Anonymous Mom, No Dads, + 14
needed it's own thread.
Woman gives birth to octuplets in 5 minutes.
Like a salad shooter.
Oh, and she already had 6 kids.
She "never expected to have eight more when she took fertility treatment, her mother said." WTF? You have six kids, and THEN you take fertility treatments??
And no husband (no information given about even a steady boyfriend, LTR, or details on the baby daddy/ies of the 6 kids she was already fertile enough to squirt out), lives with her parents. Is "Quite Young." Let me go out on a limb and guess that she is not employed, but is on welfare and every other kind of assistance out there.
Isn't there some kind of questionnaire at the clinic?
How did she pay for the fertility treatments? Are they covered under MediCal too?
Seriously.
Pisses me off even if she were in a stable marriage and had cash...it's irresponsible, and I bet she thinks that is her only purpose in life.
Her oldest kid is around 7, I think, which means she could be as young as 20.
Someone should glue her legs together.
Looks like the "fertility treatment" wasn't just drugs, it was implanted embryos. Given her previous fertility success, I'm betting this means dad is dead, in jail, had nut cancer, or is somehow incapacitated on the sperm front, and they had saved some with the intent of having a baby together.
I found a family portrait. Artist's rendition.
Looks like it could be a kindergarten class.
Do a time progression: some of the kids should be robbing a Stop and Go...a couple crack ho's, and a priest.
Its all good - we'll all be paying to support them - Isn't that grand. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside...
Like I'm about to Puke!
Weeeell... I think it was irresponsible of her as well, but I have to say, I don't think this is a poor family on any kind of assistance. The mother's parents seem to be pretty well-off. Aside from what looks like a decent-sized home in Southern California, they say they're going to live in a second house once the babies can leave the hospital:
But the grandfather warned that media may have a tougher time finding the family after the babies are released from the hospital.
"We have a huge house, not here," said the man, who would only identify himself as Ed. "You are never going to know where it is."
They also can apparently afford to hire the nanny who was interviewed. The article has since been updated to say that they're not actually sure whether it was implanted embryos or egg-stimulation drugs, but even the drugs are still pretty expensive and not covered by insurance. Poor people usually get knocked up the old fashioned way.
She's going to need the Partridge Family bus just to get around.
This kind of crap seriously pisses me off. There are too many damn people on the planet as it is, and this woman pops out EIGHT BABIES, when she already has SIX KIDS? What kind of doctor would give fertility treatment to someone who already has SIX KIDS? :mad2:
I'm sorry, but some people should just be shot. That kind of thinking needs to be taken out of the food chain. We are not dogs and cats having puppies and kittens. The doctor who gave her fertility treatments should also be shot.
I love kids. I'm like every kid's aunt (I've had 22 years experience IRL.) :)
But yeah, this lady ticks me off too. Is hoarding children under the realm of hoarding illnesses in the DSM IV? I only have the III.
Hoarding cats isn't in the Big Book of Crazy, either.
Big book of crazy...lol.
In your professional opinion, should it be? In the big book I mean?
Doesn't somebody have a duty to do a background check before going ahead with a procedure like that?
This kind of crap seriously pisses me off. There are too many damn people on the planet as it is, and this woman pops out EIGHT BABIES, when she already has SIX KIDS? What kind of doctor would give fertility treatment to someone who already has SIX KIDS? :mad2:
I'm sorry, but some people should just be shot. That kind of thinking needs to be taken out of the food chain. We are not dogs and cats having puppies and kittens. The doctor who gave her fertility treatments should also be shot.
On top of that she was already in some kind of financial trouble. Now she can multiply that times 8.
Doesn't somebody have a duty to do a background check before going ahead with a procedure like that?
Meh... it's not illegal to have a stupid number of children. (It'll probably even get you your own television show.) But seriously, would you have been okay with it if she happened to end up with only one or two babies from the procedure, for a total of 7-8 kids? That many kids used to be relatively common, even. They strongly advised her to reduce (i.e. abort some of them) after they found out how many were gestating. She chose not to. You can't force an abortion on someone.
On top of that she was already in some kind of financial trouble.
Where did you read that?
Where did you read that?
It was on the TV last night. I will look around.
Court records show Angela Suleman filed for bankruptcy last March, but after she failed to make required payments and appear at a creditors' meeting, the case was dismissed. She reported liabilities of $981,371, mostly money owed on two houses she owns in Whittier.
The births were a hot topic of conversation on the Internet, with many people incredulous that a woman with six children would try to have more — and that a doctor would help her do so. Some criticized the doctor and suggested that the mother would be overwhelmed trying to raise her brood and would end up relying on public support.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ilIx-PXnXPpwF1a_nlRYF00fzBIQD961UN600Meh... it's not illegal to have a stupid number of children. (It'll probably even get you your own television show.) But seriously, would you have been okay with it if she happened to end up with only one or two babies from the procedure, for a total of 7-8 kids? That many kids used to be relatively common, even. They strongly advised her to reduce (i.e. abort some of them) after they found out how many were gestating. She chose not to. You can't force an abortion on someone.
I wouldn't. We have got to put a curb on birth rates. The planet simply cannot continue supporting the population that is here now, much less the rate of growth. Do you realize the population has doubled since Kennedy was president?
We need a good metorite strike. Clean things up a little.
Meh... it's not illegal to have a stupid number of children. (It'll probably even get you your own television show.) But seriously, would you have been okay with it if she happened to end up with only one or two babies from the procedure, for a total of 7-8 kids? That many kids used to be relatively common, even. They strongly advised her to reduce (i.e. abort some of them) after they found out how many were gestating. She chose not to. You can't force an abortion on someone.
In certain European countries, particularly Italy and Germany, the limit on the number of embryos allowed to be implanted at once is three, said Robert George, professor at Princeton University and member of the U.S. President's Council on Bioethics. George advocated following those countries' examples so that similar situations don't arise and put the lives of mother and fetuses at risk.
"If she went to a fertility clinic, there's wide consensus from every single ethicist and fertility specialist that this was irresponsible and unethical to implant that many embryos," said M. Sara Rosenthal, bioethicist at the University of Kentucky's College of Medicine. "This is an outrageous situation that should not happen."
CNN articleI would also suggest that one at a time would allow you to take stock. At the very least because you'll have to find the time to go and and find someone to knock you up, while leaving the first seven at home.
You might find both your body and your common sense (wass that?) kick in after the eighth or ninth. Before the 14th at least.
Court records show Angela Suleman filed for bankruptcy last March, but after she failed to make required payments and appear at a creditors' meeting, the case was dismissed. She reported liabilities of $981,371, mostly money owed on two houses she owns in Whittier.
These kids which will bring notoriety and "financial assistance" certainly sounds like a crazy plan to get out. Hell she'll be featured on shows like Oprah and they'll pay for all kinds of stuff for her. Instead of helping those who REALLY need our (tax
payers) help we'll instead waste money on people like her.
We have got to put a curb on birth rates. The planet simply cannot continue supporting the population that is here now, much less the rate of growth.
Well said.
And the kids get these kinds of things:
Doctors say that giving birth to extreme multiples comes with tremendous risks for both the mother and the babies. Risks for the children include bleeding in the brain, intestinal problems, developmental delays and lifelong learning disabilities.
Selfish. Very selfish.
I wouldn't. We have got to put a curb on birth rates. The planet simply cannot continue supporting the population that is here now, much less the rate of growth. Do you realize the population has doubled since Kennedy was president?
Population growth is hard to curb and a full out attempt will most likely cause a backlash just as great as the original problem. Not to mention that we are going into the world of telling how many babies a person can have.
Though, I do believe we should work on curbing population growth, but we have to be smart and rational about it. Another large part of this is that we need to become much more efficient with food, water, and energy. We need to start investing massive amounts into those sectors (engineering in general) if we want to avoid major problems in the future.
The plot sickens:
Yolanda Garcia, 49, of Whittier, said she helped care for Nadya Suleman's autistic son three years ago.
"From what I could tell back then, she was pretty happy with herself, saying she liked having kids and she wanted 12 kids in all," Garcia told the Long Beach Press-Telegram.
"She told me that all of her kids were through in vitro, and I said 'Gosh, how can you afford that and go to school at the same time?"' she added. "And she said it's because she got paid for it."
Garcia said she did not ask for details.
This is, of course, all hearsay.
(Grand)Mom didn't support the idea either.
She said she warned her daughter that when she gets home from the hospital, "I'm going to be gone."
Article
here. "It would be extremely unusual, very strange and hard to believe that somebody who is a professional would put that many embryos into a woman who is 33 years old who has children," Slayden said.
Seems unconscionable to me.
The nanny who works with the octuplets' siblings said Friday that the woman "adores her babies" and is "a perfect mom."
"a perfect mom."?? By what definition???
I think in this new age of Socialist Capitalism and the Second Coming, Obama needs to finally make a law that requires permits for pregnancy of any kind. I would support that.
Tod: You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father.
...
omg...I love that movie, and that line. Awesome, HLJ.
Oh, wow.
There were frozen embryos left over after her previous pregnancies and her daughter didn't want them destroyed, so she decided to have more children.
...
"She doesn't have any more (frozen embryos), so it's over now," she said. "It has to be."
She already had the embryos, but even at the rate of roughly one baby every year (six kids, ages seven and under,) she was already 33 and time was ticking by. So she found the one doctor who would implant them all at once. I take it back, she's not just irresponsible, she's got a psychological problem.
I don't know much about it, but I have heard that some women get 'addicted' or tied into the baby stage of motherhood. Maybe this woman has a problem. What I can't get my head around is the doctor who would carry out such a procedure on a woman with no fertility issues (clearly) an already large family and then implant so many embryos.
That's the thing, she did have fertility issues--all of her previous six children were conceived through in vitro as well. She created and froze a bunch of embryos all with the same sperm donor, and has been using them ever since. No word on how many embryos they implanted in the previous births (she had one set of twins, but the rest were singles,) maybe they had reason to believe that only a couple would actually implant. But 8 is still unethical.
Population growth is hard to curb and a full out attempt will most likely cause a backlash just as great as the original problem. Not to mention that we are going into the world of telling how many babies a person can have.
While I believe in personal freedom and I believe people should basically have the right to do pretty much whatever they want, as long as they aren't harming anyone else or doing damage, I have no problem going into the territory of forced control of the number of kids people can have. My god, if you want more, adopt. There are plenty of poor, unwanted kids out there.
Though, I do believe we should work on curbing population growth, but we have to be smart and rational about it. Another large part of this is that we need to become much more efficient with food, water, and energy. We need to start investing massive amounts into those sectors (engineering in general) if we want to avoid major problems in the future.
Yes. I believe we need to get serious about alternative energy and electric cars. Instead of importing so much food, we should be supporting local organic farmers. We need to start making things in this country again. Shipping massive consumer goods all the way from China and India is just not efficient.
We need a good [COLOR="Red"]meatball[/COLOR] strike. Clean things up a little.
fixed
Ramen.
What I can't get my head around is the doctor who would carry out such a procedure on a woman with no fertility issues (clearly) an already large family and then implant so many embryos.
I don't want ANY doctor making a decision for me on how I should live my life.
I want a doctor to tell me the risks involved (in the procedure, with my lifestyle choices, whatever). If, at that point, I choose to go ahead with (the procedure, with my risky behavior), then I want that doctor to do his best while treating me.
Are you really willing to advocate letting doctors impose their morality on patients?
ps...not picking on you, Dana, you just worded that really well...
No surprise, she's on disability, for a back injury. Apparently she gets $27,500/year.
Onyx...I'm just curious: how do you feel about assisted suicide for terminally ill patients?
I don't want ANY doctor making a decision for me on how I should live my life.
Don't put your reproduction in the hands of doctors then.
Are you really willing to advocate letting doctors impose their morality on patients?
Ummmm - yep.
Mebbe it's a European thing.
Not being as religious, we tend not to have a deal with the soul kinda thing. Which is why stem cell research is not such a big deal over here.
First, do no harm.
Let me just have a little conversation with myself here.
I looked up the Hippocratic oath after making that post above. Turns out it isn't in the oath, although similar language is. One interesting thing is that the oath seems to prohibit a doctor performing abortions. The original text is below, translated into English:
I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.
So I wondered if there was a modern version of this oath.
It seems that there are many modern versions, and each school chooses its own.
No surprise, she's on disability, for a back injury. Apparently she gets $27,500/year.
I just knew it had to be something like this. So who paid for the procedure then? IS she on some type of Gov't funded insurance?
PLEASE tell me we didn't pay to create this situation too. Please?
Onyx...I'm just curious: how do you feel about assisted suicide for terminally ill patients?
Hmm. I never really thought deeply about it. Off the cuff I would say that I don't agree that suicide should be against the law. I think if you want to kill yourself, you should have to right to do that.
That being said, I don't think anyone has the right to involve another person into it, (ie kill me). If you want to off yourself, go home and take some pills, don't get your doctor in trouble.
But again, I haven't thought deeply about it, so I may change my answer at some point.
Don't put your reproduction in the hands of doctors then.
So those women who are infertile...too damn bad for you? So...you can't go to a doctor for abortion now?
Mebbe it's a European thing.
Not being as religious, we tend not to have a deal with the soul kinda thing. Which is why stem cell research is not such a big deal over here.
I'm not talking about a soul kind of thing. I'm talking about doctors not having a right to make life decisions for me. If I want 30 kids, and I can pay for the procedure, that's all my doctor needs to know. It's not his right to make a moral judgement on my life. I expect him to tell me that's not a good idea for my body, and explain the physical risks of carrying all those children, but I don't expect him to say "No, I won't do it because I don't think it's good for the planet." or whatever else bullshit reason. It's not his call. He can choose not to treat me, and that's ok, I'll find a doctor who will.
Same can be said for abortion. If a woman went to a doctor for an abortion and he told her no, she can't have one on moral grounds, you'd be having a fit. If she has a right to an abortion, she also has a right to have as many kids as she can.
Thanks. I was curious if you were against assisted suicide, then that would be sort of like believing a doctor has a moral obligation to not help a person in that situation, thus a doctor imposing his or her morality on the patient.
That's where I was coming from. :)
I expect him to tell me that's not a good idea for my body, and explain the physical risks of carrying all those children...
I can certainly agree with that. The problem here is that the doctor
did go ahead and endanger both her life and the lives of her soon-to-be children by implanting 8 embryos in her.
Small family, big family - not the doc's business.
8 embryos at one time - violation of medical ethics!
From my understanding, they implant multiple eggs as a matter of course, and a fraction (if any) actually survive.
It's very possible he implanted 8 but expected 1 or 2 (if any) to make it.
Of course, it's all speculation, but I'm going on the assumption he wouldn't risk his medical license for this.
A doctor isn't a mechanic. You don't just pay your money and tell him what to do. He has to make a judgement call as to whether he is assisting or harming his patient by continuing. Someone who is addicted to plastic surgery can sit and listen to all the advice in the world and then decide to have surgery that is unnecessary and potentially harmful. It's entirely the doctor's decision as to whether he wishes to be complicit in that self-harm.
Wanting to have babies is all very well. Implanting large numbers of embryos at a time and risking a potentially dangerous multiple pregnancy was a very dubious course of action for a doctor to take.
I can't give specifics, but all articles I've read concerning this issue point to the fact that most fertility experts believe they implanted way more than was ethical. Also, following your reasoning, they must have implanted a dozen or more.
A doctor isn't a mechanic.
A doctor is absolutely a mechanic, except the vehicle is a human body, the most sophisticated, complex machine ever designed.
You don't just pay your money and tell him what to do. He has to make a judgement call as to whether he is assisting or harming his patient by continuing. Someone who is addicted to plastic surgery can sit and listen to all the advice in the world and then decide to have surgery that is unnecessary and potentially harmful. It's entirely the doctor's decision as to whether he wishes to be complicit in that self-harm.
She paid her money, and they performed the procedure. They SHOULD NOT make a decision to treat based upon THEIR idea of acceptable.
Wanting to have babies is all very well. Implanting large numbers of embryos at a time and risking a potentially dangerous multiple pregnancy was a very dubious course of action for a doctor to take.
Again, I believe that's a standard procedure, which is why all these women are having four, quints, sextuplets, etc.
OC, you of all people (being pro-life) should believe that the health of the babies comes into play. What if a parent wanted to pay for ill-advised plastic surgery on their 5-year-old kid? The doctor advised her on the risks to her body of carrying eight babies, but there are very real risks to the eight babies as well. (And you can't say her decision is equivalent to having the right to abortion, because these children are going to be born, with a high risk of birth defects and other disabilities.)
I'm pro life, but I'm also pro personal responsiblity. I will *not* force other people to conform to *my* standard of right and wrong.
And I think this issue does relate to abortion. So...it's ok to kill unborn babies, but not ok to let deformed babies live? That's eugenics.
I do, however, understand the point you're trying to make. Was it right for her to irresponsibly have more babies? Not in my view, but my view is irrelevant.
That still doesn't change my point: it's not the doctor's call to make. In fact, he told her to abort some of them when he realized she was carrying so many, due to the risks of deformation, etc, (which I give him credit for) and she declined (which she has the right to do).
In short, this doctor did everything right. The brood mare, however, needs a reality check.
But do NOT put doctors in the position of treating a patient based upon their moral views. That is a long, steep, slippery slope.
(eta)
Once the doctor realized that she was carrying 8, if he was able to enforce his morals (or medical opinion) against her will, he would have terminated a few of those babies. What gives him the right to make that call?
It's not ok for doctors to induce a medical problem.
A doctor is absolutely a mechanic, except the vehicle is a human body, the most sophisticated, complex machine ever designed.
She paid her money, and they performed the procedure. They SHOULD NOT make a decision to treat based upon THEIR idea of acceptable.
Again, I believe that's a standard procedure, which is why all these women are having four, quints, sextuplets, etc.
I can't give specifics, but all articles I've read concerning this issue point to the fact that most fertility experts believe they implanted way more than was ethical. Also, following your reasoning, they must have implanted a dozen or more.
Hello? Am I on? :eyebrow:
It's not ok for doctors to induce a medical problem.
Then they shouldn't do abortions, either. It's a fact that over 65% of abortions cause complications (Infections, scar tissue, etc) in the mother.
You can't have it both ways.
Hello? Am I on? :eyebrow:
Yes you are, I was responding mostly to Dana on those points that I quoted.
:)
I'm talking about doctors not having a right to make life decisions for me.
Many doctors make that decision every day.
If a woman went to a doctor for an abortion and he told her no, she can't have one on moral grounds, you'd be having a fit. If she has a right to an abortion, she also has a right to have as many kids as she can.
I wouldn't. But I'm a guy. I have no problem with a doctor making a non life/death decision on his own moral grounds.
But thats just "off the cuff " as you put it.
Then they shouldn't do abortions, either. It's a fact that over 65% of abortions cause complications (Infections, scar tissue, etc) in the mother.
You can't have it both ways.
Rather say, it's not okay for a doctor to induce a medical problem that is worse than the problem they're solving. Every procedure and drug has side effects. Scar tissue is not as traumatic on the body as carrying a baby to term (not to mention the trauma of caring for a toddler, or a teenager...;))
(snip) Scar tissue is not as traumatic on the body as carrying a baby to term (snip)
So if a doctor should do as little harm as possible, and abortion is easier on the mother's body than delivering, then you advocate for doctors to force all women to have abortions for medical reasons?
Yes, that's an extremist view, but I'm trying to nail down the generalized outcome of that thought.
Obviously all patients have the superceding right to refuse treatment. If the patient does wish for intervention, be it for an abortion or chemotherapy, the doctor must then weigh the probability and extent of harm that may come to the patient, and decide ethically whether to comply.
A patient with cancer may certainly choose not to have chemo. But a random person who has no cancer may not receive chemotherapy from a doctor, even if they're willing to pay for it.
Then they shouldn't do abortions, either. It's a fact that over 65% of abortions cause complications (Infections, scar tissue, etc) in the mother.
You can't have it both ways.
Who's asking to have it both ways? You are not comparing like with like. You suggest that the doctor should simply give the advice and then go with the woman's decision, regardless of the advice against implanting large numbers of embryos
You cannot, in my country, simply pay for an abortion without having to justify it. There is a balance to be struck between potential harm and potential benefit. The further into the pregnancy, the higher the risk of complications and the harder it is to justify medically. This is one of the reasons it requires two doctors to sanction an abortion. Personally I feel that is sensible.
I haven't said that I think she should have been refused treatment. I just think, given it would seem an unusually high number of embryos to implant, and given the well-documented concern within the medical community over the increased risk of multiple births that comes with embryo implantation, that this particular medical practitioner made a very bad call. You are right, they do put in more eggs usually than they expect to take. I'd have to dig out the figures, but I think they usually do around 3.
One of the ethical debates around this kind of treatment, is that it costs so much to do each round, and the chances areb;t always high of first time success. So people who can't afford to go around the merry go round too many times, opt for a higher number of embryos to increase the chances of one taking. It has the side effect of also increasing the chances of multiple births. That's why it's a balance. Enough to give a reasonable chance of success -v- not enough to draw dangerous side effects.
If a woman agrees it is acceptable to freeze embryos for future implantation, she is already going against "God's will",
For those of us who think logically - freeze 'em, thaw 'em, clone 'em, whatever!
God is bountiful - adopt 'em from Darfur, they will starve and die otherwise (this might be God's plan, I don't know).
AP is now reporting that the fertility doctor is under investigation by the California Medical Board. Also, the mother has now claimed that six embryos were implanted for every single birth--initially resulting in her four singles and one set of twins, before this sudden jackpot of 8 (two of the embryos actually split in her final pregnancy, leading to more babies than were actually implanted.) If that's true, it mitigates the doctor's position a bit--he did have a good amount of evidence that she would only end up with one or two babies from the procedure.
If a woman agrees it is acceptable to freeze embryos for future implantation, she is already going against "God's will",
I think the biggest problem most pro-lifers would have with it is the fact that so many embryos are usually discarded once the desired number of children have been born. This woman decided she wanted to use all of hers up, so I think it would be compatible with many people's views of "God's will" who wouldn't support the process in general.
Hmm. I never really thought deeply about it. Off the cuff I would say that I don't agree that suicide should be against the law. I think if you want to kill yourself, you should have to right to do that.
That being said, I don't think anyone has the right to involve another person into it, (ie kill me). If you want to off yourself, go home and take some pills, don't get your doctor in trouble.
But again, I haven't thought deeply about it, so I may change my answer at some point.
Some people who are sick and in pain or dying do not really have the ability (mobility or access to drugs, etc.) to "off themselves." I think the laws should be more humane in helping people who really want to die with some dignity.
So those women who are infertile...too damn bad for you? So...you can't go to a doctor for abortion now?
Crikey! The girl already had 6 kids! SIX!
I'm not talking about a soul kind of thing. I'm talking about doctors not having a right to make life decisions for me. If I want 30 kids, and I can pay for the procedure, that's all my doctor needs to know. It's not his right to make a moral judgement on my life. I expect him to tell me that's not a good idea for my body, and explain the physical risks of carrying all those children, but I don't expect him to say "No, I won't do it because I don't think it's good for the planet." or whatever else bullshit reason. It's not his call. He can choose not to treat me, and that's ok, I'll find a doctor who will.
Same can be said for abortion. If a woman went to a doctor for an abortion and he told her no, she can't have one on moral grounds, you'd be having a fit. If she has a right to an abortion, she also has a right to have as many kids as she can.
I completely disagree. Maybe you can pay for the procedure, but what about later? Can you afford to take care of them? What about the ethics of having SO DAMN MANY KIDS when the world is already seriously overpopulated? I think the good/needs of the many outweighs the wants of the one.
It's like extreme body modification meets Munchausen syndrome or something. It's abuse of medical technology.
It's, it's not natural.
Again, I believe that's a standard procedure, which is why all these women are having four, quints, sextuplets, etc.
Actually Onyx that is why the method of her fertility treatment is so controversial. The people who're having four, quints, sextuplets, ect are on fertility meds, making them release multiple eggs at once, and thats how they end up being pregnant with so many. Her embryos were implanted, 8 (or perhaps a few more) were purposely implanted. That is not normal for this type of fertility treatment. They implant 1-3 embryos at a time. Depending on if the embryos look like they are doing well and are goin to develop.
For he record, They implanted 6 and two split.
Crikey! The girl already had 6 kids! SIX!
I completely disagree. Maybe you can pay for the procedure, but what about later? Can you afford to take care of them?
That hits the nail on the head. A number if not all of these kids are in NICU. Guess who is paying for thier care? You all.
What about the ethics of having SO DAMN MANY KIDS when the world is already seriously overpopulated? I think the good/needs of the many outweighs the wants of the one.
Free will, you don't get to be involved in that decision. Maybe the government should regulate how many a person can have.
I like Sugar, Merc.
And it makes me feel better about you, knowing you like her even though she has very different views to you.
When my ship comes in, I will come to Savannah. And buy you both dinner. Oh, and your lovely wife of course, although she will make me feel like an old hag in comparison ;)
I like Sugar, Merc.
And it makes me feel better about you, knowing you like her even though she has very different views to you.
When my ship comes in, I will come to Savannah. And buy you both dinner. Oh, and your lovely wife of course, although she will make me feel like an old hag in comparison ;)
Sugar is awsome, we have been good friends for a long time, even if we have some polar opposit views.
I like Sugar, Merc.
And it makes me feel better about you, knowing you like her even though she has very different views to you.
When my ship comes in, I will come to Savannah. And buy you both dinner. Oh, and your lovely wife of course, although she will make me feel like an old hag in comparison ;)
:D He can be a little infuriating sometimes, but only on the forums. I swear when you see him, you will just want to grab him and love him all over. :p He really is a sweetheart. And his wife is da bomb! She's awesome!
Sugar is awsome, we have been good friends for a long time, even if we have some polar opposit views.
He really just likes to fight with me cause he knows I'll chain him up later and whip his heiney. Hard. :spank:
He really just likes to fight with me cause he knows I'll chain him up later and whip his heiney. Hard. :spank:
Dammit Woman, stop giving away my secrets!
You r makin me horny.
Luvs you!
Catch you on the flip side. Now please untie me so I can get off to work. :D
Why do people care about this kind of shit? Jesus fuck. And get all het up about it too. Want to get het up about something, maybe consider oil flares and Shell-funded genocide in Nigeria.
I guess some dumb bitch in California popping out a litter is easier to get outraged about... certainly more Jerry-Springer.
Dammit Woman, stop giving away my secrets!
You r makin me horny.
Luvs you!
Catch you on the flip side. Now please untie me so I can get off to work. :D
Show me the money. Silence ain't free ya know...:devil:
Why do people care about this kind of shit? Jesus fuck. And get all het up about it too. Want to get het up about something, maybe consider oil flares and Shell-funded genocide in Nigeria.
I guess some dumb bitch in California popping out a litter is easier to get outraged about... certainly more Jerry-Springer.
huimph. I get outraged about those other things too, but when we are facing serious overpopulation, and everything that goes with that, I think this subject is pretty damn important.
Memorandum
To: Dwellars
From: Managenot
Re: Outrage Topics
Please submit all ideas for topics over which to be outraged to office 10-587 by each third Friday of the month. If the 3rd Friday of the month falls on a holiday or a weekend, you must submit all outrage requests to office 10-952 instead, one full month before said outrage is to take place.
All outrage requests must be submitted on Form OR-69 and copied to your immediate supervisor, human resources, and the Department of Appropriate Outrage Topics.
We thank you in advance for your prompt and diligent attention to this matter.
The Managenot
Crikey! The girl already had 6 kids! SIX!
So what? Why does that mean the doctor gets to make her life choices?
I completely disagree. Maybe you can pay for the procedure, but what about later? Can you afford to take care of them? What about the ethics of having SO DAMN MANY KIDS when the world is already seriously overpopulated? I think the good/needs of the many outweighs the wants of the one.
It is *not* for the doctor to make that decision for her, is what I've been saying here.
I'm not saying that I agree with this woman's choice, but I *am* saying it was HER CHOICE, not her doctor's, not her mother's not the government's.
If you think abortion is a "Pro-Choice" issue, then you have to believe this is too, or you are a hypocrite. It is the SAME THING. Reproductive Choice.
Why do people care about this kind of shit? Jesus fuck. And get all het up about it too. Want to get het up about something, maybe consider oil flares and Shell-funded genocide in Nigeria.
I guess some dumb bitch in California popping out a litter is easier to get outraged about... certainly more Jerry-Springer.
Because we the taxpayers will be paying for each and everyone of the babies for years to come.
So what? Why does that mean the doctor gets to make her life choices?
It is *not* for the doctor to make that decision for her, is what I've been saying here.
I'm not saying that I agree with this woman's choice, but I *am* saying it was HER CHOICE, not her doctor's, not her mother's not the government's.
If you think abortion is a "Pro-Choice" issue, then you have to believe this is too, or you are a hypocrite. It is the SAME THING. Reproductive Choice.
I am prochoice, and I don't see how being against this is being a hypocrite. It should not have ever been a choice, to carry that many babies. It's ludicrious. It's unnatural. And, it's setting a very dangerous precedent. I think we need to start limiting the number of kids a woman can have. Too many damn people on the planet. Overpopulation, NOT a good thing. Just wait.
I am prochoice, and I don't see how being against this is being a hypocrite. It should not have ever been a choice, to carry that many babies.
Are you truly saying you think that a woman's choice regarding her own body and reproduction should be taken away?
It's ludicrious. It's unnatural. And, it's setting a very dangerous precedent. I think we need to start limiting the number of kids a woman can have. (snip)
...Are you kidding me??
Who are you to tell ANYONE else how many children they can have?
NOfuckingBODY.
If you want something done about the world's population, I have three words for you: You go first.
OC, do you feel that no efforts should be made to reduce growth in human population?
First, overpopulation is a myth. There is plenty of arable land on the planet, it's politics and greed that keep people starving. There has been speculation on overpopulation since the late 1690s.
Source
Second, the earth is not more important than people. I'm not saying that people shouldn't responsibly maintain stewardship of the planet's resources and ecosphere, but I *am* saying that
people are more important than the earth.
That being said, Forced Reproductive Control is abhorrant!! How can anyone truly believe that every person is entitled to basic human rights and dignity ALSO believe that doesn't include the right to have children?
I honestly do NOT understand that a person can be "pro-choice" when it comes to killing babies, but when it comes to having them, NO CHOICE FOR YOU!!
How can anyone truly believe that every person is entitled to basic human rights and dignity ALSO believe that doesn't include the right to have children?
This is one very teeny tiny step away from Eugenics. Do you believe in that, too?
I guess some dumb bitch in California popping out a litter is easier to get outraged about... certainly more Jerry-Springer.
First off, I think that's a vile thing to say. A bitch popping out a litter?
My only problem with it is from a medical ethics point of view. Her choices are her choices, but a doctor who should know better chose to act in a way that risked his patient's health unnecessarily, and which has been widely condemned by his professional peers. I have a similar problem with surgeons agreeing to carry out multiple plastic surgery operations on someone with extreme body dysmorphia.
This young woman may well want a big family. Nothing wrong, or abnormal about that. But it's also possible she is locked into the baby-hood part of mothering; or is fulfilling some great need that can't really be fulfilled. When people go to extremes in their choices, it's sometimes worth asking the question is this more than just normal desire, or has it broadened out into something pathological in nature?
I don't know, but I don't get the impression that this woman was given much counselling. If I was the medical practitioner, I'd have alarm bells ringing in my ears and would want to satisfy my conscience that I was not dealing with someone vulnerable.
Looks like the state medical board is looking into it.
Without identifying the doctor, the Medical Board of California said last week it was looking into the matter to see if there was a "violation of the standard of care" for implanting so many embryos.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=cp_x020923A.xml&show_article=1&catnum=8But Tiki's right. What peaks our collective attention first is the girl with all the babies. Misfits make for much better rag-fodder than medical malpractice.
I am more concerned with the babies at this point. Medical malpractice, if there was any, is after the fact and can be taken care of through normal channels. On the other hand, who is going to care for all these kids. This afternoon they interviewed the grandmother and had film of the inside of the house from BEFORE these births and the place was an absolute mess {sorry to any of those in my house is a mess thread}, but to have to care for so many kids you really have to be organized. I can't imagine 6 and now more than 6. The mother has claimed bankruptcy, basically has no job, no income, and is supported by her mother. This case begs for someone from the state to come in and snatch these kids away. I bet that will be the end result. And yes folks, you will all be stuck with their bill, well all of you who live in California anyway.
I saw an interview with mommy on tonights news----does anyone else think she's had a nose job and DEFINITELY her lips blown up with fat? She's like a very poor man's Angelina Wanna-Be IMHO.
ETA People Mag says she collected 168,000 in disabililty payments (back injury) and then, as she was leaving a doc appointment FOR said back injury she was rear-ended and sued for worker's comp (saying accident wouldn't have happened to her if she hadn't had to have treatment for original comp injury)
She also has a degree in child psych or similar and is planning on passing herself off as a child-care specialist. Hokay.
:thepain:
I have to agree! The doctor should be questioned! I think that this woman is unstable. Who in their right mind wants 14 children? It's dangerous to the babies and who will pay for the medical attention they will/and/or do need! Oh, I guess the TV sponsors she has been interviewing. She, reportedly, she sold pictures of the babies to the highest bidder! Perhaps she saw that reality show with the sextuplets and figured that it was a good way to make money. Not far off the puppy mill scenario. I could go on and on, but I'll stop here. Shameful. :headshake
Cheers
Ladies
_______________
Yep...lips blown for sure. ;)
Paraphrase from the news: money isn't important...it's just paper. All that matters is the children.
Huh? What are you going to feed them...platitudes?
Huh? What are you going to feed them...platitudes?
I'm guessing babies?
If we feed babies babies, won't we get mad baby disease?
I'm with OC on this one. You can't force someone to abort their babies just as you can't force someone to keep them.
It doesn't mean I can't think she's made a bad decision though, but who knows. Maybe there's more corporations she can sue to support her family.
Why do people care about this kind of shit? Jesus fuck. And get all het up about it too. Want to get het up about something, maybe consider oil flares and Shell-funded genocide in Nigeria.
I guess some dumb bitch in California popping out a litter is easier to get outraged about... certainly more Jerry-Springer.
Maybe we get het up about that too. We just would discuss it in a different thread. You could start one, if it's not already under discussion :)
I am more concerned with the babies at this point.
...who is going to care for all these kids. This case begs for someone from the state to come in and snatch these kids away
That is probably in the best interest of these children. Very sad.
The mother has claimed bankruptcy, basically has no job, no income, and is supported by her mother. . I bet that will be the end result. And yes folks, you will all be stuck with their bill, well all of you who live in California anyway.
sar/ Nah, I'm sure there is some money in the stimulus plan for her. /casm
I'm with OC on this one. You can't force someone to abort their babies just as you can't force someone to keep them.
It isn't a question of aborting them, she shouldn't have had them in the first place. She cannot care for them and has no money nor job to support them. This is like an extreme example of welfare fraud.
The working taxpayers will have to support them. Can you imagine
the childcare costs? What job can she get to cover that and then pay her bills and all on top of that?
There are a lot of other women and men out there on welfare with multiple children. Maybe not as extreme as this, but never the less, they're there.
You still can't force someone not to have a child, particularly if they're already pregnant.
What happens once the child is born is up to the parent to decide on. If there are systems in place in her society which will provide for the child then lucky for her. If there aren't, then she'd better get off her arse.
I doubt tax payers are going to have to spend much on this one though. She'll be milking it with the media for all it's worth, right throughout their lives.
I vote for a court ordered tubal ligation.
Unless you're on the jury, I don't think you get a vote. ;)
Are you truly saying you think that a woman's choice regarding her own body and reproduction should be taken away?
First of all, having that many embryos implanted should not BE a choice. How is that in any way a reproductive right? In addition, the woman already had SIX KIDS. I think she needs psychological help.
...Are you kidding me??
Nope.
Who are you to tell ANYONE else how many children they can have?
NOfuckingBODY.
If you want something done about the world's population, I have three words for you: You go first.
ftr, I don't have ANY kids. I CHOSE not to have kids. Never wanted them. So OK. Me first.
When it comes to the WORLD POPULATION, and how that effects the quality of life for EVERYONE on this planet, especially in such a consumer-driven society that is fucking up the entire planet, then I have every right to voice my opinion, and in my opinion, it's selfish as HELL to want that many fucking kids. If you want that many kids, have two of your own, and then adopt some. Don't like my opinion, too bad. I'm entitled to it as much as you are entitled to yours.
First, overpopulation is a myth. There is plenty of arable land on the planet, it's politics and greed that keep people starving. There has been speculation on overpopulation since the late 1690s. Source
The fact that there is arable land has nothing to do with the fact that the earth cannot sustain the amount of people that are already here, much less billions more of them.
Second, the earth is not more important than people. I'm not saying that people shouldn't responsibly maintain stewardship of the planet's resources and ecosphere, but I *am* saying that people are more important than the earth.
Great. Without the earth there would BE no people. People are
no more important than any other thing/being/plant on the planet. The earth and the ecosystems of the earth are based on a delicate balance. PEOPLE are the only creatures on the planet to mess up that balance.
That being said, Forced Reproductive Control is abhorrant!! How can anyone truly believe that every person is entitled to basic human rights and dignity ALSO believe that doesn't include the right to have children?
Having 6 embryos implanted into your uterus is NOT a basic human right. Having 14 kids is NOT a basic human right. No one is saying people should not be able to have ANY kids. But for crying out loud, how is it a BASIC RIGHT to be able to have as many as you want?
I honestly do NOT understand that a person can be "pro-choice" when it comes to killing babies, but when it comes to having them, NO CHOICE FOR YOU!!
I do not think embryos are babies. By your logic, do you take medicine when your sick? OMG! You're killing all those bacteria and viruses! How dare you kill life! :rolleyes:
PEOPLE are the only creatures on the planet to mess up that balance.
It's not just people mate. Throughout history there have been events which have really fucked things up for the animals, as well as the people which people have had nothing to do with.
Cows too and all their "gas"
Well I was thinking about ice ages, and meteor showers etc.
Cows and their gas could be directly attributed to humans. There wouldn't be so many if not for us.
I am more concerned with the babies at this point. Medical malpractice, if there was any, is after the fact and can be taken care of through normal channels. On the other hand, who is going to care for all these kids. This afternoon they interviewed the grandmother and had film of the inside of the house from BEFORE these births and the place was an absolute mess {sorry to any of those in my house is a mess thread}, but to have to care for so many kids you really have to be organized. I can't imagine 6 and now more than 6. The mother has claimed bankruptcy, basically has no job, no income, and is supported by her mother. This case begs for someone from the state to come in and snatch these kids away. I bet that will be the end result. And yes folks, you will all be stuck with their bill, well all of you who live in California anyway.
HA! California is broke, haven't you heard? They can't give people refunds for overpaying their taxes all year (which makes a GREAT argument for claiming 6 or 7 on your W2, and owing a little bit at the end of the year, instead of waiting for a refund). The state is actually paying clients with IOUs. So, who will end up paying for these kids? Everyone will.
I vote for a court ordered tubal ligation.
Me 2.
It's not just people mate. Throughout history there have been events which have really fucked things up for the animals, as well as the people which people have had nothing to do with.
Events, yes. But not other creatures.
There are always fluctuations in the food chain.
People aren't always the reason animals go extinct.
There are always fluctuations in the food chain.
People aren't always the reason animals go extinct.
I didn't say that.
My mistake then. I thought that's what you meant when you mentioned the delicate balance of the ecosystem being upset.
It's cool. I know things go extinct all the time without human interference, but I would call that nature correcting itself. Humans still have a HUGE impact on not only animals and ecosystems, but also other resources, like the way we are strip-mining everywhere we can. It's one reason why I am against marble and granite countertops.
I'm with sugarpop on this one. I think even having five kids is way too many... or even two. When people say, "We're just replacing ourselves." I say, "Yes, but you're still here."
So how many kids should people have then HLJ? Do you think we should stop breeding all together? Or just have one? China tried that out of course, and look at the human rights issues that resulted from that.
Yes, you're right, Ali. China is running into all kinds of unanticipated issues, like an unbalanced male/female ratio (my wife thinks China will go to war just to balance this out).
I think the only answer is to let the human race just fade away and the koalas can run things for the next few thousand years.
Hmmm...koalas are pretty stupid animals you know. Almost as stupid as humans.
I think the mice will be happy to take over. ;)
So how many kids should people have then HLJ? Do you think we should stop breeding all together? Or just have one? China tried that out of course, and look at the human rights issues that resulted from that.
Yes, you're right, Ali. China is running into all kinds of unanticipated issues, like an unbalanced male/female ratio (my wife thinks China will go to war just to balance this out).
Well, I think part of that stems from the fact that China is such a patriarchal society. Women are not valued, and so girl babies are not wanted. That resulted in all kinds of human rights issues.
Hmmm...koalas are pretty stupid animals you know. Almost as stupid as humans.
I think the mice will be happy to take over. ;)
Or the cockroaches...
Okay now I'm pissed. I read this morning that our latest California whackjob gets social security for some of her 14 kids, and foodstamps. This in a state so broke, that I can't get the tax refund, that I am fairly owed, for a month, and may get an IOU from the state even then
Yes. I heard this morning she was getting over $400 in food stamps, and a few thousand for something else. THAT is why she shouldn't have been able to make that choice. Man, I am fucking PISSED OFF about this. grrrrrr. California apparently does have a much more generous program for people like her, even if they are illegal immigrants. I thought after a certain number of kids, your benefits actually went DOWN. And they should. We should not be encouraging people to have loads of kids when they have no way to take care of them. And those babies are going to need some serious care. And apparently, some of her other kids are mentally ill. Is that not a reason to stop her from having more? sheesh.
Gee really? And I thought she was getting by on her looks - NOT!
Maybe they should pass a law that if you are on welfare or state funding you cannot have any more kids or something. This doesn't seem feasible, but damn this shit is getting ridiculous.
I saw her on the tube last night. She is oblivious.
Yes, it's infuriating. I try to keep in mind that this idiot, and a few others I hear of, are anomalies and don't represent the millions of people that are doing the best they can but losing ground. I don't mine giving a helping hand to the majority.
There will always be scammers but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Well stated. In this day and age I am not thinking much past this one person at this point. The problem is there is a whole bunch of other people out there like her. Not with multipul births but scamming the system where now thousands of others could be using it as designed.
There will always be scammers but we shouldn't throw out the babies with the bath water.
Fixed!
I'm not against the idea of population control, it has been used well into prehistoric times, but the issue becomes extremely tricky. In order to have a good population control system, we first need to find a saturation population based on an average standard of living. This works similar to designing a water treatment plant. If we do not know how much water is used per capita, no design will be successful unless by pure chance. Then resource regulation has to come into play. If we are going to start focusing on population control, regulating resources must go hand in hand or else the saturation population will drop and we will resource droughts for some people.
I strongly believe that without regulating both factors, population and resources, we can never produce an effective population control method. Obviously regulation control does not mean that each person can only have so many gallons of gas per day, but a national goal has to be set and met.
After getting our resource use goal, we can then determine how many people can live under that resource goal and make actions accordingly. If the population is not threatening the stability of the community, influential campaigns will be more effective. If the population is threatening the stability of the community, harsher methods should be used. It will be completely dynamic based on the situation on hand.
I greatly prefer this because it should not go against individual rights unless we are in great crisis because we will be looking at birth rates from a national level. If one person has 14 kids and 14 other families have one less kid then the average goal, we do not have a problem on a national level.
That brings me to my opinion on this issue. An increase of 10 children is not large on a global or even national level but the questions are whether she is the norm, we have the resources to handle that increase if it is the norm, and whether she as an individual can support her children.
On the national level, our population (USA) is increasing. For every woman having 5+ children, we do not seem to have 3 families having only one or even no children. But that is a different issue.
If she can not pay for more children, then I am against handing it money to her within our current system. If you are under welfare and show no signs of coming off, no extra money should be given for having an excessive number of children (5+ being excessive). If you are financially stable with 14 kids and then hit a roadblock and need to go to welfare, that is a different story.
All in all, I don't really care. Most people don't have 14 children and the extra money given to her won't effect me but I can see how this can be a problem if this happens to often.
I guess people are mad b/c they feel she's being rewarded for mental illnesss and nutty behavior. That's my guess.
If that's why they're mad they should probably get over it. The world is full of nutjobs.
"Get Over It" - the Eagles
I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' "Don't blame me"
They point their crooked little fingers ar everybody else
Spend all their time feelin' sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your momma's too thin; your daddy's too fat
Get over it
Get over it
All this whinin' and cryin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it
You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if I gave you some cash
The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight
You don't want to work, you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing
Get over it
Get over it
If you don't want to play, then you might as well split
Get over it, Get over it
It's like going to confession every time I hear you speak
You're makin' the most of your losin' streak
Some call it sick, but I call it weak
You drag it around like a ball and chain
You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
Got your mind in the gutter, bringin' everybody down
Complain about the present and blame it on the past
I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass
Get over it
Get over it
All this bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it
Get over it
Get over it
It's gotta stop sometime, so why don't you quit
Get over it, get over it
Q: how could she afford to pay for the medical workups and implantations that led to this fiasco? Was it lawsuit income or the 'generosity' of the doctor? I haven't seen the answer anywhere, though I perhaps have missed it. Seeing red makes it hard to read, ya know. And will California build her an enormous shoe in which she and her brood may live? Just askin'! :)
Q: how could she afford to pay for the medical workups and implantations that led to this fiasco? Was it lawsuit income or the 'generosity' of the doctor? I haven't seen the answer anywhere, though I perhaps have missed it. Seeing red makes it hard to read, ya know. And will California build her an enormous shoe in which she and her brood may live? Just askin'! :)
Did you read the song lyrics, missy? :)
I'm not against the idea of population control, it has been used well into prehistoric times, but the issue becomes extremely tricky. In order to have a good population control system, we first need to find a saturation population based on an average standard of living. This works similar to designing a water treatment plant. If we do not know how much water is used per capita, no design will be successful unless by pure chance. Then resource regulation has to come into play. If we are going to start focusing on population control, regulating resources must go hand in hand or else the saturation population will drop and we will resource droughts for some people.
I strongly believe that without regulating both factors, population and resources, we can never produce an effective population control method. Obviously regulation control does not mean that each person can only have so many gallons of gas per day, but a national goal has to be set and met.
After getting our resource use goal, we can then determine how many people can live under that resource goal and make actions accordingly. If the population is not threatening the stability of the community, influential campaigns will be more effective. If the population is threatening the stability of the community, harsher methods should be used. It will be completely dynamic based on the situation on hand.
I greatly prefer this because it should not go against individual rights unless we are in great crisis because we will be looking at birth rates from a national level. If one person has 14 kids and 14 other families have one less kid then the average goal, we do not have a problem on a national level.
That brings me to my opinion on this issue. An increase of 10 children is not large on a global or even national level but the questions are whether she is the norm, we have the resources to handle that increase if it is the norm, and whether she as an individual can support her children.
On the national level, our population (USA) is increasing. For every woman having 5+ children, we do not seem to have 3 families having only one or even no children. But that is a different issue.
If she can not pay for more children, then I am against handing it money to her within our current system. If you are under welfare and show no signs of coming off, no extra money should be given for having an excessive number of children (5+ being excessive). If you are financially stable with 14 kids and then hit a roadblock and need to go to welfare, that is a different story.
All in all, I don't really care. Most people don't have 14 children and the extra money given to her won't effect me but I can see how this can be a problem if this happens to often.
In looking at population and population control, we also have to look at how much longer people are living nowadays. We keep extending life. Since people are living so much longer, that is another stress on the environoment. You can't have people living longer, and also have the population growing, especially when some people are choosing to have so many damn kids. And while it may be an anomaly to pop out 8 babies at once, there are a lot of people having more than 3 or 4 kids as well. And with fertility treatments, there are a LOT more people having 4 or 5 babies at once.
I think there is a big ethics issue here. I believe people have to look at the long term effects of their choices on the world at large, and not just think about what THEY want. There is a bigger picture here. And if people aren't willing to look at this on their own, then we have an obligation to the world community to force them to look at it.
Q: how could she afford to pay for the medical workups and implantations that led to this fiasco? Was it lawsuit income or the 'generosity' of the doctor? I haven't seen the answer anywhere, though I perhaps have missed it. Seeing red makes it hard to read, ya know. And will California build her an enormous shoe in which she and her brood may live? Just askin'! :)
Apparently, before she became disabled, she saved all her money while working as a nurse or something. She is obviously educated, but she also obviously has mental issues.
One of her other 6 kids is autistic, another one is a "little" autistic and has disabilities, and another one has some other kind of disability. She receives disability from the state for those 3 kids. So why would a responsible doctor implant her with more embryos, knowing she already had three kids that were disabled in some way? He should be investigated for that.
I think there is a big ethics issue here. I believe people have to look at the long term effects of their choices on the world at large, and not just think about what THEY want. There is a bigger picture here. And if people aren't willing to look at this on their own, then we have an obligation to the world community to force them to look at it.
Do you really think the world community is going to take this seriously? This issue is just so much about resources as it is population. Yes, the US and European countries might be doing well in keeping a slow or nonexistent population growth rate but we are completely unsustainable when it comes to resources. If more efficient methods and lifestyles were set up, it would be much easier to support our world population.
Imagine that....
Taxpayers may have to cover octuplet mom's costs
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D969LSL80&show_article=1I heard mention of plastic surgery to look more like Angelina Jolie last night during a tv interview. She flatly denied it, but there were before and after pics by the station and she also caved on her "exaggeration" of not receiving assistance, welfare.
Its really too bad that there are children involved because this woman deserves ZERO from the taxpayers.
This woman's real obsession is Jolie. She wants to look like her and have a bunch of children like jolie - only problem is she certainly doesn't have jolie's income.
Man. check the before and after photos of her on the web. I hope the doc that did this gets his license yanked.
Do you really think the world community is going to take this seriously? This issue is just so much about resources as it is population. Yes, the US and European countries might be doing well in keeping a slow or nonexistent population growth rate but we are completely unsustainable when it comes to resources. If more efficient methods and lifestyles were set up, it would be much easier to support our world population.
I think a lot of people are sufficiently upset about it to evoke some kind of change in policy for fertilization techniques. Fertility is supposed to be for people who have trouble conceiving, not for people who already have a bunch of kids.
And hey, I agree about the sustainability issue. That is my whole beef. Well, that and the fact that she can't afford the kids in the first place. Personally, the rate the world population has increased over the past 100 years, I don't believe we could sustain it no matter
what we did.
oh, and apparently she now has a websight asking people for donations to support her kids.
I can't bring myself to get too excited over this woman. People do weird and stupid things.
She's getting death threats now and the police are getting involved.
I think she has poor judgment, but she hasn't broken any laws. People need to leave her alone. It's one thing to discuss the idea of this woman on a forum, but sending her nasty e-mails and threatening phone calls is worse than what she has done.
If she makes a public appeal, she's asking for flack.
I'm ok with nasty emails, as long as they are signed and not anonymous, in response to the website seeking donations.
There are extremists in the world and they will make death threats or whatever else, but she asked for it by "begging" for donations. I can't wait to see when some *&^% celebrity gives her a lot of money. A little more fame, the daytime talk show circuit, perhaps a series about the kids and their trials.... :vomit
This type of behavior is what gives humans a bad reputation.
No she hasn't broken any laws, we cannot legislate morality or ethics. What she has done is a travesty.
I think those were the kinds of things she envisioned, classic, but what she got is quite different. Now that the backlash has really come out, I think publicity will only come in the form of ET or TMZ. She won't be getting any shows; I doubt celebs will endorse her actions. Angelina Jolie herself is probably going WTF?
This type of behavior is what gives humans a bad reputation
lol...among whom?
Dogs! Don't get me started!
High class bitches only giving it out for studs with classy parentage, having 2-8 at a time, selling them - SELLING THEM! - to the highest bidder, having tails and ears docked - completely unnecessary surgery, not bothering to work.
Dogs, pah.
Never catch a human doing that.
Looks like grandma is in danger of losing her home (where Nadya and all the kiddies live, too). She's approx. 24,000 behind on her mortgage...oh my.
I was waiting for something like this. I believe she may have had these kids, in part, as a solution to her/their financial problems. Fuckin' entitlement mentality.
I can think of a lot of easier ways to make money than to have 14 kids...
That only makes you smarter than her. No one is claiming that she is smart
I just got this in an e-mail:
In honor of the mother of the octuplets, Denny's is offering a new breakfast meal: you get fourteen eggs, no sausage, and the guy next to you has to pay the bill.
What about the bacon?
Oh I get it - none. Because no-one's bringing it home.
Well she is apparently getting a tv deal, selling the rights to pics of the kids and looking at a house in LA reportedly for about 2 MILLION. Isn't that special?
She's the worst kind of ho. :headshake
We forsake you
Gonna rape you
Let's forget you better still.
Right now, in Britain, we have a reality TV star who is trying to earn money to make sure her sons are okay.
Why?
She has terminal cancer.
She got the news when she was on Indian Big Brother (the reasons for which are too long to go into). She signed up for a series as soon as she got back to the UK, and they have followed her every step of the way. She, the tabloids, and I believed she would weather this storm as she has every other - she's a born survivor.
But no. She has months to live.
And journalists are finally coming round to treating her with respect.
Because when it's one of their own (John Diamond's cancer diaries in the Times) it's "brave". When it's someone from Big Brother it's "desperate" and "is there nothing she won't share?"
Jade Goody has admitted she is trying to bank enough to secure the future for her two sons. But also to show the process for other people in the same situation, who don't have the same media coverage. And to die as she lived - in the public eye.
Sorry, this ended up being off topic.
I have no support for the amazing clown vagina woman.
I just wanted to point out that a decent person who loves their children can have an acceptable reason for letting the media in.
Absolutely, that is a good point.
Amazing Clown Vagina Woman is a good name for a rock band.
I just wanted to point out that a decent person who loves their children can have an acceptable reason for letting the media in.
I firmly believe the ACVW's plan from the outset was to become rich and famous.
I am skeptical and agree with Bruce.
Report: Octuplets May Not Be Allowed Home
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that officials at a California hospital where octuplets were born late last month may not let the mother take the babies home unless she proves she can care for them. The information comes from talk show host "Dr. Phil" McGraw; hospital officials at Kaiser Permanente Southern California have refused to comment directly but said that, "In general, mothers with multiple births who have babies in the neonatal intensive care unit are given advice and counsel about what they need to have in place to care for the children when they are discharged."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/health/25rounds.htmlA grain of sanity in an ocean of insanity.
Here's a thought, just like people shouldn't use abortion as a form of birth control, people who can't conceive shouldn't use fertility treatments to have litters.
Here's a thought, people who never wanted children should shut the fuck up about fertility treatments, lest they accidentally offend some of the millions of great parents out there who happened to need them. Oh, and they should consider dropping all metaphors that equate babies to dogs, while they're at it.
I wasn't talking about people who used fertility treatments to have a kid, or even two kids, I was talking about cases like this woman, who already had six kids, 3 of which are disabled, before popping out 8 more, even when she couldn't afford the ones she already had. It isn't natural, and it isn't right. That's why I used the derogatory term equating it to dogs.
It is still a valid point. And the fact that I have CHOSEN not to have kids does not invalidate my opinion or the point I was making. I know a LOT of people with kids who feel the same way.
I must agree with Clod on the dog thing. I really dislike all these comparisons to dogs and litters. It's utterly dehumanising. It doesn't just speak to the case in point, it speaks to femininity and womanhood more generally.
I occasionally frequent a gaming board and it has an off-topic section. Debates about abortion routinely involve comments like "if the bitches are too stupid to keep their legs closed" or others referring to 'bitches' 'squeezing out another fucking brat'
The attitude of the young lads on that board actually shocked me. Very misogynistic, very aggressively anti-female. The most common similes and metaphors for women and childbirth relate to dogs. They almost always refer to women in those debates in animalistic terms and almost always negatively.
I think its a socialization issue, as much as people defend gaming there is a de-humanizing aspect to it. Combine that with the attitude that develops on boards where folks say anything to get a rise and you get a pretty toxic environment. I'm wondering if some these boys who may be outcasts in the real world develop a really unhealthy support system on-line. Thinking of the teens around my girls, I'm drawing some pretty unscientific conclusions but it is enough to warn them about.
It surprised me. And bear in mind, I've been bopping about the gaming boards for pretty much as long as gaming boards have existed. No word of a lie, there was a 'debate' on that board in which various young men posited their belief that females were naturally less capable of rational thought than males.
Along with other gems like "the problem with young women is they don't know how to entertain themselves" in a wider point about how to 'manage' one's relationship with a girl. That same poster was suggesting things like: "let her win the argument now and then, it'll make her feel good. There's nothing wrong with pretending she's as clever as you sometimes."
I wasn't talking about people who used fertility treatments to have a kid, or even two kids,
What about people who used fertility treatments and ended up with triplets? Or people who used fertility treatments to become pregnant with their third, or fourth consecutive child? The only relevant point is whether the parent can care for the children, not how they got them. You've made it very clear in other posts that you think having even one child is grotesquely irresponsible from a societal standpoint, so when you focus on the fact that she "can't conceive," rather than the fact that she has no money and is obviously not acting in her children's best interests, you come very close to implying that she was infertile 'for a reason' and should take the hint.
The only question of merit in going the fertility treatment route is this: Can I adequately support this child or children, financially, emotionally and physically, from conception through maturity?
The same question ought to apply to all children, regardless of method of conception. Since more than half of all children were not planned (here in the States, at least), this is impossible.
FTR, I flunk the 'emotionally support' clause; therefore I am not planning on having kids.
That same poster was suggesting things like: "let her win the argument now and then, it'll make her feel good. There's nothing wrong with pretending she's as clever as you sometimes."
This kid is starting to sound familiar...
The attitude of the young lads on that board actually shocked me. Very misogynistic, very aggressively anti-female. The most common similes and metaphors for women and childbirth relate to dogs. They almost always refer to women in those debates in animalistic terms and almost always negatively.
Gaming boards tend to bring a very specific population and with that comes rampant racism, sexism, and homopobia and where those viewpoints become dominant. I don't like throwing around stereotypes but for the most part, this group consists of very privileged teenage boys that only have observed interactions in a high school settings.
Also don't forget the fact that smart chicks tend to avoid the misogynistic jerks, leaving only the stupid chicks to hang around them... which reinforces their notion that all women are stupid.
Except Dana of course. She's not a stupid chick...
Sure, but she wasn't letting them get to know her on a personal basis, she was mostly just witnessing their horrific behavior. No one really believes anyone they meet on the internet is real. :)
I believe most of the people I meet on the internet are real. :) Even the arseholes...in fact, probably more of the arseholes. lol Some of the people who're nice all the time make me suspicious!
Also don't forget the fact that smart chicks tend to avoid the misogynistic jerks, leaving only the stupid chicks to hang around them... which reinforces their notion that all women are stupid.
I came off wrong there, I meant to add a second part and forgot.
They observe a high school setting in a very biased manner where they will ignore anything that goes against their beliefs and heavily emphasis what goes with them. For example, the girl that makes really stupid comments will somehow represent all women, the annoying "men should all die" extremists somehow represent all feminists, etc.
Your point works too.
Okay I have a tacky octo mom joke.
There's a new Denny's breakfast called the octo slam- eight eggs, no sausage, and the guy at the next table pays for it :p
What about people who used fertility treatments and ended up with triplets? Or people who used fertility treatments to become pregnant with their third, or fourth consecutive child? The only relevant point is whether the parent can care for the children, not how they got them. You've made it very clear in other posts that you think having even one child is grotesquely irresponsible from a societal standpoint, so when you focus on the fact that she "can't conceive," rather than the fact that she has no money and is obviously not acting in her children's best interests, you come very close to implying that she was infertile 'for a reason' and should take the hint.
If you already have 3 or 4 kids, and can't have more, then adopt for chissakes. Why should someone with 3 or 4 kids be taking fertility treatments to have more?
I do not think people should quit having kids, I think they should quit having so many. 2 or 3 should be enough. Again, if it's not, adopt. I don't believe the only relevant point is whether they can afford them. There is a much bigger issue, IMHO.
I'm very sorry I offended so many people with my use of the word "litter," but that is what it reminds me of. Certain animals have litters of 5 or more babies, human beings do not, or rarely do, under natural circumstances. The problem I have with all of this, is it is happening under
unnatural circumstances, and it is happening more and more. Maybe some people can't have children for a reason. Natural selection and all of that. I am all for science, but there needs to be a line somewhere, and IMHO, we crossed it quite a long time ago with regard to this particular practice.
Some people are offended by the thought of contraception.
That doesn't make their stance right...or even just.
It's a moral issue, and those sorts of things are always going to cause friction.
The problem with morals is that we've all got a different idea of what is moral, and we know that's due to many different things.
From what I've read and heard, this woman felt it was morally wrong not to give those embryo's a chance for life. While I disagree with her stance, I can understand how a person could feel that way if that was part of her moral code.
Sure, but she wasn't letting them get to know her on a personal basis, she was mostly just witnessing their horrific behavior. No one really believes anyone they meet on the internet is real. :)
What? You aren't real? :eek:
On a related topic, in TIME magazine last month there was an article on stem cell research. One of the main researchers in this field is Dr. Douglas Melton.
"When (Melton's) class discussed the morality of embryonic-stem-cell research, Melton invited Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to present arguments against the field. Melton asked Doerflinger if he considered a day-old embryo and a 6-year-old to be moral equivalents; when Doerflinger responded yes, Melton countered by asking why society accepts the freezing of embryos but not the freezing of 6-year-olds."
I thought that was BRILLIANT! You can read the article here:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1874717,00.html
And about the morality of the freezing of embryos...
"...2. Is there ever a good reason to freeze an embryo? Some who are pro-life blindly accept every aspect of in vitro fertilization (IVF). In truth, some practices in the process of IVF end the lives of babies. The IVF process involves fertilizing eggs and then implanting a specific number of those eggs. However, (1) much of the time there are a number of fertilized eggs (embryos) that are unused and are consequently discarded, and/or (2) the eggs not used are frozen. The problem with the first issue is obvious. Discarding embryos is immoral. However, the problem with the second issue is more complicated. It is true that embryos can survive freezing, but not indefinitely. So parents who have decided to go down the IVF road must have those frozen embryos implanted before they die. But even then, the survival rate when unfreezing embryos is only 50% percent. I don’t like those odds, even when faced with the prospect of not having my own children. What you are saying by freezing embryos is that your need for a child trumps the good possibility that you will inadvertently end the lives of some babies..."
http://theologyamplified.blogspot.com/2009/02/dont-freeze-anything.htmlMelton countered by asking why society accepts the freezing of embryos but not the freezing of 6-year-olds
Life can't be sustained after a 6 year old has been frozen. That's why it's immoral to freeze 6 year olds, as opposed to embryos where the ultimate goal is to create a sustainable life.
As to the lifespan of embryos, well, I guess everything has a shelf life. Even fully mature adults have shelf lives.
I'm trying to understand your point here sugar. Are you against IVF entirely or are you cherry picking the parts of it you don't like?
Nah, she's saying it's silly to co-rank embryos and 6-year-olds. One is a person; the other is a clump of cells that may (someday) become a person.
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the prolife movement when it comes to stuff like this. So many of them are against science, and talk about God's will, well, if you can't conceive, using IVF isn't God's will, it's science. And when they use science to have kids, it's a "miracle" when they have multiple births. No, it's science. Not a miracle.
Personally, I think people should adopt if they can't have children. But, since some people are so attached to the idea of having their own kids, even when there is probably a reason why they shouldn't (or they would be able to conceive), I'm not really opposed to IVF, but I believe there needs to be stricter laws about it. If you already have kids, just accept that you can't more. And there are too many instances of people having multiple births of 4 or more. Isn't there a way to control that better, so they only have 1 or 2? I'm concerned about it.
My husband and I had started considering IVF after two years of trying to get pregnant.
I already have two children.
Would it have been wrong for us to do so?
It isn't a question of right or wrong. It isn't that black and white. I don't want to judge people who would use the procedure responsibly.
Let me counter by asking you a question. Have you considered adoption? Why do feel you need to have more than 2 kids?
Because my children are from a former relationship, and my husband has no children of his own other than the bond he's formed with my two sons.
We would have considered adoption if we'd failed at IVF. Adoption is no simple thing here though. We could wait many many years for a child, and as we're both in our mid 30's we'd prefer not to wait that long.
ftr, one of my neices has two boys. She was hoping for a girl the 2nd time, but she said was going to stop after 2 no matter what it was. Now they want to try again. I asked her why they don't adopt. She said because her husband only wants to have his own children. (They are very religious.) I asked her, what if she has another boy? Would she try again? She said NO WAY. I pointed out that she said that before. She said this time she means it. So believe me, I am doing everything in my power to talk her out of it.
Maybe I am too judgemental about this issue (or, in general), but I really believe this is one of the most important issues facing us in the future. People are living longer, and having more kids. I honestly believe we are endangering the human race with population.
Yes, I think we get that bit about over population. lol
Interestingly, the birth rate in Australia has been steadily dropping for many years now, although it's on the incline over the last 3 or 4. I suspect that will plateau shortly though.
Large families are not that common over here recently. Having even 3 kids is slightly out of the ordinary.
Because my children are from a former relationship, and my husband has no children of his own other than the bond he's formed with my two sons.
We would have considered adoption if we'd failed at IVF. Adoption is no simple thing here though. We could wait many many years for a child, and as we're both in our mid 30's we'd prefer not to wait that long.
Well, you don't seem like the type of person (from what I can tell) that would abuse the process. And I understand his longing, well sort of. I'm not maternal, I never really wanted kids, but still, I understand why someone would want to have one of their own. And, the adoption process
can be a nightmare. But, what if you end up with triplets, or quads?
I just think there are a lot of ethical and moral questions that haven't been answered. As a species, we seem to jump on the bandwagon without thinking things through sometimes, like what kind of consequences will we create by doing something?
Yes, I think we get that bit about over population. lol
Interestingly, the birth rate in Australia has been steadily dropping for many years now, although it's on the incline over the last 3 or 4. I suspect that will plateau shortly though.
Large families are not that common over here recently. Having even 3 kids is slightly out of the ordinary.
Well, are Australians really religious? It seems to me that, in most cases, people who have a lot of kids are pretty religious, in a fundamentalist sort of way. Also, doesn't Australia have stricter laws about IVF? America seems to be lagging behind other countries in SO many ways...
It's a natural human desire to procreate. To create something in our own image. Most of us can't escape it.
Because we're older, even concieving naturally our chances of a multiple birth were much higher due to the fact that women start spitting out more and more eggs during each ovulation, so we'd discussed this possibility prior to even getting started on trying to concieve. If we did happen to have a multiple birth, we'd have just had more than one baby. There wouldn't have been any thought of aborting one or more, not that I'm against abortion. It's just that since we planned to have a baby, it would be an impossible choice to just get rid of one or more.
So many pregnancies are unplanned and the new parents are unprepared. These are the people we really need to look at in my opinion. In fact, both of my existing kids were unplanned but fortunately I was in (what was at the time) a stable relationship, and we did plan on having kids, just not exactly when it happened. Birth control is never 100% though, and so things happened...and I couldn't be happier with my two boys.
I just don't think you can make blanket statements about over population in connection with financially capable, emotionally stable people included in the statement.
Yes society has a problem with single parents living on welfare. There are many many orphaned children in thirdworld countries. AIDS is rampant in many countries where the birthrate continues to balloon. These are the issues we need to address IMO. Not average mr and mrs loving parents who can provide for their kids in all ways.
Well, are Australians really religious? It seems to me that, in most cases, people who have a lot of kids are pretty religious, in a fundamentalist sort of way. Also, doesn't Australia have stricter laws about IVF? America seems to be lagging behind other countries in SO many ways...
Nope, most of us these days are christmas and easter christians. IVF is available to pretty much anyone who can afford it. There are clinics all over the place. From what I can tell, there's not a lot of difference between Australia and the US in that regard. From the research I've done, most clinics will only implant up to a few eggs at a time though.
So believe me, I am doing everything in my power to talk her out of it.
Now cut that out! I need that kid to pay for my Social Security. ;)
In my country we have a demographic timebomb. An aging population and fewer children being born is going to lead to massive problems with state pensions. People like me, who are getting older and not producing the young who would theoretically look after us, are laying the foundations for much unhappiness and economic strife.
The world doesn't have an 'overpopulation' problem; it has a 'population concentration' problem. It also has an inequity problem. In agrarian societies it is necessary and desirable to have large families. If the base falls out of that agrarian society (as it has in much of the developing world), whether through drought, climate change or civil war, it takes a generation (actually a generation and a half) for a resulting change in family numbers and economic structures. Add the tumult of societal breakdown (such as in the Congo), epidemics and the largescale loss of men associated with constant warfare and the usual response mechanisms can be slowed down or disrupted massively. The size of family that up until a few decades ago was entirely appropriate for the setting, becomes inappropriate, but the response mechanism which would normally set in and change that has been subverted by social, economic and environmental breakdown.
The change in family structure will happen (is happening) but at a different rate than we might have predicted.
It's also worth considering, that as some areas become heavily populated, others depopulate.
It's much the same here Dana, which is why our previous government got onto the whole three child household idea. One for Mum, one for Dad, and one for the country. That was what has become a pretty famous quote from Peter Costello, our former deputy leader and treasurer.
I think these issues are exaserbated in countries like Australia and UK because of the age pensions which are government funded even though these days a lot of people are now self funded. There's still a huge demographic who will never have enough self funding to live on though. Ironically, these people are often the ones with larger families, so maybe it evens out anyway.
Well, I understand what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree that the world is not overpopulated. And I would say your example proves my point.
Looking at it from the other side, it is unsustainable to just keep growing the population in order to take care of the older population, because then all of those kids will need 3 people each to take care of them, and on and on. If we lived in a more equitable society/world, then there would be money enough for all the elders. Also, I firmly believe in the village mentality. (You know, Hillary Clinton's remark when she was First Lady that it takes a village to raise a child. I think it also takes a village to care for an elder.) If people weren't so self-centered and selfish and they looked out for one another, like they do in villages, we wouldn't have that problem. So rather than seeing it as a numbers thing, I see it as a human defect thing. It shouldn't only be family looking out for family, it should be the human race looking out for each other.
I didn't say the world wasn't overpopulated. I told you about a program that was put in place here by our previous government. I don't necessarily agree with it on the surface, but the reason was because of a declining birthrate in this country. Down to way less than two kids per couple.
It comes down to long term productivity. If we have industries which require a certain number of staff, and then 10 or 20 years down the track there simply aren't any people to work the jobs, then where does that leave us?
If there aren't many people to run the factory, there probably aren't many people to buy whatever the factory produces. It should balance out.
Well that would seem ok on the surface, but to compete on the world stage, our economy must grow, so we must produce more and more, not less or just the same.
If there aren't many people to run the factory, there probably aren't many people to buy whatever the factory produces. It should balance out.
Doesn't work for things like, say, nursing or food preparation. There aren't enough young people to do the labor, but plenty left who need to eat and be taken care of.
That's a temporary situation.
...There aren't enough young people to do the labor, but plenty left who need to eat and be taken care of.
Soylent Green.
Fixed.
The Japanese answer is
robotics.
But then, they'll all rise up and kill us all anyway.
[SIZE=1][COLOR=Wheat] (The robots, not the Japanese.)[/COLOR][/SIZE]
I didn't say the world wasn't overpopulated. I told you about a program that was put in place here by our previous government. I don't necessarily agree with it on the surface, but the reason was because of a declining birthrate in this country. Down to way less than two kids per couple.
It comes down to long term productivity. If we have industries which require a certain number of staff, and then 10 or 20 years down the track there simply aren't any people to work the jobs, then where does that leave us?
I was responding to both you and Dana. Dana said the world wasn't overpopulated. Sorry for the confusion.
Yes, I was just saying I believe we have flawed thinking when it comes to growth. That's all. It's just my opinion. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm right. I just think I am. ;)
Well, I understand what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree that the world is not overpopulated. And I would say your example proves my point.
There are two methods to solve this problem. Lower the population or raised the population limit. While in my opinion both methods should be used to a point, I strongly believe the emphasis should be put on raising the population limit through more efficient methods or producing food, energy, water, etc. This will not only positively effect the population problem, but in multiple other sectors as well.
If we lived in a more equitable society/world, then there would be money enough for all the elders. Also, I firmly believe in the village mentality. (You know, Hillary Clinton's remark when she was First Lady that it takes a village to raise a child. I think it also takes a village to care for an elder.) If people weren't so self-centered and selfish and they looked out for one another, like they do in villages, we wouldn't have that problem. So rather than seeing it as a numbers thing, I see it as a human defect thing. It shouldn't only be family looking out for family, it should be the human race looking out for each other.
I agree with this completely but you are talking about changing the entire culture of Western society.
Yes, well, I think western society is severely flawed. Or maybe I should say, western mentality.
There are two methods to solve this problem. Lower the population or raised the population limit. While in my opinion both methods should be used to a point, I strongly believe the emphasis should be put on raising the population limit through more efficient methods or producing food, energy, water, etc. This will not only positively effect the population problem, but in multiple other sectors as well.
I don't understand what you mean by 'raise the population limit.' Would you elaborate please? Thanks bunches. :)
The things that limit population (or rather limit a population's ability to comfortably exist) are environmental: food, space, etc. Space is flexible, look at high rise cities. Food is also a flexible variable, we can produce food at varying levels of intensity.
Thanks Dana for that explanation. But I would argue, just because we can build upwards to accomodate more people doesn't mean we should. I believe people have gotten more rude, less attentive to their surroundings, more hostile, less tolerant, and those characterisitics, when living in close quarters with millions of people, are not good combinations. You know, if our humanity wasn't slipping away, and people were concerned with one another, and greed wasn't so rampant, and we actually DID create a world that was able to accomodate everyone comfortably, then I wouldn't be so opposed to having such a high population. But things aren't like that. There is so much poverty and misery in the world, and the world is becoming so toxic, it is getting unbearable.
Sugar you could rework that post and change a couple of words and you'd have something that could have been written in the late 19th century. The same anxieties, the same cultural pessimism.
Our humanity isn't slipping away. We are our humanity, our humanity is us. There has not been some golden age when all was fair and people cared. People care and people do not care. The world is fair and it is unfair. This is how it has always been. We play politics to try and change things and we have changed things. We continue to change things. BUt at the same time things stay very much the same. The actors change, the technology alters. But there will always be Romes andthere will always be Carthages
Sugar you could rework that post and change a couple of words and you'd have something that could have been written in the late 19th century. The same anxieties, the same cultural pessimism.
And in the 18th century and the 17th century and the 16th century... ad infinitum.
Less people or more people, you either look after eachother or you don't. Some American Dwellars have previously decried our society as fascist or socialist because of the amount of money people have to contribute when they are working. But through tax and National Insurance, we do look after our own. My Grandad (80s, with Parkinsons) gets a lot of help. But Mum is there checking on him, making sure he gets everything he needs, shopping, cleaning, doing his washing etc. Even in this society I worry that he would be in a bad position if it wasn't for Mum (except that my Dad, my sister and I would step up to to the mark).
I doubt many Western societies have it exactly right. The Indian sub-continent seem to, as does traditional China and Japan - less so as they ape Western "ideals".
Look after your old people. Look after your family. Don't fuck about without contraception unless you can afford to support children.
It'll swing around again.
Sugar you could rework that post and change a couple of words and you'd have something that could have been written in the late 19th century. The same anxieties, the same cultural pessimism.
Our humanity isn't slipping away. We are our humanity, our humanity is us. There has not been some golden age when all was fair and people cared. People care and people do not care. The world is fair and it is unfair. This is how it has always been. We play politics to try and change things and we have changed things. We continue to change things. BUt at the same time things stay very much the same. The actors change, the technology alters. But there will always be Romes andthere will always be Carthages
Whatever. It doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to create a BETTER existance for everyone. Especially because we have the capability to do that.
I am just expressing my opinions. Obviously they differ from yours. I suppose it is my nature to think on a global scale. If you saw my astrological chart, you might understand.
I suppose it is my nature to think on a global scale. If you saw my astrological chart, you might understand.
Understand what? That you believe in totally unbelievable things?
Yeah - give me a croissant instead.
[youtube]dlMiKrwCRQ0[/youtube]
*chuckles* I'm sorry, do you think that I don't see things on a global scale?
I also didn't suggest that we cease striving for a better society. Nor indeed should we cease striving for change if we believe change is necessary or desirable. I am merely pointing out that what might seem like a descent from a better state into a worse one, may not in fact be anythng of the kind. The world we live in is better and worse than the world our great grandparents lived in.
I find your pessimism hard to get to grips with. You seem a very kind and understanding person, yet you appear to have a very dim view of human beings.
I don't understand what you mean by 'raise the population limit.' Would you elaborate please? Thanks bunches. :)
The population limit is dependent on many factors. Back when humans lived in hunter gatherer societies the population limit was very low, a few square miles could only support a small population but now, with better organization, food production, etc we can support a higher population. We make many changes to raise the population limit with more efficient food, energy, and water extraction and other methods in those senses.
The population limit is dependent on many factors. Back when humans lived in hunter gatherer societies the population limit was very low, a few square miles could only support a small population but now, with better organization, food production, etc we can support a higher population. We make many changes to raise the population limit with more efficient food, energy, and water extraction and other methods in those senses.
I think the population really started growing at a very fast rate once we learned how to extract energy from the earth. That was the real turning point.
Nothing personal, but you didn't repond to the points raised by the clip I posted.
Dawkins claims astrology is "fascile discrimination, dividing humanity up into exclusive groups based on no evidence." And I believe him.
And after all, NO newspaper in Britain (can't say for the States) devotes the same column inches to any established religion as it does to astrology. Shocking! Esp when astrology has been proved/ disproved/ proved by the appearance and disappearance of planets. And the shifting science of the universe as we know it. What a load of old tosh.
Like Phrenology. Except we should know better by now.
You mean when we became industrialized?
*chuckles* I'm sorry, do you think that I don't see things on a global scale?
I also didn't suggest that we cease striving for a better society. Nor indeed should we cease striving for change if we believe change is necessary or desirable. I am merely pointing out that what might seem like a descent from a better state into a worse one, may not in fact be anythng of the kind. The world we live in is better and worse than the world our great grandparents lived in.
I find your pessimism hard to get to grips with. You seem a very kind and understanding person, yet you appear to have a very dim view of human beings.
yea, I find my pessimism hard to deal with myself sometimes. If you debated some of the people I have been debating for the past 7 years on forums, you might understand why I have such a dim view of humans. :D Seriously though, I just react to what I see and hear. And the world economy is crashing right now because of the greed of men. How can you not be pessimistic when something like that happens? I am not that way about everything, but there are certain topics where I cannot contain my pessimism with regard to the human race and what we do - overpopultion, pollution, greed and excess, cruelty, and a few others.
You said what I had written could have been from the late 19th century. The difference is, in the late 19th century, we weren't creating all the waste and pollution we create now. It is simply not sustainable. And, not only that, it also has to do with quality of life. Check out this site. There is a short video there. It's very interesting.
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
Thomas Friedman has a great take on it.
"...Let’s today step out of the normal boundaries of analysis of our economic crisis and ask a radical question: What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: “No more.”
We have created a system for growth that depended on our building more and more stores to sell more and more stuff made in more and more factories in China, powered by more and more coal that would cause more and more climate change but earn China more and more dollars to buy more and more U.S. T-bills so America would have more and more money to build more and more stores and sell more and more stuff that would employ more and more Chinese ...
We can’t do this anymore...
Read the full editorial here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/opinion/08friedman.html?em
http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/hot-flat-and-crowded
"In the 20th century, world population grew from about 1.5 billion to 6 billion at the end of the century. Over the last 50 years the rate of growth in population has not been matched before in human history...
...At some point the increasing population of the planet will be utilizing so many resources that the degradation of these resources will decrease the planets ability to sustain life. It can be seen by the studies on bio-diversity that this point is approaching. If the solutions are not peaceful then the wars that will be fought over the remaining resources will only deplete those remaining resources even further." http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sustainability-peace/challenges-sustainability/overpopulation.php
Oh, and what I meant by thinking on a global scale, it isn't what most people when they talk about that. I don't really feel like going into it right now, but I didn't mean to be insulting to you. sorry if it felt that way to you. (Do you know anything about astrology? Not like what you read in the paper, but the deeper levels to it.)
Nothing personal, but you didn't repond to the points raised by the clip I posted.
Dawkins claims astrology is "fascile discrimination, dividing humanity up into exclusive groups based on no evidence." And I believe him.
And after all, NO newspaper in Britain (can't say for the States) devotes the same column inches to any established religion as it does to astrology. Shocking! Esp when astrology has been proved/ disproved/ proved by the appearance and disappearance of planets. And the shifting science of the universe as we know it. What a load of old tosh.
Like Phrenology. Except we should know better by now.
I didn't listen to it yet because I was thinking about my response to Dana. And I am very well aware that most people don't believe in astrology. Pop astrology is different though than astrology. If you go deeper into it, it can give you a lot of insight. It is a very deep subject. It has nothing to do with what your sun sign is. It is tool, that's all.
I don't know what you mean the appearance/disappearance of planets. What planets have disappeared?
You mean when we became industrialized?
yes.
To be fair to Dana, you'll find she's very much a realist and quite a deep thinker. I'm pretty sure you'll find she's had to deal with her fair share of internet loopies too.
I think the difference you'll find is that Dana holds out hope where you don't sugar.
My thinking is a lot like Dana's in this regard. I also don't think this crash is the end of the world. In fact, I'm positive it's not. I think it's a good thing really. We all just have to tough it out for the next few years. I believe the reason so may people find that concept so frightening is because they've never had to do it tough before.
Time to harden up people. Knuckle under and make the most of what you've got. Your life, like mine, wont end even if you do lose everything. It'll just be different.
Oh I don't think the crash is the end of the world. In fact, I'm hoping that real change comes out of it. (see, I can hope too. :D)
Well there you go. Good job. ;)
Pop astrology is different though than astrology. If you go deeper into it, it can give you a lot of insight. It is a very deep subject.
BS is BS, no matter how deep it is piled.
No astrologer, pop or not, has passed a double-blind study. Such an experiment would have a group of people give [through an anonymous method] the times and dates of their births to the astologer, have the astrologer write the horoscopes, and then have each person pick the one that is most applicable to their life. If the matchups are better than that which would be expected by chance, that would be a strong data point in favor of astrology.
It's never happened, though.
Astrology is like the bible. You either believe it or you don't...or you cherry pick the bits you like. lol
You have to cherry pick the bits you like in order to believe it.
Whatever. I am not going to get into some big debate with people who think astrology is bunk. Fine. I accept that. I probably believe a lot of things you would think BS. That does not mean that I am necessarily wrong though, or that you are necessarily right.
Don't hurt yourself Dana. :p