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.

2456720

Posts

  • SmallLadySmallLady Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    If she really is mentally ill, wouldn't this constitute some sort of violation of the Hippocratic Oath?


    the Oath is "Do no Harm" not, "know everything"


    there are lots of senarios where they would have had no idea that she already had 6 kids, was single, living with mom, ect.

    "we're just doing what smalllady told us to do" - @Heels
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    And people say welfare queens don't exist.


    Fuck her.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • SmallLadySmallLady Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    And people say welfare queens don't exist.


    Fuck her.


    just because there are people like her, does not mean they are the norm.

    "we're just doing what smalllady told us to do" - @Heels
  • DuffelDuffel Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    SmallLady wrote: »
    the Oath is "Do no Harm" not, "know everything"


    there are lots of senarios where they would have had no idea that she already had 6 kids, was single, living with mom, ect.
    I figured her obstetrician/fertility counselor/whatever asked a few questions like that.

    I was also thinking of the health consequences of carrying 8 children. It seems incredible to me that someone could survive that.

    Of course I guess they can't force you to abort a few of them, even if the mother's health is in danger, without her say-so. Where would the line fall between "right to choose to abort or carry to term" and "suicidal to the point where medical personnel should intervene"?

  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I have a feeling child protective services visits will be in her future.

  • KistraKistra Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    mugginns wrote: »
    I think IVF is a great scientific discovery, and with the advances that have been made it is becoming more realistic. The multiple births that were more common are becoming scarce, and other countries have actually regulated how many embryos can be implanted I believe.

    At this point the standard is to implant one embryo in women without uterine deformities or specific forms of infertility which make implantation less likely. Even then you only implant two to three.

    I think it was horribly irresponsible of her doctor to have placed 8 at once. The embryos were already harvested and fertilized which is the expensive part and they were already old. It would have been just as easy to insert two a month until one took, the extra months of waiting wouldn't have made a huge impact on the others.

    Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Its kind of awesome how supposedly pro-choice people turn into fucking monsters whenever someone has more than the 'approved' number of kids. Whatever number that is.

    Christ, guys. Forced sterilisation? In vitro conception bans? Are you people that fucking stupid?

    tmsig.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I don't care if someone has a lot of children.

    I do care if someone mistreats children by having too many to care for.

    I also have yet to hear a compelling argument for in vitro. The only reason I could ever see it being of use is if there is a population dying out without it and you want to preserve their genetic diversity just in case they're immune to the zombie plague or some crap. Otherwise it's just a way to say Fuck You Orphans.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    And how many orphans have you adopted, you jackass?

    Your position is logically incoherent and thoroughly ill thought out. Shit, where do I even start?

    First, if you're worried about child mistreatment, then you need to focus on arguing that the children should be monitored, not hauled off without any evidence of mistreatment. And no, "they have a lot of siblings" is not evidence.

    Second, you're arguing that no-one has any legal obligation to keep fetuses they've generated themselves, but if they can't generate them without a doctor's help they have to...what, take what the state gives them? Do they get a choice in which kid is dumped on them, or do they get to go hunt up one they like the looks of? either way you're creating miles and miles of fuckery.

    Unbelievable.

    tmsig.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I would be an unhealthy person to be raised by, and I do not have the funds to raise a child. I would be a jackass if I adopted a child, not to mention fathering one. If I was forced to raise a child, however, I'd adopt. My genes aren't so amazing that I simply must personally add to the population when instead some poor kid without a family could, you know, have one. Please drop the raging thing. It doesn't help your argument, and will ruin any chance for rational disourse if you persist. If you cannot drop the raging thing, I'll assume you don't want to be replied to.

    The woman has a mental problem, and she intended to subject at least seven children to it. Even if her intentions are good, this is very likely to fuck the kids up and give them shitty problems the rest of their lives. I find this less than satisfactory.

    As for in vitro, I'm aware that it's impractical to ban it because of humans being shitbags, but the species would likely be better off without it, though of course they'd have to get over themselves first.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    You just can't possibly claim to be pro-choice if you think in vitro should be legalised, if you think its okay to sterilise anyone without their consent, or if you think laws about acceptable numbers of children are a super idea. its fucking nutty to think so.

    Yes, it would be super awesome if unwanted children weren't. It would also be super awesome if this woman hadn't gone all crazy-cat-collector with people*. It would be rad as hell if there weren't so many people about at the moment. But tough, these things have to be dealt with in other ways. Ethical ways.

    *It would be even better if her doctor wasn't an unethical douche who broke all the rules about implanting!

    tmsig.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I'm sorry where did I say I advocated forced surgery?

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • SliverSliver Registered User
    edited February 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    Its kind of awesome how supposedly pro-choice people turn into fucking monsters whenever someone has more than the 'approved' number of kids. Whatever number that is.

    Christ, guys. Forced sterilisation? In vitro conception bans? Are you people that fucking stupid?

    I was about to make a comment about supposedly pro-choice people telling women what to do with their body but Cat beat me too it.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    She can do whatever she wants with her body.

    Her kids are not in her body.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • CangoFettCangoFett Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    So, Incen, you're saying you're okay with her having 14 kids, if shes responsible about it, like in the scenario I quoted before?

  • redxredx East Bumblefuck, PARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    *It would be even better if her doctor wasn't an unethical douche who broke all the rules about implanting!

    So, I know it's way over what normal treatment would be (4 times what is normally considered safe, IIRC), but I don't really know how strict the 'rules' actually are. Are there any circumstances where this particular woman should have had this particular procedure(or anything with more than 2 eggs). I believe she was a least reasonably well informed. Is there some amount of outside council(mental or medical), that would have allowed this to be anything like an ethical thing to do?

    Also, can I use some sort of similar ethical ruler to look down on plastic surgeons who allow patients to do fairly unhealthy and extreme things to their bodies, or does that not carry the same sort of risk of something going horribly wrong?

    All I've got is a snuggle hammer.
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    As for in vitro, I'm aware that it's impractical to ban it because of humans being shitbags, but the species would likely be better off without it, though of course they'd have to get over themselves first.

    Why should the question of who gets to have biological offspring be decided by whether they are able to conceive naturally?

    "You should adopt!" applies to anyone and everyone equally: getting IVF is no more selfish or retarded than having a natural pregnancy. It's just more difficult.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    CangoFett wrote: »
    So, Incen, you're saying you're okay with her having 14 kids, if shes responsible about it, like in the scenario I quoted before?

    If you can raise 100 kids without fucking them up (holy shit good luck) and without fucking up the lives of others why should I have any say on it?

    When people are harmed is when I give a shit. I would prefer someone ADOPT 100 kids, definately, but I'd also prefer it if people did a lot of things.

    --

    MrMister: Are you assuming that I'm happy with NORMAL breeding practices?

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    MrMister: Are you assuming that I'm happy with NORMAL breeding practices?

    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.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    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.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • HeatwaveHeatwave I heard you, Hot ShotRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    vaginastil128548681261234176.jpg

    Vm7lDjT.jpg
    Steam: Heatwave / Origin: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Wii U: Heatwave111
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I saw this lady on a interview and IMO she haves an unhealthy obsession. I cant see anything good coming out of this.

    steam_sig.png
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User 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.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • VoodooVVoodooV Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I know he said to be fruitful and multiply, but Jesus FUCK!

    When people take the bible literally like that...does that mean it's okay to stone them if they do any other of the myriad of things the bible says is bad? Because if they want to live their lives by the Bible literally like that, maybe we should hold them to it.

    Cuz I got some stones you see....just sitting there...not doing anything...

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I'm sure this sentiment has been expressed already but I'm gonna put it bluntly:

    This bitch is crazy.

    optimusighsig.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User 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.

    It decreases the number of homes available to orphans no more and no less than natural conception. It's just another way of getting pregnant, and a person who gets IVF is no more or less responsible for their decision not to adopt than any other person who gets pregnant.

    Making it illegal would just be a way of persecuting the otherwise infertile. Why should they, and they particularly, be denied of the option to have biological children? Improving the prospects of orphans is a burden that should be shared by all equally.

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    the majority of us were born because at some point our parents decided they wanted to pass on their genes.

    Do you have any evidence for that statement? Because I'm pretty sure that it's false: after all, people wanted to have children before genes or evolution were ever discovered. Unless you're using the words 'decide' and 'want' to mean something that has nothing to do with actual decisions or desires.
    From an evolutionary standpoint, orphans are failures, or the products of failures.

    What? No.
    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.

    Basic decency counts as a reason in my book.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    MrMister wrote: »
    It decreases the number of homes available to orphans no more and no less than natural conception.

    False. At least some fraction of those people who would be unable to reproduce without IVF would resort to adoption. I don't pretend to know that fraction, and I am open to the possibility that it would be insignificant given the other options out there, but I can only imagine so many people using surrogates.
    It's just another way of getting pregnant, and a person who gets IVF is no more or less responsible for their decision not to adopt than any other person who gets pregnant.

    True. IVF, however, can be much more easily and ethically dealt with than culture and individual psychology. Every human being suffers somewhat from their luck. Reproduction is not special in this regard.
    Making it illegal would just be a way of persecuting the otherwise infertile. Why should they, and they particularly, be denied of the option to have biological children? Improving the prospects of orphans is a burden that should be shared by all equally.

    I do not consider reproduction an automic good. I respect it as a right simply because the alternative is worse.

    Further, I do not respect people who consider adoption instead of breeding to be persecution anymore than I respect people with Christian Persecution Complex.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • CangoFettCangoFett Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Heatwave wrote: »
    vaginastil128548681261234176.jpg


    I think thats the family I was talking about. Like I said, I wouldnt mind living next to/working with any of them, they seemed like cool duders on the documentary.

    Alt I can find you about 200 people in my town with one kid that they shouldnt be allowed to have.


    The issue isnt that the lady in the OP has 14 kids, its that she cant properly raise them.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    CangoFett wrote: »
    The issue isnt that the lady in the OP has 14 kids, its that she cant properly raise them.

    This.

    While I think hyper-reproduction is extremely distasteful, irresponsible reproduction is outright unethical. That said, I will note that she didn't set out to have THAT many kids - there was twinning going on. So I don't fault her for all 14. Just the ones she was trying for without the resources of her own to support them.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Her family seems to be quite rich, as she's not on welfare. (The Duggars are though)>

    Have they ever found out who implanted her and why the fuck he/she did that?

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Rich is a plus.

    How many surrogate parents can she afford?

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    CangoFett wrote: »
    The issue isnt that the lady in the OP has 14 kids, its that she cant properly raise them.

    This.

    While I think hyper-reproduction is extremely distasteful, irresponsible reproduction is outright unethical. That said, I will note that she didn't set out to have THAT many kids - there was twinning going on. So I don't fault her for all 14. Just the ones she was trying for without the resources of her own to support them.

    She already had six. That's a handful for anyone, and I question going for more after that. (note to Cat: Not her right to try, the ethics and plain "Is this a good idea?" part.)

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    The 2-minute hate starts here!

    Christ, whatever happened to live and let live?

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    poshniallo wrote: »
    The 2-minute hate starts here!

    Christ, whatever happened to live and let live?

    Children.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Here is part of a recent interview with Nadya Suleman from Today:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUHn8x8wk_o

    The part that most bothered me is when she talks about "unconventional" as if she is thinking outside the box and has created a new, creative, perhaps even better way of parenting. Sometimes things are conventional because they function. Sometimes things are unconventional because they do not function.

    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
    I am not shocked. Or appalled.

    I am just confused.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Malkor wrote: »
    I am not shocked. Or appalled.

    I am just confused.

    I think I am all three with regard to this situation.

    This woman has no job, no husband, no source of income and she has 14 children. Yet she is not in a state of panic or fear. Apparently she thinks her situation peachy-keen.

    What the fuck!?

    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.
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    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?

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    What the fuck!?

    She has a mental illness.

    Which isn't surprising considering her career path. People tend to get involved in psychology because of a need to self-diagnose.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
Sign In or Register to comment.