*****The octomom/sept-o-mom double standard******

[Nikki Stone1]

I have refrained from remarking on the case of Nadya Suleman, the recent mother of octuplets, but watching this whole thing play out in the media, I am stunned at the double standards playing out between the single Suleman and the married Bobbi McCaughey who gave birth to septuplets in 1997.

Here are the similarities in the two cases:

Both Suleman and McCaughey underwent fertility treatments, resulting in an abnormally large number of offspring.

Both Suleman and McCaughey were young: Suleman was 33, McCaughey was 29

Both Suleman and McCaughey expressed the desire not to have "selective reduction" done: a pro-life position. This resulted in all of the embryos being carried to term in high risk pregnancies. Both express strong religious convictions when it comes to children and abortion.

Both Suleman and McCaughey were low income: Suleman had been a psychiatric technician and then was on disability; McCaughey was a seamstress. (McCaughey's husband was a billing clerk at a car dealership.)

Both Suleman and McCaughey had children previous to the multiples: Suleman had 6 children at home; the McCaugheys had a daughter. These previous children in both women's cases were the result of fertility science.

Both Suleman and McCaughey are at home with their children.

Both Suleman and McCaughey needed many, many donations to support a number of children that was largely their choice to have.




Here are differences:

McCaughey is married, Suleman is single.

McCaughey received a call from President Clinton congratulating her; Suleman has received death threats;.

McCaughey received favorable interviews from the mainstream news media; Suleman has become fodder for TMZ and pornography offers.

McCaughey was donated a 5,500 square foot house for her family to live in and was not criticized for needing this donation; Suleman had a hard time getting donations and is buying a 2,583-square-foot house on her own, presumably from television interview proceeds.

McCaughey moved into their new home without incident; Suleman has been criticized for the home's size (too small) and for its lack of child protective features (which are being attended to thanks only to Dr. Phil, a media hog himself.)

McCaughey received a great deal of help from her Baptist church; Suleman's church, Calvary Chapel Golden Springs, publicly stated that they were not helping her and that, because their church was not "membership driven", they couldn't confirm or deny whether or not she was even a member.

McCaughey's multiple-birth resulted in two children with special needs: two of the septuplets have cerebral palsy; Suleman reportedly has one previous child with autism, but the octuplets themselves seem healthy.

McCaughey's husband made extra money from speaking engagements related to the octuplets; Suleman's retired father is on his way back to his native Iraq to be a translator to help support the children. (No one has asked him to speak thus far.)

McCaughey's father was "one of the proudest grandfathers in this country at this moment"; Suleman's mother publicly chastised her daughter.

McCaughey's family income (earned by the father) as of 2002* was $20,000 a year; Suleman's income is undisclosed at this time, although she is making some money from interviews and being criticized for it.


McCaughey has received a free 12-passenger van, a free custom-built house, free furniture and electronics, free diapers, free juice, groceries, milk, shoes and clothes. For five years, the Carter’s company provided clothes for all the septuplets; Suleman has had a difficult time getting donations, and any she gets are criticized in the media and on talk radio.

McCaughey was respected in the media, and no one ever suggested taking the children from her; Suleman has been derided by the media, who have christened her "octomom" and has been threatened with the loss of her children (by Gloria Alred no less!), with her every move scrutinized to see if she can be proved unfit.

McCaughey never had cosmetic work done, although her teeth were bad enough that they had to be retouched on the Newsweek cover**; Suleman is widely thought to have had some plastic surgery (a possible nose job and lip fill) but she denies it. (Note: there may be a cultural difference here: McCaughey was from a small town in Iowa; Suleman grew up in the LA area, where plastic surgery is given to teenage girls as a graduation present.) So far, plastic surgery, or the lack of it, has never been associated with bad mothering.

*http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080098/

**http://www.cjonline.com/stories/112697/new_retouch.html

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCaughey_septuplets
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1997/11/20/1997-11-20_meet_7_little_mccaugheys_sep.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/03/12/octuplet.house/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Octo-Who-Church-Not-Helping-Suleman.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadya_Suleman

I put this list together because I want people to see two things:

1. BOTH the McCaughey and Suleman families have needed and will continue to need much help and financial assistance. And BOTH families will need government help and assistance. The McCaugheys have two severely disabled children that will need lifelong care, and much of this will come from the state. All of these children will be eligible (based on financial need) for PELL grants, financial aid and many other government programs.

2. The difference between the two multiple births is largely the presence of a "traditional" family where the father is married to the mother, even if he is barely making a living. It is as if that traditional family (the presence of the married male) acts as a shield to criticism. Once that shield is gone, the mother is open to all kinds of criticism. the married McCaughey was treated as a mother, respected, and her choice to use fertility treatment and give birth to so many children was left largely unquestioned. The unmarried Suleman has been treated like a whore, or, as one female talk radio host called her on KFI, "a skank." The interesting thing is that Suleman hasn't had sex or dated in a very long time, so the term "skank" seems odd in this case. (This particular female talk radio host was pregnant and just delivered her own baby daughter yesterday.)



For the record:

1. I am not against fertility treatments

2. I believe if you are "pro-life" and cannot morally abide a "selective reduction" that you should not use fertility treatments with the risk of large multiple births. (A friend of mine who is profoundly religious made just this decision and decided to adopt instead. I respect her and her husband far more than I respect either McCaughey or Suleman.)

3. All large multiple births are going to require public support and many donations. We are no longer an agrarian society where 7 or 8 children can be kept busy on the family farm.

4. All large multiple births require support, and you either support them in principle or you don't. I believe it is an artificial and hypocritical distinction to decide that a multiple birth from fertility treatments is somehow OK for a married woman but not OK for a single one. Unless the woman is a millionaire or is married to one, she is going to need lots of financial (and other) help. If you gave help and support to the McCaugheys, you should also be giving help to Suleman.

[Nikki Stone1]

1. Thanks for the recommends.

Any comments?

[Lasher]

2. I didn't approve of either of these.

There's too many people in the world and it's selfish to do such a thing. But you're right about the difference in overall public sentiment and the main reason for it.

[pnwmom]

3. Suleman already had 6 children, the other mother, only 1. That's the difference.

The other couple has 8, after two pregnancies. They were only aiming for 2 children, not 7.

Suleman, a single mother, is now responsible for 14 children, after 7 pregnancies.

Suleman didn't have the ability to take care of the 6 children she ALREADY had, much less another one, much less 8 more! And it is much too early to know whether any of the octuplets will, like two of her older children, have special needs.

This isn't discrimination against a single mother. There would have been plenty of criticism of the other family, too, if they had started out with 6 kids that they couldn't afford -- then added another 7 or 8.

[Quantess]

4. What? Suleman has 14 children, ALL from IVF treatments!

Triplets are notorious for having birth defects. Yet, octuplets, eight babies born on the same day are somehow cool because... they were born in L.A.?

[pnwmom]

7. What did I say that was incorrect? Did you read my post?

She already had 6 other children, when she decided to go for a 7th pregnancy, and ended up with 14.

[vaberella]

261. What are you talking about? You definitely didn't read pnwmom's post at all. n/t

[NoSheep]

178. That was a big difference I noticed as well. But I don't completely disagree with the OP.

As an unmarried woman of 45, I frequestly feel this double standard.

[SoCalDem]

5. McCaughey septuplets were a novelty back then

and people had not yet "tired" of the litter-experience of childbirth.

Times are different now.. and small-town bible belt USA is not LA-metro.
Mrs. Mccaughey also did not have a "movie-star" fixation, augmented with plastic surgery, while on food stamps.

Good luck to all these mega-moms & their kidlets..they sure will have a very long time to think it all over..

No one should "expect" goodies to fall from the sky, because they made a selfish decison to procreate, when "God said NO"..and then to deliberately invite the possibility of impaired infants , due to the excessive numbers..

If people want to donate, great.. but I wish they would all just quit hinting and advertising for help..

[Journeyman]

6. Is it possible the difference in public attitude can be attributed to the economic clime. . .

in which each set of children was born? In 1997, the country was flush with cash, so the "burden" of those children was not felt so keenly. In 2008, hard times had descended on the land and people resented one person placing such an inordinate burden on the public largesse.

Might this have had as much an influence on public attitudes as the reasons you've enunciated?

[pnwmom]

8. I think the major difference was that the other family only had one child

when they decided to try for another.

Suleman already had 6 kids, including two with special needs, when she decided to try again.

[havocmom]

82. BINGO! But they aren't dealing with that one fact, are they?

Selective hearing/selective reading.... not just for the right anymore. :shurg:

[Pithlet]

164. I've actually delt with that in several of my posts. n/t

[Pithlet]

9. Possibly.

But I knew the second I heard she was single, before all the other BS came out through the tabloid coverage, that shit was going to hit the fan. That the same charity she would need that all parents of multiples who aren't wealthy would need would be begrudged by a large share of the public in a way that other parents of large multiples wouldn't. And I don't think it has all that to do with the economy. The blubbering "What about muh tax dollars!" mentality has always been around regardless of economy, and so has the need for a juicy judgmental tabloid story.

And those who will (and already have) pointed out her other kids are missing a couple of points. The first is whether she had kids or not she was going to need lots of financial help. Unless a person or couple is very wealthy they're going to need it. The second is that such a large order of multiples wasn't the intent and in fact odds were against it. There's only one other case of it ever occurring in the US. It was a freak accident, basically. She's being judged for a freak unintentional outcome. Plenty of people seek out fertility treatment who aren't rich, married and childfree. They just have the odds in their favor and aren't flung to the wolves when they're the unlucky one that hits the huge baby mega lottery. The odds were so against it happening that no reasonable person can claim that she should have known it would happen. The odds were in her favor that only one baby would happen. She was just incredibly unlucky.

[Realityhack]

84. What do you think the reaction would be here if...

we learned that someone with 6 small children at least one with special needs who could not care for them as is chose to get IVF and had just one child from it?

Sure odds are against hearing about it but what do you think the reaction would be? I for one would think it just as irresponsible. I would still wonder if CPS should look into the situation. I would still question the doctors ethics.

Furthermore there are legitimate questions about the 'freak unintentional outcome' as it appears she *might* have been aiming for a multiple birth (obviously not one that large but still multiple). That compounds the questions about ethics and makes people more upset about her poor choices.

You said quote:
"Plenty of people seek out fertility treatment who aren't rich, married and childfree."
How many have 6 small children including special needs and are unable to support their existing children?

IMO it isn't about:
Single Mom
Existing child
Not rich

It is about:
Unable to support existing children
Adds more through artificial means

[Pithlet]

166. It would depend on the context of the story.

If it were to hold her up for shame and ridicule by some right wing rag, I'd be willing to bet it would illicit a defense response. If it were just some sort of lifestyle article, there may be a few reasoned responses like yours. But nothing like the outrage we've been seeing.

[Realityhack]

173. ok.

I think we agree more than disagree. I have probably just seen less of the extreme vitriol as I haven't read many of the threads here on the subject. So my reaction to the OP is that I think it left out some key bits.
I know from many other subjects that even on DU reasoned responses are sometimes hard to come by.

[pnwmom]

225. I agree, totally. n/t

[pnwmom]

224. I don't care about the money. Eight more kids is a drop in the state of

California's budget.

But I think she was wrong to try to have a 7th child, when she was a single mother barely coping with the 6 she had. And I'd have thought the same if it was two parents barely coping. Forget the issue of costs -- it's not fair to the KIDS. Anyone trying to take care of six young children, including two special needs, is already way overextended. And those grandparents are fed up with enabling her narcissistic need to reproduce herself.

[dustbunnie]

10. Economic times have changed and people are no longer wowed by the technology -

which produces these ridiculously large broods.

One woman had one child. The other already had 6, one a special care child, living in relative squalor. The McCaughey woman went from having employment to becoming a stay-at-home mom, presumably in good health and able to take care of her new brood. The other was on disability, already living off the people in bad economic times, when she selfishly decided she wanted MORE.

The whole marriage business is so unimportant I'm surprised anyone would even pick up on that angle. But since it's put out there, yes, I would say the McCaugheys were at least a two person team, whereas the Suleman woman put undue strain on her elderly parents who probably want nothing more at their age, than some peace and quiet. She dumped 6 children on them, then another batch on top of it in one fell swoop. Again, the selfishness and greed is astounding.

There's plenty more on the list - but the "traditional" marriage aspect, isn't one. Nobody gives a crap about that.

[tekisui]

11. It took our culture 12 years to get to the correct position?

Neither one should be considered a hero, a miracle or a positive position.

[Pithlet]

13. But do you honestly think that's what's happening?

Do you think that people are retroactively going back and judging all parents of high order multiples and equating them with "octomom"? I don't. I agree, they aren't a positive outcome, and not something to be celebrated. But unless one was already against fertility treatments that lead to multiple births to begin with I don't think they should be something to be judged, either. It's such a freak occurrence. Of the millions of times these procedures have done, they're the very, very small handful of times it went wrong. In no case was it because it was what the parent(s) wanted. People can judge and say "She had no business having more kids!" Well, how many millions of people in this country have ever made a decision to have a kid when it is really unwise? There are probably hundreds upon hundreds of Octomoms in this country right now. Yes, many of them even use fertility treatments. It's probably the number one lament of the typical clucking judgmental type everyone knows. So why is she such a huge story? Because she became one of those freak unlucky ones. Large multiple births aren't a positive outcome in any case, IMO.

[MiniMe]

12. The McCaugheys conceived through fertility drugs, not IVF

That is a big difference to me. I think a lot of the anger here is at the doctor for implanting so many embryos. The McCaugheys ended up with 8 chidren total, they started with only 1. Suleman had 6 children already and ended up with 14 children. The McCaugheys were supporting themselves and had a place to live before the birth, Suleman was living with her parents and had been on disability, unemployment, and food stamps. The McCaugheys are deeply religious which led to their decision not to have selective reduction. Suleman is a bit crazy. The McCaugheys had a large support group with the church, Suleman had only her parents.

[Pithlet]

14. The anger at the doctor is justified.

From what I understand it violated guidelines to implant that many embryos. Although fertility drugs can also carry the risk of multiple births. And even with IVF, the odds of an octuplet pregnancy and birth were still astronomical. Remember, only one other instance of it happening in the US. Ever. ETA some of your points are also subjective judgment. They made the decision not to selectively reduce because they're religious. She's just crazy. Oh, is that why? And that changes the outcome how exactly? Babies born because their parents didn't want to selectively reduce for religious reasons require less somehow?

[MiniMe]

19. Yes, that part is subjective

However, having listened to some of Suleman's statements, I stand by the statement. I also think that the McCaugheys had no intentions of living off the public and expecting somebody to sponsor them. Suleman did. But that support system is an important one, and one that Suleman didn't have. And expecting all of the help from your parents is just not right. I also don't think that you should be having another child when you already have 6 and are not employed is not right either, but that is my opinion.

[Pithlet]

21. I seriously doubt theMcCaughey's thought

they were going to do it all on their own with no help And if they did, they were utter fools on a level that deserves any scorn anyone's been throwing at Octomom. But I don't agree. They knew they needed the help, and I think they were grateful for it.

And your opinion is certainly valid. My point in this thread is she's no different than who knows how many others like her in this country. So I don't get the vitriol aimed at her, especially on this board, as if she'd planned on a freak occurrence that has happened to only one other couple in this country. And none of those other factors matter at all, including the ones you mention, when it comes to what kind of assistance she should be getting. Those babies are no different than the McCaughey's.

[rolltideroll]

27. The doctor should have his license pulled

I honestly think impregnating a single mother 0f 6 with 8 children violates the Hippocratic oath. It is certainly harmful to children born into such an environment, and equally harmful to the mental state of this woman, who through the birth of children and the resulting attention, only has her mental disorder reinforced.

[Pithlet]

31. I don't think how many children the person already has is relevant medically, but otherwise I agree.

For the health of the mother and the babies, to risk a high order birth by implanting that many embryos is irresponsible. Even triples and quads can be dangerous.

[uppityperson]

212. I honestly think impregnating a woman with 8 children violates the Hippocratic oath

I copy/pasted and deleted some from your statement to make it more accurately depict my opinion. Even impregnating with 6 violated the Hippocratic oath.

[dkf]

15. Good points.

I didn't realize fertility drugs could lead to that many embryos. That is kind of scary! At least with the IVF, you can control the number you implant.

[blueraven95]

26. how do you know Suleman's crazy?

for that matter how do you know McCaughey's not?

All we know is what has been reported in the press - and the press has been largely negative and reactionary to Suleman.

[saltpoint]

50. The press, god knows, is not a pack of angels, but NS has been

diagnosed with Axis I mental disorders.

[Nikki Stone1]

209. The disorders came from a patient riot at the state psychiatric facility where she WORKED

That's why she ended up in severe back pain with PTSD and depression. That's why she ended up on public assistance. Since when do we criticize people for sustaining occupational injuries?

Bobbi McCaughey had no such tragedy in her background.

[saltpoint]

233. Don't make the case FOR McCaughey if you oppose her on grounds of

"special treatment."

Suleman's diagnoses are genuine. Protective services will determine whether someone with those diagnoses, in addition to many other signiicant factors (employment / employment prospects, etc. / round-the-clock care of 14 young children / health care care-givers for the same 14 young children / etc.) should be a parent.

I would not think the care of one child should be lightly undertaken, nevermind 14. All of us are either parents or children, many are both. In any case we are somewhere in the continuum of one form of family or another, and among the inarguable imperatives for kids is that they must be cared for, fed, dressed, diaper-changed, held, cared for, loved, comforted when ill, treated when doctors are involved, and so on.

The argument that Nadya Suleman is being dumped on because she's single is utter bullshit.

[Medusa]

194. If she's not crazy she's doing an awfully good

impersonation of someone who is.

[Nikki Stone1]

118. The McCaugheys abused the fertility process and had sex at a dangerous point

From colinmom71 below:

"The McCaugheys sought fertility treatments because the mom had medical issues that required treatment in order to biologically conceive.....But, what is not well known (and what they've tried to clean up after the fact), is that the drugs had caused hyper-stimulation and showed on ultrasound examination too many follicles to wisely continue treatment. They were told by the doctor to "scrub" that cycle and to come back next cycle in order to insure fewer follicles that could potentially fertilize and implant. They chose instead to go home and have sex, knowing the risks. And 7 pre-term babies were the result. (BTW, this info was released in the early days of the McCaughey septuplet birth by the doctors in a press conference. The McCaugheys however will not address or provide info on how the babies were conceived, only that fertility treatments were needed in the same manner their first child was conceived. And via medical privacy laws, the doctors can no longer comment on the issue beyond the initial clearance they had for the original press conferences.)"

[MiniMe]

176. Interesting, I did not know that

And I agree that carrying that many babies is a great risk to the mother and babies. The McCaugheys are certainly not blameless in their adventure, especially in light of this. But at least in their case, the doctors warned them. The doctors in the Suleman case acted irresponsibly imho.

[uppityperson]

214. 1 had IVF, 1 had fertility treatments to stimulate ovulation?

That is another difference, if the McCaughey's got pregnant that way. One was actively transferring 6-8 embryos, other was stimulating and advising them to not have sex? Thank you for this info, finding it all interesting.

Seems 1 was doctor acting unethically, other was parent's actions against doctor's advice.

[Ilsa]

237. The doctor should have warned the McCaugheys not to try to conceive

in her current cycle. He or she should have checked for the number of follicles that had matured and were about to be released and fertilized.

I'm not excited about anyone having super-large families when the planet is undergoing changes which indicate it is too crowded already.

[cali]

16. wow. that's a real stretch.

the differences between the two are not merely superficial or that Suleman is single. That Suleman had 6 children, two with special needs, that she has indeed been offered significant help, that her behavior has been inappropriate, that she had IVF, etc, etc, are all significant.

[Kahuna]

17. Oh yeah. These cases are just alike...NOT! You have missed the main

reasons why people are disturbed by the Suleman case. She had SIX SMALL children under the age of Seven, for a total of 14 kids, not 8. You may not believe it but six more kids (all infants) entail substantially more care for the parents. Two, Suleman is a single parent. You may not think that makes a difference but a father would be another set of hands to help care for the brood. Finally, Suleman has NO JOB AT ALL. So how was she planning to support these kids?

[Pithlet]

18. And none of that would matter one whit

if this freak octuplet thing hadn't have happened to her. You never would have even heard about this woman. She is but one of many hundreds, if not thousands, of families just like her in this country. If these same babies had been born to a middle class married couple, they'd still need lots and lots of financial help. So I don't get it. I don't get the vitriol and the need to tear her down. Yeah, maybe she shouldn't have had the fertility treatments. Not arguing that. But she did. That makes her equal to thousands of other people in this country who have made similar unwise choices in this country. The same ones we don't tear down and insist we rip apart, because we don't want to be like the right wingers in this country.

She is just like a lot of the people who are helped by programs many of us on this board support. I don't get it. I truly don't. Because this freak accident happened to her that thrust her in the limelight, suddenly she's different somehow? Well, no. She isn't. Just because the media has made her into a tabloid circus freak show means the rest of you have to buy it? Come on! I've made a post or two but have kept my mouth shut for the most part, but I've really been disgusted by it. I really would have thought DU would have been better on this story than the average place on the internet.

[Kahuna]

22. Can you name just ONE more family "just like hers?" Another family with 8 newborns..

six prior kids, and no father???? Name one, because I don't believe it.

[Pithlet]

23. No. I can't. You know why?

Because there's only been one other known case of octouplets in this county ever. That's why

But can I name other families of multiple kids headed by one unemployed parent? Are you kidding???


Look. Here's the deal. Any family that isn't insanely rich getting hit by a multiple birth higher than say triplets is going to very likely be hit very hard financially, and as far as time and resources etc. Any family who isn't a multi millionaire getting hit by octuplets? Utterly ruined. So, it didn't matter if this family had been pulling 100,000 grand a year and had no kids. If this had happened to them? They would have needed lots of financial help and resources donated to them. Any family would have, unless they were very very wealthy. So, this is why I don't get the hate. I'll lay out why I don't get it in simple terms:

Family A: Affluent, who absolutely couldn't afford octuplets in the news. Response. Awwwwwww! Let's help them!
Family B Poor, headed by single mom, who absolutely couldn't afford octuplets in the news. Response. Boooooo! We shouldn't have to help them! Hound her endlessly by the tabloids! Take those babies away!

Neither could afford them. Neither had enough resources. Because very few do. If we're going to be judging people as to whether or not they should get fertility treatments based on whether they can afford octuplets, well, then NO ONE should be getting fertility treatments. We don't because the odds against octouplets are so slim as to be ridiculous. When we get to the level of octuplets, we are so beyond "Should they have gotten fertility treatments?" Because at that level it doesn't really matter. It would have ruined just about anyone. They happen so infrequently (there's a grand total of 2 cases) that we help them. This stupid media circus and griping about helping, and faulting her for asking for help is ridiculous.

[Realityhack]

76. I think you are missing something.

"
Family A: Affluent, who absolutely couldn't afford octuplets in the news. Response. Awwwwwww! Let's help them!
Family B Poor, headed by single mom, who absolutely couldn't afford octuplets in the news. Response. Boooooo! We shouldn't have to help them! Hound her endlessly by the tabloids! Take those babies away!
"

Let's frame it a little differently and see if we find a difference that might explain the reaction.

Family A: Affluent, tries to have a child they can easily afford, ends up with octuplets. Awwww... let's help them.
Family B: Not jut poor but $0 income. 6 existing young children (reportedly at least one with special needs). Unable to care for existing children, tries to have another child. Ends up with octuplets. Response. Booo! Take those babies away etc. etc.


I would argue that in case B the response would be the same even if she had ended up with only a single birth IF we knew about the case. Certainly the octuplet issue brings the story to our attention, but there is a huge difference between:

C: Affluent family has second child through artificial means
D: No income family has 7th child (one or more with special needs) through artificial means

Certainly a case could be made in case D that the action was horrifically irresponsible and would almost certainly result in child neglect. That the parent might have mental issues and that child services might need to see how she planned on caring for those children.
No such case can be made for situation C.

That is a substantial difference.

[Pithlet]

101. No, there isn't.

In either case, octuplets couldn't be afforded. There is no difference. It didn't matter how much either family could have afforded the single baby. It is irrelevant. At any rate, I don't particularly care. Because I don't belong to the "Only the affluent should have babies" brigade. I would never have been born myself had my parents ascribed to that philosophy. No thanks.

At any rate, she did use artificial means. She found the means to acquire that technology somehow. However she did it, she had the means at the time to acquire it. She was no less entitled to it than any one else.

[Realityhack]

120. I disagree.

I disagree with the choice in both cases to bring so many children to term. But there are other ethical issues involved there.
We can say however that assuming both set out to have one child there IS a distinct difference between them.

You are also slandering me with an attempt to create a straw man of not thinking those who are not affluent should not be allowed to have children. I think those who can not care for additional children to the minimum degree expected by law and human decency (we aren't just talking money, how about time to be involved and understand the autism etc for 6+ small children) should seeking more. And note I said should avoid seeking more not should be forbidden from doing so (though in artificial cases medical ethics might become involved).

[Realityhack]

70. I think that is a half truth.

Sure we would not have heard about it.
But it would still have been massively irresponsible for someone with 6 small children at least 1 reported to have special needs to have any additional children by artificial means.

I do not agree that we would not rip down others for similar conduct that leaves children without adequate care. I think many here would condemn such actions if they were aware of them. Had a married middle class couple done the same thing... I think a lot here would disagree with it strongly, But the fact that she could not support her existing children so even one more would be irrisponsible in the extreme is a reasonable issue given it was an artificial conception.
Furthermore you label this as a 'freak accident'. however it is questionable to what degree it was accidental vs. her wanting multiple births (not necessarily 8 but more than one).

I don't think anyone here thinks that the children do not deserve the social assistance we all support. But many question the ethics of the doctor doing such a huge implantation (or any at all) on someone unable to support their existing large number of children (incl. special needs). And many think it was negligent (with regard to the welfare of her other children) to add even one more to the mix.

[Pithlet]

86. I don't have a problem with people who question the ethics of the doctor.

Yes. It is a freak accident. One can question whether she actually wanted multiple births, but that's like questioning whether someone wants to hit the lottery. Judging her for that outcome is ludicrous.

Yes, I do think that people who judge others for "having kids they can't afford" are overly judgmental to begin with. I don't think we should be judging parental worthiness solely on a parent's monetary worth. And I definitely don't think we should judge them based on what the media can dig up when something noteworthy happens to them and the media decides they're the tabloid story du jour.

You don't think anyone here thinks the chilidren don't deserve the support? You obviously haven't been in all the threads on the matter. More than a few people have expressed just that. People truly have lost their minds because this story has just taken on a life of its own. It's what's prompted me to finally open up about it. I've finally just snapped. The OP finally expressed an opinion similar to my own, and I feel like, finally! Some sanity.

[Realityhack]

I agree with you...

that the children deserve to be supported (though perhaps not in her care).

But this isn't just about "kids they can't afford" we are talking about children that they can not afford OR care for, who are artificially conceived with full prior knowledge of the situation. And we are talking about the extreme situation. 6 children including special needs not one or two without.
And yes it makes a difference if she expected to add 1 more or 2-3 more in terms of how bad her judgment was and in terms of evidence that it was a psychological condition driving her.

I have not been in all the threads. And I think the children deserve support. I am not convinced any private company should feel obliged to reward such a decision with a home etc. but public assistance, definitely.

And for the record I do not support the other couples decision to bring all 8 to term. But unlike the 'octo-mom' I have no problem with their initial decision to have a second child.

[Pithlet]

113. We're talking about an extreme situation that we only know about

through that media. The media who has been portraying her in a very negative light for the most part. Very easy to be led to the conclusion that it was a bad decision on her part. But, if we strip it down to the very bare bones, we know that she had 6 children, that she wasn't married, that she was living with her mother and that one of them had a special needs (I don't recall hearing about the second one, I could be wrong). Not enough to really judge, IMO. Countless stories have presented many different facts, some conflicting about all the rest. The nature of many of these stories is so tabloid like to make it hard to take seriously.

[Realityhack]

129. Ok. So we agree on some basic facts.

Has some support from parents
6 young children
1 (min.) has special needs
Single (fairly irrelevant but it is one less set of hands)
Not currently employed (I think you agreed on this in a previous post)

Outside of something along the lines of a massive (multi-million dollar) trust fund or similarly unlikely circumstance we don't know about...

I think 5 young children + 1 young child with special needs is enough information to make a reasonable judgment on.
I might agree with you if we were talking about one or two normal children. Or maybe even more if some were significantly older. But I think you are pushing it to claim we lack enough information here.

If new information came along I might change my outlook. But I think this is enough to say it was a horrifically inappropriate decision to seek 1 or more additional children.

[Pithlet]

159. I'm not going to say that's an outrageous position to take.

You could very well be right. I still think the OP's point is right, though. I think the main reason she's getting the horrible press she's getting is the fact she's single and relatively poor. But there really isn't a whole lot of difference between her case and some of the others that made the news. Such large multiple births are huge burdens on families physically and emotionally and almost always require financial help. The choices made that led to them were similar, such as not choosing to selectively reduce. That the other families didn't get judged similarly, like the McCaughey's is a double standard.

[Realityhack]

175. Fair enough.

I agree that around the issue of selective reduction there is a double standard. In both case sited they did the same thing and both times IMO it was wrong. And I agree with you that in both cases public assistance should be rendered to care for the children, and they should not bear the burden of their parent's decisions.

Of course I still stand by the idea that the initial choices were quite different.

[Canuckistanian]

20. The McCaugheys had A daughter - just ONE other child

And I don't give a shit about whether they're married or not.

Suleman had more than she could handle to begin with, that was my only objection.

[Nikki Stone1]

121. The McCaugheys abused the fertility process and had sex at a dangerous point

From colinmom71:

"The McCaugheys sought fertility treatments because the mom had medical issues that required treatment in order to biologically conceive.....But, what is not well known (and what they've tried to clean up after the fact), is that the drugs had caused hyper-stimulation and showed on ultrasound examination too many follicles to wisely continue treatment. They were told by the doctor to "scrub" that cycle and to come back next cycle in order to insure fewer follicles that could potentially fertilize and implant. They chose instead to go home and have sex, knowing the risks. And 7 pre-term babies were the result. (BTW, this info was released in the early days of the McCaughey septuplet birth by the doctors in a press conference. The McCaugheys however will not address or provide info on how the babies were conceived, only that fertility treatments were needed in the same manner their first child was conceived. And via medical privacy laws, the doctors can no longer comment on the issue beyond the initial clearance they had for the original press conferences.)"

[treestar]

168. Absolutely, when you have six children, your infertility

can hardly still be a problem for you. Granted maybe she expected just to have one and knew the risks of having twin or triplets and was only taking that, but still, geez, six should do it for you.

The McC's now have 8 but if it were NS she'd be out there trying to have a 9th plus.

[Lost in CT]

24. It isn't a double standard

Having a father (or gay spouse) in the house is better. I'm not sure why a single mother would want to undergo fertilization. I'm sure as hell unclear why a unemployed single mother of 6 would want to undergo infertilization....

I would criticize Octomom even if she had one more kid.... she is the cat lady of babies she couldn't care for the ones she had now.

[Pithlet]

29. Why would a single mother want to undergo fertilization?

Because she wants to become a mother. Why else?

Oh, but there's no double standard, oh no....

[dustbunnie]

33. Lots of unemployed men go around impregnating a bunch of women -

with no means to support their children. No one's holding them up as heros either. Most people judge them as being real a-holes. So where's the double standard?

[Pithlet]

35. Yeah, well. When one of them gives birth to eight babies and makes national news to the same degree

is followed by TMZ and being rabidly criticized by DUers, and begrudged for every penny being spent on their offspring we'll compare and contrast. Okay?

[dustbunnie]

40. Not the point at all.

Obviously men can't give birth, much less to 8 at once, but then again, no one cares really about the fact that this woman had 8 at once. It's that she has no means to support her first batch but went ahead and decided to have more, was totally irresponsible to both her existing children and the new ones she absolutely "needed to have," AND placed undue stress on other family members. That analogy is close enough, and there is no double standard. If a topic thread came up on DU concerning men who irresponsibly keep having children without a care in the world as to how they'll be supported, you won't get much in the way of positive response either.

[Pithlet]

42. Yeah, but funny. We don't seem to have ever had a huge media storm

and resulting multiple threads about a man who had impregnated multiple women. Do you think that will ever happen? Hmmmmmm.... Yes. I do believe there is a point there.

[dustbunnie]

49. Actually I have seen several threads.

Mostly concerning birth control, where the topic of deadbeat dads with multiple children comes up. There is no big media blitz at any given time because it's an ongoing problem, but it is dealt with often in the news as a quick google search will demonstrate. Our government is involved as well, and constantly in the process of setting up programs and laws to deal with both the errant deadbeat dads as well as their multiple children. So yeah, it's a concern.

If the Suleman woman had given birth to 8 more kids one by one, there wouldn't have been a media blitz either and she wouldn't be getting the support she currently has. She'd probably end up losing them.

I don't think anyone respects people of either sex who purposely have children they can't care for, especially if it's for financial gain or egotistical reasons.

[Pithlet]

59. Oh really? Several? No way!

Come on. Look, the fact that she is a single mother absolutely has something to do with it. I knew it the minute I heard she was single she would not get the same positive coverage. And I'm not the only one as can be attested by this thread. I think that negative coverage has obviously distorted to a degree how a lot of people see the story. I see it even in this thread. "Her obvious obsession with Angelina Jolie..." Crap like that.

[dustbunnie]

66. No it doesn't.

If this woman had a truck load of money and could care for her kids, everyone would be rejoicing in her fecundity, such as it is. No one cared when Angelina Jolie started picking up children all over the world because she can provide for them. Even before Brad came into the picture. Women get impregnated or have artificial insemination every day, raise their kids on their own and no one bats an eye. Why? Because they support their children.

I've been reading here for years and have read a number of abortion and birth control threads. I have NEVER seen a slew of posts celebrating those men out there who irresponsibly procreate and then don't care for their progeny.

Tell me something... do YOU respect a man who goes around having multiple children, some of them autistic, doesn't particularly care whether he'll provide for them or not, and basically shoves his responsibilities off on elderly parents or other family members?

[Lost in CT]

34. Um if she already has six kids she is already a mother.

And you keep saying double standard...

Saying it is better to have a partner before you try and raise a child isn't a double standard it is common sense....

It is like saying it is better to have a secure steady job before you buy a new car.

[Pithlet]

36. Of course. Ones own opinion is always common sense.

And it's never a double standard.

[verdalaven]

199. Put differently

Why would a mother of six without the means to support her children seek fertility treatments to have even "just one more"? And that is the difference between both stories for most posters, as I read this thread. And still you continue to call that sort of good judgment misogyny, or at the least, accuse us of missing your point.

I think the disparity between the two stories in MSM is small potatoes when this - Witch Hunt - still goes on in the world.

There are worst things in the world waiting for our baby girls than the (perceived) misogyny of the MSM and the birth of human litters.

[tonysam]

100. Having IVF is NOT a "Right." There is Always Adoption

if people want big families and can't have kids.

It's about the children, not about some phony feminist idea about "choice." The children did NOT have a choice in the matter.

[noamnety]

25. 5th recommend

even though I know the comments will make me regret this.

The focus on her marital status was a quick and early clue that this was as much about misogyny as it was about any real concern for the children. Those who were emotionally involved in it (out of "concern") could have donated to her. Those who were emotionally involved but didn't donate, I have to wonder what exactly their emotions are so wrapped up in.

Single people shouldn't be reproducing?
Poor people shouldn't be reproducing?
They are pro-choice ... for the rich?
Are they worried about the slippery slope, like that antigay-marriage brigade? If one woman has a family that size, everyone will decide to do it and the population will triple over the next 9 months?

[rolltideroll]

30. I don't think it was misogyny

It is just a question of how she will feed,clothe and provide shelter for 14 childres, including 8 infants. If she can't provide for them, she should not have them. We apply that principle to dog ownership, but not to children. Secondly, she did not go out and have sex for any of the kids.There was no borken condom or anything. All ofthem were IVF, including the 8 she choose to have implanted in her. She difference is that she does not have the support all ready in place like the other people do.

[noamnety]

39. So you're going with choice #2:

Poor people shouldn't reproduce.

"If she can't provide for them, she should not have them."

Poor people who have families are irresponsible and immoral.

And a bit of misogyny/upholding the patriarchy is mixed in - she didn't have them the "right" way - she didn't get penetrated by a penis, like good parents do. "she did not go out and have sex for any of the kids."

[hfojvt]

188. I think you missed the point about the patriarchy

It's not about a "proper way of making babies." It is that people who like to have sex, will be understanding of somebody else who has sex. So if she had 6 kids and also a steady boyfriend that she was having sex with and in spite of birth control precautions still became pregrant with quintuplets or something, that would be more understandable. In that scenario, she didn't choose to have the babies, the babies were thrust upon her. It's the difference between somebody who accidentally gets cut by a saw while engaging in a woodworking hobby and somebody else who sticks their hand in a saw just for the thrill of it.

Also, the position is not so much that poor people shouldn't reproduce. If, like the other family she had one child that she could barely afford, decided to have one more and somehow accidentally ended up with four more, it would not be a big issue. However, when you already have reproduced, have 3 or 4 children that you cannot afford and yet still deliberately and purposefully decide to have more. Then, wtf? That's not reproducing. It is over-reproducing by several light years. That seems like a pretty good Kantian absolute. If people already have four or more children they cannot afford, then they should not have more.

[verdalaven]

205. Poor people who have expensive fertility treatments

and have 6 children to support but go ahead and spend more money on more fertility treatments are immoral to bring more children into that situation.....YES.

This is not an impoverished woman who could not afford birth control. This is a woman who sought EXPENSIVE treatments to get pregnant. Big, big, HUGE difference.

[Nikki Stone1]

55. Good points all, noamnety.

And I agree with you about the misogyny. Notice that the presence of a low income earning male "magically" makes it all better.

[carlyhippy]

28. The response was in the timing of these births.

If the McCaughey's had their children during the time when the economy was the lowest it had been in years, thousands laid off and even more applying for assistance, they probably would have gotten the same cold shoulder.

[cornermouse]

32. Another big difference

Of the 6 children Suleman already had at least one is autistic (and unless what a commentator said the other day is false 3 of them may be in the autism spectrum). That is one whale of a big difference. One autistic child can demand a major amount of time if you plan to try to do all the things necessary to help them get maximum achievement. The fact that she is a single parent with only her mother to support her is highly irresponsible. You have to wonder if the fact that her mother is in the process of losing her home is partly Nadya's fault and you have to wonder if she plans to let her mother move in and have a roof over her head after all the physical and financial support she has given her daughter.

She should never have had them implanted whether she only thought one would take (where did she get that idea?) or whether 8 was what she was actively trying to get. I don't feel sorry for her.

[Lisa0825]

37. Lets say that her last IVF only produced 2 children....

It wouldn't have made it past the local news (if that far), but had I known the rest of the details, I'd still think very negatively of her. She'd still be a woman with 6 kids, very little support, dumping all over her elderly parents, living on public assistance, who SELFISHLY decided she wanted more. It was extremely unfair to her parents and especially to her other 6 children, as well as unfair to the 2 fictional newborns. She is a real piece of work who has created a disaster, whether she has 14 or 8.

[Pithlet]

38. Yes, and you'd still be getting all of your facts from a media story.

One hell bent on painting her as negatively as possible.

[Realityhack]

58. What???

Do you disagree with any of the facts in the post you responded to?

Let's say each procedure did not result in them needing to make a pro-life / thinning out choice.

The couple.
Result: 2 children. They would still not be well off but it would appear they could support and care for the two children.

The 'octo-mom'
Result: 7 children at least 1 with special needs and definitely unable to support or care for them all.

Do you disagree with anything in those statements? Do you think this represents a clear difference between the two cases? Would the media portrayal change any of the facts in the case?

[Pithlet]

65. As a matter of fact, I do disagree.

I also remember hearing that she was very close to completing her master's degree. I only read about that in one of the stories, one of the few that didn't have a decided spin against her. It also included several other facts I don't remember off the top of my head that didn't paint absolute disaster.

As a member of a couple with two children in an upper middle class family, I also know that circumstances can change in life. Therefore, I don't subscribe to the poor people shouldn't have children meme. I know it isn't a popular stance to take, but there you go. I know a lot of people like to wag their fingers and shame poor people who have kids. I'm not one of them. Because if I were, I'd have to shame my own parents who were poor when they had me. Circumstances change. They were solid middle class by the time I was six years old, and affluent by the time I was in my teens. But plenty would have clucked when they had me and said it was a bad choice. I don't agree.

[Realityhack]

107. I don't think that changes any of the facts presented.

Even with a masters degree she would need one hell of a job to support her existing 6 small children (remember special needs).

We are NOT talking about a poor woman having a child or two. I am not against that.
We are not even talking about a student about to get a masters getting pregnant and deciding to have the child.

We are talking about someone with 6 young children they have no hope of supporting perusing more though artificial means.

She would have to hit the regular lottery to support 7 children one or more with autism.

[Pithlet]

134. I still don't agree, but that's fine.

But you have to admit there's a heck of a difference between your position and the pitchfork brigade nature of the coverage of the story and the people who are calling for her head. That's really the problem I have. I don't have a problem with people who question the ethics of her pursuing more fertility treatments to extent she did (apparently insisting on implanting all the embryos) and the doctors who did it. My biggest beef to is with the double standard. I do think there are questionable ethics involved in some of the other big famous stories from the past. But the media and most everyone seemed to just glow and wanted to do nothing but help in those cases. I think there were questionable decisions that led to those cases, too, but no one cared then. I don't think there really is a huge difference, here. Just because she's single and possibly not quite as financially stable. That's my point and I agree with the OP.

[Realityhack]

179. Agreed

"But you have to admit there's a heck of a difference between your position and the pitchfork brigade nature of the coverage of the story and the people who are calling for her head."
Thanks for that praise. I try to approach things reasonably and I have enjoyed our discussion.
I also agree that some people have gone too far with this but I have seen less of it as I avoided most of the threads.

"I don't have a problem with people who question the ethics of her pursuing more fertility treatments to extent she did (apparently insisting on implanting all the embryos) and the doctors who did it."
Seems reasonable to me. There are definitely some ethical questions regardless of what side we end up arguing on. We might even agree on some ;)

"I do think there are questionable ethics involved in some of the other big famous stories from the past. But the media and most everyone seemed to just glow and wanted to do nothing but help in those cases."
Absolutely. And I for one agree with you that those other cases should have been viewed differently.

"I don't think there really is a huge difference, here. Just because she's single and possibly not quite as financially stable. That's my point and I agree with the OP."
I both agree and disagree here. I absolutely agree that her decision to not selectively reduce is identical to other cases and they all have questionable ethics involved and should be treated the same.
I disagree that there are no differences because I see much less ethical issue with say a single mother of one (even one living with her parents while attending school) seeking a second child than I do with a mother or even couple with 6 young children seeking another.
In other words, one or more ethical issues are universal to all/many of these cases, but in the specific 'octo-mom' case I see an additional issue or two (her seeking the additional child, doctor implanting so many embryos) which are somewhat or entirely unique.

[Nikki Stone1]

61. I believe that the McCaugheys were equally selfish having septuplets on a $20,000/year salary

There is no way these folks could have raised all of these children on that income. As a result, they relied heavily on donations from friends, churches and strangers. It was clear that by 2002, the donations had mostly dried up (though not all) and, though the NBC interview does not say it, there had to food stamps and other forms of public assistance, especially for the two septuplets who had cerebral palsy. One insurance policy of a guy making $20K is NOT going to pay for all the health issues of those children.

My beef is not with those who have a problem with Suleman having octuplets. My beef IS with those who were OK with the McCaugheys and not ok with Suleman. Both were selfish and both had to rely on the kindess and money of others (including the public coffers) to be able to raise their children. To do this by choice--by choosing to have fertility treatments/drugs when they were both "pro-life" and knew that they could never reduce the number of fetuses they were carrying--was highly irresponsible and somewhat arrogant. They just expected others to pick up the tab.

[Realityhack]

111. agreed...

both were selfish. And both original decisions were foolish. But one was much more so than the other.
Betting on the odds of not having more than one child for the McCaughey's was more reasonable than the outright ridiculousness of Suleman. Both were wrong but not equally so (IMO).

[sakura]

227. Excellent point

The McCaugheys were praised by many for making the "difficult choice" not to undergo selective reduction. What's more, the media collaborated with them to hide the disabilities several of their children had as a result of their gestation and birth. IIRC, one has cerebral palsy and one or more had a feeding tube for an extended amount of time. The feeding tube was always covered up in photos, and the CP was almost never mentioned. The negatives of bringing seven fetuses to term were swept under the rug. I had a problem with the McCaughey's celebrity then for the same reason I have a problem with Suleman now. One should not be messing around with reproductive technology if one is not willing to follow through. To claim that it is unethical to undergo selective reproduction after you have ignored your doctor's advice (in the McCaughey case -- and also in the Jon and Kate Gosselin case) or to go ahead and have 6-8 embryos implanted "because they are there and they're my babies" (Suleman's words) is hypocritical and abusive to the children resulting from this decision. If one can't stomach the idea of selective reduction, the answer is clear-- don't use reproductive technology! A human uterus is not designed to hold multiple fetuses. Dogs and cats have horned uteruses with lots of space for multiple placentas to attach. Humans do not. To use reproductive technology and then call the result "God's will" is beyond ridiculous.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

41. You forgot a few

* The septuplets were born in an era of prosperity, the octuplets during a financial crisis. Freebies will be harder to come by just because of that.
* McCaughey's multiple pregnancy seems to have been accidental where as there's questions about the deliberateness around Suleman's. Likewise, there are questions regarding Suleman's doctor's ethics.
* The McCaugheys had a clear source of income, albeit a small one. Suleman is a student with no apparent income.
* The McCaugheys were in a comparatively (to Suleman) stable financial situation before the pregnancies. Suleman and her family are debt-laden.

This isn't about traditional v non-traditional families, at least not entirely. Suleman's pregnancy smacks of irresponsibility and as a calculated attempt to make a living by exploiting her children. This I cannot tolerate.

[saltpoint]

43. NS chose to have 14 babies apart from the "traditional" family

structure.

BM chose to have hers within that structure.

The children are not versed in traditional and nontraditional structures; they only know they have express needs, including emotional needs.

NS has been diagnosed with Axis I disorders. She appears also to have Body Dysmorphic issues, undiagnosed but strongly suggested.

Movie stars who adopt kids can afford to adopt kids.

NS is unemployed.

The negative response NS received is deserved. Her judgment and insight are questionable, no matter what household structure she's operating under. It's the judgment that is wobbly.

[mitchum]

44. I believe you brought a straw mom to this "argument"

[Gman]

45. You've outlined exactly what the problem is but I don't think you see it

To begin with, she had 6 kids already. She was unemployed and on disability. She was 33. Add in Suleman's apparent unhealthy obsession with Angelina Jolie, her apparent plastic surgery and you have a nutcase in Suleman. That's what's wrong.

But the responsibilty for this travesty most likely rests with the fertility clinic. The fertility clinic should have never done what they did. Doing what they did was against all their standards. The fertility clinic forsake good judgement for potential future profit. They in essence used Suleman to boost their reputation. Suleman was obviously not capable of making a rational decision about these things because she did the implantation. The clinic took advantage of her. Didja notice the doctor was ducking cameras and had "no comment" when asked anything about this? He knows it was wrong.

[saltpoint]

46. There are many on DU and elsewhere who have made the case for

child protective services (or the specific regional equivalent agency) to intervene and remove NS's kids from her custody.

I'm on the list of observers who hopes this happens.

[Laelth]

47. Nice comparison--definite double-standard.

Do you think the state of the economy factors into people's responses? Just a question. I have no knee-jerk ideological position to advance here.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Realityhack]

52. I disagree.

Though I also think the OP made some interesting points of comparison I think some of the differences are significant enough to warrant a very different response. Of course nobody here condones death threats, but a different response... sure.

I think some of the key points are:

1. The couple had one child and were supporting it adequately. A single additional child would not be expected to exceed their admittedly low income to too great an extent.
OTOH the single woman was already unable to adequately support her existing 6 children when she began the process so even 1 additional child would have been an unwise choice warranting criticism.

That alone would be enough for a serious difference in reactions but it is not all there is.

2. The 'octo mom' had an autistic child and others potentially similarly affected. This means she was carrying far more than 6 times the other couples burden for child care at the beginning of the process compounding the above.

3. AFAIK the couple used fertility drugs which can result in multiple children, while the 'octo mom' had IVF of an excessive number of embryos likely indicating a specific desire for multiple births.

4. It seems reasonable for a couple with a single child to seek a second one.
OTOH the 'octo mom' having 6 children at least one with special needs appears likely to have some psychological condition behind her desire for so many children.

I do not discount the possibility that the economy might play into peoples responses. But I do not think we can declare a "Definite double-standard" given the facts.

[Laelth]

240. Fair enough.

I am also interested to hear what the OP has to say on this subject.

:dem:

-Laelth

[bigtree]

48. thank you

k&r

[Chovexani]

51. You left out one crucial difference

McCaughey is white, and Suleman is not. Don't think for a minute race isn't also playing a huge role in the way this issue is being framed. A lot of people may not know "what" Suleman is, but they know she ain't batting for Aryan Nation (for the record, she's of Middle Eastern ancestry). The minute they started calling her "Octomom" I knew wtf was going on and it made me sick to my stomach. Note how neatly a lot of the "criticism" (read: public stoning) dovetails with traditional stereotypes about WoC and childbearing/raising. It ain't a coincidence.

A number of years ago there was a black family that had multiples--naturally, to boot, without fertility drugs. It says something that I can't even remember this family's name or how many kids they had. I saw them on TV exactly once when they had their kids, and never heard about them again.

(Oh, and for any douchebag who wants to show their white privilege ass in response to this post, I've got a stack of filled up BINGO cards from the latest race imbroglio in speculative fiction fandom and I'm in no mood to play with you today.)

[Nikki Stone1]

53. Has the MSM commented on the fact that her father is Iraqi?

She hasn't been called racial names, just the names reserved for prostitutes and women who break the rules.

[noamnety]

68. That's part of the obsession with the plastic surgery, I believe

Moms are supposed to be madonnas, whereas "loose women" get plastic surgery.

I'm not a fan of cosmetic surgery, but I see a separate layer of something going on when people manage to tie it to whether good "mothers" should be getting it. The madonna/whore thing is playing out not because she had plastic surgery or because she spent money on it she couldn't afford, but because the TYPE she had is reserved for sexualized women, totally inappropriate for moms. If she had braces to get her teeth straightened or paid to get her teeth whitened, I'm guessing nobody would have said shit about it - and in fact they would have mocked her if she had crooked yellowed teeth.

[Nikki Stone1]

80. Actually, the plastic surgery thing is very LA, and is not a big deal here

However, in other parts of the country, plastic surgery is considered vain and selfish and probably a lot of other things too. In LA, it's almost routine. As an Angelino, I don't have a problem with Suleman's alleged plastic surgery per se; I do wonder where she got the money for it, although nose jobs and collagen fills have become quite inexpensive relatively speaking.

Maybe there is a plastic surgery/race obsession here though. As I said, plastic surgery is par for the course here in Southern California. But maybe in other parts of the country, there is a distinct racial bent to the speculation on plastic surgery. I am no plastic surgeon, but other than her lips (and possibly contacts or laser surgery on her eyes), I don't see much of a difference.

[saltpoint]

64. Poor judgment is not an ethnic issue.

It's just a judgment issue.

[Pithlet]

71. delete

[noamnety]

73. No, but often our reaction to it is an ethnic issue.

I've seen it in schools, when two kids leave a mess on the cafeteria table.

One kid leaves a mess, and it's a minor annoyance.
Another kid leaves a mess, and it's a whole other thing jumbled up in culture and their entire identity as a person who won't be responsible for their own actions.

Fast forward a few years, and some single moms are Murphy Brown.

Others aren't just single moms - they are selfishly not working within the traditional family structure, they are neglecting their kids, dumping them off on other people to care for. (if a real-life Murphy Brown had been something other than lily white, her decision to stick her house painter with child care responsibilities and her being a recovering addict would have been pulled apart in an entirely different way, instead of being held up as a feminist decision by an independent woman.)

[saltpoint]

75. Respectfully disagree.

Poor judgment and lousy parenting is not an ethnic issue.

Out "reaction" is to the poor judgment, not the ethnicity of its bearer.

[dustbunnie]

99. Actually the fictional Murphy Brown got pulled through the mud by lots of people -

including Dan Quayle.

Today, people still spit on others like Sarah Palin for aggressively pursuing a career, and don't know how much more "lily white Americana" she could be.

[Nikki Stone1]

81. Then why weren't the McCaugheys chastised for their poor judgement?

Is it race? Is it the fact that Bobbi McCaughey was married (even though her husband was earning a very low income)? Is it because McCaughey had everyone's backing: her family, her church, her friends, while Suleman had no one's backing?

[saltpoint]

83. You misunderstand. Ethnicity is not a determinant of judgment or

its absence.

To suggest that it is is racist.

Anyone, anyplace, is capable of poor judgment.

[Pithlet]

147. It was wonderful that McCaughey didn't abort her babies.

Curious that Nadia doesn't get the same praise. But no, no double standard there! Why are some people so blind?

[colinmom71]

158. Because the McCaugheys got better advice about how to manage the press...

The McCaugheys initially allowed all the medical staff involved to give interviews. Then they hired a publicist to help manage all the press interview requests...

In the very early days after the septuplets' birth, their reproductive specialist was interviewed and he revealed that she had been on follicle stimulation drugs for both her pregnancies (already established fact). But during the second "successful" fertility treatment attempt, an ultrasound exam found that she had ovulated far too many ova (6 were seen) to advisably attempt conception. He said they were told to "scrub" (cancel) that cycle and they could try again the next cycle. Instead, they went home and had sex. Which resulted in the dangerous septuplet pregnancy...

Since that interview, the McCaughey's (probably under the publicists advice) have never once allowed any interviews with any other medical staff concerning the pregnancy itself. And medical privacy laws help protect that decision. Interviews with pediatricians on the septuplets' health in the NICU though were fine. They have since gone on to rewrite history and do not account the doctor's professed orders to cancel that cycle in any interviews or their since published book about having the septuplets.

I only know about that interview because I watched it myself and later on managed to reconfirm it with someone who had also seen it. I still remember my jaw dropping as I heard that doctor's statements.

[uppityperson]

210. Suleman isn't white? I see a big difference is 1997 vs 2009. Medical ethics.

seriously, I miss the fact that people aren't "white" and hadn't considered it being a racist issue. I see it more as the difference of 12 yrs, what the USA society has sunk to, as well as increasing instant news/internet coverage.

All that said, I think any doctor who would transfer more than 3 embryos to anyone is ethically wrong. That is my issue with this whole thing

[cbc5g]

54. The marriage and the difference in kid numbers IS the difference

And I don't recall McCaughey using 170,000 dollars in workers comp. to get plastic surgery and IVF treatments when she already fuckin had a lot of kids. And lastly, Suleman is batshit insane if you haven't noticed. Those kids deserve far, far better.

[bettyellen]

hiccup!

.

[bettyellen]

56. she is talking about supporting them all from some job she gets next fall? fucking stupid or lying

she needs a publicist to get a job next fall09? bullshit, she is hoping to milk this for all it;s worth. i am sad for thise kids. that's the difference.

[Nikki Stone1]

67. You do know that the McCaugheys were paid speakers on the pro-life circuit.

That's called milking it too.

At least Suleman has an excuse: she's not getting the help the McCaugheys got and she lives in LA, where being a celebrity for unlikely reasons is a common occurrence. If the daughters of OJ's deceased lawyer (Kardashian) can have their own reality show based mostly on Kim Kardashian ass, then Suleman can have a show for better reasons: to support her children.

[bettyellen]

125. i think you have it backward, she had the kids to get the show to get the money

even she doesn't deny trying to sell evey piece of this to the highest bidder all the way - while pretending she is a regular gal who just wants to get a regular job. all evidence is to the contrary.
i'm sorry she's been full of shit and self involved at the expense of her othet 6 kids form day one. her parents think so too.
she's a fucking car wreck, and that car wrecks get tv shows is NOT laudable.

[Pithlet]

162. So, how exactly did she make herself pregnant with 8 babies?

Yes, she got fertility treatments, but they've resulted in octuplets only one other time in US history. So, tell me, how did she manage to pull that off on purpose for the publicity? I already asked that in this thread and got bupkus. I think if someone could answer that question they might get very rich. I'm sure fertility specialists would want in on that secret as well.

Her parents? You mean the mother who went against her wishes while she was in the hospital to not release her name, and went to the press and blabbed? Yeah, that sounds like a mother who really knows her own daughter and has her best interests at heart.

[LisaL]

185. According to her, she had six embryos implanted. Again, according

to her, the doctor did inform her of the risks associated with having multiple embryos implanted.
You seem to be arguing about something you don't have a clue about.

[Pithlet]

193. Only one other case has ever happened in the US.

So, what kind of odds does that make it? What do you figure? Yes, I'm sure the doctor did inform her of those risks. The chances are still very small. As were all the other people who underwent similar procedures and had similar results who weren't excoriated in the press. The point of the OP. Yeah, maybe some might argue that it means she shoudn't have had the procedure. But is that enough to warrant the death threat judgment jubilee? I don't. You think that makes me cluless, which is just so cute.

[LisaL]

203. A lot of people would reduce multiple pregnancies, because

that's what doctor would recommend. Furthermore, the recommendations is for no more than 2 embryos to be implanted into the woman under 35. She had six implanted.
So you argument about only one case happening in US doesn't hold water.

[bettyellen]

245. people dont have that many implanted to carry them to term, they would implant less

in a patient who will not selectively reduce. the goal is not to go above triplets- if you care about the baby's lifelong health,
jeeze, read up, will ya.

[bettyellen]

246. did they peddle the birth video to the media and then pretend they want a normal life?

not crazy about the mc c's either, but Nadia needs meds. and much more help than she"s willing to admit. she's exploitive of everyone around her.

[LaydeeBug]

57. Suleman ALREADY HAD SIX other Kids!!!

that's all I'm sayin' :shrug:

[Pithlet]

60. As if 8 babies at one time would have been no problem otherwise.

I guess the thought of 8 babies at once is just so overwhelmingly terrifying to me that I think the fact that she already had 6 is just almost moot. To me, that's like saying "Well, there was already a crack in the Titanic...." If I found out that through some freak of nature I'm giving birth to 8 newborns tomorrow, it just wouldn't matter to me if I already had my two, or if I had six. I'm needing that new much bigger house, and I'm needing that bevy of nurses. It's irrelevant. I don't get why people harp on that. It's going to be just as hard on those kids that are alredy born whether there's one or three or six. It doesn't really matter.

[saltpoint]

62. It matters a lot. One adult, female or male, unemployed, and diagnosed

with Axis I mental disorders, should not be in charge of the material and emotional well-being of 14 children under the age of 7 or 8, at least two of those with special needs.

[Pithlet]

69. No one solely be in charge of that many children without help.

And what source did you get this information? When was she diagnosed? And has she been treated? Because if you want to tell me that no one who has ever been diagnosed with any mental disorder should ever have kids? Nope. Not going to agree with you there. And as a mother with a special needs child, if you're going to tell me parents with special needs children should never have another child? Nope. Not going to agree with you there, either.

[saltpoint]

74. Suleman's mental illness is a matter of record:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/07/octuplet-mom-nadya-sulema_n_164858.html

[Pithlet]

89. That's it??

And nothing on what treatment she's received? So that means she should never have kids? Hell, why not bring back eugenics! Start sterilizing them in the nut houses! Geeze...

[saltpoint]

90. The investigation by child protective services will reach one or another

determination.

We'll see what they have to say.

[Pithlet]

94. Yeah. Won't that be something.

I sure hope that's a trend. Tabloid journalism prompting CPS cases to take babies away from people. Great!

[saltpoint]

98. Child Protective Services, and their regional equivalent entities, are not

the agents of tabloid news.

Try to focus on the mission of those agencies. If you have a specific objection to their misson, state it.

They generally attempt to remove children from harm's way and they generally do excellent and admirable work.

[Pithlet]

102. I didn't say that, did I? But they do respond to calls put in, don't they? n/t

[saltpoint]

108. The investigation may result in NS keeping custody of her children but

there is at least an equal chance that she will not be permitted to be their in-home parent.

Her hiring publicists (at least two of whom have quit, the latter calling her 'crazy,') was a tripswitch variable because it suggests a possible motive of self-promotion at the expense of her 14 children's emotional well-being.

NS's mother called the decision -- a deliberate decision -- "unconscionable." She added that she was sick and tired of taking care of them while her daughter was "out."

Your original post seeks to demonize anyone who finds fault in the single mother with many children over the "traditionally" aligned mother who also has many children.

I don't buy that argument because the issues at hand are Suleman's diagnosed emotional difficulties and her 14 kids' needs as kids.

Protective services will hold these two issues very high in their evaluation.

[Pithlet]

122. If her hiring publicists was a tripswitch, then that is absolutely beyond ridiculous.

Many people when becoming the focal point of a national story hire a publicist. I'm sorry. But I'm not buying that CPS even considered that.

NS's mother was the the one to blame for the publicity in the first place. NS was the one who said she wanted no publicity when the babies were first born. She requested no publicity at the hospital and didn't want her name released. NS's mother went to the news and spilled the beans about her identity. NS's mother was the one giving interviews before NS was even out of the hospital, and badmouthing NS. IMO, NS's mother has a lot of blame in how the story has shaped up to be so negative against her daughter in some of the things she said in those initial interviews. NS's mother should have hired a publicist at the very start since she planned to go public against her daughter's wishes, if she'd been smart.

My original post? I'm not the one who posted the OP.

[saltpoint]

138. Meant points and not person re OP. NS's mom did not hire the

publicist.

When the first publicist quit NS's mom did not hire the second publicist.

Let's put the blame for the media circus where it goes, and it goes on the shoulders of Nadya Suleman.

[Pithlet]

143. So, you don't think this would have been a huge media story anyway?

Seeing as it was a major news story before her name was even known? When she made the request through her hospital that her name not be released. That it was her mother that went to the news first. Yeah, totally her fault.

[saltpoint]

148. Address her decision for the NBC interview, the two publicists, and the

book deal.

I hope it's not your argument that this does not suggest a distinct trail of self-promotion.

[Pithlet]

153. And that's different from other people who are at the center of large media attention how?

I do believe other parents of large multiples did the exact same thing, and didn't get excoriated by the public for it. Which exactly proves the OP's point. One of them have a frigging reality show for gawdssake.

[saltpoint]

229. I don't believe other people "who are at the center of large media attention"

have just had 8 babies.

Swear to god.

[Nikki Stone1]

103. Considering the tabloid tone of that article, I am inclined to ignore their take on Suleman.

"LOONY OCTOMOM IS BABY 'BUGGY'"--nice headline there. It's like reading the National Enquirer.

If you look at the mental illnesses mentioned in the article, which have been mentioned by Suleman herself, they stem from an occupational situation. She had suffered a permanent injury at work (from a riot at a state psychiatric facility) and she was (a) in constant pain--ever have constant horrible back pain--and (b) terrified that she could never have children as a result. She was married at the time, and all she wanted was to have kids; the riot situation at work seemed, at the time, to have likely destroyed that for her. I'd be depressed too under those circumstances, and probably be having nightmares about patients rioting. Wouldn't you? That's the PTSD. Now, the state paid for some psychiatric treatment--a good thing--but clearly she needs some help with anxiety, and a nice anti-anxiety/anti-depressant like Lexapro would do the trick. The state should pay for that because her injury at a state facility caused the injuries and anxiety.

Should every woman with an occupational injury like Suleman's be labeled "looney" and should her children be taken from her? How many women have post partum depression? Should their children be taken from them?

[saltpoint]

109. Then I will flatly reject the idea that Lincoln was ever at Gettysburg.

There.

[Nikki Stone1]

123. Silly response, and you didn't read the rest of the post, did you. Go back and read it.

Then respond with the brain cells that God gave you.

[saltpoint]

141. You want me to bring you back a newspaper as well?

Nikki, you are trying to defend an indenfensible position by pretending that the problem lies in NS's single status in society.

That is not the case.

[LisaL]

204. You've made up some very strange story.

From what I can gather, her fallopian tubes are plugged. The riot at work did not have anything to do with her not being able to get pregnant.

[noamnety]

77. How many children are women with PTSD allowed to care for?

Two? Five?

Maybe if a woman is raped and develops PTSD, the state should just confiscate their kids automatically?

[saltpoint]

79. Suleman's deliberate multi-birth is not equivalent at any level

to rape.

[Pithlet]

92. Deliberate multi-birth?

So, it was an accident when it happened to all those other people who got fertility treatments. But she somehow was able to manipulate her fertility treatments on purpose? You do realize that octuplets has happened only one other time in US history? That's some amazing feat she pulled off there.

[saltpoint]

93. 'Deliberate' is exactly the word.

[Pithlet]

95. So, tell me how she did it? n/t

[saltpoint]

96. The issue might actually be whether she deliberately chose to

promote herself as the next Angela Jolie before she hired the publicist.

I don't think anyone over the age of 10 believes she "accidently" had 8 babies.

[Pithlet]

105. Huh. So promoting yourself as a celebrity

will make you give birth to octuplets. Wow! Who knew those two things were so directly linked?

[saltpoint]

116. They link specifically in Suleman's decision.

Defend her decision to hire said publicists.

[Pithlet]

126. What does that have to do with her womb filling with eight babies?

A freak occurrence that has happened only one other time in US history. You say she got pregnant with octuplets deliberately. I'd like to know how she did that?. Sorry. I don't think hiring publicists do that, even if one gets fertility treatments, or we'd have a hell of a lot of octuplets running around.

[saltpoint]

144. You're kidding, right?

[Pithlet]

149. No! Are you? Seriously??? Publicity makes one have octuplets????

Edit I know you're not really saying that. You just won't defend your statement that she deliberately had octuplets, but just won't explain exactly how she managed to do that. Unless you mean she didn't selectively reduce. In that case you do have a point. In which case it proves the OP's point. The other multiple parents made that same choice. But didn't get slammed in the press. Bingo!

[saltpoint]

230. The media, for better or worse, and there's plenty of both to go around,

was Ms. Suleman's target in her decision to promote her Jolie-like motherhood profile.

It appears to have backfired on her.

Who paid for the publicists?

Her decision to have 8 new kids in addtion to the prior 6 was made when she lived in a house that was not hers and which in any case was far too small for that many human beings. And when she was unemployed.

Yes, Ms. Suleman's decision to become a media celebrity appears to have exposed her extremely poor judgment. It raises specific questions about the well-being of her 14 kids. Protective services does not investigate discord and conflict without just cause; we'll have to await their verdict.

Ironically this woman is planning on becoming a therapist.

[noamnety]

104. Point missed completely.

I haven't equated multibirths to rape at all. Try again?

[saltpoint]

110. Sorry, it was your post.

There's no connection.

[noamnety]

131. You claimed women with mental health issues

shouldn't be allowed to raise (some number of) kids. To support your point, you linked to a story stating she has depression and possibly PTSD.

The main cause of PTSD among women is rape. (Before you go off on another tangent, note that this is not a claim that SHE was raped.)

If you believe women with PTSD/depression aren't competent to have sole custody of children, it follows that you think women who have PTSD/depression from being raped should have their children taken away by social services. Perhaps, by your logic, a woman who is abused and leaves her husband should automatically have her kids taken away, since she's likely to be depressed and have PTSD as well.

[saltpoint]

146. No such thing was said.

The emotional health of any parent is a significant variable in protective services' determination for custody.

[noamnety]

160. Then please clarify:

"One adult, female or male, unemployed, and diagnosed with Axis I mental disorders, should not be in charge of the material and emotional well-being of 14 children under the age of 7 or 8, at least two of those with special needs."


I asked how many children should a single woman with an Axis I disorder (PTSD from rape for example) be allowed to have custody of? Two? Five? Thirteen? None?

[saltpoint]

231. The protective services will not make the determination solely on how many

children are in the home but rather on the likelihood that any are in an acute sense of danger from neglect or abuse.

If it is determined that Ms. Suleman is unstable she should not be the grown-up in charge of 1 baby, nevermind 8, plus the prior 6.

Protective services will indicate if the neglect / abuse is unfounded; but they will also act swiftly if they feel Nadya Suleman should not be a parent.

[noamnety]

234. I would like to request

that you make an effort to not demonize people with PTSD or mental health issues or portray them as assumed to be unfit parents.

I know women with PTSD from assaults, and I know men with PTSD from combat, many of whom are amazing parents (and some of them are mentors to me). It irks the hell out of me when people start talking like anyone with PTSD is a danger to all the people around them and shouldn't be trusted with small children (as if children are in an "acute" state of danger if one of their parents has PTSD).

I have seen some others here complain about how DUers stigmatize folks with mental illness - and perhaps I am more aware of this after reading their posts, but the whole thing strikes me as very much ... not appropriate.

People here who have PTSD or depression really don't need to read your views of how folks like them should be assumed to be unfit parents.

[saltpoint]

244. I don't see many here or elsewhere "demonizing" NS for her mental

disorders.

If you feel that protective services should not be invovled in this case, I urge you to contact the regional office where Ms. Suleman lives and register your discontent with their investigation.

It's my guess that you will be told essentially the same thing I've posted.

We can all read the news and we can all await the outcome of that investigation. You can become a presence in the file by contacting that office, or not, as you please.

[Nikki Stone1]

142. And because she was pro life, she believed that she had to implant the other embryos

Had she been pro-choice, she could have stopped at 6.

[verdalaven]

63. 1986 I was told that it was highly unlikely I would ever have kids

My husband and I both worked, had health insurance, a house and a stable life - and yet we could not afford fertility treatments. By a lucky long shot, we did have a child about six years after my original diagnosis(surprise!).

Coming at this from my perspective, my very first thought when I heard about this case was not about the woman's marital status - I wondered how an unemployed Mom of six could afford fertility treatments. ??? Especially when she had other children to feed at home already and, reportedly, no money.

My second thought-as a mother who is grateful for the one child she has-Suleman had six beautiful children, all under the age of seven (holy shit!), why did she need another? Wasn't that challenging enough? IMO I think she is frickin selfish for going through fertility treatments to add to her existing brood.

If she was married, I would think of them as Mr. and Mrs. Frickin Selfish.

Even if she was married and had 16 children one at a time over 16 years, I would think of them as Mr and Mrs Frickin Selfish (yeah, I am talking to you, Duggers!)

The McCaughey's had one kid and wanted one more. I don't agree with their stance on selective reduction, but what the hell. They just wanted another child. Been there, and I totally understand.

So, for me, there is the difference.

Besides that, Suleman added to the sensationalism with her expectations for a reality show and with those expectations ended up driving away the very help offered to her; including round the clock care for her children. While the coverage from MSM may be misogynistic and self serving (what a surprise) she added fuel to the fire all on her own.

[Nikki Stone1]

72. But it was the same extreme pro-life stance that led to McCaughey's and Suleman's multiple births.

As I said, if you are "pro life" and will not have a selective reduction under any circumstances, then you should not have fertility treatments where that risk exists.

As far as, "Been there and totally understand," that's a dangerous way to contemplate someone else's actions. Understanding the desire, I get. But you would have gone through selective reduction, as would I under those circumstances. McCaughey would never have done so, and in my opinion, she should have refrained from putting herself in a position where she would confront that decision and have to choose, instead, to risk her life and the lives of those fetuses to satisfy a pro-life belief. (This is not to mention having to drain financial resources from everyone around her.) The old Catholic term for it would be "putting yourself in an occasion of sin." The McCaugheys deliberately put themselves in a position where they had to make a decision to abort (grave sin) or to go through with a pregnancy that threatened the life and health of one little girl's mama--they were lucky it didn't--and threatened the life and health of the 7 children (two were born with cerebral palsy). My friends, who were very religious and considered fertility treatments, decided on adoption in the end because of this very moral quandry.

[verdalaven]

170. Well-

You wrote-
As far as, "Been there and totally understand," that's a dangerous way to contemplate someone else's actions.


I disagree. How else are we to make an attempt to understand (and develop empathy for) other human beings if not draw on our own life experience to do so? As far as I am concerned, it is people who discard their life experiences and then judge others (such as women who have had abortions suddenly getting religion and becoming anti-choice)who are the dangerous ones, with potentially dangerous views.

All I was saying is, as a very lucky woman who was able to have one child, if I had six I would absolutely not elect to have fertility treatments in order to have one more, particularly if I couldn't support the six I had. If I had the money to have fertility treatments at some point after the birth of our first child, I may have considered it, but I did not have the resources. So I guess, in your eyes, that makes me as bad as the McCaugheys.

There is no getting away from these facts - The McCaughey's had the resources and one child. Nadya Suleman did not and already had six. How the hell did she afford fertility treatments in the first place, when she couldn't afford to support her kids? That is what I don't understand. Why she spent money to create another life, when she should have spent that money on her existing family.

I agree the press is ugly. I think what they did to Brittany Spears, as an example, really shows what predators they are - and it does not help that Nadya Suleman is playing right into their hands, hiring a publicist and shopping her family to networks for a reality show. There is a difference between the two families. Having a husband in one is not the difference that I see.

[emmadoggy]

198. "I wondered how an unemployed Mom of six could afford fertility treatments. ??? "

THANK YOU!

I have been reading through this entire thread and not one person has mentioned that. As someone who has undergone fertility treatments, I KNOW how INSANELY expensive they are. HOW did she do this???

I think that these so-called "litter" pregnancies are ridiculous, as do most, and I don't agree with some of the choices made by the McCaugheys, but as others in this thread have already pointed out, there are some very clear differences in their cases that account for the difference in reactions from the public.

[LisaL]

201. If no one here has mentioned that, it's because no one here knows how

she could afford fertility treatments. She might have used up her disability money. I think she clams she saved up from her disability payments.
What's the point of mentioning it?

[verdalaven]

218. What is the point in mentioning it?

She had six kids. It takes money to raise six kids. That isn't an inflammatory statement or a statement against poverty, or single parenting. It is a basic fact.

A fact.

Aren't we the fact-based community anymore?

The point is, you have six kids an no job, you have no money for fertility treatments!

In the end - One family had one kid when they tried for a second pregnancy - the other had SIX! One family had jobs, the other was spending the only means of family support on fertility treatments and plastic surgery. Yeah, she is going to school. Good for her. At the moment I'd like to go back to school, but cannot afford it because I am sending my kid to college. One must make choices to be a responsible parent, for the good of the kid. I won't give her a pass on poor judgment just because she is a single parent, or poor, or suffered from PTSD - because there are rafts of people out here that have suffered much worse and made better decisions. I feel bad for her kids, though.



**edited to remove righteous idiocy**

[emmadoggy]

219. The point of mentioning it is that

it just goes to show another serious question about her whole situation. She had no job, no home, 6 kids to feed and yet she somehow comes up with money for very expensive fertility treatment? If she did save up disability payments to pay for it, was that a wise and appropriate use of that money?? Seriously? You don't think that is relevant?

The point of the OP is that this woman is coming under unfair scrutiny and criticism. I'm just pointing one other reason for why that is so.

[verdalaven]

221. I feel like we might be debating

with Nadya Suleman's publicist.

:)

And nice to meet you, emmadoggy.

[emmadoggy]

226. You too, Verdalaven.

:)

[LisaL]

202. Oh she is getting round the clock care for her children.

Her and the "angels in waiting" have reached an agreement.

[TwilightGardener]

78. The McCaugheys didn't set out to be famous for having litters.

There were two parents who had one child, wanted another, couldn't bear to abort any--it's certain they didn't try to conceive all those babies by counting on the generosity they'd receive from the public and from their hometown. Suleman is a sick pup--she had babies to make money and become famous. She doesn't deserve any of them. BTW--I heard a 911 "meltdown" tape of Suleman calling to report her child missing--threatening to kill herself, etc. Sorry, the McCaugheys are beacons of sanity and stability compared to her.

[Nikki Stone1]

85. Suleman and her family shunned the press in the early days of the octuplets.

The press was thrust upon her. Suleman is in many ways reacting to the press. Had the press left her alone, she wouldn't have sought them out.

What proof is there that Suleman's intent was to "get famous"? I haven't seen anything to that effect.

[TwilightGardener]

87. Puhlease. She didn't have to hire agents and publicists--she clearly

had a plan. No one forces you to do that--if you want to maintain your privacy, you simply do so. You turn down interviews and ask the media to leave you alone. I think the PARENTS of Suleman wanted their privacy, poor folks--they've done what they could for their daughter, but she's nuts.

[Nikki Stone1]

112. She hired a publicist to handle the press. I'd do the same in her place.

She was being hounded and she could NOT maintain her privacy. The parents couldn't do it either; I remember the father telling the press to just leave them alone. Remember, this is the LA area, land of the paparazzi and TMZ. Once she was on the radar, her privacy was gone.

Remember that the McCaugheys had been all over the national news and had been on all the morning shows as well. They had a lot of interviews and a much publicized call from President Clinton. It died down for them because the McCaugheys lived in Iowa and had the support of their family and church. Suleman lives in the LA area. had no one's support, and the tabloid press smelled blood in the water. They wouldn't have left her alone. The publicist is there to control some of the press--that's why you have a publicist. Once again, this is LA and having a publicist is not so strange here once you get into the public eye. Suleman's image had to be helped because she was in fear of losing these children: enter publicist. The publicist would not have been necessary if the reaction of the press and of the highly negative-"take those kids from her!"--public hadn't been so huge. A publicist is self defense in this case.

[TwilightGardener]

127. Yeah, they weren't trying to negotiate book deals and arrange for high-profile interviews...

which leads to more donations...you've got to be kidding. You're not worth arguing with, if you can't see the difference between a normal and stable lower-middle-class family who just HAPPENED to have a big litter, and a sick gal like Suleman.

[Nikki Stone1]

133. Why not a book deal? The woman needs income. She wasn't getting donations.

And the kids have to live. They are going to need a lot of care and one of the big criticisms is that Suleman is on public assistance. She is on this assistance because she was injured badly in a riot when she was working at a state psychiatric facility. She had severe back pain and PTSD as a result. The state should be supporting her, they were responsible for her injuries. However, she received such negative press for this and she had that media hog, Gloria Alred, threatening to take her children. (You have to be an Angelino to fully appreciate Alred.)

The woman needs money; she's getting trashed for being on public assistance when it was a state institution that got her there in the first place; So why not a book deal? Why not? Do you suggest that she can raise all those children on a school teacher's salary? In the LA area?

And as far as the McCaugheys were concerned, read colinmom71's post: (quoted here)

"The McCaugheys sought fertility treatments because the mom had medical issues that required treatment in order to biologically conceive.....But, what is not well known (and what they've tried to clean up after the fact), is that the drugs had caused hyper-stimulation and showed on ultrasound examination too many follicles to wisely continue treatment. They were told by the doctor to "scrub" that cycle and to come back next cycle in order to insure fewer follicles that could potentially fertilize and implant. They chose instead to go home and have sex, knowing the risks. And 7 pre-term babies were the result. (BTW, this info was released in the early days of the McCaughey septuplet birth by the doctors in a press conference. The McCaugheys however will not address or provide info on how the babies were conceived, only that fertility treatments were needed in the same manner their first child was conceived. And via medical privacy laws, the doctors can no longer comment on the issue beyond the initial clearance they had for the original press conferences.)"

[TwilightGardener]

LOL! Hey, if you find her such a sympathetic character, then by all means, write

her a check. I happen to believe she's a sick woman that created her own circus and is trying to live off of it.

[Nikki Stone1]

137. The McCaugheys were equally sick:

"The McCaugheys sought fertility treatments because the mom had medical issues that required treatment in order to biologically conceive.....But, what is not well known (and what they've tried to clean up after the fact), is that the drugs had caused hyper-stimulation and showed on ultrasound examination too many follicles to wisely continue treatment. They were told by the doctor to "scrub" that cycle and to come back next cycle in order to insure fewer follicles that could potentially fertilize and implant. They chose instead to go home and have sex, knowing the risks. And 7 pre-term babies were the result. (BTW, this info was released in the early days of the McCaughey septuplet birth by the doctors in a press conference. The McCaugheys however will not address or provide info on how the babies were conceived, only that fertility treatments were needed in the same manner their first child was conceived. And via medical privacy laws, the doctors can no longer comment on the issue beyond the initial clearance they had for the original press conferences.)"

[TwilightGardener]

145. How many times have you posted this same excerpt in this thread now?

We get it, the McCaugheys dared have sex while they could conceive. Shame, shame...

[Nikki Stone1]

152. They had sex when their doctor told them NOT to because of a risk of too many embryos

which brings all kinds of health and life risks. The McCaugheys were clearly not thinking of their daughter at home since they were willing to risk Mommy's life and health to carry seven fetuses to term and give birth to them WHEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO. They could have waited a month, had fewer follicles and much less risk.

Irresponsible. That's the only word for it.

And I posted it so that eventually you would run across it. Now read it a few more times and maybe you'll understand what it actually says.

[TwilightGardener]

157. I have no problem with reading comprehension. I also don't blame

the McCaugheys for gettin' it on when they thought they had the best chance of finally conceiving, despite the risk of over-fertilization. No matter how many times you post it, it doesn't change my mind.

[Nikki Stone1]

213. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Now it's clear that you support their irresponsibility.

It makes me wonder about you. The position you took is impractical, unhealthy and immoral. I shudder for any children you have.

[saltpoint]

235. O my.

[Obamanaut]

165. You wrote "The state should be supporting her." Ok, the state was

giving her (octomom) money, and she had a baby daddy for the existing six (was the state making him assist financially? I don't know, have not read anything), and she lived with her mom and spent the state money on various plastic surgeries, and then seeing how easy it is to get state money, she got more babies. Maybe publicity was in the back of her mind when she had all those little embryos implanted.

[bettyellen]

247. LOL, her disability for the back pain is ending- they think the strain of having them babies

is greater self inflicted damage than what she endured in the riot. not to worry, she's got four or five kids who'll be getting checks altogether. That'll help keep up with the collagen if she doesn;t decide to get a job after all.

[saltpoint]

88. When you hire a publicist to promote our special status as the single parent

of 14 children, you are not shunning the press.

To say nothing of the book deal and the NBC interview.

You are promoting yourself at the expense of your children's emotional well-being.

[Nikki Stone1]

128. No, she hired the publicist to calm the public furor and prevent her children from being taken away

The local LA and national press smelled blood in the water: a single mother, eight babies, no daddy around, no support from her family or church. This was someone all audiences could gawk at and that the media could use to boost ratings for a long time. Unfortunately, the press Suleman got put her at risk for losing her children. I'd hire a publicist too, in self defense, under those conditions.

[TwilightGardener]

132. OK, you're just sticking with that "self defense" shit, no matter what--

good luck with that. The rest of the country knows an exploitative, greedy sicko when we see it.

[Nikki Stone1]

136. No, I am just trying to show you the logic of the situation.

And you haven't answered my question about the McCaugheys:

"The McCaugheys sought fertility treatments because the mom had medical issues that required treatment in order to biologically conceive.....But, what is not well known (and what they've tried to clean up after the fact), is that the drugs had caused hyper-stimulation and showed on ultrasound examination too many follicles to wisely continue treatment. They were told by the doctor to "scrub" that cycle and to come back next cycle in order to insure fewer follicles that could potentially fertilize and implant. They chose instead to go home and have sex, knowing the risks. And 7 pre-term babies were the result. (BTW, this info was released in the early days of the McCaughey septuplet birth by the doctors in a press conference. The McCaugheys however will not address or provide info on how the babies were conceived, only that fertility treatments were needed in the same manner their first child was conceived. And via medical privacy laws, the doctors can no longer comment on the issue beyond the initial clearance they had for the original press conferences.)"

Is this a stable couple? They ignore their doctor's advice and decide to have a litter?

[TwilightGardener]

140. I'm pretty sure the McCaugheys, who had great difficulty conceiving

and who probably had trouble affording the expensive "cycles", can be forgiven for having sex during a very promising/fertile cycle. Being that they're a married couple and all--maybe they were just hot for each other one quiet Tuesday night. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have believed they could conceive 7 at a time, since their previous attempt only resulted in one child. They probably thought they might have twins, at worst. Sorry, I don't blame them. You don't know what you'll conceive--if you can conceive any at all. That's different than being implanted--over and over again. You might dislike the McCaugheys, but there's just nothing about them that says "greed" or "irresponsibility" to me.

[Nikki Stone1]

150. Oh come on! Their doctor told them to hold off.

I hold them entirely responsible for what happened. And yes, they were selfish and irresponsible. (I never said greedy, that must be your bugaboo.)

They also put themselves in an occasion of sin by having to choose between selective reduction (an impossibility for them) and risking the life and health of one child's mama (they were lucky nothing happened to Bobbi) and risking the life and health of the fetuses (two ended up with cerebral palsy.) Great religious pro-life types there.

[TwilightGardener]

156. Yeah, their doctor told them to hold off, because why wouldn't he

want to get a paycheck from them NEXT month, too? Sorry, if I was paying a huge amount of money to conceive, and someone told me I was fertile--TOO fertile, perhaps--I'd take my chances too. After all, how many women had had seven children at once back then? These people wanted ONE MORE CHILD--that's all they wanted--and being Catholic, couldn't bring themselves to abort any when the worst happened. My heart goes out to couples who can't conceive. My heart doesn't go out to women who already have six children, no partner, and NO support, and STILL keep getting themselves implanted.

[LisaL]

184. Two of the kids ended up having cerebral palsy.

[Nikki Stone1]

206. Your view of doctors is jaded--and wrong in this case. The doctor was right

He knew their pro-life leanings: that is part of the pre-fertility treatment discussions. He knew that if they had sex with too many follicles present, the McCaugheys risked a large multiple birth scenario without any opportunity for selective reduction. He told them, under these specific conditions, not to have sex so that they could avoid both a risk to their consciences and a risk to their childrens' health and Bobbi McCaughey's health. The latter would have profoundly affected their young daughter.

Instead of thinking like responsible, Christian parents, they thought like reckless, selfish children and produced a scenario in which they had far more children than they could afford on a 20K salary and two children with cerebral palsy. I imagine that older daughter's life changed forever and not in a good way. Reckless, selfish and irresponsible. The McCaugheys were every bit as bad as Suleman.

[skygazer]

91. Bullshit - the difference is not the "traditional family"

It is that this woman already had six kids. I'd be just as disgusted if she was married and rich. Why is that so hard to fathom?

People here are appalled every time the Duggars produce another and they do it one at a time. Why do they appall us? After all, they have a "traditional family." It's because they keep having more when they already have 18 (or 19 or however many they have now).

And for the record, I've never thought giving birth to litters was somehow wonderful. It is unhealthy and unnecessary.

[Nikki Stone1]

119. Are you as angry at the McCaugheys?

From colinmom71:

"The McCaugheys sought fertility treatments because the mom had medical issues that required treatment in order to biologically conceive.....But, what is not well known (and what they've tried to clean up after the fact), is that the drugs had caused hyper-stimulation and showed on ultrasound examination too many follicles to wisely continue treatment. They were told by the doctor to "scrub" that cycle and to come back next cycle in order to insure fewer follicles that could potentially fertilize and implant. They chose instead to go home and have sex, knowing the risks. And 7 pre-term babies were the result. (BTW, this info was released in the early days of the McCaughey septuplet birth by the doctors in a press conference. The McCaugheys however will not address or provide info on how the babies were conceived, only that fertility treatments were needed in the same manner their first child was conceived. And via medical privacy laws, the doctors can no longer comment on the issue beyond the initial clearance they had for the original press conferences.)"

[skygazer]

135. Angry? I'm not angry at anyone

And I fail to see how thinking the octo-mom situation is way off base somehow makes a person a sympathizer of the McCaugheys. Your logic is all screwed up and I clearly said in my post that I didn't approve of anyone having huge litters - by definition, that would include the McCaugheys.

Disapproving doesn't mean angry. You're making leaps of logic there as well. I'm simply pointing out that while you are correct when you say the two situations are different, the reason they are different is not the one you give. And just because they are different doesn't make one right and one wrong.

Jesus, it's like arguing with a third grader.

[Nikki Stone1]

139. Thank you for clarifying your statement and your logic

If you had read my entire OP, you would see that I am ALSO opposed to "large litters" and find the MCCaugheys and Suleman to be equally irresponsible and selfish. I believe that anyone who is pro-life should refrain from using fertility treatments (or abusing them, in the case of the McCaugheys) if these treatments create multiples, requiring selective reduction. A pro-choice person, like myself, would have no problems having a selective reduction and limiting the number of fetuses to one or two.

My main problem is with American society that rewarded the McCaugheys and vilified Suleman.

""The McCaugheys sought fertility treatments because the mom had medical issues that required treatment in order to biologically conceive.....But, what is not well known (and what they've tried to clean up after the fact), is that the drugs had caused hyper-stimulation and showed on ultrasound examination too many follicles to wisely continue treatment. They were told by the doctor to "scrub" that cycle and to come back next cycle in order to insure fewer follicles that could potentially fertilize and implant. They chose instead to go home and have sex, knowing the risks. And 7 pre-term babies were the result. (BTW, this info was released in the early days of the McCaughey septuplet birth by the doctors in a press conference. The McCaugheys however will not address or provide info on how the babies were conceived, only that fertility treatments were needed in the same manner their first child was conceived. And via medical privacy laws, the doctors can no longer comment on the issue beyond the initial clearance they had for the original press conferences.)"

[tonysam]

97. It's About What is Best for the Kids--Not About "Choice."

I HATE "choice feminism," and Nadya is not a good example of it. The KIDS need assistance, but she isn't able to take care of those kids.

You are trying to justify Nadya's irresponsibility. The kids deserve a stable environment, which she cannot provide. It's apples and oranges when it comes to comparing her to the McCaugheys, who just happen to be religious.

[Nikki Stone1]

124. I am not at all trying to justify Suleman. I am showing her equivalence with McCaughey's

and asking why the McCaughey's didn't get everyone as upset.

From colinmom71:

"The McCaugheys sought fertility treatments because the mom had medical issues that required treatment in order to biologically conceive.....But, what is not well known (and what they've tried to clean up after the fact), is that the drugs had caused hyper-stimulation and showed on ultrasound examination too many follicles to wisely continue treatment. They were told by the doctor to "scrub" that cycle and to come back next cycle in order to insure fewer follicles that could potentially fertilize and implant. They chose instead to go home and have sex, knowing the risks. And 7 pre-term babies were the result. (BTW, this info was released in the early days of the McCaughey septuplet birth by the doctors in a press conference. The McCaugheys however will not address or provide info on how the babies were conceived, only that fertility treatments were needed in the same manner their first child was conceived. And via medical privacy laws, the doctors can no longer comment on the issue beyond the initial clearance they had for the original press conferences.)"

[dustbunnie]

151. What makes you think they didn't?

“In the beginning, for every ten letters we would get that were happy for us, we’d get one letter accusing us of exploiting the kids and being selfish to waste the world’s resources on a family this big,” says Bobbi, who soon learned to recognize these letters because they never arrived with a return address.

That's from the Baptist Bulletin.

"With that said, let me get to the point of this column - the birth of the McCaughey septuplets in Iowa is a sad, selfish event that should be condemned instead of applauded."

That's from the Lantern, Ohio State Uni.

More ---> http://www.slate.com/id/112177/

Not everyone has run around throwing confetti at the McCaugheys either. They may not have received "as much" bad publicity, but guess the reasons for that are obvious if you scroll up and read some of the reminders. They behaved very differently thoughout and after their pregnancy.

[Nikki Stone1]

154. But they got 10 positive to 1 negative; Suleman has gotten death threats, and few positives

In other words, America is inconsistent, even though both actions were deplorable.

[dustbunnie]

161. The difference lies in their respective behaviors.

Why is that so difficult to see? Has nothing to do with "traditional" marriage though.

As I asked before upthread, would you respect an unemployed man who spread his seed all over the place, didn't care about supporting the brood he already created and continued merrily on, procreating more, leaving the responsibility of raising his progeny in the hands of his elderly parents?

Cause when women do this, it's a choice, yes, but a really stupid one, same as when men do it, and has nothing whatsoever to do with feminism or equality.

[Pithlet]

163. How did they behave differently?

It is difficult to see. Because I'm not seeing it. They're both low income. They both chose not to selectively reduce. They both got publicists.

[dustbunnie]

172. I don't know but maybe this is a start -

Giving TMZ pics of your pregnancy as you're about to pop, just to give the world a teaser inkling of how the whole lurid picture was going to unfold:: http://www.tmz.com/2009/02/12/octomom-it-was-a-very-goodyear/

Complaining about said lurid media attention even as you salivate for it. Inflating your lips to make yourself as ugly as possible while you emulate your heroine movie star and show the world what low self-esteem you have? You don't think people would find such a childish display somewhat laughable?

Not having ANY gainful employment, no matter how meager, to provide for even one more child, forget 8. Nadya wasn't low-income. She was NO-income.

The McCaughys ended up with two disabled children as a result of their SECOND pregnancy. Suleman ALREADY had two autistic children, who require much more attention and care than other children. The McCaugheys didn't add to their burden after they gave birth to disabled children by getting pregnant again did they?

Not having ANY support group other than your elderly parents who are strapped for cash themselves. You don't see what's wrong with shrugging off your 6, then 8 more children off on parents who seem TOTALLY not happy with the deal?

I could go on but these are enough for most people. Why should any of these actions be respected by anyone? I don't applaud the huge brood idea for anyone either, but if I were one such unfortunate birth child, I'd rather be born into the Dugger or McCaughy families, even given their religious fanaticism, rather than join the Suleman circus freak show.

Anyway, you're comparing apples to oranges, and if you can't see it, then guess you just can't. Maybe you think any decision a woman makes regarding procreation should be respected, because DAMMIT we're women, and it's OUR choice, no matter how damn stupid it is.

[Pithlet]

180. She gave those to TMZ? You sure about that?

That seems rather at odds with the woman who didn't want her name released from the hospital. Yeah, TMZ, that respectable bastion of reporting. They're believable. :sarcasm:

She got plastic surgery? That's supposed to be evidence of something? Really?

Since when have we on DU excoriated single moms for not having employment? Sounds awfully Free Republic to me.

I have a mildly autistic son. You want to tell me I shouldn't have anymore? Having another kid may or may not have been a good decision for her, but that still doesn't excuse the hate and the extreme negative tabloid coverage.

People help out their children and grand children all the time. You're making the judgment that it's unwanted by them. Would that be based on more TMZ reports?

You could go on. Your argument backed with tabloid evidence isn't convincing me much, though.

My argument isn't that her choices leading to her having octuplets was right. I'm saying that decision isn't much different than many of the famous cases. Her choices were very similar to some of the others who couldn't bare to selectively reduce and led to equally disastrous results. Her circumstances aren't identical, but they aren't sufficiently different enough to warrant the extreme difference in attitude with the coverage. That's the OP's point, and it's one I agree with 100%

[LisaL]

183. Oh you are clueless.

Octomom's mother personally gave a number interviews making it pretty clear she didn't want her daughter to have more children, considering she already had six.

[Pithlet]

189. Oh, you are a sweetie pie.

So, her mom's motives are pure. Funny how you judge the mom's motives differently when they both sought out publicity. Even thought the mom was the first to do so. You are the one who decides to ascribe motives. I'm not.

[LisaL]

192. Oh right. Grandma must be trilled she can now help to take care

of 14 kids, 8 of which are infants, at 69 years old. But for whatever reason she goes on TV and says she is not happy with her daughter having that many kids. Makes totals sense, of course.
:eyes:

[Pithlet]

195. Yes. Because I totally said she was happy.

Oh, another eyeroll smillie. Very clever. That really made my day. Thanks.

[LisaL]

200. This is what you said in your post.

"People help out their children and grand children all the time. You're making the judgment that it's unwanted by them. Would that be based on more TMZ reports?"
You seem to be arguing out the both sides of your mouth.

[dustbunnie]

186. Oh get off that ridiculous, lazy-assed Free Republic accusation already!

People use it whenever they have nothing else.

I don't know. Since you've added yourself to the picture why don't you ask yourself if you should have more children instead of me? Got a job? Big bank account? Do you have a husband? Wife? Roommate(s)? Sugar-daddy/mommy? Live in a communal environment with a support group? Got a Church/religious affliiation willing to help? Got 6 kids already? So tell us, if you say no to all but the last, are you going to go out and have another child IV?

No one's excoriating single moms for not having employment. What a stupid comment. People may have planned a large family but got dumped by the spouse and found themselves without employment. Nothing to be criticized there and don't know who would. Most unemployed single moms who decide to go ahead and give birth while they are unemployed, have one, or a few. Once it gets to six with no income, yeah, it's time to whip out the condoms or get yourself on the pill. What idiot would applaud some other decision? Apparently even feminists and our government have a problem with it, since the former keep fighting for abortion rights along with affordable birth control, while the government goes around endlessly, and maybe ineffectively, trying to educate women. I really despise this pathetic argument people throw out. As if creating a huge brood is somehow a brilliant choice for any single, unemployed mom. :eyes: And yes, six is already a brood for one person.

Plastic surgery is indicative of lots of stuff. And people who get their lips puffed up are laughed at these days. She's already expressed her adoration for Angelina Jolie and wanting to be like her, and people laugh at that too. People would laugh at anyone in the news who purports to emulate some famous person. What do you want me to tell you? I believe she has self-esteem issues, and bet lots of people agree with me. No, I wouldn't think of TMZ as my first news source, but those pics are just the start of her disastrous attempts to play the media.

[Pithlet]

187. Why not use it? It seems apt.

:eyes:

[dustbunnie]

190. Like I said, you have nothing to add to the discussion.

;-)

[Pithlet]

191. Not entirely true.

I've had some nice, rational interesting conversations with some other, nice polite people in this thread.

[dustbunnie]

196. Well, if you were doing so well, shame you had to throw out a free republic jab -

at someone you don't even know, who hasn't made any rude remarks on this thread and certainly didn't direct the comment that "earned" your judgement of my political values, at you. You may think it's brilliant for women to procreate at will, and as often as possible, because it's "our choice." Many, if not most women, happen to think it's not a bright choice at all. Doesn't make us republicans.

[Pithlet]

197. Well I'm sorry.

It sounded that way.

[dustbunnie]

222. I'm sorry too Pithlet. I don't like to come off as rude.

And it's just a message board. :hug:

[Nikki Stone1]

211. Your post makes it seem like she gave TMZ those pictures BEFORE the birth--she didn't

At this point, she's desperate for money and instead of receiving all the help that Bobbi McCaughey has, she's received vilification instead. So, she has to do things like sell her photos and publish a book. What the hell else is she going to do to bring in that kind of money to substitute for the donations she never got?

It's easy to hate Suleman because she is single and had her lips puffed out. It's harder to understand how she and Bobbi McCauhey are sisters under the skin, and that is all I am trying to show you. McCaughey was told NOT to have sex by her doctor during the particular cycle in which she conceived the septuplets because there were too many follicles, she risked multiple fertilizations and she was pro-life, meaning she wouldn't agree to any selective reduction. Multiple-birth pregnancies are far far more risky than single pregnancies, and McCaughey (and her equally irresponsible husband who wasn't making much money) risked Bobbi's life and health (both of which would have affected her first daughter profoundly) and the health of the septuplets. And the fact that two of the septs have cerebral palsy means that the doctor was right after all--but the McCaugheys knew better than the doctor.

It is my opinion that BOTH women were highly irresponsible and selfish.

[dustbunnie]

223. It's you who assumes she's hated because she's single.

You haven't given any great shakes for reasons as to why that's so, whereas lots of people have given you reasons why she deserves no respect, single or not.

Looking at Angelina Jolie, the other brood lady, it seems people don't give a hoot if women are single, as long as you can support your kids or have a network of friends, etc... to do so in your place.

Btw - it isn't an obligation for people to donate money or goods to people who hunger for procreation. Suleman is just lousy at selling herself.

[Nikki Stone1]

249. It wasn't you who was being addressed.

Project much?

[LisaL]

182. Few positives? Is somebody sending you free nurses to take

care of your offsprings?

[Nikki Stone1]

216. Those nurses aren't free and they came with a threat to take the children away

I live in LA and listened to local radio this week. The organization with the nurses is actually disappointed because they were assuming donations would take care of their work for Suleman: there are not many donations.

Secondly, the organization made their offer through Gloria Alred (who should know better); Alred, a single mother herself at one time, threatened Suleman with the loss of her children if she did not agree to accept the nurses' help. Alred is a well known media-hog lawyer in town and she used to be a feminist, but the older she gets, the wackier she becomes. As an attorney, she could file papers and cooperate with CPS in taking those children away from Suleman.

Some donation.

Oh, and BTW, these nurses are still looking for donations. Alred was questioned about the donations and she hemmed and hawed, but it was clear nothing substantial was being donated.

[LisaL]

220. They aren't free? Is octomom going to pay for them?

I don't think so.
And WTF is the organization with nurses expecting donations to care for octomom's children? Octomom had these children-let her to take care of them.
The last thing in the world I would want to do is to donate money to someone to take care of octomom's children.

[bettyellen]

248. i understand not giving a penny for Octomom cuz she;s a selfish idiot who'll buy herself more lips

but the nurses' charity deserves the help, this situation is not their, or the babies' doing.

[LisaL]

255. Well by all means donate then.

:eyes:

[zanne]

106. "John and Kate Plus Eight", anyone? nt

[Nikki Stone1]

115. Is that some kind of reality show?

I have some vague idea that it is.

[Pithlet]

167. Yes.

They had twins via some sort of fertility treatment, decided to have another go and ended up with sextuplets. Voila, reality show.

[zanne]

243. They were both unemployed when they had the sextuplets.

They started doing the reality show for income.

[colinmom71]

114. Umm, some of us have problems with BOTH the McCaugheys and Suleman....

And it has nothing to do with race or whether they were married or such. It has to do with abusing fertility treatments and making poor medical and ethical decisions.

The McCaugheys sought fertility treatments because the mom had medical issues that required treatment in order to biologically conceive. I *think* she had PCOS like Kate Gosselin, but I'm not sure. Her first attempt using follicle stimulating drugs resulted in one healthy daughter, and the second attempt two years later is now well known.

But, what is not well known (and what they've tried to clean up after the fact), is that the drugs had caused hyper-stimulation and showed on ultrasound examination too many follicles to wisely continue treatment. They were told by the doctor to "scrub" that cycle and to come back next cycle in order to insure fewer follicles that could potentially fertilize and implant. They chose instead to go home and have sex, knowing the risks. And 7 pre-term babies were the result. (BTW, this info was released in the early days of the McCaughey septuplet birth by the doctors in a press conference. The McCaugheys however will not address or provide info on how the babies were conceived, only that fertility treatments were needed in the same manner their first child was conceived. And via medical privacy laws, the doctors can no longer comment on the issue beyond the initial clearance they had for the original press conferences.)

Nadya Suleman also had a medical issue that restricted her ability to conceive naturally (blocked fallopian tubes). And although she already had six relatively healthy kids, she played the whole "snowflake" game (ie. - gotta implant all her frozen zygotes or she's not being appropriately pro-life) and chose to have all six remaining zygotes implanted, despite her inability to provide for the kids she already had. I don't really need to delve into this story since it's so recent and controversial, and we pretty much know all the details at this point.

Both families were rife with irresponsibility and ethical problems regarding fertility treatments. So no, I don't think it's OK to abuse fertility treatments regardless of the family structure, race, religion, etc. All decisions regarding the use of fertility treatments should be made under the advisement of the doctor and with respect to proper ethical use (ie. - avoid multiples as best as possible!)....

(Oh, if I don't answer back for a while, it's not because I'm avoiding. We're heading out to visit with the in-laws for the day and I don't always have computer access there... I'll check back later tonight though...)

Oops, grandma visitation plans called off till tomorrow. Sick people...

[Nikki Stone1]

117. Thank you, colinmom71. You and I are on the same page exactly.

I didn't know about this part:

"The McCaugheys sought fertility treatments because the mom had medical issues that required treatment in order to biologically conceive.....But, what is not well known (and what they've tried to clean up after the fact), is that the drugs had caused hyper-stimulation and showed on ultrasound examination too many follicles to wisely continue treatment. They were told by the doctor to "scrub" that cycle and to come back next cycle in order to insure fewer follicles that could potentially fertilize and implant. They chose instead to go home and have sex, knowing the risks. And 7 pre-term babies were the result. (BTW, this info was released in the early days of the McCaughey septuplet birth by the doctors in a press conference. The McCaugheys however will not address or provide info on how the babies were conceived, only that fertility treatments were needed in the same manner their first child was conceived. And via medical privacy laws, the doctors can no longer comment on the issue beyond the initial clearance they had for the original press conferences.)"


Amazingly irresponsible.

[kskiska]

130. The real estate agent says her dad bought the house

(snip)

The house came their way through the listing of the property by Mahesh Mike Patel , a 12 year veteran full time Broker Associate of Prudential California Realty. Patel told India Journal that the 2,583 square foot, four bedroom residence with a big yard in La Habra had been in the market with another agent for two years without being sold. He said when he took over, through aggressive marketing and internet techniques he was able to locate a buyer which turned out to be Ed Daud, the father of Nadya.

Patel added that what was ‘neat’ about the deal is the fact that the closing of the escrow is happening in less than two weeks. When questioned about how Ed Daud would be able to pay for the $ 564,900 home, Patel said it had been arranged under a non-traditional ‘seller’ financing deal, the details of which he would not be able to divulge as the escrow had not been signed at the time of going to press.

Patel was interviewed on several TV channels over the last couple of days and his phones are still ringing off the hook with calls from the media clamoring for details of the transaction.

The seller , Amer Haddadin who was moving his stuff out of the house was heard telling TV crews that he was glad the house had sold but he was really doing it for the 14 children who, he said, are “angels of God.”

more…
http://www.indiajournal.com/pages/event.php?id=6281

[LisaL]

181. Where did he get the money? Her dad would be the guy who

was going to go work in Iraq to take care of the brood.

[Control-Z]

252. I believe the father

is the only one in the family with the credit to purchase a home. My guess is that he purchased it (holds the title) after using his daughter's "opportunity" money for the down payment. I sure wish that just once Nadya would give her parents a little credit for all they do for her. They seem extremely patient and loving.

[femrap]

155. K and R

It's about time someone looked at this situation in a SANE manner. Thank you.

Our culture hates women. They will put up with those women who conform to what the culture demands. Those that don't....well, they used to burn them at the stake. Some 6 million of them.

[earth mom]

169. The BIG difference between the two moms is that octomom had 6 kids already

while septomom had 1 child as I recall. So we're talking 14 kids vs 8. Which is almost double the amount of kids. :wow:

I could give a damn if either mom was married, but what sticks in my craw and worries me is that 2 of octomoms first 6 children have disabilities and it was NOT fair to them to be shortchanged in this way.

Now NONE of those kids are going to get the attention or care they need. :argh:

[Nikki Stone1]

208. The McCaugheys deliberately chose a situation of multiple birth in which 2 kids have cerebral palsy

We could compare and contrast, but in the end, I find both situations horrific for the children.

Prolifers should not have IVF or fertility treatments that have the potential of producing multiple-birth pregnancies.

[dustbunnie]

217. Did they continue to have children after that?

No. They're taking care of they children they have, including those with special needs. The octomom, or whatever the hell she's called, continued on in her thirst for having babies AFTER she already had two special needs kids. Big difference.

[Politicalboi]

171. 14 kids are too many

People see her as a liar, creepy, and out to make a buck off her kids. At least the other mother had a job and so did her husband. And they weren't going on TV making more of a fool of themselves.

[cherish44]

174. There are lots of people who have more kids than they can afford or take care of

When I was teaching there was a family with six kids who at times were living in a room at a dive motel. Neither mom or dad worked. In the three years I was at this school the mom had three more pregnancies. As soon as she delivered one she as knocked up with next one. So when I left this school 6 years ago she had nine, I hear she's got 13 now. All singleton births, 13 kids living in poverty. It pisses me off because I know so many people who have the maturity and resources to care for kids and desperately want them and can't get pregnant.

[LisaL]

177. Oh give me a freaking break. Suleman had six previous children,

I believe three of which are receiving disability? She paid for the house on her own? How do you think she made the money? The woman is getting free nurses to take care of the brood, for crying out loud.

[Nikki Stone1]

207. And the McCaugheys were making 20K at their high point. Where did they get the money?

I think both cases are irresponsible and reckless. I don't know why people are defending the McCaugheys and attacking Suleman in the same breath.


(Just in case you didn't see this: the McCaugheys chose their situation every bit as deliberately as Suleman chose hers.

"The McCaugheys sought fertility treatments because the mom had medical issues that required treatment in order to biologically conceive.....But, what is not well known (and what they've tried to clean up after the fact), is that the drugs had caused hyper-stimulation and showed on ultrasound examination too many follicles to wisely continue treatment. They were told by the doctor to "scrub" that cycle and to come back next cycle in order to insure fewer follicles that could potentially fertilize and implant. They chose instead to go home and have sex, knowing the risks. And 7 pre-term babies were the result. (BTW, this info was released in the early days of the McCaughey septuplet birth by the doctors in a press conference. The McCaugheys however will not address or provide info on how the babies were conceived, only that fertility treatments were needed in the same manner their first child was conceived. And via medical privacy laws, the doctors can no longer comment on the issue beyond the initial clearance they had for the original press conferences.)"

[dustbunnie]

215. It's not that you don't know why people are supposedly defending the McCaugheys -

It's that you're unwilling to accept the reasons why they are different. And those reasons have been pointed out quite clearly.

Her latest publicist just quit because, in his words "she's greedy," and "she's nuts." Another reason why they're different. The McCaugheys managed to keep their publicists. But that's just minor. You still haven't addressed how a man who is only interested in procreating but not in raising his children would somehow be treated differently. That would be comparing "double standards." Not what you've done. I agree with whoever it was that said you've created a "straw mom."

[Nikki Stone1]

251. Was I addressing you?

Uh....no.

[NaturalHigh]

228. My opinion applies to both Suleman and the McCaugheys.

Nobody should have children they aren't able to support on their own. Personally, I will not be donating money to either family. I am not familiar with the McCaugheys, but I think it takes a lot of gall for Miss Suleman to put up a website asking for donations. It's as if she is saying "I chose to have another eight children and now I expect you to support them for me."

[Control-Z]

262. Suleman actually said,

in an interview, that the corporations not donating diapers and formula to her were unfairly "taking away" from her babies. She seems to believe that she's entitled to her share of donations because they (diaper and formula companies) have made donations to other families of multiples in the past.

[we can do it]

232. Both Are Litters - Overpopulation Is Killing the Planet

[Bluerthanblue]

236. K&R! n/t

[shanti]

238. if you're humor impaired

please don't open this!

http://www.maniacworld.com/OctoMom-Giving-Birth.html

[MzShellG]

239. Absolutely! k&r....nt

[REP]

241. Many people has as much disdain for Snaggletooth and Pumpkinhead as they do for Octomom

The press lined up to kiss their ass because litters were a novelty. Now they're not.

[BlooInBloo]

242. Did septomom directly try to cash in via a PR agent, etc?

[Nikki Stone1]

250. Septomom' public image was very positive and she was getting a ton of donations

including a 5,000 sq ft house which neither she (unemployed) nor her husband (making 20K) could afford. She didn't need a PR person, although you might not know that she and her husband were taken care of by pro-life groups; her husband became a speaker for pro-life rallies (cashing in) and the pro-life machinery took care of her defense in the media. The pro-life machinery is not there for Suleman because she is single.

[Sultana]

253. OctoMom Gets Her MAC On

She's not too poor to afford MAC makeup when she has 14 kids to take of... :eyes:

http://www.tmz.com/2009/02/18/octomom-mac-cosmetics-photo/

Nadya is a psycho compared to the other woman!

[LisaL]

254. Well since the woman is going to get free nurses to take

care of her infants, why shouldn't she buy some makeup and get her nails done? And the OP has the gulls to complain octomom isn't getting the good treatment.

[Sultana]

256. Do you know how expensive MAC is?

She needs to take care of the kids she has at home.

WELFARE QUEEN.

[LisaL]

259. I obviously should have added a sarcasm icon to my post.

[Marrah_G]

257. There is a big difference between the two situations.

But I think both were irresponsible.

One was more irresponsible then the other.

One is also demanding and delusional.

[cynatnite]

258. McCaughey...good. Suleman...bad.

Corporate media sure is a fickle lot and their reporting on Suleman has been nauseating. It pisses me off even more to see how many people, DU included, has followed corporate media like little sheep on this.

[Marie26]

260. Agreed. I'm pro-octomom.

Or at least, not against. More like apathetic-octomom. I don't get the outrage. And I suspect that it has to do w/re-directed anger about the government bailouts. We'll all pay AIG a million times more money than Suleman.