Poll Question: Should Nadya Sulleman be allowed to have more children?

[live love laugh]

Do you think Nadya Suleman, the mother of 14, who recently gave birth to octuplets, should be allowed to have more children?

Responses so far:


Yes, it's her body, her choice 14 %
No, she's gone too far 85 %

:wtf: Where am I? China?

http://www.essence.com/news_entertainment/entertainment/articles/rihanna_suffers_injuries_after_alleged_fight_with_chris_brown

[Warpy]

1. No kidding!

although offhand I'd suggest she shut the factory down until the latest 8 are all out of diapers.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Maybe she could try for an even dozen next time.

[Deja Q]

66. At once? They say a pregnant woman has "a bun in the oven", but a baker's dozen?

:wow:

[KittyWampus]

3. well, in order for her to have more children she'd have to have MORE IVF treatments....

and that means whatever doctor helped her would be highly unethical.

[Texasgal]

15. Are you saying she could not get pregnant again

the natural way?

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

21. She never has conceived naturally.

I don't know whether it's a problem with her anatomy or her ex-husband's (or both).

[Donnachaidh]

35. nope -- she had plugged tubes - literally. n/t

[Texasgal]

54. I wasn't aware of this.

Thank you for the info!

[remoulade]

4. I'm sure all those "yes" voters are lining up to donate at her website.

Uh huh...

[babylonsister]

5. So you think a woman who has questionable mental health,

who now has 14 children, many of them with disabilities or potential ones, who has no means of support and only her mom's roof over her head (what, 2 bedrooms?), should just keep having kids, since we're not China? :crazy:

[LeftyMom]

9. Not "should", "be allowed."

"You should not eat cookies" for dinner is different from "you are not allowed to eat cookies for dinner."

/remedial English

[babylonsister]

24. Why 'should' she 'be allowed' if she can't be responsible for the ones

she has, and the taxpayers wind up paying for them? I'm not getting your reasoning. If she was responsible, that'd be a whole 'nother story.

And thank you for the english lesson. :eyes:

[LeftyMom]

28. You're welcome. The reason is that our society generally leaves control of reproductive issues to

the woman doing the reproducing. Attempts to prevent reproduction by those deemed unworthy have a long history of failure and abuse.

There's no real dispute that she shouldn't have any more kids. The more important point is that attempting to control others' reproduction is a bad idea and there's a great deal of historical precedent that suggests any such control will be abused.

[hlthe2b]

36. Forced sterilization is unaceptable; courts have intervened

and do intervene to prevent additional pregnancies in extreme circumstances. See my more detailed post #16 below.

[hlthe2b]

16. Exactly... no one is saying to sterilize her. Courts have

ordered women not to have more children after they have repeatedly been found to be a harm to themselves and the children or face jail. In this case the judge could stipulate until such time that she can demonstrate a viable means of both economic, emotional and physical support for children and mother, alike.

There is precedence for this is all I am saying.

[LeftyMom]

74. Those were cases where children had been removed by the state repeatedly and mothers were on drugs

Neither is the case here, as far as I have heard.

[hlthe2b]

75. Of course not... The precedence comes in a court stepping in

when children are put at risk. I never said this woman was on drugs, but neglect is clearly a possibility if her situation does not dramatically change.

[Arkansas Granny]

49. How would you propose that she be prevented from having more children?

[Sentath]

56. Simple, no IVF

She has never conceived naturally. IVF all the way.

[Arkansas Granny]

62. The same question applies. How do you propose to prevent her from

receiving further IVF? Who gets to make the decision as to who can have access to the procedure?

[babylonsister]

60. A mental health evaluation would be a good start. Then go talk to

her mother, who thinks she is not balanced.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3730393

[guardian]

6. I wonder what her carbon footprint is? n/t

[Upton]

7. Not only shouldn't she be allowed

to have more children, but serious consideration should be given to taking away the ones she has. This woman is obviously entertaining a mental condition...

[Arkansas Granny]

51. Unless there is evidence that her children are abused or neglected

what grounds would you use to remove her children from her care?

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. The answer to the question is: no

she's mentally unstable, long-term unemployed, has several children with developmental disorders already, has no means of supporting her children and apparently cannot get pregnant without costly medical intervention in the form of IVF (and implantation of 8 embryos, and being allowed to carry all 8 to term, is highly ethically questionable, and not something that any reputable fertility specialist would recommend).

So, people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want to regardless of the potential consequences to themselves and others, without regard to the health risks involved, or to whether or not their actions are something that they can support? Is responsibility suddenly a BAD thing?

[El Supremo]

10. Yes! She has to have a chance of beating the Duggars.

Just kidding. Of course not.

[FiveGoodMen]

23. ...with just one more pregnancy!

[Thickasabrick]

31. LOL....funny....but noone has jurisdiction over her body unless she's

certified insane and put in a facility.

[FiveGoodMen]

79. Good thing there aren't many exercising this option

The human race would die of war, disease, and starvation before the end of the century.

Not that that matters.

[Texasgal]

11. Allowed?

WTF???

[shanti]

76. my thoughts exactly!

she definitely shouldn't get pregnant again (IMO), but allowed? last i remembered, it was a free country and there are no laws against getting pregnant!

as far as having the government support them tho...isn't there some kind of rule that if you have a certain number of children when you're already collecting welfare, and have more, the dollar amount doesn't increase? :shrug:

[BirminghamExaminer]

12. We might not like it but we'd like it a lot less if the law told us how many children WE could have

[aquart]

58. Every nation has to choose a method of population control.

Many prefer war and starvation to birth control. As, clearly, do you.

[jmg257]

13. China? Do they put up with selfish baby-popping asses there?

[SidneyCarton]

14. Ms. Suleman should be strongly discouraged from having further children,

And child protective services should be vigilant as to the status of her current 14 children.

That said, if it is wrong to pass anti-abortion legislation because it allows the majority to dictate the way in which an individual woman is allowed to use her womb, then it is also wrong for us to vote on how Ms. Suleman uses hers. The precident such an action sets stinks to high heaven of eugenicist thinking.

[Kahuna]

17. As long as she can support them, I don't care how many litters she has. nt

[Texasgal]

18. There are many people

who cannot afford ONE or TWO. Should we tell them they cannot have any children either?

[Kahuna]

20. Buzz off. nt

[Texasgal]

22. buzz off?

I'm sorry, I was being serious.

I am not sure why my question offended you, it wasn't meant to. :shrug:

[Kahuna]

34. I'm sorry too. I'm just not in the mood for the third degree today..nt

:hug:

[Texasgal]

38. Well, I apologize.

I can see now how my question could have been mistaken.

I am sorry. :)

[Kahuna]

42. Awww. You're so sweet...

:loveya:

[jmg257]

25. Hmm..."cannot" or "should not"? This girl should not be allowed 'cause there is something

wrong with her. And no matter how many kids she has, it ain't making her better. (and is probably not too good for them, either)

[Texasgal]

29. I agree that she "should" not

I do not agree with "cannot".

And yes, I believe that this woman is crazy and I am sickened by what she has done.

[4lbs]

27. People who can't afford to take care of their children, even one or two, often have them taken away

by the state or local DCFS after an investigation deems them unfit at that time.

If they can't afford to house, clothe, and feed the child(ren) properly, maybe they shouldn't have them anymore. This falls under the child neglect section of the rules and code.

Then if their situation improves to the point where they can properly care for the children, they can petition to have them returned.

[Texasgal]

30. Well it appears that she has a roof over their heads

and it appears that the other children are not abused or under fed... from what I can see. I agree that many people should be able to take care of their children and shouldn't have them if they cannot care for them.

I am not defending this woman, her choice was abhorrent. I am just trying to understand the slippery slope of the government handling my uterus. That was my main point.

[jmg257]

33. Understood. But if the govt gets involved with "funding" her choices, sooner or later they are going

to want some control over it.

VERY scary, indeed.

[Texasgal]

50. This is an issue that very hard to access.

Just an example, My Mother is from a large family. There are nine brothers and sisters. My grandfather died when my mom was young. My Grandmother worked as a nurse and tried to support her family the best she could, they had to get on government assistance for most of my Mothers young life. They stayed on the roles for years until the kids were old enough to get jobs or get married young ( in my moms case and one of my aunts as well)

They have all turned out to be productive members if society.

They all had a roof over their heads and all were fed as good as possible. Having a large family is tough enough, I cannot imagine what would have happened to My Mom and her siblings had they not had some sort of assistance.

[Kahuna]

39. True that. But she is living below the poverty standard. nt

[The Hope Mobile]

59. Well, if she really gets the 13K+/mo that is predicted that will not be the case.

That's 160,000/yr and she should be able to get by on that. Her degree isn't going to help her much though if she finishes it. Its not big pay for that kind of work.

[4lbs]

45. True. However, a view of the house where all 15+ people live shows it's a virtual pigsty.

That won't be favorable in the eyes of any DCFS investigator.

Furthermore, even her mother says she shouldn't be taking care of so many kids, being a single mother having no means to support them without 3rd party state assistance.

I have no problem with anyone having has many kids as they desire, as long as they can properly raise and care for them.

I personally know people that came from really large families (8+ kids), and they were raised somewhat poor relatively speaking, but well enough so that they didn't go hungry, or were living in squalor growing up. They told me that their family with 8 or more kids had 6 adults present to work and take care of them. The two parents, and both sets of grandparents. There were also some aunts and uncles to help out as well.

[Donnachaidh]

40. that's just it -- she DOESN'T support them.

If anything, she's used both the kids and a couple of lawsuits to support herself and that BAD plastic surgery she had to look like Angelina Jolie. She obviously got ripped off with the surgery -- but she's punting out little moneymakers more for herself than anyone else. Do YOU know any mothers that have hired a PR firm within a week of their kid's birth?

[Kahuna]

47. Or start a website to solicite donations. For me, I think this woman

is unbalanced, selfish and foolish. But for the kids sake I hope she gets the help she'll need. I don't want to see those kids suffer. If I thought the donations would go only to the kids, I'd kick in $10 myself. But I don't want my money to go to a publisist or plastic surgery.

[buzzycrumbhunger]

55. Do you care

. . . that she hasn't been able to support the ones she already had? Her folks have gone bankrupt supporting her and her mother does all the child care. Her publicist admitted she's already been receiving welfare, which her mom claims she's never seen. The woman is using her hobby as a means of support and appears to aspire to corporate sponsorship like the other freak families glorified on teevee these days.

Sadly, it seems the people who shouldn't breed are the ones who do it with such gusto.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

19. Should she be allowed? Sure. Maybe she can have a reality show

with the Duggars in which the two parties compete for the highest baby output over an X year period. Suleman can continue using the finest medical science available while the Duggars do their baby makin' the old fashioned way (off camera, of course). The show can be marketed as Man v. Nature: The Road to Victory. During sweeps we can hear from both parties why they continue having children in spite of their backgrounds/the probability of the babies being born with a birth defect or Downs Syndrome. That'll get middle America off their tractors.

:rant:

[El Supremo]

26. "Biggest Birther"

[Donnachaidh]

43. I get teh impression that this latest crop may well have been conceived

with the thought of a reality show in mind. This woman is delusional. And her doctor should be stripped of his license.

[The Hope Mobile]

65. She has stated that she doesn't want to have more. nt

[elocs]

32. Apparently she is not able to conceive naturally,

so there should be some criteria for the doctors who perform IVF since she needs their help to conceive, or at least use some common sense. A plastic surgeon is not obligated to perform surgery on everyone who walks through their door either since there are people who are not mentally healthy about making those choices.

The odds must be incredible that every embryo took and two divided resulting in 8 babies, but this is water over the damn now and the attention and care should be directed toward the children. No matter what is thought of the mother, it is clear that all of her children were wanted and there were no "accidents" and the 6 children she already had do seem like happy kids. I am certain that there are many mothers in this country who only have 1 or 2 children and cannot care for them properly and may not have wanted any of them. Nobody with any certainty can predict what the future of these children may be and let's all hope they turn out to be as healthy and happy as they can be.

[LisaL]

61. It's been reported that 3 out of 6 children are on disability.

So if that report is correct, she had 50 % disability rate when it came to her older kids.
And the 8 she had now are premature.
So, I guess let's hope they will turn out as healthy and happy as can be.
If you don't have hope, what else have you got?

[Lyric]

37. We can't stop her from having children. But we can

make sure that she follows the law when it comes to taking care of them. She chose to put herself in the spotlight, so now the public eye is fixated on her. If she fucks up, she's going to lose those kids in a hurry.

Have all the kids you want, but you'd damned well better be able to take care of them.

[Quantess]

41. Nadya Suleman could singlehandedly inspire a new law

banning in-vitro fertility treatments after having octuplets when you already had six.

County Animal Control can forbid crazy rabbit-hoarders from acquiring any new rabbits. Maybe authorities need to able to forbid crazy baby-breeders from getting any more in-vitro procedures.

[Donnachaidh]

46. I'd like to know HOW she got IVF *SIX* times with NO insurance. n/t

[bertman]

44. All of these arguments about this mentally-ill woman's "right" to have more children are

sad. What should be considered is the "rights" of her offspring to have a mother who can provide for them, give them the love and care they need, and raise them to be productive members of society. I'm guessing that these children will be wards of the state before very long.

This argument rises to the level of the "how many angels can fit onto the head of a pin" debate. The debate should be whether she is guilty of child abuse of the worst kind.

[SoCalDem]

48. hahahahhaha

婦女是freakshow。 您沒nned在看見那的中國

[etherealtruth]

52. Allowed?

Allowed? Should a woman be "allowed" to have full control of her body? At what point does a woman surrender the rights to her body: If she's mentally ill, mentally retarded, a smoker, a substance abuser, ignorant, has bad eating habits, is poor ... ? Who decides when a threshold is reached

I have no doubt the woman in question is crazed. I most assuredly hope she does not ever have the opportunity to have an other child. I would hope that she would place these children in the care of others that can love and support them ... but , at what point does a woman surrender her autonomy? who is the arbiter of who is fit or able to be a parent?

As disgusted as I am by this situation I am horrified by the thought of any person or entity granting permission to a woman to have or not have children.

[Texasgal]

53. Agreed.

The very thought of forced sterilization is sickening.

[LisaL]

63. When a woman is having kids, it's not just her body. What about

the kids?

[etherealtruth]

68. It IS her body until any child is born

I have no issues with laws governing the care of children. If a child is abused or neglected there are laws in place and they should be followed.

I will always have issues with any person or entity that seeks to control my reproductive rights or anyone else's.

What reproductive rights are you willing to surrender? Most assuredly she is an extreme case. It is an extremely disturbing situation.

What are your parameters for having your reproductive (or any other) freedoms taken away at the discretion of others? Who to you suppose should be the arbiter of who does and does not have freedom to control their own body.

This is what I mean when I state I am "pro-choice" ... and yes I agree some people make some pretty horrific choices.

a better question might be should a physician be allowed to implant as many embryos into any woman he/she chooses?

[JerseygirlCT]

71. Well said! nt

[aquart]

57. Sure. But pull the license of any doctor who implants her.

[Critters2]

64. I don't think she should have more kids...but I don't think it's up to any third party

to mandate that.

Should Nadya Suleman have more kids? No.

Should the government enforce my sense that Suleman shouldn't have more kids? No.

[Thothmes]

67. Which State or Federal agency

has the legal authority to prevent her from having any more children?

[MasonJar]

69. SHE HAS NO WAY TO SUPPORT THE ONES SHE ALREADY HAS.

[JerseygirlCT]

70. "allowed"?

Who's going to stop her?

As I've said before, while we can shake our heads in wonder or disgust, when we start deciding that anyone other than the parent has the right to "allow" or disallow the decision to have another child, then, yes, we're in China.

I think she's likely a very disturbed person. And if the authorities find that her children are not well-cared for or in danger, then they certainly should step in. But the right to choose when and whether and how often to have a child belongs to the parent. Only.

[Control-Z]

72. She probably won't get the chance

with the questions that have been raised about fertility screening. I expect there will be new restrictions, if not laws, imposed because of her actions. I'm sorry for all that has transpired. It will probably hurt a lot of infertile women and their chances for a family.

[NashVegas]

73. Seeing As Those She Would Need Medical Assistance

I'd say no, because it would be unethical on the part of the personnel responsible.

If she could get pregnant without medical intervention, I'd say reproductive rights are in play.

[Nevernose]

77. What's the legal childcare ratio in CA? Anyone know?

Where I live, for children that young, it's an 8:1 ratio for children to caregiver. No single human being could possibly take care of that many young children all day, every day, or even most of the time. It's not fair to the kids; it's not fair to the her. I don't care how much she loves her kids -- she could be the combined reincarnation of Gandhi and Jesus -- but it's just not going to happen in any kind of acceptable way.

If she thought she could take care of 14 young kids all by herself, she obviously wasn't firing on all cylinders anyway. I just hope that some altruistic soul out there will take pity on her, not financially, but time-wise.

[rebecca_herman]

78. Ugh

I don't think she made good choices. I think her having more kids would be yet another poor choice. But I do NOT want the government having a say! I'm ok with doctors choosing not to give her further fertility treatments based on their medical ethics, but I'm not ok with the government passing a law about how many kids someone can have, and how they can conceive them.