Maybe I'm confused, but I don't see how IVF is in any way less moral than the plain old "fuck and fertilise" model that the vast majority of people have been using since the dawn of time. Are couples with an infertile partner somehow obligated to adopt when no other couples are? Or are we going to say "no more pregnancies until all the kids are adopted"?
Problems with IVF:
- It is expensive, and for the same amount of money or less you could be adopting a child, which would actually bring more net happiness into this world. This is a small moral quibble, though, and the fucktarded adoption process makes it even less an issue, since IVF doesn't require you to deal with dipshit bureaucrats.
- IVF requires the creation of a whole lot of nascent human life that will be killed after they're finished shooting babies into your cooter. This is admittedly only a problem if you believe the moral value of a human embryo is worth more than that of a rock, and it's less an atrocity and more a mild moral squick. Still, it's curious that the pro-life crowd doesn't make more noise about a process that kills a whole fuckload of beings that are, by their rationale, the equivalent of full-grown human beings.
One could make the argument that both IVF and fuck-n-fertilize are less "moral" than adoption by virtue of not alleviating suffering in order to procure a screaming bundle of joy, but when you consider that f-n-f is the cheapest method, I don't think that argument is very sound.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
Personally I can see the appeal of raising a kid with my genetics over someone else's. I'm just not particularly altruistic in that regard.
Swearing on the board isn't prohibited; misogynistic language, which is what Cat took offense to (i assume) might be a different story (though to my knowledge the only prohibited language is the n-word). But whatever: this isn't the thread to debate the usage and intentions of the word "bitch."
"Batshit-fucking-loco individual of inconsequential gender."
"Crazy fucker" would also be acceptable, I presume.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Personally I can see the appeal of raising a kid with my genetics over someone else's. I'm just not particularly altruistic in that regard.
Oh, so can I. I just recognize that it's largely a selfish appeal. I suppose you could argue that you know you're not going to have any genetic craziness going on, except that even people with documented genetic bad news in their family would probably want to have their own.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Personally I can see the appeal of raising a kid with my genetics over someone else's. I'm just not particularly altruistic in that regard.
Oh, so can I. I just recognize that it's largely a selfish appeal. I suppose you could argue that you know you're not going to have any genetic craziness going on, except that even people with documented genetic bad news in their family would probably want to have their own.
Some people are just more inclined toward adoption than others. There was a family that went to my church - two white parents, at least 6 kids from ages 8-22 (now), all of them black, or developmentally disabled. The family was not a rich one, I think the father laid brick for a living. Their oldest son just graduated from Notre Dame last spring. Their youngest son's mother had done drugs or something while pregnant and he was born with no arms - just hands on his shoulders, and his legs didn't really work, but he's of perfectly sound mind. These people are living saints. The world should be so lucky as to have a couple like this for every 10 morons with 14 kids.
I'm not sure what my point was, but maybe it'll make some people in the thread feel better to know that there are people out there who are the opposite of this woman.
These people are living saints. The world should be so lucky as to have a couple like this for every 10 morons with 14 kids.
Srsly. Bravo to them. Next time you see them tell them a guy who hates almost everyone especially religious people thinks they're pretty snazzy. Or don't, but it's true. :P
Incenjucar on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
These people are living saints. The world should be so lucky as to have a couple like this for every 10 morons with 14 kids.
Srsly. Bravo to them. Next time you see them tell them a guy who hates almost everyone especially religious people thinks they're pretty snazzy. Or don't, but it's true. :P
Tell me about it; I wish religion inspired people to do things like this more often than it inspired them to hate teh gays or send money to megachurches.
Tell me about it; I wish religion inspired people to do things like this more often than it inspired them to hate teh gays or send money to megachurches.
Stuff like that really isn't uncommon, or not as uncommon as we might think. It's just that people like the ones you mentioned, by their very nature, try not to draw a bunch of attention to their actions - unlike the megachurch people, who won't shut up about themselves.
In answer to an earlier question, one of the major differences between IVF and au natural is that the record litter for natural is five or something, while IVF is apparently well known among those in that part of medicine for producing a lot more babies than expected.
Tell me about it; I wish religion inspired people to do things like this more often than it inspired them to hate teh gays or send money to megachurches.
Stuff like that really isn't uncommon, or not as uncommon as we might think. It's just that people like the ones you mentioned, by their very nature, try not to draw a bunch of attention to their actions - unlike the megachurch people, who won't shut up about themselves.
Good point. And I don't think it'd be too off-base to say that even if these people weren't religious they'd still want to take care of kids, the same way that a lot of hateful religious fundamentalists would be bigoted assholes even if they'd never heard of Jerry Falwell or Jaheezus.
Swearing on the board isn't prohibited; misogynistic language, which is what Cat took offense to (i assume) might be a different story (though to my knowledge the only prohibited language is the n-word). But whatever: this isn't the thread to debate the usage and intentions of the word "bitch."
Yes, its silver's misogyny that gets me. but hey, at least he's a consistently anti-choice woman hater, as I recall from the abortion thread.
The Cat on
0
Options
darklite_xI'm not an r-tard...Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
I don't think anyone should have a say in how many children a person can have. If this woman wanted to have 10 more kids then more power to her. I do think, however, that the government shouldn't spend tax dollars supporting these individuals.
That said, it's my personal opinion that this woman is irresponsible as fuck taking into account what we know of her living situation.
darklite_x on
Steam ID: darklite_x Xbox Gamertag: Darklite 37 PSN:Rage_Kage_37 Battle.Net:darklite#2197
If this woman wanted to have 10 more kids then more power to her. I do think, however, that the government shouldn't spend tax dollars supporting these individuals.
Reality doesn't work this way.
Whatever anyone thinks of the parents who do this shit, there's no fucking way to deny the benefits of tax payer dollars to the children, because the children are wholly innocent here.
This is why this is such a pain in the ass. Basically people can drain as much from the economy as their gonads because the alternative, letting the children starve, is monstrous.
abloo, you've been a sniping arsehole with no useful contributions in every gender thread I've ever seen you post in. Don't cry about getting called on it.
abloo, you've been a sniping arsehole with no useful contributions in every gender thread I've ever seen you post in. Don't cry about getting called on it.
See? You just did it again. You're not interested in debating anyone's argument on it's merits. You just want to argue.
Maybe I'm confused, but I don't see how IVF is in any way less moral than the plain old "fuck and fertilise" model that the vast majority of people have been using since the dawn of time. Are couples with an infertile partner somehow obligated to adopt when no other couples are? Or are we going to say "no more pregnancies until all the kids are adopted"?
Also, I'm still dying to know if the doctor actually thought all 8 of these embryos were going to take. I mean, in regular pregnancies eggs are fertilised in groups of four, but usually three of these don't attach to the uterine lining and just leave the system - and when the extras attach you get fraternal twins/triplets/whatever. I was assuming that IVF worked the same way, but people say they usually just implant these embryos in pairs at most. So what's the story with these eight implantations?
Maybe I'm confused, but I don't see how IVF is in any way less moral than the plain old "fuck and fertilise" model that the vast majority of people have been using since the dawn of time. Are couples with an infertile partner somehow obligated to adopt when no other couples are? Or are we going to say "no more pregnancies until all the kids are adopted"?
Also, I'm still dying to know if the doctor actually thought all 8 of these embryos were going to take. I mean, in regular pregnancies eggs are fertilised in groups of four, but usually three of these don't attach to the uterine lining and just leave the system - and when the extras attach you get fraternal twins/triplets/whatever. I was assuming that IVF worked the same way, but people say they usually just implant these embryos in pairs at most. So what's the story with these eight implantations?
man what?
Did I miss this in health class? I'd really like a reference to this multi-egg thing.
Yeah. Which does neatly highlight the conflict between anti-choice sentiments and IVF technology, mind you, because safe use usually requires what most of that kind of person considers abortion*. Its usually more like three or four implanted though, I'm pretty sure. Eight seems really high...
*google 'snowflake babies' for the lunatic logical conclusions...
The Cat on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The mother of the woman who used a fertility doctor to give birth to octuplets, despite already having six young children, called her daughter's actions "unconscionable" in an interview posted online Sunday.
Angela Suleman is caring for the six older children while her daughter is hospitalized after giving birth Jan. 26 to the octuplets.
"She already has six beautiful children, why would she do this?" Angela Suleman said in the videotaped interview with celebrity news Web site RadarOnline.com. "I'm struggling to look after her six. We had to put in bunk beds, feed them in shifts and there's children's clothing piled all over the house."
The Web site posted photographs from inside Angela Suleman's disheveled three-bedroom home, where Nadya and her brood also live. Heaps of clothing pour from an open closet door and a carpeted bedroom, where a bedsheet serves as a curtain, is cluttered with cribs.
Nadya Suleman's publicist Mike Furtney said that his client has been away for nearly two months, so shouldn't be held responsible for the home's current condition.
Furtney said his client planned to move into a larger home once the octuplets were healthy enough to leave doctors' care.
He declined to comment on any of the remarks Angela Suleman made about her daughter in the interview.
"Those are very personal issues between a mother and a daughter," he said.
Angela Suleman said Nadya's boyfriend was the biological father of all 14 children, but that she refused to marry him.
"He was in love with her and wanted to marry her," she said. "But Nadya wanted to have children on her own."
Nadya Suleman, a divorced single mother, told NBC's "Today" show that the same fertility specialist provided in-vitro fertilization for all 14 of her children.
Angela Suleman seemed to contradict that account, saying the fertility specialist who helped her daughter give birth to the octuplets was a different doctor from the one who aided in the birth of her first six children.
Angela Suleman said she and her husband pleaded with Nadya's first fertility doctor not to treat their daughter again, so Nadya found another doctor to work with.
"I'm really angry about that," Angela Suleman said of the doctor's decision to perform the procedure.
A Medical Board of California spokeswoman said Friday that it was investigating the doctor — who has not been identified — to see if there was a "violation of the standard of care." The spokeswoman did not elaborate on the nature of the potential violations.
Angela Suleman also challenged her daughter's remarks in the NBC interview that she always wanted a large family to make up for the loneliness she felt as an only child.
"We raised her in a loving family and her father always spoiled her," Angela said.
The bolded part blows me away. "She can't be held responsible for the way her children live - she hasn't even SEEN them in two months!"
Did I miss this in health class? I'd really like a reference to this multi-egg thing.
Oops. I meant "4 fertilised zygotes from one egg" - you've got four sets of 23 chromosomes by the time the division gets finished IIRC from biology class.
Heaps of clothing? oh my gods take my baby away too!
Frankly my house is disheveled with one baby.
If anyone has more than one and it is merely disheveled they can't be doing that badly.
And she was in the hospital for the two months. That's a place where women often have babies.
Back once again with the Dickensian opprobrium. Slut! Slattern!
Either learn to properly parse the arguments people are making in here or GTFO.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Yeah. Which does neatly highlight the conflict between anti-choice sentiments and IVF technology, mind you, because safe use usually requires what most of that kind of person considers abortion*. Its usually more like three or four implanted though, I'm pretty sure. Eight seems really high...
*google 'snowflake babies' for the lunatic logical conclusions...
It was originally 6 and then 2 of them split or something, I think. Of course nothing seems to be verifiable with this insanity, so that may be wrong too. Plus 6 is still pretty damn high.
So there's a pretty long editorial about the woman at yahoo news as reported by Time I'm going to link and quote the entire thing here as there's a pretty good amount of crazy in it.
Let me get this straight. When the McCaughey septuplets were born in 1997, President Clinton called to congratulate the parents, who were given a free 12-passenger van, Pampers for life, furniture, food, and a custom built house. Last spring, when Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar got pregnant with their 18th child, they announced it on the Today Show and their reality TV show launched that fall. When Nadya Suleman, 33, gave birth to octuplets on January 26th, she got revulsion, ridicule and death threats. A talk radio host who called her a freak said his listeners were prepared to boycott any company that helped out mother or babies.
We now have a face and a voice to go with the object of our wrath: Suleman, who bears an ironic passing resemblance to celebrity multi-mom Angelina Jolie, sat down with NBC's Ann Curry to start to tell her story; the full interviews will air today and Tuesday. Suleman said plenty that will make people squirm even more. But she also exposes how publicly divided and personally judgmental we are about decisions that are, under any normal circumstances, none of our business. (See pictures of the annual Twins' Day festival.)
"All I wanted was children," Suleman told Curry. "That's all I ever wanted in my life. It turned out perfectly." She explained she had tried to get pregnant for years through artificial insemination, but only succeeded once she switched to in vitro fertilization: this allowed her to give birth to six children, now aged 2 to 7. She was hoping for one more girl when she had another six embryos implanted; but two split into twins, and she never considered aborting any of them.
So what is it about these circumstances - the How, the Who or the Why - that gets people so riled up? Remember that for an instant there was celebration and wonder at the news of healthy octuplets. But it vanished quickly once we learned that the mother was already the single parent of six, living with her own mother who had to file for bankruptcy last year. First, she seemed to have violated some unspoken rule we have about fertility treatment, the miracle technologies that nuzzle up against so many ethical lines. We can create embryos in a dish, pick out the best ones, hire surrogates to carry them, freeze and discard the extras, all processes that make at least some people somewhat uncomfortable, but which we accept because of our understanding of the deep desire to be a parent - a need that for many ranks somewhere with food and sleep, only it lives less in the body than the soul. Even the pro-life movement hasn't tried to outlaw fertility treatment: anyone who has ever watched someone they care about run the fertility gauntlet thinks twice before getting in the way. (Read "A Brief History of Multiple Births.")
But Suleman was already a mom, six times over. So the first wave of anger was aimed at her doctor, for implanting so many embryos in a woman who was already anything but childless. The next wave hit her, as though she should have been content with her first one or two or three miracle babies rather than going on to mass manufacture them. Maybe this is why she is vilified for having 14 children while the Duggars, members of an evangelical movement called Quiverful that views children as God's special blessing, are celebrated for having 18 the old fashioned way.
Suleman points out another difference: she suggested to Curry that the hostility reflected the fact that she was unmarried, and had chosen this unconventional and overwhelming variety of single motherhood. (A male friend is father to all 14; she's hoping that once he's no longer in shock, he'll want to be involved in their lives in some way.) Count it as another measure of recessionary stress, but at a time when everything is constricting and contracting and downsizing, her choices don't match the moment. Who will be left paying for the vast expense associated with caring for eight low birth-weight babies, (estimated at more than $1 million dollars) or raising 14 of them?
Suleman rejects the charge that she is reckless or irresponsible to have so many children without the means to support them. She said she had never gone on welfare; once she finishes her education, she told Curry, she'll be able to support her family. "If I was just sitting down watching TV and not being as determined as I am to succeed and provide a better future for my children, I believe that would be considered, to a certain degree, selfish."
At the very least she can leverage our cultural hypocrisy; even as talk show hosts flay her and bloggers blast her, her new publicist weighs the offers: "She's the most sought after mom in the world right now," said Joann Killeen. Is she crazy to imagine there's a reality TV show in her future as well? Or that her extravagant approach to mothering could turn out to be a shrewd career move?
Finally, there's the question of her motives, already a matter of much speculation ever since her mother told the Los Angeles Times that she "is not evil, but she is obsessed with children... obviously, she overdid herself." Suleman told Curry that it was "always a dream of mine, to have a large family, a huge family, and I just longed for certain connections and attachments with another person that I really lacked, I believe, growing up."
What did she lack? "Feeling of self and identity," Suleman, said. "I didn't feel as though, when I was a child, I had much control of my environment. I felt powerless... It was pretty dysfunctional, and whose isn't?"
This is the part that makes me sad. People have always had children for all kinds of reasons, natural and noble and selfish and self-deluding, as though our offspring will make us feel better or younger or like we'll live forever. But if anyone imagines that having children makes you powerful, well, that lasts for a little while maybe, when you're big and they're small and you're the only one with car keys and credit cards. But ultimately being a parent may be the most humbling thing we ever do. No one ever feels they get it exactly right. And having 14 chances to try is not likely to improve the odds much.
So maybe we can call a truce here, and let this woman work out her very challenging circumstances without our vitriol making it any harder. The decisions we make about parenting are some of the most personal of our lives; these houses are all made of glass, and I'm not sure how many of us could withstand this level of incoming fire.
There are a couple things I notice, and I'll write up some responses/opinions after breakfast.
(I like the part about Duggars)
So the author decides to use this:
Maybe this is why she is vilified for having 14 children while the Duggars, members of an evangelical movement called Quiverful that views children as God's special blessing, are celebrated for having 18 the old fashioned way.
Celebrated, really? I can't recall anything but "WTF?" reactions to the Duggars, the only people celebrating are the ones who haven't looked into their perpetuating craziness engine. Even if I disagree with the woman for having her 14 children invitro. Even if I think she did it for entirely selfish reasons with no real forethought to the consequences this could have on the lives of the children, their grandmother and even herself. I don't believe she's syphilitic enough to fully believe the kind of crazy the Duggars are in to. Instead of being some sort of weak defense this statement comes off more as an insult to her cause than anything to me.
I also don't think her being a single female has nearly as much to do with it as the author implies. It has to do with her being single, unemployed, stretched thin and possibly unstable. This isn't the first "lay off on her for being a single woman with 14 kids" article I've come across. Is this actually an issue with people?
Heaps of clothing? oh my gods take my baby away too!
Frankly my house is disheveled with one baby.
If anyone has more than one and it is merely disheveled they can't be doing that badly.
And she was in the hospital for the two months. That's a place where women often have babies.
Back once again with the Dickensian opprobrium. Slut! Slattern!
Either learn to properly parse the arguments people are making in here or GTFO.
I honestly, no sarcasm intended, have seen very few logical arguments put forth here.
There has been a lot of hyperbole and a large amount of misogyny, which I've clumsily satirised.
I think I understood the article very well. It presents many of the everyday facts of childbearing (extra washing, bunk beds, feeding babies round the clock, hospitalisation of the mother, domestic untidiness, a need for more space) as indicators of being a bad mother. That kind of attitude makes it hard to take the rest of it seriously, as it's clear the piece is a hatchet job.
Honestly, I've just spent a few minutes trying to type a clear rebuttal-type argument, but I can't, because I can't find a logical debating point here. There's just condemnation, moral indignation and outrage. Normally I'd follow the rule of 'if you don't like a thread don't post in it', as that is an excellent rule, but I just get sick of the way our societies judge mothers, especially single mothers, and I thought this one could do with some defending, especially given the tone we started on.
That last part made me think about The Office, the episode where Michael Scott brings in the tape of him on a children's show when he was little. They ask him what he wants to be when he grows up and he says he wants to have a lot of kids so he'll always have friends.
It was really sad then, too, but at least then I knew it was fake.
I really hope the best for all these kids and hope this turns into some huge success story, but it just really isn't heading down that road yet...
mxmarks on
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
Heaps of clothing? oh my gods take my baby away too!
Frankly my house is disheveled with one baby.
If anyone has more than one and it is merely disheveled they can't be doing that badly.
And she was in the hospital for the two months. That's a place where women often have babies.
Back once again with the Dickensian opprobrium. Slut! Slattern!
Either learn to properly parse the arguments people are making in here or GTFO.
I honestly, no sarcasm intended, have seen very few logical arguments put forth here.
There has been a lot of hyperbole and a large amount of misogyny, which I've clumsily satirised.
I think I understood the article very well. It presents many of the everyday facts of childbearing (extra washing, bunk beds, feeding babies round the clock, hospitalisation of the mother, domestic untidiness, a need for more space) as indicators of being a bad mother. That kind of attitude makes it hard to take the rest of it seriously, as it's clear the piece is a hatchet job.
Honestly, I've just spent a few minutes trying to type a clear rebuttal-type argument, but I can't, because I can't find a logical debating point here. There's just condemnation, moral indignation and outrage. Normally I'd follow the rule of 'if you don't like a thread don't post in it', as that is an excellent rule, but I just get sick of the way our societies judge mothers, especially single mothers, and I thought this one could do with some defending, especially given the tone we started on.
Our society? Which society are you in?
My mother was single, my friends mothers were single. This isn't about being a tough single mom full of sass and love in a mans world, maybe working at a beer plant or chocolate factory then going home to your crazy kids with their antics and plotlines.
It's about fourteen children who may not end out healthy or happy because mommy didn't want to let some frozen eggs thaw. I would think the first six would have sort of given her enough a family, if that's what she actually wanted. It sounds to me like she wanted some sort of babytopia.
edit: As terrible as it would be for somehow rewarding her for doing this, I hope she gets an awesome book deal and can afford to hire the help necessary to properly raise the children.
Heaps of clothing? oh my gods take my baby away too!
Frankly my house is disheveled with one baby.
If anyone has more than one and it is merely disheveled they can't be doing that badly.
And she was in the hospital for the two months. That's a place where women often have babies.
Back once again with the Dickensian opprobrium. Slut! Slattern!
Either learn to properly parse the arguments people are making in here or GTFO.
I honestly, no sarcasm intended, have seen very few logical arguments put forth here.
There has been a lot of hyperbole and a large amount of misogyny, which I've clumsily satirised.
I think I understood the article very well. It presents many of the everyday facts of childbearing (extra washing, bunk beds, feeding babies round the clock, hospitalisation of the mother, domestic untidiness, a need for more space) as indicators of being a bad mother. That kind of attitude makes it hard to take the rest of it seriously, as it's clear the piece is a hatchet job.
Honestly, I've just spent a few minutes trying to type a clear rebuttal-type argument, but I can't, because I can't find a logical debating point here. There's just condemnation, moral indignation and outrage. Normally I'd follow the rule of 'if you don't like a thread don't post in it', as that is an excellent rule, but I just get sick of the way our societies judge mothers, especially single mothers, and I thought this one could do with some defending, especially given the tone we started on.
Our society? Which society are you in?
My mother was single, my friends mothers were single. This isn't about being a tough single mom full of sass and love in a mans world, maybe working at a beer plant or chocolate factory then going home to your crazy kids with their antics and plotlines.
It's about fourteen children who may not end out healthy or happy because mommy didn't want to let some frozen eggs thaw. I would think the first six would have sort of given her enough a family, if that's what she actually wanted. It sounds to me like she wanted some sort of babytopia.
edit: As terrible as it would be for somehow rewarding her for doing this, I hope she gets an awesome book deal and can afford to hire the help necessary to properly raise the children.
Thats why the publicist is a great idea and should be the least disturbing aspect of this story/
edit: As terrible as it would be for somehow rewarding her for doing this, I hope she gets an awesome book deal and can afford to hire the help necessary to properly raise the children.[/b]
Thats why the publicist is a great idea and should be the least disturbing aspect of this story/
It's disturbing to me in that her only way to reasonably support herself is to display off the freak show her life has become, and that it's actually a good idea.
I honestly, no sarcasm intended, have seen very few logical arguments put forth here.
This is why you were told to go learn how to parse arguments. There are plenty here, you just don't understand them, then come back with horrible sarcasm.
Overall I think there just needs to be more oversight concerning artifical impregnation. I see no fault in putting the same guidelines to work with IVF as you would if you were adopting a kid. The whole process is there to secure a decent quality of living for the child AND the parent to be.
I know the artificial impregnation has a more biological slant to it but it really is a situation where you want a child, just like adoption. I personally was illegitimate and my parents struggled early in life and I turned out damned fine. So I understand that you cant ever be certain about whats gonna happen in any situation. My only reasoning is that if someone wishes to put themselves in a parenting position and they are going to use the services of a doctor (( or even the government in some fashion )) there should be procedures in place to up the chances that this family will be ok.
Personally I think the woman is crazy to undertake this parenting task but hey, who the hell am I to say otherwise what she should do or not do?
I honestly, no sarcasm intended, have seen very few logical arguments put forth here.
There has been a lot of hyperbole and a large amount of misogyny, which I've clumsily satirised.
I think I understood the article very well. It presents many of the everyday facts of childbearing (extra washing, bunk beds, feeding babies round the clock, hospitalisation of the mother, domestic untidiness, a need for more space) as indicators of being a bad mother. That kind of attitude makes it hard to take the rest of it seriously, as it's clear the piece is a hatchet job.
Honestly, I've just spent a few minutes trying to type a clear rebuttal-type argument, but I can't, because I can't find a logical debating point here. There's just condemnation, moral indignation and outrage. Normally I'd follow the rule of 'if you don't like a thread don't post in it', as that is an excellent rule, but I just get sick of the way our societies judge mothers, especially single mothers, and I thought this one could do with some defending, especially given the tone we started on.
Then I suggest you refrain from posting until you learn to distinguish "having 14 kids you can't afford to support is irresponsible" from "having a socially unacceptable number of children makes you evil". If you honestly can't find more than a few "logical arguments" in here other than your own, then you fail at reading comprehension.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Overall I think there just needs to be more oversight concerning artifical impregnation. I see no fault in putting the same guidelines to work with IVF as you would if you were adopting a kid. The whole process is there to secure a decent quality of living for the child AND the parent to be.
It's tricky. There's a fine line between reasonable regulation and unreasonable restraint spurred by narrow-minded social standards. Governance via taboo can be useful, but as this thread has shown, there's also a fine line between "this practice is bad because it causes harm" and "this practice is bad because eeeeeeeew squicky."
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
Problems with IVF:
- It is expensive, and for the same amount of money or less you could be adopting a child, which would actually bring more net happiness into this world. This is a small moral quibble, though, and the fucktarded adoption process makes it even less an issue, since IVF doesn't require you to deal with dipshit bureaucrats.
- IVF requires the creation of a whole lot of nascent human life that will be killed after they're finished shooting babies into your cooter. This is admittedly only a problem if you believe the moral value of a human embryo is worth more than that of a rock, and it's less an atrocity and more a mild moral squick. Still, it's curious that the pro-life crowd doesn't make more noise about a process that kills a whole fuckload of beings that are, by their rationale, the equivalent of full-grown human beings.
One could make the argument that both IVF and fuck-n-fertilize are less "moral" than adoption by virtue of not alleviating suffering in order to procure a screaming bundle of joy, but when you consider that f-n-f is the cheapest method, I don't think that argument is very sound.
"Batshit-fucking-loco individual of inconsequential gender."
"Crazy fucker" would also be acceptable, I presume.
Oh, so can I. I just recognize that it's largely a selfish appeal. I suppose you could argue that you know you're not going to have any genetic craziness going on, except that even people with documented genetic bad news in their family would probably want to have their own.
Some people are just more inclined toward adoption than others. There was a family that went to my church - two white parents, at least 6 kids from ages 8-22 (now), all of them black, or developmentally disabled. The family was not a rich one, I think the father laid brick for a living. Their oldest son just graduated from Notre Dame last spring. Their youngest son's mother had done drugs or something while pregnant and he was born with no arms - just hands on his shoulders, and his legs didn't really work, but he's of perfectly sound mind. These people are living saints. The world should be so lucky as to have a couple like this for every 10 morons with 14 kids.
I'm not sure what my point was, but maybe it'll make some people in the thread feel better to know that there are people out there who are the opposite of this woman.
Srsly. Bravo to them. Next time you see them tell them a guy who hates almost everyone especially religious people thinks they're pretty snazzy. Or don't, but it's true. :P
Tell me about it; I wish religion inspired people to do things like this more often than it inspired them to hate teh gays or send money to megachurches.
Good point. And I don't think it'd be too off-base to say that even if these people weren't religious they'd still want to take care of kids, the same way that a lot of hateful religious fundamentalists would be bigoted assholes even if they'd never heard of Jerry Falwell or Jaheezus.
That said, it's my personal opinion that this woman is irresponsible as fuck taking into account what we know of her living situation.
Reality doesn't work this way.
Whatever anyone thinks of the parents who do this shit, there's no fucking way to deny the benefits of tax payer dollars to the children, because the children are wholly innocent here.
This is why this is such a pain in the ass. Basically people can drain as much from the economy as their gonads because the alternative, letting the children starve, is monstrous.
But hey, at least you're consistent at making infantile personal attacks and strawmen as I recall from your post history in general.
Also, I wouldn't be bringing up things people have said in abortion threads if I were you.
See? You just did it again. You're not interested in debating anyone's argument on it's merits. You just want to argue.
man what?
Did I miss this in health class? I'd really like a reference to this multi-egg thing.
They usually implant several with the intent of aborting a number if they all take, which is rare. She was asked to abort a few and declined.
Also I don't know if it's been mentioned but the ethics aspect of this thing is being investigated.
I don't think it should be legal to implant people who are 55+ and don't have a very high probability of even seeing the child to the legal age of 18.
*google 'snowflake babies' for the lunatic logical conclusions...
The bolded part blows me away. "She can't be held responsible for the way her children live - she hasn't even SEEN them in two months!"
Frankly my house is disheveled with one baby.
If anyone has more than one and it is merely disheveled they can't be doing that badly.
And she was in the hospital for the two months. That's a place where women often have babies.
Back once again with the Dickensian opprobrium. Slut! Slattern!
You mean her mother can't be doing that badly, since she's the one taking care of the kids right now.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
That probably did sound kind of weird
Either learn to properly parse the arguments people are making in here or GTFO.
It's the first step to getting a gig with the Kidkill Zoo!
It was originally 6 and then 2 of them split or something, I think. Of course nothing seems to be verifiable with this insanity, so that may be wrong too. Plus 6 is still pretty damn high.
Truce on the Octuplet Mother
There are a couple things I notice, and I'll write up some responses/opinions after breakfast.
(I like the part about Duggars)
So the author decides to use this:
Celebrated, really? I can't recall anything but "WTF?" reactions to the Duggars, the only people celebrating are the ones who haven't looked into their perpetuating craziness engine. Even if I disagree with the woman for having her 14 children invitro. Even if I think she did it for entirely selfish reasons with no real forethought to the consequences this could have on the lives of the children, their grandmother and even herself. I don't believe she's syphilitic enough to fully believe the kind of crazy the Duggars are in to. Instead of being some sort of weak defense this statement comes off more as an insult to her cause than anything to me.
I also don't think her being a single female has nearly as much to do with it as the author implies. It has to do with her being single, unemployed, stretched thin and possibly unstable. This isn't the first "lay off on her for being a single woman with 14 kids" article I've come across. Is this actually an issue with people?
I honestly, no sarcasm intended, have seen very few logical arguments put forth here.
There has been a lot of hyperbole and a large amount of misogyny, which I've clumsily satirised.
I think I understood the article very well. It presents many of the everyday facts of childbearing (extra washing, bunk beds, feeding babies round the clock, hospitalisation of the mother, domestic untidiness, a need for more space) as indicators of being a bad mother. That kind of attitude makes it hard to take the rest of it seriously, as it's clear the piece is a hatchet job.
Honestly, I've just spent a few minutes trying to type a clear rebuttal-type argument, but I can't, because I can't find a logical debating point here. There's just condemnation, moral indignation and outrage. Normally I'd follow the rule of 'if you don't like a thread don't post in it', as that is an excellent rule, but I just get sick of the way our societies judge mothers, especially single mothers, and I thought this one could do with some defending, especially given the tone we started on.
It was really sad then, too, but at least then I knew it was fake.
I really hope the best for all these kids and hope this turns into some huge success story, but it just really isn't heading down that road yet...
Our society? Which society are you in?
My mother was single, my friends mothers were single. This isn't about being a tough single mom full of sass and love in a mans world, maybe working at a beer plant or chocolate factory then going home to your crazy kids with their antics and plotlines.
It's about fourteen children who may not end out healthy or happy because mommy didn't want to let some frozen eggs thaw. I would think the first six would have sort of given her enough a family, if that's what she actually wanted. It sounds to me like she wanted some sort of babytopia.
edit: As terrible as it would be for somehow rewarding her for doing this, I hope she gets an awesome book deal and can afford to hire the help necessary to properly raise the children.
Thats why the publicist is a great idea and should be the least disturbing aspect of this story/
It's disturbing to me in that her only way to reasonably support herself is to display off the freak show her life has become, and that it's actually a good idea.
This is why you were told to go learn how to parse arguments. There are plenty here, you just don't understand them, then come back with horrible sarcasm.
I know the artificial impregnation has a more biological slant to it but it really is a situation where you want a child, just like adoption. I personally was illegitimate and my parents struggled early in life and I turned out damned fine. So I understand that you cant ever be certain about whats gonna happen in any situation. My only reasoning is that if someone wishes to put themselves in a parenting position and they are going to use the services of a doctor (( or even the government in some fashion )) there should be procedures in place to up the chances that this family will be ok.
Personally I think the woman is crazy to undertake this parenting task but hey, who the hell am I to say otherwise what she should do or not do?
Then I suggest you refrain from posting until you learn to distinguish "having 14 kids you can't afford to support is irresponsible" from "having a socially unacceptable number of children makes you evil". If you honestly can't find more than a few "logical arguments" in here other than your own, then you fail at reading comprehension.
It's tricky. There's a fine line between reasonable regulation and unreasonable restraint spurred by narrow-minded social standards. Governance via taboo can be useful, but as this thread has shown, there's also a fine line between "this practice is bad because it causes harm" and "this practice is bad because eeeeeeeew squicky."