more kids adopted, but banning IVF is absolutely not an effective pathway.

    And honestly, I don't really buy this 'concern for the kiddies' business. Yeah, they won't get the attention a kid in a 2-child household would. Yeah, the older ones probably won't have kids because they'll be helping raise the others. But they're not freakin' doomed. There's kids in smaller families everywhere that face far worse than sharing a bedroom.

    tmsig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Getting a PHD doesn't require significantly more than average intelligence. It's largely a matter of work and focus and often enough, cheating.

    Ethics and wisdom don't even factor into it.
    You really are hilariously bitter, but that doesn't make you right.

    tmsig.jpg
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    Not all that far out of whack. For one thing, legalised abortion means a shitload less kids in care.

    You're also ignoring a lot of demographic issues. Kids in care are disproportionately likely to be ethnic minorities, to be disabled in one way or another, and to be emotionally disturbed, whether as a result of being in care or from earlier in their lives. Most people flat out aren't capable of caring for the last two categories in particular, and there's nothing about the infertile that make them magically better parents.

    I get that you'd like to get more kids adopted, but banning IVF is absolutely not an effective pathway.

    And honestly, I don't really buy this 'concern for the kiddies' business. Yeah, they won't get the attention a kid in a 2-child household would. Yeah, the older ones probably won't have kids because they'll be helping raise the others. But they're not freakin' doomed. There's kids in smaller families everywhere that face far worse than sharing a bedroom.

    I might have missed it...but have you addressed the "how the hell is a single mother going to pay for 14 kids" question?

    All of the other issues are delightful to argue about. But, um, she doesn't have a job. She doesn't have a partner providing her with funds. So, what are these 14 kids going to eat for the next 18 years? Hugs, love, and insanity?

    Ethics, morality, and demographics aside...what the fuck are these kids going to eat?

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • Johnny ChopsockyJohnny Chopsocky Scootaloo! We have to cook! Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    poshniallo wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Honestly, you are all coming off as the most judgemental small-minded busybodies I have ever seen.

    Have you no concern for the welfare of 14 children whose mother has no source of financial means to sustain them?

    You don't - or are you sending them some money and nappies to help out?

    I really hate this line of reasoning. "Oh, how dare you get mad about *insert harms inflicted toward cause here* when you don't personally donate all of your waking hours *insert cause here*?" It's just so... douchey.

    ygPIJ.gif
    Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    poshniallo wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Honestly, you are all coming off as the most judgemental small-minded busybodies I have ever seen.

    Have you no concern for the welfare of 14 children whose mother has no source of financial means to sustain them?

    You don't - or are you sending them some money and nappies to help out?

    I really hate this line of reasoning. "Oh, how dare you get mad about *insert harms inflicted toward cause here* when you don't personally donate all of your waking hours *insert cause here*?" It's just so... douchey.
    So is assuming this woman is poor (and what is that, please don't tell me its because she's not white). She has a doctorate and managed to cough up the IVF fees. I think its fair to say that cashflow isn't the central problem here.

    tmsig.jpg
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    She has a doctorate and managed to cough up the IVF fees. I think its fair to say that cashflow isn't the central problem here.

    Where did you find that information? In the interview I posted she says that she still has to finish her schooling. Also, per the interview, she has no job.

    I'm just wondering what your source is.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    Sorry, this doesn't work. You haven't bothered to even attempt quantification. Get some numbers. I'm pretty sure things aren't dire enough that preventing a few well-off people with dodgy uteri from breeding will end the world.

    I've already noted that the difference may not be significant enough for my stance to have any value. I'm not sure where to start looking for such a study that wouldn't be biased or tagential, as I have a near-zero interest in reproductive culture. If, in fact, in vitro has no significant effect on the well being of the population, I will retract my stance, and consider this story stupid tabloid crap not worthy of mention.
    Not all that far out of whack. For one thing, legalised abortion means a shitload less kids in care.

    The first part is somewhat subjective and regional. The latter is regional, though in most cases I expect that the demographics line up in regards to IVF so as to negate the matter.
    You're also ignoring a lot of demographic issues. Kids in care are disproportionately likely to be ethnic minorities, to be disabled in one way or another, and to be emotionally disturbed, whether as a result of being in care or from earlier in their lives. Most people flat out aren't capable of caring for the last two categories in particular, and there's nothing about the infertile that make them magically better parents.

    I made a point to specify healthy children early on for a reason. The ethnic thing falls under my low opinion of many people involved in this particular range of choices.
    I get that you'd like to get more kids adopted, but banning IVF is absolutely not an effective pathway.

    If you know where to find the numbers from a low-bias source that show this, I will retract my position. As stated above, I otherwise accept that I may in fact be in error in regards to the significance of the impact of IVF. I retain my opinion of people who have such a strong concern for blood relations, however.
    And honestly, I don't really buy this 'concern for the kiddies' business. Yeah, they won't get the attention a kid in a 2-child household would. Yeah, the older ones probably won't have kids because they'll be helping raise the others. But they're not freakin' doomed. There's kids in smaller families everywhere that face far worse than sharing a bedroom.

    Do keep in mind that my loathing for human practices and realities is kept in check largely because I remind myself about determinism repeatedly, which I'm sure you find abhorent, but which is the reality of my perspective nonetheless.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    She has a doctorate and managed to cough up the IVF fees. I think its fair to say that cashflow isn't the central problem here.

    Where did you find that information? In the interview I posted she says that she still has to finish her schooling. Also, per the interview, she has no job.

    I'm just wondering what your source is.
    Random news articles, same as the rest of you. And do you have any idea how much IVF costs? It costs a whole lot.

    tmsig.jpg
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    She has a doctorate and managed to cough up the IVF fees. I think its fair to say that cashflow isn't the central problem here.

    Where did you find that information? In the interview I posted she says that she still has to finish her schooling. Also, per the interview, she has no job.

    I'm just wondering what your source is.
    Random news articles, same as the rest of you. And do you have any idea how much IVF costs? It costs a whole lot.

    I'm starting to wonder if any news agency has a full grasp of this situation. No one seems to have the complete story yet. She's raised 7 kids...but needs to complete school...and maybe she has a job or maybe she's living off of a settlement from a past injury?

    I've no idea. But the video of her talking seems to be a sensible starting point for finding out what she thinks her situation is.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    Random news articles, same as the rest of you.

    Man I'd sacrifice a lot of orphans to have a reliable media. :P

    The story I read was that she was hoping to go back to school to get a masters to become a counselor, and that she was at home and out of work temporarily after being injured during a riot at the mental hospital she worked out.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    she was at home and out of work temporarily after being injured during a riot at the mental hospital she worked out.

    I, too, saw that article. But the one i read talked about a multi-thousand dollar settlement.

    But, still, raising 14 kids requires more than thousands of dollars.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    From her interview with Ann it seems like she did this to prove a point...

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I've already noted that the difference may not be significant enough for my stance to have any value. I'm not sure where to start looking for such a study that wouldn't be biased or tagential, as I have a near-zero interest in reproductive culture.
    Then why are you in here? I call bullshit. You have a very clear interest in sounding off, but rather less in basing your arguments on anything more weighty than your own emotional dysfunction and self-righteousness.
    If, in fact, in vitro has no significant effect on the well being of the population, I will retract my stance, and consider this story stupid tabloid crap not worthy of mention.
    Go find out then.
    I made a point to specify healthy children early on for a reason. The ethnic thing falls under my low opinion of many people involved in this particular range of choices.
    Well then, you're obviously not really that concerned about kids in care. Just the nice, cute ones! That's awesome. Go you.
    If you know where to find the numbers from a low-bias source that show this, I will retract my position. As stated above, I otherwise accept that I may in fact be in error in regards to the significance of the impact of IVF. I retain my opinion of people who have such a strong concern for blood relations, however.
    You're the one making the positive claim, you get the fucking numbers. And I really don't think there's anything pathological about wanting to perpetuate one's genes. Another positive claim with little to no backup.

    tmsig.jpg
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Malkor wrote: »
    From her interview with Ann it seems like she did this to prove a point...

    That her uterus functions?

    I take her to be less idealist and more fuck-ass-crazy. why would she need more children?

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    Then why are you in here? I call bullshit. You have a very clear interest in sounding off, but rather less in basing your arguments on anything more weighty than your own emotional dysfunction and self-righteousness.

    I'm discussing what I know from the news. If I cared about the topic enough to have an in-depth background in it I'd have something better to do with that knowledge than to discuss it here.
    Go find out then.

    Yes I will go back to college in order to win an argument on the internet.
    Well then, you're obviously not really that concerned about kids in care. Just the nice, cute ones! That's awesome. Go you.

    Bait and switch is beneath you.
    You're the one making the positive claim, you get the fucking numbers. And I really don't think there's anything pathological about wanting to perpetuate one's genes. Another positive claim with little to no backup.

    I am unaware of ANY organization regarding reproduction that isn't heavily biased. I would have to go to fucking college and research their backgrounds. I get my information the same place you get your information on this woman's degree of college education.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Yes I will go back to college in order to win an argument on the internet.

    That's what I did.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Yes I will go back to college in order to win an argument on the internet.

    That's what I did.

    I went to college the first time to prove Fuck Hemingway. :P

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Nice backpedalling. Really top-notch. Pity you're now upside-down in a ditch, rhetorically speaking.

    tmsig.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    Nice backpedalling. Really top-notch. Pity you're now upside-down in a ditch, rhetorically speaking.

    FYI: Insults are not arguments.

    If you believe that my grasp of the situation is too limited or erronious to form an opinion, that's fine. I've hardly claimed to be authoritative on the topic. However, lacking good information, I am left with taking my stance with the vague information I have come across. If you don't like it, that's fine too.

    The level of aggression you display in informing me of your disdain for the formation of my opinion, however, is counter-productive. It's difficult to give a shit about what you say when you say it with your textual middle finger in the air.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I am of the opinion that with the world population levels the way they are having more children than two (keeping the status quo) is downright irresponsible and animalistic.

    The so called right of human kind to breed themselves off their planet is a right that needs to be questioned, at least until we get the technology to deal with a higher population.

    There's too much of a she'll be right mentality about this fucking thing, as if humanity will overcome every problem facing them because they "always have" (rofl), without anybody having to do anything icky.

    But we've never really faced anything big that didn't come from another human. This justification has no evidence for it.

    A bloo bloo bloo for your right to reproduction.

    I probably come off as harsh. It's because I am.

    The Cat: I posted without thinking and reading the thread. I went back and read what you said, and I'm not convinced by your argument. Could you explain it better? How is the source of the population problem relevant here? The fact is there is a population problem, because people don't die. The idea of "well that's ok to increase it" is still irresponsible here. Just because something isn't the original cause is no excuse to make things worse via another means. (Although I am still only talking about "more than 2". And I don't agree with the person you were arguing with, re banning ivf.)

    My Dark Souls 2 Diary Day 6 and 7 Updated
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I am of the opinion that with the world population levels the way they are having more children than two (keeping the status quo) is downright irresponsible and animalistic.

    Except, we need a growing population to support our ever aging population. Retaining the status quo straight up won't be sustainable either.

  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Leitner wrote: »
    I am of the opinion that with the world population levels the way they are having more children than two (keeping the status quo) is downright irresponsible and animalistic.

    Except, we need a growing population to support our ever aging population. Retaining the status quo straight up won't be sustainable either.

    That is because our whole economy is based around being a selfish animal that pretends it thinks. You know, like reproduction and the lack of adequate consideration for it. Of course something so central would have huge repercussions! That's the point. We are how we are now because its unquestioned.

    Why can't we just build everyone robot butlers? :P

    My Dark Souls 2 Diary Day 6 and 7 Updated
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2009
    Just watched the interview.

    Yup, this woman is fucking nutso.

    I like the part where she's never asked for any help or money from anyone, and oh she's going to be depending on her friends and family and church to help out with effort and money until she can figure out how to stretch an annual income of $0 into support for 15 people.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Can't she get money from the government too?

    If so, how much?

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2009
    I'm sure she can. But she shouldn't be. You don't squirt 14 kids out your cooter with the intention of asking the government (or friends and family) to support them, and yet there's no sane explanation for how she planned to continue caring for even the 6 she had at first much less the next 8 without needing assistance.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    So wait, I haven't really been keeping up with this, but, it came up at breakfast with my folks today. Is she actually going to get to keep the kids? I mean, is there any way she can really take care of 14 kids? I mean, unless her church/family support structure is amazing, it just sounds nearly impossible to me.

    B7ozVfx.png
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    So wait, I haven't really been keeping up with this, but, it came up at breakfast with my folks today. Is she actually going to get to keep the kids? I mean, is there any way she can really take care of 14 kids? I mean, unless her church/family support structure is amazing, it just sounds nearly impossible to me.

    Crazy people don't have an exit plan.

    You rely on your parents to loan you money to get your car fixed, not help you raise 14 kids whose father is a turkey baster.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    If I had to take a guess, I'd imagine that it's cheaper for the government to pay her to take care of her own kids than it s to take the burden of raising them upon itself.

Sign In or Register to comment.