Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Mother of octuplets, Nadya Suleman, was interviewed by Ann Curry on Tuesday's Dateline on NBC.
Watching last night’s Dateline was so irritating; I don’t even know where to start. With that said, I will just put it out there: Nadya Suleman has a serious problem telling the truth. Her story makes no sense. It doesn’t add up. She hides behind deception and controversy.
She is self-indulgent and selfish, and I feel that those children are in a heap of trouble if this is their caretaker. I also blame Suleman’s parents for being enablers and allowing it to get this far. The ones who will pay dearly are those children.
Oh, and for all the supporters of “right to life,” don’t let her con you. Early on in the interview, Ann Curry asks her why she had six embryos implanted. Quickly she uses the word “controversy” and goes on to explain that those embryos were her children and that destroying them is not an option so she asked that they all be implanted.
Good move Suleman. It was a nice attempt to garner sympathy but a bit transparent. However, if you follow her story about the other pregnancies and the IVF treatments, the numbers don’t add up. Based on her interview, she had to go back to the sperm donor after each pregnancy and the IVF treatments were successful after each attempt. This implies that after each IVF treatment there were no leftover embryos. However, for this last pregnancy she went back to the donor and then had two failed IVF attempts until the third worked. So miraculously, this third IVF treatment was the only one to yield enough embryos for three IVF attempts? It just doesn’t add up. This was not about right to life. Her story and logic are immensely flawed.
Suleman is clearly delusional. She even claims she has not had her lips done though pictures clearly show her lips have grown at least four times their original size. Somehow, she paid for the plastic surgery.
NBC even had to re-interview her to clear up some of the things she said, Such as that she doesn’t receive any welfare or taxpayer money. She later said she has been receiving $490 in food stamps for the last 18 months but that it is only temporary. Really? Temporary? She needed the money when she only had six kids but now with 14 she says it is temporary? So she was on food stamps before she spent money on another IVF attempt. So she has $10,000 to spend on IVF but can’t buy her kids food?
Maybe plastic surgeons are now accepting food stamps as payment.
Of Suleman’s six older children, she accepts disability payments for three. She claims that payments for two of the three are also “temporary.” If this woman has learned anything in grad school, it is how to work the system. Something tells me she is counting on donations and payments for her story or that those checks will become permanent.
But Suleman hasn’t only milked the government; she also took advantage of our legal system. The disability checks she had been receiving prior to the octuplet pregnancy were a result of a workplace injury. Suleman states that while working at a psychiatric facility, a riot broke out and a piece of furniture fell on her. Nothing was broken but she said she had to deal with lower back pain. She began accepting disability checks.
The funny thing is, her back pain was so bad she needed disability checks but it didn’t prevent her from having six kids in five years or continuing to go to school during pregnancies. Now, I have always been healthy and I like to exercise, but in my experience, when you are pregnant, there are parts of your body that hurt that you hadn’t even considered. Even people who have good pregnancies can’t deny being uncomfortable. Yet, Suleman had a preexisting condition and kept popping out babies. She accepted disability payments because, presumably, her injury made it impossible to work.
I should also mention that NBC didn’t pay Suleman or make any deals with her, but I wish they had. I don’t believe she should receive donations or taxpayer money. If she wants to sell her story, it is hers to sell, and she has to deal with the consequences, but don’t come to me with your hand out. If she has to deal with probing questions, judgment and lack of privacy, then that should be the price.
She is also deluded into thinking that once she gets her graduate degree as a counselor that the heavens will part and money will rain down like manna. How much money does she plan to make as a counselor? Will it be enough to pay back her growing debt that now stands at $50,000 and to sustain 14 children?
Loading ...Throughout different parts of this interview it is clear that Suleman wanted children the way my daughters want Pet Shop toys. She really didn’t care who or what she had to use to get there. Throughout the interview it also seems clear that Curry thinks she is a bit “off.” Some of Curry’s looks are so telling I almost burst out laughing. She tries to remain objective but every now and then she allows the tiniest break in her façade.
Suleman goes on to explain during the interview why she wanted so many children. She says she was an only child who grew up in a dysfunctional home and she missed that bond with a sibling. Okay, I can see that. I can see the need to have your children have siblings but here is the thing: None of this is about the kids. It is about her. Her kids already had siblings.
As a mother, one of your greatest fears becomes leaving your children. I worried with all of my pregnancies about the health of the baby. But with the third, I also worried about my health. I started fearing blood clots, hemorrhaging, infection, etc. Any pregnancy can be risky. I was scared that if something happen to me I would leave my children without a mother.
It seems that Suleman never had such a thought. This pregnancy was also dangerous for her and that if anything had happened, she would have taken away the only mother those kids have ever known.
During the interview, Suleman says, “I am providing for my children. Everything I do is for them. I’ll stop my life for them and be present with them. And hold them. And be with them.”
But she hasn’t stopped her life to be with them. She has continued to go to school and continued to have babies. That is her life. I would ask her, who is bringing home money, bathing them, feeding them, helping them with homework, combing their hair, washing their clothes while you are “holding” them. They aren’t dolls. They need affection but there are also many practical things to attend to that can be time consuming with so many children.
I should mention that as I type this, my year-old daughter is bringing me a doll and my five and three-year olds were just dropped off at school. It, too, was a miracle I had kids. I had to have surgery to conceive and began the IVF protocol when I got pregnant the good old fashion way. With three small children of my own, each born two years apart, I can tell you that there is no more strenuous and exhausting work than running after your kids.
Perhaps I should hurl myself down the aisle at Wal-mart so I can afford my dream of going to culinary school. Nadya Suleman makes it look so easy.
*Why bring up “my children”? I’m a PhD student, I don’t have children. Why bring up “good old fashioned ways”? That isn’t even my sentiment. *
Because… it\’s not all about you.
I am responsing to other commenters as well.
She raised them herself — with family help. As most all women today do. Without YOUR help.
*The case is that public education exists as a publicly agreed system, not as a system approved by each and every individual.*
Ditto Food Stamps.
She qualified, she got them.
Taxes go for wars, food programs, public education, etc. None of us live in a vacuum, and we should learn to not claim abuse when people make decisions that differ from our own.
God bless those children and that family
I know it’s not about me. YOU made it about me. Your arguments are here nor there.
The difference between Nadya and other responsible parents is that while responsible parents can receive additional help, they can survive without it. Take away the external help for Nadya, and she will not be able to sustain her family.
Because in the end, they want nothing from you.
So if the sight of babies and a happy healthy mother bothers you, cancel your newspaper subscription, turn off your computers/tvs, and get a life (or 14;-) of your own.
* YOU made it about me. Your arguments are here nor there.*
I corrected your false assumptions (she wants from US), and your poor logic.
*Take away the external help for Nadya, and she will not be able to sustain her family.*
Says you! How much will your degree pay? Because she has raised 6 already as a student, and surely will be able to provide for the additional 8.
Why hate on her? I just don’t get all the jealousy here. (Is it because she’s a “Suleman” by chance?) Because she has both boys and girls? Because she appears not to care what YOU think of her family choices?
ps. You’re welcome by the way. Because I KNOW that PhD program is subsidized by MY taxpayer dollars.
Let me guess — you’re going to grow up to be an economist with poor logic skills like that, eh?
Or maybe a crusading journalist; covering… other people’s personal family choices compared to the GOOD old fashioned choices of your own. (no, not YOU)
It’s sad you’re still clinging to the debunked idea that she wants nothing from you. She wants something from you, whether that happens to be you or not. See the difference? Your poor logic is apparent to any educated person reading this board.
No, says the government. She’s receiving food stamps and government assistance. That means without external help, she wouldn’t survive.
I’m not hating on her. I’m just having fun refuting all your silly comments.
Okay anon, I’m confused. You wrote this:
“So logically, you support the child’s right to live over the mother’s right to abort once the egg is fertilized, right? Once fertilized, that future child has a right to life that trumps the mother’s “my body, my choice” argument.”
Yes, I wholeheartedly support this statement.
“You can’t have it both ways, folks, so take care in choosing up sides here that you’re really on the side you want to be on.”
What both ways are you referring to? It sounds like you and I are pretty much on the same side on pro-life issues.
“No. The way I see it, her \”choice\” gave those 8 life. Tomato/tomato.”
I guess my point is that implanting two at a time would allow her to implant all the embryos and not put all of them in grave danger. Those babies would probably been in the 6-8 lb range, instead of the 1-2 lb range. Yes, these embryos deserve the same chance at life. Cramming them all in the same uterus is dangerous.
*Her choice put herself in danger which could have made 14 children motherless.*
“Thousands of American children risk being mother and fatherless when their parents go off to serve in wartime. You ok with that? Allowing people to make their own \”choices\” or should we regulate that too?”
Yes, that is a sacrifice that soldier families are sometimes forced to make. Nobody forced her to sire a litter in her womb. She could have implanted two at at time, according to industry guidelines. She is not a soldier. I do see your argument here though.
Interesting analogy with the pony.
There you go with your presumptions. My PhD is supported by my university’s endowment, made by donations and investments, not accumulated by tax payers. This isn’t a public university.
You really should learn how to handle logic. I’m not surprised by your tone. Idiots never see their flawed logic. That’s why they’re idiots.
\"…she clearly was able to raise 6 without your help, and something tells me she can work within her budget to raise 14.\"
BWAHAHAHA! Nadya, get off the computer and tend to your responsibilities!!
There’s a very true and wise saying.
“Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
So if I carry this on any further with you, I’m going to end up being the idiot for wasting my time with an idiot. I don’t want to become the adult who argues with a child who can’t understand the complexities of reasoning. If I do, it’s my own fault, not the incapable child’s. Every intelligent reader can see that you’re wrong. You’re probably the type of person who thinks getting in the last word makes him right so it won’t be surprising if you rail out again. So have fun with that anonymous. I hope to talk to you again one day when, or if, you hone your logical abilities.
How anyone can say she raised 6 kids “without our help” is crazy! She has been on disability, with 3 kids on disability, and food stamps–that equals thousands of dollars of taxpayer money per month. Where’s that money coming from? Every one of us who goes to work each day to earn a paycheck. We’ve been supporting her for years!
SHE IS SERIOUSLY OFF HER ROCKER!! GET A GRIP ON YOUR LIFE LADY!!!
I know I shouldn’t stoke the fire between anonymous and ?, but I can’t help it because anonymous is just wrong. That pony example isn’t even a parallel of Nadya’s situation. You only conclude you don’t want a pony from ? only because you artificially prescribed it to be that way. That’s a different set of conditions from Nadya’s, where she seeks attention from the public before knowing who’s going to give it or not. To even know ? didn’t want to give a pony to anonymous, anonymous had to want it from ? in the first place. There’s no way of knowing ? wants to give a pony or not unless anonymous wants a pony in general from anyone. If anonymous specifically didn’t want a pony from ? like he said in his example, then that’s a completely different story from Nadya’s because she hasn’t excluded specific people before knowing whether they want to give her attention or not. Like ? said, because someone doesn’t give attention doesn’t mean Nadya didn’t want it from that person in the beginning. In order to get any attention at all, she needs to try to get attention from everyone, whether each person wants to give it or not. If someone doesn’t end up giving her attention, that’s fine then, Nadya doesn’t want it from that person anymore. But that’s only after the fact. To even determine whether that person would give the attention or not in the first place, Nadya would have needed to want it from that person. Anonymous is just arguing from the point of view of after everything is decided. Anonymous’ argument only appears valid precisely for this reason- it’s after-the-fact knowledge.
I think all 14 kids should be removed from her home and put up for adoption. There is no possible way one person could care for this amount of children without them suffering many forms of abuse. Then, we the government, won’t have to support the children, or her, and they will likely be properly cared for. Anyone who financially supports this idiot is like-minded.
Ladies & Gentleman, I think we have been duped. It seems that anon is doing a “bit”. Something akin to the redneck handing his beer to his buddy and saying “watch this” as he attempts to jump a creek with his 4-wheeler.
At first glance, the arguments appeared to present a well-researched dissenting opinion. Then, the microscope is brought out and holes start forming. The dogpile starts and anon’s mission has been accomplished. One need only to throw out SWAG (scientific wild ass guesses) and all hell breaks loose.
The pony analogy is still funny. I started picturing the Lexus commercial with the little girl who got the pony for Christmas while her jealous neighbor got a pony doll.
A fatherly figure for the kids…who it his right mind would wanna take over fathering 14 children? Does she think she\\\’s all that that she can still suck in a man in her life? Lunatic!
I say this as the son of a mother who was the youngest of 7 children born to immigrant parents in the early 1900s: This woman is obsessed with children, is delusional and her docs should have their license revoked. Why not stop at 6? How could they let her go for more? Is the IVF business hurting that bad? Do the docs really need her money? Where are 14 going to be housed and fed? A MA in Psych or whatever degree she hopes to get will not produce a 6 figure job. She’ll need more than that to house and raise these kids. Let’s be real here. Donate? You’ve got to be kidding. Maybe she’ll sell her story for a book or movie. In the meantime, taxpayers will be on the hook.
THE ONLY ONE’S THAT WILL SUFFER ARE THE CHILDREN IN THE LONG RUN YES YOU COULD BE A SINGLE PARENT AND BE LOVING AND DO ALL YOU CAN FOR YOUR CHILDREN BUT IT NOT FAIR FOR THE CHILDREN TO HAVETO DO WITHOUT FOR YOU TO PROVE THIS ….. AND YOU DID THIS BY CHOICE I THINK SHE IS SELFISH AND WANTS ATTENTION ITS NOT ABOUT THESE POOR LITTLE BABIES…. I HOPE PEOPLE SEE THRU HER AND IF YOU WANT TO HELP THERE SHOULD BE SOME TYPE OF TRUST FUNDS FOR THE CHILDREN THAT SHE CAN NOT TOUCH EVER….. SHE SHOULD NOT MAKE ANY MONEY ……….
I ALSO WANTED TO SAY HAS ANYONE CONSIDERED THAT FACT THAT MAYBE THESE BABIES MIGHT HAVE SOME HEALTH ISSUES ?? AND HOW IS SHE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THIS MISS I DONT NEED HELP AND I DONT GET HELP …..I RAISED MY CHILDREN I DONT WANT TO PAY FOR 14 THAT ARE NOT MINE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH …… IF I DID I WOULD OF KEPT HAVING THEM……I AM SO UPSET WITH THIS WOMAN…..HOW COULD THE DR ALLOW THIS…….
Everyone has the right to have kids. From one to as many as they wish. We have bigger problems in this world. This one is her’s to deal with. Leave her alone.
She’s a wacko. Take those kids away for their protection. What doctor was so irresponsible?
Expose him and take away his license.
Her nails were done very nicely too…….just what I was wanting to do the week after I had one child, let alone eight children!!
If you are not meant to have kids, you are NOT meant to have kids and if you have to go to the doctor to make that “miracle happen” you are selfish. these clinic’s need to be banned. ever hear of population control? now these poor kids will be forever known as the “scandle babies” or “controvercy kids” they will end up suffering because nobody wants to help the mother for being selfish
What a sad story. The woman truly needs help. But most of all, it’s very hard to imagine what’s going to happen with these children as they grow older.
This enrages me! I can not believe that this woman thinks that having babies is going to fill a void that she has felt since she was a child. You have 6 if that doesn’t fill it I don’t know what will! On another note, her nails look absolutely beautifully manicured for every interview. Doesn’t that cost money and take time, does she have money for manicures and time to sit for an hour to have it done. Are you kidding me, she is s joke, and unforutnately those precious little babies are going to pay the price for their idiotic mother. Not to mention the other 6 that will end up raising these babies and not have a great childhood that their mother was so hoping for for them. Get off the interview circuit and go back to where you came from. Get a job, raise your famiy and stop having more!
One more thing. Now with another stimulus package she’s going to get a pretty fat check mailed to her and she hasn’t even paid anything into the system. I, however, pay a ton into the system and won’t even qualify to get another stimulus check!!! That totally ticks me off. How is that right?
I disagree with her choices totally. I wanted three children but stopped at two because I could not afford to provide the quality of living I wanted for my kids. I am the oldest of five children, all natural. My father made good money but with five kids that money did not go far. We did get food stamps for periods of time where my father was unemployed or injured. He was in elevator construction. And as the oldest I can tell you I was embarassed at check out time as people looked as us paying with food stamps. I can also tell you that as the oldest I spent much of my childhood caring for my younger siblings and missed out on just being a kid to some degree.
However I do feel this also made me a stronger person and able to provide a better life for my two daughters.
The problem here is, in my opinion, kids want parental attention. Not strangers from the church, neighbors and family members filling in the parental roles. They want to know their Mom and/or Dad. In my experience my parents were drained emotionally, had no time to themselves. Therefore there wasn\\\’t much left of them to give to us. Besides the money issues here I can say it\\\’s very hard to provide the emotional support to so many kids at the same time. They will just feel like a number, another kid competing for attention of which they only get glimises of. So she has her degree, thats a good thing, and she\\\’s going to work 8 – 10 hour days then come home, cook, do homework, bathing and bedtime. A few short hours each day will actually be devoted to this many children. From personal experience they will feel emotionally abandonded and needy or emotionally shut down and distant.
I also feel bad for the grandmother. She should be the one writing the book. Here she is at a time in her life where she thought she could visit her grandchildren and send them home with their parent(s) and relax. This is not fair to her.
Also with the money spent on IV treatments she could have gotten herself a home for the children she already had. For that reason I would not donate because if she can get her nails done, plastic surgery and what not for herself when clearly the children have greater needs then I\\\’m wondering what would become of my dontated funds? Getting your nails, hair and lips done comes after each kid has their own bed (at least), a little space to call their own and all their other needs are met. It takes a very special kind of person to forget your own needs to give to that many children on all levels. And so far she doesn\\\’t appear to be that kind of person.
And that man that kept donating spirm, better watch out that somewhere down the road she\\\’s not trying to get child support out of you! It\\\’s happened to other men and he knew how many kids she already had.
For what it\’s worth I agree with ??, anonymous\’s arguments don\’t make any sense. Not surprising that this person is taking Nadya Suleman\’s side since both have a rather creative approach to logic.
As a NICU nurse I had to weigh in on anonymous\’s argument that \"the health of the 8 that she was able to successfully incubate due surely to her personal physical choices.\" All we really know about her \"personal physical choices\" is that 1)she chose to have 6 embryos implanted, 2)she chose not to selectively reduce, 3)she almost went into premature labor while running around christmas shopping at 24 weeks (!!!), 4)she spent two months on bed rest in the hospital, \"hibernating\" until the babies were delivered. I\’d say that her success came IN SPITE of her \"personal physical choices\".
This woman got LUCKY. I have seen quads carried to 34 weeks and singletons lost at 22. I\’ve seen crack addicted prostitutes deliver healthy term babies while the mom in the next room delivered at 26 weeks even though she skipped caffeine, ate only organic food and showed up for every prenatal visit. It\’s not fair but it happens.
On a side note- everyone is pointing out her pretty manicure as a suspicious expense for someone on public assistance with 14 mouths to feed (which it is, and a stupid move by her PR people to let her get it) but I\’d like to point out that the fake nails are also a major infection risk to the babies. Most NICUs ban the staff from having them and strongly discourage visitors from having them. You\’d think she\’d know that from her \"research\".
Amen Lisa.
If nobody’s knocking on your door telling you how many children to have, why are you doing that to others and concluding “abuse” and that it would make more sense finanically and psychologically for the State to raise those children instead of their mother and her family.
Some people sadly will always see themselves as “victims” of other people’s choices. That’s why gays can’t adopt or marry in your state — fear of other people’s choices.
Take care when the State comes to regulate your finances and families, even your wants in terms of family size and conception options, that you don’t all start crying, “My body. My Choice.” Because logically, you’ve all decided that these things should be handled by majority vote.
LOL — thanks for making me laugh, and glad I’m not a clucking Church Lady making a living by exploiting 6 little children, who appear happy and in no way abused, neglected or in need of state care.
And can we just can the euphemism talk “she chose not to selectively reduce”.
She chose not to kill her future children after they had been conceived. She chose to let them live, instead of using the extra money to buy material things for her children. She gave them the greatest gift of all — LIFE — and is doing fine thus far trusting in God to provide for them, happily and healthily in their own even disabled way.
Should we “selectively reduce” all the disabled? Or all the mothers who have already born say, 2 children?
You all don’t follow the logic of your arguments though. In America, she had a choice and she is standing by it. I LOVE that she is not apologetic about following through with the lives she created in a lab, instead of discarding them like we wouldn’t due for a potential litter of puppies.
The move removed from LIFE you are, the more your anger and bitterness at other people’s freedoms comes through.
Lisa – everyone does have the right to have as many kids as they want. I have never disputed that. That right does not trump the right of those kids to be brought into this world safely. Implanting six embryos is reckless, dangerous, and selfish. She elected to have all the remaining six frozen embryos implanted all at the same time. Instead of doing it over three IVF cycles. It may cost more in the short term but the long term cost of caring for these children multiplied tenfold because of her selfish decision. Each one of them will have varying degrees of life-long health challenges because of her choice.
Selective reduction is still abortion.
Michelle – so the crack mom who brings her sixth child into the world and that child is taken away by the state is “meant to have children” but the couple who struggles with infertility is not. How do you know fertility doctors were not called by God to minister to these couples? God works through people.
Yes selective reduction is just a way of avoiding the ugly “abortion” word. And it is a choice no parent should ever have to make. I’m not saying she should have chosen that route. But the outcome in this case was the result of pure dumb luck, not bravery, not faith. Anyone lauding her courageous decision not to abort is overlooking the fact that she chose to put her babies into this dangerous situation in order to fulfill her own selfish desires. For the sake of the babies I’m glad she managed to prove everyone wrong. But I don’t have to respect her decision to gamble with her childrens’ lives. I’ve seen the alternative outcome too many times. I’ve seen “miracle multiples” die miserable deaths or end up with major disabilities when they were born too soon. And many of them were every bit as wanted as these, and their moms were every bit as strong and tried as hard or harder to be the perfect incubator. Maybe having a front row seat to that side of this story gives me a different perspective.
This woman is anything but selfless. Irrational, irresponsible, inconsiderate, so focused on her own needs that she would resort to any means to fulfill them and to hell with the consequences. Not exactly supermom material.
Thank goodness those babies had a guardian angel looking out for them because their mom certainly wasn’t.
*But the outcome in this case was the result of pure dumb luck, not bravery, not faith.*
Maybe God’s hand had a role in it? Remember, she implanted 6, they were expecting 7, and out came #8.
He works in mysterious ways. I suspect there was/is lots of prayers being delivered on behalf of this unique family.
*That right does not trump the right of those kids to be brought into this world safely.*
*I’ve seen “miracle multiples” die miserable deaths or end up with major disabilities when they were born too soon. And many of them were every bit as wanted as these, and their moms were every bit as strong and tried as hard or harder to be the perfect incubator. Maybe having a front row seat to that side of this story gives me a different perspective.*
I think… y’all are spoiled if you think there is the right to a perfect birth.
Nope. Consider our pioneer great-grandmothers who produced “litters” because one out of five sometimes would die in infancy/childhood. They still took the risk, and it is just that for every pregnancy, and made the personal choice to try and bear offspring. Knowing that some would be taken from them too soon.
If you need a job change, take one RN. Because “judging” your patients, and their offspring, is not your place.
Sure some will die, or god forbid, be born disabled. Maybe even… a Down’s syndrome baby. (Do you think we’ll start aborting the gay fetuses, if a genetic link is identified? I do.) That is the risk ALL mothers take. It prepares them for the child raising part of life where risks naturally abound. (“A dingo ate my baby!” ;-)
If you don’t like the risks others take, don’t take them. If the sight of surviving babies sickens you, or not “perfect” offspring or deliveries, then get out of the miracle business. But for heaven’s sake, leave this woman and her 14 children alone!
If it’s the taxes you’re worried about, focus on the greedy bankers taking risks not with their own bodies and offspring, but with other people’s hard earned money. They are the ones taking away the choices not only for us today, but for tomorrow’s children and grandchildren. Nadya Suleman is just a convenient distraction…
Andy Kaufman, all the way. Joaquin Phoenix maybe?
Okay, I will play along.
Perfect birth? How about a common sense birth? Every child is at the mercy of their parents when it comes to the decisions they make. Yes, every child has the right to be brought into this world in the safest manner possible. That varies with each individual but there has to be a standard. Just like it is irresponsible, reckless, and selfish to smoke, drink, bungee jump, and engage in a MMA fight while pregnant; it is also just as dangerous to knowingly implant six embryos in a woman.
I realize that this will not eliminate the chances of birth defects or premature birth but the hazard reduction is significant. Why would any mother take that gamble (her words)?
Yes, child-bearing and rearing is inherently risky but why would any reasonable person increase that risk exponentially? My whole point would be moot if she would have just spaced out the transfers.
Pioneer women analogy…not quite as good as the pony but Mr. Kaufman would smile.
I could care less about the risks others take until it hurts someone else. Nadya took a risk that will affect those eight kids for the rest of their lives, not the rest of hers. This is not the time to be silent and just tolerate everything. I guess there is a fine line between judgement and accountability.
looking through the comments, looks like anonymous has a very bad habit of making assertions, and when refuted, countering with red herring statements or horrible analogies. i’m pretty sure this person is just a troll to get people riled up. you can just tell by the intentional, really botched logic. only a troller or dunce would write most of the things anonymous wrote. since he can at least write in a semi-educated way, i’m guessing anonymous is just a troller.
Pioneer women didn’t have litters, they had a lot of pregnancies which resulted in a lot of kids.
The IVF doctors back then had more scruples. Time travel is awesome.
Now picturing anon in a little cap like the Expedia gnome.
Wow, somehow I went from being concerned about the welfare of babies to being sickened by the sight of them. That’s a pretty big leap. And I’m not sure I even remotely indicated that I judged anyone’s “offspring”. As for the mothers themselves, you’re correct that it isn’t my place to judge. I’m quite open minded and accepting of most things, but I draw the line at willfully endangering your own child. Doctors and nurses are only human, to expect us to be completely non-judgmental is a little unrealistic. That being said, while I don’t always agree with a parent’s choices I don’t allow it to effect my behavior towards them or my care of my patients.
I don’t quite get your strange “risk is everywhere” argument. Yes every pregnancy is a risk. And I know better than most that no one is entitled to a perfect pregnancy or birth. In fact I have a hard time even imagining such a thing since I never encounter it! But there is a difference between accepting unavoidable risk and creating unnecessary risk. It’s the difference between safe driving with your baby secured in a car seat and drunk driving with your baby in your lap.
I happen to enjoy being in the “miracle” business. But this branch of medicine is often an ethical quagmire with few empirical answers. I never suggested that disabled or otherwise imperfect people should be aborted or killed. I’ve had the opportunity to support many parents faced with making life or death decisions for their child. And it is always their decision to make, because only they know what is acceptable to them. I may not personally agree with their decision but I still support it. It’s not always easy, especially in the extreme cases.
In this case, what’s done is done and I wish the children and their mother well. You think that no one should judge this mother. That’s your opinion. My point was that her behavior shouldn’t be celebrated either. It’s one thing to accept her actions, another to start saying “you go girl!” and handing her wads of cash. Like it or not, infamy is one of the risks she accepted. And if she has the right to pop out over a dozen babies she has no means of supporting then I and everyone else at least has the right to express our belief that she is a loony. It seems like more than a fair trade.
I take it back, anon is not Andy Kaufman’s alter ego Tony Clifton; she/he is Mr. Burns from the Simpsons….sitting in front of the laptop with fingertips touching each other rhythmically while chanting “Excellent, Excellent”.
We have a winner! People have seemed to pick up on that anonymous has got to be a troller and I agree. I mean come on, look at his latest post. He uses the zeitgeist and medical conditions of 100-200 years ago to justify today’s actions. Poor analogy indeed.
Nadya *is* a convenient distraction. But that doesn’t make her any less wrong than the bankers like you’re trying to insinuate. A convenient target doesn’t mean an innocent target. Ironically, it’s Nadya’s mentality that the greedy bankers share too that caused a larger scale failure since Nadya is only one person while the bankers are an industry. Neither is in the right and the mentality both have needs to be fixed. When did someone else’s mistakes become an excuse for Nadya’s? These aren’t mutually exclusive concepts.
I’m starting to think anonymous isn’t a troller. Just a dunce who thinks he has the answers. Hey Christine Frias, can you change the article title to “anonymous’s story doesn’t add up, logic immensely flawed”?
All this talk about science and frozen eggs and embryos doesn’t get to the bottom of what is the important thing in all of this…those kids! I don’t agree with telling a person how many children they should bring into this world, however as an adult as a parent you bare a responsibility to that child to not only “love” it but to provide for it.
It’s incomprehensible that she will ever be able to play “catch up” she will never be able to completely do this on her own financially or otherwise. I think I’m angrier with her doctor because it’s obvious this woman is not mentally stable and for a physician who takes an oath to protect and save lives has created a life-threatening situation for those children and for Nadya herself.
As far as her family is concerned I don’t know why they didn’t step in earlier…it seems like they have been enabling her all this time. After the fourth my mom would have sent me to a mental hospital for treatment. She has a dangerous addiction it’s so obvious.
PS – well written article!!
LOL –
Namecalling, church lady judgment complete with clicking tongues, “Why IIIiiiiii wouldn’t have done that!! And MY choices should matter regarding your decisions because…”
Well, at least we’re all in agreement that it’s wonderful this mother’s risk paid off, and we’re all happy those 8 little lives are here today, and made it through without dying.
(I mean, you haters really can’t be cheering against the survival of these infants now, can you?)
Personal disclosure:
Close family member is the youngest of 14. Guess what? All happily nurtured, learned sharing and generosity, well fed and cared for. Married themselves now, and happily reproducing… Durn it! Doesn’t that just burn your boat, people from large family succeeding happily and healthily like that??? Makes me absolutely lose sleep worrying over the personal decisions of others … NOT!
Sleep well everyone!
Funniest comment of the threat, even funnier than \"A dingo ate my baby!!!\":
\"That being said, while I don’t always agree with a parent’s choices I don’t allow it to effect my behavior towards them or my care of my patients. \"
Something tells me … unconsciously, you do.
This anonymous person is way too hilarious. Mentally dense people are usually really funny because they can’t see that they’re the joke. Let’s see, in his last post he said absolutely…….NOTHING. HAAHHAHA So what if you know a family of 14 kids that are doing well? What does that show? NOTHING. Nobody’s criticizing Nadya for having 14 children. Having 14 children isn’t the problem. It’s having 14 children before having enough (or even minimal amount of) money to support them and expecting others to foot the cost. Another dumb example by anonymous. Don’t worry, we’re sleeping very well. I hope you don’t lose any sleep knowing how mentally insufficient you are. LOL
Anyway this guy is both a troll and a moron. They both usually go hand in hand. So long and happy trolling HAHAHAHAH
I thimk Nayda is a less wealthy version of Jolie – both are highly narcissistic, one high functioning and one low! One more openly opportunistic, the other one hidden—
I think both are in what they do to get narcissistic supply and attention etc.
Anon, you can’t vote for yourself for funniest post. The “dingo baby” was you, right? Or is there more than one user posting anonymously? I think y’all need to start counting off.
Hey Laura, embryos are children. I was using specific terminology to make my point more precise. Vague superlatives are for Sunday Night Football.
I’m not happy that her risk paid off because more yahoos are going to try it. Hey, let’s beat Nadya by implanting ten embryos! Once again, although I don’t like the fact that she is attempting to support 14 kids on no income, I’m not going to assume she can’t. I’m not hoping or praying for her failure. People are amazingly resilent and it seems like she is smart enough to profit from this situation.
The risk was unnecessary. The risk was stupid. She could have remained completely adherent to her pro-life philosophy by exercising a little common sense. Here’s a novel concept: implant two at a time over three frozen IVF cycles (it has been confirmed that the six implanted were frozen). Brilliant!
Of course I’m cheering for their survival and for those eight kids to absolutely thrive.
Anon, did you enjoy that Letterman interview with Joaquin Phoenix?
There have never been so many people totally against what this women was permitted to do, in our economy today how dare she bring addl children into this world, one would be too many. but 8!!!!!!!!! her dr needs to be investigated, he must have lost his mind . AND HE NEEDS FOR HIS L ICENCE TO BE REMOVED,,,,these childred arein for a rocky road to survive, how many more will she have??? she needs to be given a hysterectomy to prevent her from doing this again. she is oBviously not responsible for her actions. and to add no fathers for any of the 14.