Octuplets! Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
That's like twins cubed.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Cubed and simmered into a nice stew. Exactly.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I am disturbed that a doctor implanted that many embryos.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
That and the fact they 'didn't want to comment' on where she received the treatments did kind of make you wonder. Not the only disturbing aspect of the story, for me.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah. I could understand IUI resulting in high-level multiples. NOt a happy thing to deal with, but it happens. But, embryos should NOT be implanted in those numbers. You note that the Kaiser doctors were really quick to say, "She was pregnant when we got her!" They don't want to be associated with that kind of practice.
Also, she lives with her parents and has 6 other kids... but there's no mention of a husband/partner. What's up with that?
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
I heard that she was a single mom...that is going to be rough with that many kids.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
I thought it said he's a contractor in Iraq? What a woman with six kids and a husband working abroad is doing getting pregnant again - even with a singleton - I can't imagine, though. Of course, this kind of speculation may be exactly why they didn't want to comment much. Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
On further inspection it might be the woman's father, not her children's father, who is the contractor in Iraq. Mysteriouser and mysteriouser...
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by RackhamsRazor: I heard that she was a single mom...that is going to be rough with that many kids.
Yeah, that's going to be near impossible! My aunt had triplets (in vitro), and even with her hubby, my mom, grandmother, me occasionally, etc., it was still rough.
They're eight now, so things have eased up some. Then again, their younger brother, a surprise, is a mischievous yet charmer of a child.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I am disturbed that a doctor implanted that many embryos.
Its kinda unnatural, don't they usually only implant 4?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, jeez - life is going to be rough for a long while for everyone in a 30-mile radius.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
The article states that women under 35 usually only get implanted with two, women over 35 it didn't say the number, but eight is too many. My understanding is the only other set of octuplets was a result of fertility drugs, not implantation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I am disturbed that a doctor implanted that many embryos.
Ditto.
I wonder if there had been previous failed attempts with fewer embryos. But even had that been so, 8 is irresponsible medical practice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps she sees a future with her own show on TLC?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm trying not to be that cynical. Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Perhaps she sees a future with her own show on TLC?
*snort*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think its far more likely that the newspaper got the details wrong than that any fertility clinic would implant 8 embryos. IVF is very expensive and I can't imagine woman in this situation having the money to do it. IVF is a difficult procedure and not something that can be done by fly by night clinics.
Its far more likely that this woman was taking fertility drugs and not IVF. Newspapers make this sort of error all the time so I'm going to presume the newspaper is wrong until there is additional confirmation and the IVF clinic that implanted 8 embryos comes forth.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
I read in our local paper she was on fertility drugs, and was offered the choice to reduce the number of embryos when told how many there were. She turned that down of course.
My only question... when someone has six children, what kind of physician is going to put them on fertility drugs? I think six children in 8* years implies a sufficient level of child-bearing potential.
* I believe I read one of the oldest children was 8.
EDIT: No, the kids are ages 7, 6, 5, 3, 2, 2. I'm going to stick with my thought that fertility was NOT a problem prior to this conception.
[ January 30, 2009, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Architraz Warden ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I honestly have kind of a problem with any sort of fertility treatment for a woman who already has six kids. I'm not sure I'm ready to advocate for anything in particular, but were I a doctor, I'd refuse to help a woman have more kids in that situation. Sort of like refusing plastic surgery to someone who's on their fifth nose job. This lady is kind of the Michael Jackson of fertility treatments.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I've been through fertility treatments twice, so I can confidently state that no ethical, licensed doctor would ever implant that many embryos. It's much more likely that she took fertility drugs.
If these babies are the result of fertility drugs, it's not the doctor's fault. The ultimate goal of fertility doctors is to get a woman pregnant with one baby - that is considered the most successful outcome. High order multiples are not generally considered a success, especially since the mother is much more likely to miscarry some or all of them.
You can never predict how a woman will respond to any given fertility drug. For example, I produce multiple eggs on a relatively low dosage, which is why I've only ever gotten pregnant with multiples. I will never, ever go above that specific dosage (I got pregnant with Aerin and the twins from the exact same dosages) because I don't want to have high-order multiples and Andrew and I are strongly opposed to reduction. Another woman might require 4-5 times my dosage to conceive even 1 baby.
Any kind of fertility treatments are extremely expensive, so I'm wondering where she got the money (it seems like money is very much an issue for her, but I could be wrong).
It doesn't surprise me that someone with 6 children would want more. If I could have, I'd have had 14 myself. Heck, I just went through 14 weeks of bedrest and a miserable pregnancy and I have 2 newborns and I'm ready to have another. I'd vastly prefer to have them one at a time, though.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I don't know...it just doesn't seem to me that she was infertile. I mean, just looking at the spacing of the previous children, it doesn't seem likely that they would have been the result of fertility treatments. For one thing, back to back pregnancies take a toll on a woman. They are now suggesting 18 months between pregnancies (not between babies) and while that's not a hard and fast thing, doing it over and over and over again seems risky. From that perspective, I do wonder why a doctor would help her with fertility treatments after having 6 kids.
Now, there are a lot of details missing from this story and I am filling in the gaps with assumptions so I'm sure there's some explanation for this.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...the kids are ages 7, 6, 5, 3, 2, 2"
Even if we were to assume that "7" means "nearly 8", and that "2" means "barely 2", that's 5 pregnancies in 6years. So the average is closer to pregnant every 14months. Personally, I'd like to see the genetics of the father of the octuplet-bearing woman compared to those of the 14 kids.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I read an article claiming that in China, women with no fertility problems would take fertility drugs in order to get multiples (since the China policy is actually results of one pregnancy, not one baby so twins are really, really desired). It has been a while, but I thought that the women were getting the drug not from doctors but other sources, so maybe this women read the same article and was inspired.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I read an article claiming that in China, women with no fertility problems would take fertility drugs in order to get multiples (since the China policy is actually results of one pregnancy, not one baby so twins are really, really desired). It has been a while, but I thought that the women were getting the drug not from doctors but other sources, so maybe this women read the same article and was inspired.
I wondered this too, but for a different reason -- an article I read said that she first went to doctors about her pregnancy at 12 weeks. This seems somewhat late in the game for someone who is under the supervision of a fertility doctor.
But like I said, lots of missing details, and probably some incorrect ones too. Tough to say much of anything about this case. It strikes me as odd, though.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Still, any woman taking fertility drugs should be monitored closely. I was.
Once I started taking them, I had ultrasounds which showed how many follicles were nearing maturity. If a doctor is giving the types of drugs that result in anywhere near 8 eggs being released...he/she most definitely needs to monitor that patient and cancel the cycle if too many eggs are nearing maturity and try again next month with a lower dose.
Regardless of how it happened, I think there is fault to go around here - responsibility shared between the woman and the doctor(s) that helped her get pregnant with that many children.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
The CNN article states that the grandmother is the one who stated that the embryos were implanted. I assume she would know what procedure her daughter had done, although she might be mistaken. That still begs the question, who did it? I'd like to know, if only so that, if when I am ready to have children, I don't go to that doctor.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Personally, I'd like to see the genetics of the father of the octuplet-bearing woman compared to those of the 14 kids.
Explain please? Why would grandfather's genetics be relevant here?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Apparently she's single, used a sperm donor to concieve all her kids, and filed for bankruptcy last year?
What are her parents thinking, supporting her in this?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
If she filed for bankruptcy last year, does that mean her parents paid for her fertility treatments? Where is the money coming from?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I re-read. Her parents bought her a house, then they filed for bankruptcy. So they moved in with her and the kids.
No idea where the money came from, but it sounds like she went to Mexico? And possibly lied to the doctors about her previous pregnancies/situation?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I want to have several kids one day, but I couldn't handle 14, especially 8 at once.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think mental illness, or at least an extreme lack of reason would be necessary to have fertility treatments after having already given birth to 6 children. It's sick.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I think mental illness, or at least an extreme lack of reason would be necessary to have fertility treatments after having already given birth to 6 children. It's sick.
That's over the line. Having 6 kids and wanting more is neither a sign of mental illness or anything else -- IF the parents can afford it. You don't want a dozen kids? Great. Neither do I. But I have friends and relatives who do, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But yes, it does seem like there's a lot wrong with this case. With the only evidence of implantation a claim from the grandmother (who has been inconsistent), it does seem more likely that the mother overdid fertility drugs, that she may or may not have gotten her hands on through appropriate channels. With no father in the picture, and the cost of all this putting so much strain on her parents, it does seem like something is very out of whack.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I agree, it's not the wanting more than 6 kids. It's the obsessive need to have a lot of kids all at once with no father and no money, and a disintegrating support system.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Rivka, I know this is a fundamental disagreement that we have, but respectfully I do see something wrong with wanting to have a dozen children. It would take a hell of a good financial and family situation for me to think it was ok. A parent just can't look after and raise 12 kids the same way they could 4 kids, or even 6. My only experience wit ha family of this size is my Mother's family, which was royally screwed up, and a family in my neighborhood with 14 kids, 3 of whom committed suicide.
But we're just talking about this case, and in this case, no reasonable person would do what this woman has chosen to do. I'd like to see a situation in which such a parenting load could actually be manageable. There was that family that was posted about a few weeks ago with I forget how many kids, that seemed to be working, but how can we really tell from news reports? I'll be very skeptical about such a situation being favorable for kids.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting a dozen kids, but like others have said, this woman is doing it without a father, without financial support, too close together for her mental or physical health, and with the help of fertility treatments.
Loosely related -- I've been reading a book with the goal of helping my 3-year-old to speak better and it is recommending a program of 30 minutes a day of one on one playtime with each child. It goes into all the reasons that this one on one time is so important. As I was reading, I was thinking about 14 kids -- there's no way! And in this case none of the 14 kids are even old enough that they could do without that one on one time. There is actually a mental disorder associated with high-order multiples not getting enough bonding time with their caregiver.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
From the last clip I saw, I don't think she's relying too much on her parents. The mother claims to be leaving before the babies get home, she'll have nothing to do with them.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I hate to say it but CPS needs to look long and hard at whether this woman gets to keep her 8 new babies.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Rivka, I know this is a fundamental disagreement that we have, but respectfully I do see something wrong with wanting to have a dozen children.
One of the many things you think you're an expert on with no actual experience. *shrug*
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I hate to say it but CPS needs to look long and hard at whether this woman gets to keep her 8 new babies.
Sadly, I agree.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I am pretty sure the hospital will, in this particular case, have a case worker involved in figuring out whether they are ready to go home-- and whether they will go home with her.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Rivka, I know this is a fundamental disagreement that we have, but respectfully I do see something wrong with wanting to have a dozen children.
One of the many things you think you're an expert on with no actual experience. *shrug*
I don't know where you get off, but I've got a right to an opinion, and I NEVER claimed to be a bleeding expert on this. You've never been so rude to me.
When the hell did Hatrack become the place where only experts and highly experienced people could express their viewpoints? Last time I checked, when I talk about one of the few things I actually am an expert in, you have no problem telling me what you think.
I'm too pissed off to say anything else. Excuse me for being tongue tied.
Edit: You've gone out of your way to insult me in this manner several times recently. I'm asking you to stop. I don't ever come here and tell you you're not qualified to speak about anything, and if I ever have in the past, I'm sorry I did, because it's an uncharitable impulse.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
kq, I'm sure.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Actually, forget it. I'm not one of these people with illusions about how important my contributions are. If you dislike hearing from me so much, I should probably just leave.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Here's the really sad thing though - even if they don't go home with the mother, where CAN they go and all be together?
Almost anyone would say it's wrong to split up twins for adoption (or at least, that's the opinion whenever it's discussed in places I've heard) - so wouldn't it be JUST as wrong to split up Octuplets? Yet what sort of foster or adoptive parent is prepared to cope with 8 newborns at a time?
On the other hand, this mother seems extremely unprepared for such a fete. She is living with her parents in a two or three bedroom house - and it appears at least one of the parents will be leaving soon. That means, best case scenario, she'll have only one other caregiver to help. The Simpson episode where all the babies are being stowed in dresser drawers appears to be startlingly close the reality these kids might face going home.
I just pray the children come out of this with only the normal number of childhood scars.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Almost anyone would say it's wrong to split up twins for adoption
Well, I'm not sure about that. Preferable not to, definitely. But I don't know that it's necessarily wrong in all cases.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Definitely preferable not to. But DCFS has enough trouble keeping sibling groups of 2 together, I highly doubt they'd be able to keep 8 or 14 together. For one thing, they require kids go to a home with a bedroom for every 2 kids (so that would be at least a 5 bedroom house in this case) and I think they have special requirements for special needs kids which might indicate splitting them up. (I think babies this premature will mostly qualify as special needs.)
I don't agree with all their requirements but they are what they are. And in some cases I think being split up, awful as it is, is better than staying in an abusive or neglectful home. And, in the end, the goal of taking kids is always for the parent(s) to get help and get the kids back (or at least it's supposed to be...)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I would think that the octuplets are so unique and special that finding potential parents is possible. After all, whoever takes them is almost guaranteed a show on TLC.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Wouldn't that make it kind of like the Presidency? You know, whoever really wants it, is the person least suited for it; the people who would be best at it aren't the ones who want to go through what you have to go through to get it.
"I want to adopt 8 kids so I can be on TV!" <shudder>
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I would not think it would be in the best interests of the octuplets to have all 8 of them together unless they were together with their parent(s) and then you would need to bring in a LOT of help. Babies need a lot of one on one nurturing time with a caregiver and IMO, that supercedes any need to be with someone who was crowding you out in-utero.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*calls foul on the title of this thread*
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The mother is already seeking money for media deals and plans a career as a TV childcare expert.
Assuming it's not simply wishful thinking, it creates an interesting dilemma.
With enough money, she could hire help to take care of the kids, and provide adequate facilities & food. I think with two to four full time nannies and a large house there's a good chance the kids would be adequately cared for.
Without money or donated resources, it would seem the fourteen children are destined for neglect and poor living conditions.
Is it moral to prop this mother up with media money and expert assistance? It would send an odd message about responsibility. But is it the lesser evil compared to either separating the family or - I shudder to think - let this woman try to raise the children on her own?
I really hope we don't somehow encourage women to imitate this reproductive strategy.
But if Oprah or someone else can see a profit in paying this woman enough to make things work - is that OK to do?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Where did you see that she wanted to give parenting advice?
Can't say I'd want to take parenting advice from an unmarried, unemployed woman who has gotten pregnant 6 times in 7 years, even if it turns out that having many babies at once was an accident (which I'm beginning to doubt).
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
here Sorry that it's FOX if you care.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I saw that here.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
beat you.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Every time!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I feel very bad for these children.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
All right, whatever the truth is behind this woman, whatever irresponsible behavior might have transpired on her part of her doctor's (all of which remains conjecture), I find that this is an utterly distasteful response.
So if someone makes (or may have made) poor decisions, or wants a family in a nontraditional manner, it is our duty as American citizens to turn our back on her and the utterly blameless children?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think that in this situation, the gifts should be donated in trust for the kids. So, if someone were to give them a house, the mom can't sell it and when they are 18, it is theirs. But baby food and diapers are still needed and I would be disgusted by anyone who boycotted a company for provided those needs.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If companies don't want to donate, that's their choice. But threatening boycotts of any company that does?
That's disgusting.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I wouldn't boycott a company that donated, but I wouldn't be upset by any that didn't either. Companies are in business to make a profit, not to give free products to people, even in circumstances like these. I was trying to find a reference to it on the web but I can't. I recall in the mid to late nineties a woman in the washington dc area giving birth to natural quints. She wasn't offered anything for a long time, mostly because it was around the time that another group of high order multiples was born and they got all of the media attention. She dealt with it, and it may be that this mother has to as well.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
It's not that I think all companies need to give freebies to anyone who gives birth to 5 babies or more, but rather than I would expect the community to lend a hand. A woman in our MOPS group gave birth to quints a year and a half ago and there was some local media coverage, a few freebies, but it was the church that got together and put volunteers in her house around the clock to help feed and diaper 5 babies. I'm getting the impression that this woman has no support structure. Even her own mother seems to be against her. She may have made some mistakes but that doesn't mean the world turns its back on her.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that there is a tricky balance to be struck between supporting these children and encouraging the mindset that prompts a single woman with 6 children that she already can barely support to get a costly medical procedure to have octuplets to support her family on media deals.
I don't know quite what that balance is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't either. But I'm quite certain the suggested boycotts are on the wrong side of the line.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
This attempts to figure it out.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I'm getting the impression that this woman has no support structure.
That's what really scares me. Instead of trying to build up support during her pregnancy/after the birth, she seems to have managed to alienate her family, her neighbors, her friends (from what I've read in a few places), and the community. She doesn't seem to have any kind of support and she's going to need it to take care of that many babies. I'm really worried about those kids. Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Yow.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Well, that explains her back problems.
--j_k
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: If companies don't want to donate, that's their choice. But threatening boycotts of any company that does?
That's disgusting.
To be fair, we read in an article that a radio personality said that people are ready to boycott. I somehow doubt that these alleged people amount to a large number.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I read that she only expected one baby from the pregnancy at the outset, or possibly two at most.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I had to catch up on this story pretty quickly.
Seriously: She's insane. She can't be defended from allegations that she's profoundly bonkers. It sucks for the kids. At this point, her sleb status will be the only thing that can pump her (... possibly) with enough support to avoid having to have her kids taken from her and it still might happen. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I read that she only expected one baby from the pregnancy at the outset, or possibly two at most.
Which is why I'm so mad at the doctor.
He knew this could happen.
She has the insanity excuse. He doesn't.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I read that she only expected one baby from the pregnancy at the outset, or possibly two at most.
Which is why I'm so mad at the doctor.
He knew this could happen.
She has the insanity excuse. He doesn't.
This is how I feel as well. I know the country is mad at this woman but I feel sorry for her. You can say she's irresponsible, naive, stupid, and all the rest but mostly what I'm seeing is a woman trying to fill an emotional void with children and who was willing to go to extreme measures to get them.
I'm not so sure about the doctor.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I am curious when they are going to announce who the doctor was and if he will try to defend himself. I am not all that curious about the mom or the babies, but I would really like to hear from the doctor.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Supposedly, the doctor is this guy. I don't think he's said anything much himself - not even sure how much he could say considering that it's a confidential medical procedure.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:This is how I feel as well. I know the country is mad at this woman but I feel sorry for her. You can say she's irresponsible, naive, stupid, and all the rest but mostly what I'm seeing is a woman trying to fill an emotional void with children and who was willing to go to extreme measures to get them.
Can we throw unbelievably selfish in there also?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
This women makes it seem like he should have been shut down years ago.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:This is how I feel as well. I know the country is mad at this woman but I feel sorry for her. You can say she's irresponsible, naive, stupid, and all the rest but mostly what I'm seeing is a woman trying to fill an emotional void with children and who was willing to go to extreme measures to get them.
Can we throw unbelievably selfish in there also?
I think so. It would be different if she could reasonably support them. I don't have any moral issue with, for example, the Duggars.* As it is though, she is bringing out my inner Republican. I think she is terribly irresponsible.
*I do find them a bit creepy, though.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Yeah, you can definitely throw a selfish in there!
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I think selfish is actually at the top of the list. If you've listened to her interview she makes it very clear that ALL of this was about HER needs and HER wants. Her children are a type of emotional band-aid for her, and that is never a healthy situation.
On the other hand, here they are! It isn't the kids' fault their mother is a nutcase. It isn't as if taking the kids away from the mother would solve anything either. Does anyone here believe it would be truly RIGHT to separate them? Where on earth could you find an adoptive family prepared to handle 8 babies?
Actually, the best solution I've heard was the guy in Illinois who offered to let the whole family come an live on his farm. I think that is an excellent idea. Of course, I don't think the mother is remotely interested in doing anything that might lead to her having to do REAL work in order to support these kids. However, I think on the farm they'd have the sense of community they would need to pull through this, along with the space and resources needed to raise so many children.
As for boycotting companies, I'm really not sure how I feel. I certainly would boycott any company that was making it seem like having an irresponsibly large number of children was the way to get free stuff. On the other hand, these kids do need things. I really don't know... Maybe if one of them offered to employ the mother in exchange for childcare and supplies like in the movie "Where the Heart Is...."
This is a really awful situation. I feel absolutely terrible for her first 5 kids. I feel pretty bad for her newest batch of children. I also feel bad for the Taxpayers of California who are getting to foot the bill for this laboratory created insanity.
I'd like to smack the mother upside the head a few times. I'd like to fine the stupid doctor enough to bankrupt him, and then put him in prison for the rest of his life!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I am quite sympathetic, DDDaysh. Although I'd be unlikely to smack her upside the head, you've pretty well summed up my take on it.
Hey, thanks! Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I agree with much of what DDDaysh had to say, but this part
quote:Of course, I don't think the mother is remotely interested in doing anything that might lead to her having to do REAL work in order to support these kids.
Taking care of 6 young children is REAL work. Taking care of 6 young children and 8 newborns is super human REAL work. What ever might be said about this woman, from all reports she has been a diligent mother to her 6 young children and that is REAL work, 24 - 7 work.
I'm actually really POd at people who discount the work mothers do taking care of their children as if the fact that they don't get paid for it some how means it isn't REAL. It is REAl, its hard work round the clock with no breaks, sick leave or vacations. What's more, its valuable, meaningful work and it is the most important thing a mother can do to support her children.
Women who choose to stay home with their children aren't lazy shirkers who are unwilling to work to support their children. Being a mother is real, valuable, important work and society should be doing everything possible to make it possible for mothers of young children to be full time mothers if that is what they choose.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'd guess I should add that my little rant above was in no way meant to imply I thought this women had behaved responsibly. Quite the opposite. Choosing to have children when you do not have the means to support them is recklessly irresponsible. I have sympathy for those unintentionally get pregnant before they are ready but It isn't like this woman "accidentally" conceived these children when she wasn't prepared -- she took extraordinary measures to have these children.
Her behavior somehow reminds me of Munchausen syndrome. It seems like she has children as a means to get attention and sympathy and by having Octuplets, she's hit the jackpot. I'm seriously worried about what she will do when the publicity blows over and she is left with the overwhelming burden of caring for her 14 children.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Agreed [with both posts above].
I'm also balancing my general distaste for the matter with the realization that this woman has been swamped with a lot of vitriol. No matter what she did, to get this much extended attention and this much extended discussion means (to me) that we are all talking about bigger issues than just her situation. The level of emotion the situation raises (and I feel it, too) is remarkable. I'm not sure what that means, but it is definitely there, and it is unusual.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Rabbit - perhaps I'm being naive, but I don't really get the impression that she is the one taking care of her previous children. She's been pregnant and living with her parents most of their lives. I suppose I'm just dubious of how much of the actual child rearing she has been doing.
If she is, in fact, a devoted hands on mother - then I guess I'm wrong. She just seems so utterly clueless about what actually goes into raising children that it's hard for me to believe. She says things that are completely contradictory - "I will stop my life for my children", "I have a plan", and (paraphrasing) "It doesn't matter if it was fair to the other six kids".
I also don't believe for a second that she'd give up school to go live and work on a farm, even if the farm promised to provide for her and her children. I just don't think she's capable of being that selfless. Maybe, however, I'll be proven wrong.
I did not, however, mean to imply in any way that stay-at-home mothers do not work. I did it for a few months when my son was a baby and I still had two children, and it was real work. I only did not view that as applying in this particular situation.
Then again, maybe I'm just jealous. My son seems to be growing up so fast, and I guess I've got the baby bug! I'm jealous of anyone who can have more kids and has the ability to devote themselves entirely to their child. While I know that my job and even my school are necessary to provide stability to the child I do have, I suppose I still resent them a bit.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
DDDaysh -- I understood what you meant by real work and was not offended, though I'm not sure whether this woman is doing any real work (of raising kids) or not. Whether she is or not, though, it is still irresponsible of her to intentionally have so many as a single mom. Part of being a mom (married or single) is that you do what it takes to take care of the family....emotionally, mentally, financially. There are many women (married and single) who would love to stay home and take care of the children but cannot. Then there's this woman, who really can't do either one because the money doesn't work out whether she stays at home or goes to work and no single person can take care of 14 children including 8 newborns.
As far as staying home with kids...it's not for everyone. They grow up quickly either way and some people will get more enjoyment out of their kids from being away for some time during the day and having a separate identity. Like I said, mothers first and foremost do what it takes, whatever that is.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Sounds like some people are a bit extreme and crazy.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
People are crazy.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
That's worse than crazy. Its mean and vicious.
I really can't understand why anyone would go out of their way to track down this woman and her publicist to curse at them let alone to make violent threats. There are some things about human behavior I will never understand.
This woman's publicist does make a very valid point. People (including me) have been jumping to all sorts of conclusions about this woman with very limited data. We really don't know enough about her or her situation to make judgements about her mental health, speculate about how hard she works or what kind of mother she is or to understand why she made the choices she's made.
I don't agree with most of the choices she made, but I do hope that she can get enough support from her family and her community to be able to be a good mother to her 14 children. In the long run, that will be much better for these kids than spending a life bouncing around the foster care system.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
While we lack detailed data, it's one of those situations where it's pretty much inconceivable that variables will line up in such a way that "have 14 kids in 6 or 7 years without housing, familial support, or money" will start to look like a good idea.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But that was never her intent. (Although I tend to agree that "have 6 or 7 kids in 8 years without housing, familial support, or money", which was her intent, isn't a whole heck of a lot better.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: While we lack detailed data, it's one of those situations where it's pretty much inconceivable that variables will line up in such a way that "have 14 kids in 6 or 7 years without housing, familial support, or money" will start to look like a good idea.
With the caveat rivka already stated, I agree that we have enough data to conclude this woman acted irresponsibly in choosing to have 7 to 8 children in under eight years without a partner nor adequate resources. But there is a leap between saying her choices were irresponsible and speculating that she did it to get attention (as I did), that she is insane, selfish, stupid or unwilling to do any real work to care for her children. In retrospect, I think it was uncharitable of me to make that leap.
There is an even bigger leap between speculating about her motives and getting angry enough to organize boycotts or make death threats. I really can't even begin to speculate about why people would behave that way but think I have enough data to conclude the people doing those things are behaving in a way that is irresponsible, irrational, unethical, and outright mean if not criminal.
[ February 18, 2009, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There is an even bigger leap between speculating about her motives and getting angry enough to organize boycotts or make death threats. I really can't even begin to speculate about why people would behave that way but think I have enough data to conclude the people doing those things are behaving in a way that is irresponsible, irrational, unethical, and outright mean if not criminal.
Agreed entirely.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: While we lack detailed data, it's one of those situations where it's pretty much inconceivable that variables will line up in such a way that "have 14 kids in 6 or 7 years without housing, familial support, or money" will start to look like a good idea.
With the caveat rivka already stated, I agree that we have enough data to conclude this woman acted irresponsibly in choosing to have 7 to 8 children in under eight years without a partner nor adequate resources. But there is a leap between saying her choices were irresponsible and speculating that she did it to get attention (as I did), that she is insane, selfish, stupid or unwilling to do any real work to care for her children. In retrospect, I think it was uncharitable of me to make that leap.
I never thought she did it to get attention, and I tried really hard to reserve judgment about the rest but when I saw her interview with Ann Curry I did draw some conclusions about her motives. She probably does have some mental/emotional problems. I try not to use the word insane because it is not a very descriptive word and it carries with it a weight of connotations that probably don't apply here. Selfish is not a big leap, either, after having watched the interview, although I often think this is a weak defamation. We are all, to one extent or another, selfish. I don't think she thought of it that way. It's all tied into that emotional void she herself described as something she wanted to fill. I found that sad. You can't fill such a void with children, though many people try.
I have no idea why people don't think she's willing to do real work. I haven't seen any evidence to that effect and in fact (once again from the interview), I'm inclined to think that she would work hard for them. I just don't think she understands that hard work isn't going to be enough this time.
Of course, all of this is speculation and most of it is based on the one-hour interview that I watched with a lot of curiosity and as much as possible, an open mind.
quote: There is an even bigger leap between speculating about her motives and getting angry enough to organize boycotts or make death threats. I really can't even begin to speculate about why people would behave that way but think I have enough data to conclude the people doing those things are behaving in a way that is irresponsible, irrational, unethical, and outright mean if not criminal.
Agreed whole-heartedly!
I'm amazed at the tone of anger out there for this woman. The level of hate displayed by some is pretty insane, irresponsible, selfish, and stupid.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Certainly the nasty phone calls and threats are far, far beyond the pale. There is something very wrong with people who act out on such aggression.
I will say, though, that as a woman who would love to be able to stay home and just be a mom, but can't because it would be irresponsible and unfair to the people who would have to support me as well as being unfair to any hypothetical children, this woman does tick me off.
I don't understand the hatred, but I do understand the anger. This woman just decided not to play by the rules that responsible people have to follow. She basically said, "this is what I want and I don't care how it impacts anyone else."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:This woman just decided not to play by the rules that responsible people have to follow. She basically said, "this is what I want and I don't care how it impacts anyone else."
There is at least one other possible, maybe even likely, interpretation of her actions besides that she doesn't care how it impacts anyone else. Perhaps she doesn't fully comprehend that her choices do have an undesirable impact on others. I have found that it is actually really common for people to lack a clear understanding of how their choices impact on others, particularly when that impact is indirect or far removed.
While neither one of those options puts a favorable light on her choices, I at least think the two options should evoke different responses from people.
Do you think the people who are boycotting or threatening to boycott companies that offer assistance to this woman have clearly thought through how that choice will influence the 14 children involved? Its possible that they don't care whether or not the children suffer, but I suspect its far more likely that they simply haven't fully considered how it will impact these innocent children.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well said, Rabbit.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On the other hand, maybe they* have and they've decided that the trade-off is worth it.
By pressuring these companies to withdraw their support they're hoping to express their desire (in monetary terms) to create a society where it is socially frowned upon to have this number of children without the means to support them. In other words, the suffering inflicted on these children is weighed against the suffering that they hope to prevent in the future.
As a parallel, the embargo on Cuba, the present harm done by cutting off the citizens of Cuba from food and medicine is weighed against the possibility of bringing about democracy.
I'm undecided on both actually, but thats a pretty easy way to reason a position that is in favour of a boycott of these companies yet still considers the harm done to the children.
* and by they, I don't mean *all* of the people in favour of a boycott, clearly some are irrational. But some may very well have considered their position quite carefully.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:On the other hand, maybe they* have and they've decided that the trade-off is worth it.
Yes that is also a possibility, which supports my underlying contention. It isn't possible to take a very limited set of information about a persons actions and from them determine their motivations. There are always multiple reasons that might lead a person to make a particular choice. In the absence of a deeper understanding, it is uncharitable to presume that this woman doesn't care about her children or doesn't care about her parents or doesn't care about anyone else in society who will be saddled with the burden of helping care for her children. In the absence of deeper understanding of individuals who support a boycott, it is uncharitable to presume they don't care about the well being of the babies.
I think these people made bad choices and I guess that suggests some sort of character flaw, I just think its presumptuous to think I know what went on inside these peoples heads that lead to the mistake and therefore to presume we know something about how these people would act in other situations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have already said that those people who act on their anger or who actively hate this woman have something very wrong with them.
There is also a difference between not recognizing the possibility of an impact you (and a lot of other people collectively) may have on strangers and driving your parents into bankruptcy. And no small part of my resentment toward this woman is that she has little hostages. We have to give her what she wants lest her children suffer. And reasonable people (I am not including the people who make nasty phone calls and so forth) wish good things for her children.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit: Perhaps, I just wanted to make it clear that that was a possibility and its hard to say whether they "haven't fully considered how it will impact these innocent children" or have.
Also, I wanted to shed some light on:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There is an even bigger leap between speculating about her motives and getting angry enough to organize boycotts or make death threats. I really can't even begin to speculate about why people would behave that way but think I have enough data to conclude the people doing those things are behaving in a way that is irresponsible, irrational, unethical, and outright mean if not criminal.
The death threats are obviously right out. However, for the boycotts that you couldn't speculate about, I can, and I think I've shed some light on why people may want to organize a boycott without it being necessarily irresponsible, irrational, or unethical.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
kate, From what I have read, I know that her parents bought her a house several years ago and then last year they went bankrupt and had to move in with her. Based on the very limited information I've seen, it seems very presumptuous to say she drove her parents into bankruptcy. The fact that her parents helped her and her parents went bankrupt does not necessarily imply they went bankrupt because they helped her. They may have made bad business decisions, lost a huge amount of money by speculating in real estate, been compulsive gamblers or had huge medical bills.
There are many reasons they might have gone bankrupt that have nothing to do with the assistance they've given their daughter. Do you have some additional information to suggest this was the cause of their bankruptcy? I really haven't followed this story that closely so maybe you do in which case I apologize.
Otherwise, I think you are jumping to conclusions that fuel your anger and are not actually supported by the data available to you.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'd agree with you, kmboots. And like Christine, I'm uncomfortable (to say the least) at the level of very visceral emotion directed against this woman in the general media.
I'd also carefully distinguish amongst people who advocate direct harm to the woman (or those that know her), people who advocate against her receiving the standard assistance per child regulated by state and federal authorities, and people who would choose not to purchase from companies that provide free or discounted goods and services to her in a public way.
Certainly any company or person would be free to donate anonymously. Just mail something anonymously to her contact address, if known, or contact her through a third party that preserves anonymity. Nobody else need know if you were a company donating your product, or a wealthy person wanting to help out, or a charitable organization, or what have you. Or even have the mother sign a waiver of nondisclosure, if the charitable act is to be kept out of the public eye.
However. However. Generally these donations of goods and services don't happen this way -- part of the bargain is the publicity that the company gets by making the donation. It isn't just out of the goodness of their hearts, although the benefit to families of multiples is clear, too. Yet it's the prospect of continued commercialization of these children and this situation that I find troubling about the companies who might donate. I might well choose to express my dislike of that process by not buying from such companies.
Of course, I don't think the woman should be threatened. Of course! And I think the children should receive assistance as needed, just as the many many many other children in need in our communities should receive assistance, and they should be guaranteed that through the same venues. I also would have no objection to fully (and I mean completely) private donations But insofar as there is a commercial aspect to the situation over and above caring for the children, that makes me increasingly uneasy. I was uneasy when the mother declared a desire to have a television program about her parenting (a program? that's a full time job in itself!), and I felt the same unease at the prospect of making these children a springboard for further corporate advertising.***
I don't know if I would refrain from buying products from these companies. I certainly wouldn't blame people who continued to buy from them, but I don't think I'd find fault with those who didn't, either.
And I'd have no truck at all with those who threaten direct harm or wish to see essential and appropriate community-wide services denied the family.
As to her state of mental health -- I have no idea, but I hope all involved come through this as happy and healthy and safe as can be.
---
***Edited to add: Mucus touched on one of the reasons this makes me uncomfortable: namely, that it can serve as a draw for more of the same. There are also other reasons I am uncomfortable at the directed commercialization of multiples, not the least of which is the set of consistent objections raised by the Dionne quintuplets (link is to Wikipedia) about how their childhood was a commercial and corporatized affair in the midpart of last century.
quote:In 1997, the three surviving sisters wrote an open letter to the parents of the McCaughey septuplets, warning against allowing too much publicity for the children.[7][8] In 1998, the sisters, living together in the Montreal suburb of Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville reached a monetary settlement with the Ontario government as compensation for what was perceived to be their exploitation.[9][10]
Mind you, what the Dionne children went through became far more than free diapers. However, the commercialization of childhood in general, especially for children already in such markedly unusual and eye-attracting circumstances, makes me uneasy about how far things will go. Not uneasy enough to outlaw subsidization for publicity, but enough that a simple boycott to discourage it does not seem beyond the pale.
[ February 18, 2009, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: kate, From what I have read, I know that her parents bought her a house several years ago and then last year they went bankrupt and had to move in with her. Based on the very limited information I've seen, it seems very presumptuous to say she drove her parents into bankruptcy. The fact that her parents helped her and her parents went bankrupt does not necessarily imply they went bankrupt because they helped her. They may have made bad business decisions, lost a huge amount of money by speculating in real estate, been compulsive gamblers or had huge medical bills.
Even if it is from helping her, I would blame the doctor, who had a much better idea of the risks involved in implanting 6 embryos than she did. She expected one or two additional children. Not 8, with months of hospitalization and skyrocketing medical costs.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It looks like the physician involved is currently under some very strenuous scrutiny, as he should be. I have the hardest time of all making sense of how his actions in this could be defended as appropriate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Agreed!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The grandmother, Angela Suleman, has called her daughter's decision "unconscionable." She has said that "She really has no idea what she is doing to her children... and to me." Which supports the theory that she just doesn't think about the impact her actions have. All her statements in interviews are about what she wants. "All I wanted was children. I wanted to be a mom. That's all I ever wanted in my life." “That was always a dream of mine, to have a large family, a huge family, and I just longed for certain connections and attachments with another person that I really lacked, I believe, growing up.”
At least a couple of the children she already had are disabled. One has autism. How is this being responsible to them?
Perhaps she has mental or emotional issues, but when selfishness reaches insanity does it stop being selfishness?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I guess what I don't understand is how she qualified for $490/month in food stamps, if she had enough money for in vitro. That's really expensive. Why was the government paying for her and her children to eat?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Interesting. I would have phrased that the other way -- if she qualified for food stamps, where did she get the money for IVF?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I would have too, but her mother actually answered that question in an interview. I believe that she had money from a disability settlement from an accident at her work.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Not exactly. When she was at work, before children, she was saving every penny she could for fertility treatments -- working extra shifts etc. She made the comment that friends would ask if she was saving for a car or a house and she told them no, children. Then there was an accident at work and she started receiving disability checks. I don't know how all the accounting worked out, but it sounded as if she had saved quite a lot of money before she became disabled.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I've been through fertility treatments and caring for a micropreemie. As someone who has only ever gotten pregnant with multiples, I would never, ever implant more than 1 embryo during IVF (which, to clarify, I've never done - I just used clomid, hCg, and follistem). Every doctor I've been to, including my OB and perinatologist, has been very clear about the risks of having multiples. When you choose to implant 4 embryos, you know that you might have 4 or more babies. You know that they will be premature and will likely spend significant time in the NICU. I have a hard time believing that this woman was unaware of the risks involved in her choice. Her choice bothers me because I know firsthand what micropreemies go through and she chose to risk having at least four.
In the past few days, she has been photographed buying a Nintendo Wii and makeup at the MAC counter at Nordstrom. Now, I had one baby in the NICU and you do need to take downtime for yourself or you'll go crazy. However, this woman has publicly stated that she plans to rely on handouts and/or publicity to support her 14 children. She is also on government assistance. There is no way that she should be buying frivolous things like makeup and video games. I find that outrageous.
I also wonder why she wouldn't use her savings to support the children she had before the octuplets. How can you qualify for aid if you have significant savings? To me, that's fraud and theft. That assistance money could have been going to a family that didn't have thousands and thousands of dollars saved. Isn't there any oversight?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that this is part of why this bothers me so much. I am a liberal. As a liberal, I generally think that most people are usually responsible but sometimes need a little help. That people sometimes have some bad luck or make a mistake but are generally deserving of help from society. That most people want to do the right thing.
When someone abuses the system like this - not just being stupid and getting knocked up, but deliberately spending huge amounts of money and going through IVF when the 6 kids she already has are on food stamps - it undermines all that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that this is part of why this bothers me so much. I am a liberal. As a liberal, I generally think that most people are usually responsible but sometimes need a little help. That people sometimes have some bad luck or make a mistake but are generally deserving of help from society. That most people want to do the right thing.
When someone abuses the system like this - not just being stupid and getting knocked up, but deliberately spending huge amounts of money and going through IVF when the 6 kids she already has are on food stamps - it undermines all that.
Yes. Yes yes yes yes yes yes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"Hard cases make for bad law".
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
The Wii thing just totally blew my mind. I mean, I know she has other kids, and I'm sure they have needs too - but at this point I think a Wii is a bit excessive. I'm sure they'd be perfectly happy just to have mom at home!
As for the food stamp thing, I do believe they ask about savings. I know that when I needed medicaid for my son they asked for the exact balance of my bank account and the values of automobiles and the whole nine-yards.
I would be interested to know if she recorded her cash savings on her applications. I think that really ought to be investigated! Of course, even if she did lie about it, what can we do. As people have already said, she's got us held hostage. Those children have needs and we can't just ignore them.
On the other hand, there are ALOT of other needy children in the country these days that ALSO need services. I certainly hope her decision hasn't taken resources away from other children as well.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I assume that if they investigate and find that she did indeed lie about the amount of money she had in savings, then she could lose her benefits. Of course, now that she's spent the money on IVF there may be a legitimate need. So if they do revoke her benefits it could lead to her being financially incapable of supporting her children, leading to investigations by social services, etc.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The LA times is reporting that Kaiser won't release the octuplets to her until she can prove she is capable of taking care of them.
Also, her father expressed concerns about Nadya's mental health on Oprah and someone has offered her 1 million dollars to make a porno movie.
That last one is the strangest one. Its sort of a double edged sword. If she makes the movie, making the film might be the only way for her to secure the resources she needs to prove to CPS she can take care of the children but some would certainly consider it as evidence that she is an unfit mother. It does beg the question of the mothers out there, how far are you willing to go to support your children? Where would you draw the line?
I recognize its a pretty big hypothetical leap but IF you were convinced that making a porno film was the only way for you to keep someone from taking your kids, or to provide them with food and shelter or medical care -- would you do it?
On a more serious note, I feel really sad for these 14 children. I don't see that their mother has the emotional, mental or financial resources to care for them but I also don't see that there is justification to permanently remove them from her custody with out her consent, which she seems highly unlikely to give. That means that adoption is out of the question and a lifetime in the foster care system is rarely a positive outcome. I wish there were some better alternatives.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I would be interested to know if she recorded her cash savings on her applications. I think that really ought to be investigated! Of course, even if she did lie about it, what can we do. As people have already said, she's got us held hostage. Those children have needs and we can't just ignore them.
On the other hand, there are ALOT of other needy children in the country these days that ALSO need services. I certainly hope her decision hasn't taken resources away from other children as well.
Even with the current economic down turn, we are still the wealthiest civilization the world has ever known. If we can't come up with the resources to take care of 8 more kids, the problem doesn't lie with Ms. Suleman alone
I keep trying to a imagine a way this could turn out well for the kids and this is the best fantasy I can come up with.
Ms. Suleman is evaluated by a psychiatrist and is found to have an easily treatable/curable mental disorder (remember I said fantasy here). A wealthy kind generous middle aged man with a large extended family network who loves children but has been unable to have them, falls madly in love with Nadya, marries her and legally adopts all 14 children. The 16 of them along with 4 grandparents move to a community where they are surrounded by a supportive community and extended family and top of the line paid help.
Does anyone have any more realistic scenarios that would end up turn out well for these 14 kids?
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
The only way I'd adjust that is skip her parents, specifically her mother. She is not going to be a helpful caring person to the children.
I saw an interview with Nadya that she had had five embryos implanted at least once before (possibly every time) so six was what they thought would work.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:I recognize its a pretty big hypothetical leap but IF you were convinced that making a porno film was the only way for you to keep someone from taking your kids, or to provide them with food and shelter or medical care -- would you do it?
To keep someone from taking my kids, well, it depends on who's taking them and why. (For the sake of discussion I'm treating "making a porno" as a placeholder for some action I would find repugnant.) To keep them from being abducted into slavery, yes, of course. To prevent them from going into foster care while I get my life together? Actually a tough decision. I'm leaning toward "yes", though.
It's not even a dilemma if you stipulate that it's the only way to make sure the kids get food and shelter. Thus defined, luckily, it's one of those dilemmas that just doesn't happen in our society. Certainly not for Ms. Suleman, or really anyone in this country. There are always alternatives (foster care being one of them). That being said, I'd do a lot worse if it was the only way to provide my children with food and shelter. Just about any risk or personal cost would be acceptable if it was the only way to keep my children alive. It only becomes a dilemma again when you must balance against direct and significant harm to others.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The only way I'd adjust that is skip her parents, specifically her mother. She is not going to be a helpful caring person to the children.
That's definitely worth consideration but I'm also willing to grant that grandma is undoubtedly under a great deal of stress right now. It is often unfair to judge people on few statements made under such circumstances, particularly considering the media sensationalism.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If she makes the movie, making the film might be the only way for her to secure the resources she needs to prove to CPS she can take care of the children but some would certainly consider it as evidence that she is an unfit mother.
In this case, there appear to be other options on the table, thankfully. Upthread someone mentioned an offer to the mother and kids to come live and work on a farm in exchange for roam & board. That would need to be investigated, but it could well be the better option.
Interestingly, there was a Law & Order SUV episode with a plot similar to the situation set up here. The child had cystic fibrosis and required a lot of specialized treatment (chest physiotherapy at regular intervals during the day, etc.). The parents were worried that the child couldn't be guaranteed the care he needed in the foster system, and work was scarce, so they worked in the pornography industry.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
According to this article Angels in Waiting has made the offer to help her provide and care for, not just the octuplets, but all of her children, including a property that is set up to let her care for the children and she hasn't called them back!
Seriously?! They are offering to give her care and housing worth about $130,00 per month and she's not responding to their offer?
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I know that you really shouldn't judge someone for things like that, but this grandmother has gone beyond. She is confronting her daughter in arguments on tv, she's answering that they should put the babies up for adoption.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: According to this article Angels in Waiting has made the offer to help her provide and care for, not just the octuplets, but all of her children, including a property that is set up to let her care for the children and she hasn't called them back!
Seriously?! They are offering to give her care and housing worth about $130,00 per month and she's not responding to their offer?
Maybe, maybe not.
I make it a rule not to believe a single thing Gloria Alred says without verification from at least 3 other unrelated sources. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I make it a rule not to believe a single thing Gloria Alred says without verification from at least 3 other unrelated sources.
Prudent policy.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Actually the organization was founded, is run and the offer was made by Linda West Conforti, who operates Angels in Waiting, the non-profit group. Gloria Alred is simply their legal counsel. Linda West Conforti has been quoted as having made the offer in multiple articles and it is she who estimated what it is worth.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
andi330, Could you please provide us with some references? Like rivka, I distrust Gloria Alred and her motivations. I would like to confirm that the other sources you refer are truly independent of her.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
From what I can see, the founder of Angels in Waiting in 2005 (Linda West Conforti, an NP and certified foster parent for medically fragile children) appeared with Gloria Alred on the Good Morning America show. There is a 4.5 minute clip and more information here.
I don't really know anything about the details of the offer other than what was presented on the show. According to the clip, Angels in Waiting "provides for the care of high-risk premature medically fragile infants, and they would be able to provide 24 hour care to these babies when they come out of the hospital -- in fact to the siblings as well -- with nurses and educational specialists such as Linda." OT, PT, and developmental specialists are also mentioned.
According to Alred, after there was no response to the offer when made privately (I suppose that means they didn't have confirmation of receipt), the offer was made publicly via a press conference. The founder (Linda) went on to explain how their system works. She calculates it would cost $130,000/mo to care for all the children, including therapy for the mother.
Alred said that the mother would be able to be in the home with all 14 children, but it isn't clear to me whether this would be a form of a foster situation, with the legal control over medical decisions in another person's hands. From a quick skim of the AIW site, it looks to me like it is usually run as a foster site. The founder and one of the other nurses there (see here) refer to themselves as "Mommies," although it seems that as certified foster parents for medically fragile children and registered nurse practitioners, they are also each able to bill 12 hrs daily as medical providers. On the clip, they also requested donations from the public if the children stay with them.
That's all I know. The story gets more interesting as it is unfolding. I worked at a foster site for medically fragile infants when I was in undergraduate. That site had a foster mother but not any nurses or medical providers, and it was much less organized than this place appears to be. I'd still want to know about the extent of formal oversight, especially given the particulars of this case.
[ February 26, 2009, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks, CT. If going there actually would mean giving up her kids to foster care, even if she were initially able to stay with them, I can certainly understand why she would find that concerning.
Especially given that it is not being represented that way at all. Gloria Alred lives up to her rep once again. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Especially given that it is not being represented that way at all. Gloria Alred lives up to her rep once again.
[Just to be perfectly clear here,] I don't know that is the case, though, rivka. It just isn't clear to me that it isn't.
Given that AIW gave out a press release and had representation on GMA, I'm surprised that I don't see mention of this on their website. (I might be missing it, but I looked pretty hard.) I'd expect a link to the formal press release, if nothing else -- that is, given that they are seeking media coverage, it would seem obvious that making sure the details weren't misrepresented should be a priority. I don't know what, if anything, to make of that.
Like rivka, I can certainly see why fostering (if a part of the bargain) might make the mother hesitant to entertain the offer. I have further concerns myself about what level of oversight this project would have, as my own experience made me leery of the lack of outside oversight in sites for such care. Only one experience, but not one I'd care to see repeated the same way.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am at this point hoping that the children are not released into her care at all.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Interestingly, merely searching for "Angels in Waiting" gives a fair number of matches and at least two have explicit warnings that they are not in fact involved.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The site I linked above does have LWC as both contact person and founder. It is the same site you linked to, Mucus, just the "nurses needed" page of that site because it contained the backstory.
I still cannot find a press release on that site, for whatever it's worth.
Also FWIW, there is more backstory on AIW and LWC at Nurse.com, a site that pulls together job opportunities and resources for nurses, such as the periodicals Nursing Spectrum and NurseWeek.
---
PS: Thanks for the heads-up about multiple sites under that general name, nonetheless. It's a good caveat.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I am at this point hoping that the children are not released into her care at all.
What do you suggest as an alternative?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
CT: Ah, sorry. Didn't notice the link on my first read-through.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
No worries!
Any attempt to ensure accuracy in information is a Good Thing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I am at this point hoping that the children are not released into her care at all.
What do you suggest as an alternative?
Foster care. Adoption. The mom's crazy and untrustworthy and realistically cannot be trusted to care for these children properly.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't think anyone who has not met her can evaluate whether she is "crazy". Particularly unless you have professional credentials I am unaware of.
She definitely cannot do it without support, and I think Kaiser's stance is exactly right.
I also think something like AIW's apparent plan is the most reasonable option. However, how about one that is clear on what they are suggesting, and not deliberately misleading?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, some additional info.
quote: The money to pay for all of this would come from donations to the organization. The taxpayers would not be charged. Even better is the fact that any money that is donated to Angels In Waiting will go directly to the care of the infants and children. Nadya Suleman wouldn't receive a penny.
However, registered Nurse Linda West-Conforti, the founder of Angels In Waiting, told ABC Los Angeles that is taking care of the children, would involve 12 providers a day, at a cost of $135,000 a month. She is unsure if they could raise that much money before the infants left the hospital.
...
Allred stated that the offer is only on the table until February 26th, due to the fact that the organization needs enough time to make plans to take care of the children.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I also think something like AIW's apparent plan is the most reasonable option. However, how about one that is clear on what they are suggesting, and not deliberately misleading?
Without knowing what the details of the offer were, how do we know the media spots have been deliberately misleading?
We don't know that AIW didn't offer to set aside space with access to facilities without requiring the mother to assent to fostering -- at least, nothing that I've seen laid out anywhere rules this out. Just as I'd argue against ascribing unsubstantiated qualities to the mother, I'd argue against doing so to this agency, unless substantiation can be found. Or have I missed something you saw? (Honest question.)
[edited for grammar, etc]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I don't think anyone who has not met her can evaluate whether she is "crazy". Particularly unless you have professional credentials I am unaware of.
I have a degree in 'allowed to think she's nuts' (BA minor) but seriously, she's crazy. There's ultimately plenty of information available that lends me to make that statement.
I find her condition unambiguous. She's mentally ill.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The news articles I can find (like here at Pasadena Star News) seem to suggest that at the news conference, Alred presented the AIW offer as an alternative to foster care.
quote:LOS ANGELES - An offer to provide free, comprehensive medical and emotional services to the recently born octuplets and their older siblings has been put on the table for Whittier resident Nadya Suleman's consideration -- but she's only got a week to accept it.
Otherwise, famed lawyer Gloria Allred said at a news conference Thursday in her office, Suleman will likely have her 14 children taken away from her and placed into foster care.
I don't see exact quotes, so that is the reporters' interpretations of what is said. But I certainly can't find anything even that solid to suggest that Suleman would have to put her kids into the foster care system in order to accept the assistance from AIW.
I'm not willing to call the publicity deliberately misleading until I see something that indicates it is so. But I certainly can agree that it makes sense for Suleman to be very careful about the details, as should anybody be in such circumstances.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I don't think anyone who has not met her can evaluate whether she is "crazy". Particularly unless you have professional credentials I am unaware of.
I have a degree in 'allowed to think she's nuts' (BA minor) but seriously, she's crazy. There's ultimately plenty of information available that lends me to make that statement.
I find her condition unambiguous. She's mentally ill.
BA minor is not in this case professional credentials and I'm quite confident that anyone with both professional credentials and professional ethics would be unwilling to make any diagnosis without ever meeting a patient let alone based on sensational media reports.
That said, I agree that all the available data points toward mental illness. I'm also confident that the available data has not been collected in an objective and unbiased manner and have serious questions about the accuracy of what has been reported. Based on the available data, I think there is legitimate concern about the mothers mental health. I would like to see Kaiser hospital and CPS demand the mother receive a thorough psychiatric evaluation before the children are released to her care. If that evaluation confirms a genuine mental illness, I think CPS should make proper treatment of the mental illness a minimum precondition for the mother to have continued responsibility for and possibly even contact with the children. If a proper professional evaluation determines that her mental state raises legitimate concerns for the safety and well being of the children, I would hope appropriate actions are taken to protect the children including if necessary placing the children in foster care.
In many ways, the offer made by AIW sound like it might be a genuinely positive alternative for this family. Like CT, I'd like to see all the details before passing judgement but the basic concept of keeping all the children and mother together in an environment where there is adequate help to properly care for the children and the potential for the mother to remain in contact with her children while she receives mental health care (if she actually needs it). It's probably not a perfect solution and doesn't answer any of the long term concerns, but as a start it looks like potentially a better option than either traditional foster care or sending the kids home with mommy.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I wondered about why AIW went public with the offer, but then it occurred to me that they might not have had any way of knowing whether their [initial, earlier] private offer actually reached Suleman's eyes.
Suleman had official publicity agents at one time, but not any more. She has received death threats and is likely deliberately difficult to reach at this point. [I sure would be.] I can well imagine that tracking her down would be problematic, even with a legitimate offer, and if no response was received, I myself would wonder if she ever got it. Turning it down would mean she got it, but no response would be ambiguous. Who knows?
On the one hand, if I were in their shoes, I'd prefer to respect the woman's privacy. On the other hand, her voluntary appearances on more than one talk show would make me less worried about bridging that public-private gap, even though I'd still try to keep it as private as possible.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:BA minor is not in this case professional credentials and I'm quite confident that anyone with both professional credentials and professional ethics would be unwilling to make any diagnosis without ever meeting a patient let alone based on sensational media reports.
Actually if you check out the American Association of Calling People Nuts, a BA minor professionally permits you to call people nuts in workplace or forum settings.
Calling someone nuts in talk radio takes a masters' degree tho.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I wonder if any of the people calling her crazy would think she was if she had just had twins (with the six others at home already and all other details as they are now) instead of octuplets? Remember: that was not her intent or expectation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I wonder if any of the people calling her crazy would think she was if she had just had twins (with the six others at home already and all other details as they are now) instead of octuplets? Remember: that was not her intent or expectation.
By IVF, with no way to support them, no father, six young kids (a couple of whom have disabilities) already, you bet I would. If I were feeling generous.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I wonder if any of the people calling her crazy would think she was if she had just had twins (with the six others at home already and all other details as they are now) instead of octuplets? Remember: that was not her intent or expectation
I don't know about others, but I would be concerned about the mental health of any single woman who sought IVF to have another baby (even singleton) when she had 6 children under 8 years of age, including twins under two years old. The fact that she had at best barely adequate financial resources for her existing children, yet chose to undergo an expensive medical procedure to have yet another child raises serious concerns about this woman's mental health.
I come from a large family and am not among those who consider wanting lots of children alone a sign of mental problems. But deliberately choosing to have 7 children in 8 years when you don't have a partner raises red flags for me.
Of course, I'm not exactly calling her crazy. I think the circumstances raise a legitimate question and that the evidence suggests a thorough professional evaluation would be in her best interest as well as that of her children.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If she had just had twins, she would have at least avoided the flurry of coverage and interviews.
I wouldn't have known that she was crazy because I would have never heard about her, but she still would have been crazy. She really ain't in her right mind, and she's also lying to everyone. She lied to the public about plastic surgery that is obvious in before and after photos. She lied to the public about the donor of her children. She lied to her own mother about her pregnancy, claiming that she had a tumor. She lied about not getting welfare. She lied about her church helping her into a new home. She's accomplished this much in the short span of time she had as the Octomom, prior to this new phase of her being put into hiding due to the death threats and public backlash.
Her present kids are raised in squalor. Her own family outright exclaims that she's mentally unsound. The excuses and explanations she gives about her situation show that she has no real bearing on the situation. She honestly claimed that she wanted to fund herself to help raise the kids by writing a book. in the "middle of the night," what with 14 kids being such a timewaster and all.
There's more but I ain't got time to go into it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
so has the rest of the Dr. Phil interview aired yet? I'm guessing was being shown sometime this afternoon...
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I watched most of it last night at the 10:00 re-airing but got tired and didn't see the end. There really didn't seem to be any new information there.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I wonder if any of the people calling her crazy would think she was if she had just had twins (with the six others at home already and all other details as they are now) instead of octuplets? Remember: that was not her intent or expectation
I don't know about others, but I would be concerned about the mental health of any single woman who sought IVF to have another baby (even singleton) when she had 6 children under 8 years of age, including twins under two years old. The fact that she had at best barely adequate financial resources for her existing children, yet chose to undergo an expensive medical procedure to have yet another child raises serious concerns about this woman's mental health.
Yep. And also the doctor who helped her do this, knowing her history. Oh, and at least one child has special medical and emotional needs already.
Something is not right with her and it wouldn't be right even if she hadn't chanced to have 8 at once. Octuplets is just what happened as an outgrowth of her making choices that would have been questionable even if they resulted in only one more baby.
I'm ALL for big families-- as long as those big families get what they need physically and emotionally from their parents. Doesn't seem like that is what is going to happen here.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I'm ALL for big families-- as long as those big families get what they need physically and emotionally from their parents. Doesn't seem like that is what is going to happen here.
This is my issue with large families. I don't ever want to say that people cannot have big families - I have no quarrel with anyone who does so providing they can support their children. But when I say support I mean all kinds of support - not just financial.
I feel pulled in many pieces with just four children. Some days I am overwhelmed with guilt and grief because I cannot be with one who needs me because I have obligations to another one. I have a gymnastics meet for one and a color guard tryout for another on the same day next week. The gymnast wants me with her, and I missed her last meet because of yet more obligations so I have already promised I would go. Unknown to me when I made the promise, the oldest is trying out for color guard captain and needs me there to agonize with her as she waits for results. My husband can help, yes, but it's not the same. I am the one who drives them to gymnastics practice and who talks with them endlessly over issues with color guard. I am the one who is most involved in their school and sport commitments so I am the one they both want with them.
I would not have it any other way - I WANT to be involved with them and I WANT them to know I care and want to support them through the highs and lows. But even with four it is impossible for me to be the type of mother I want to be to all of them. I cannot imagine if it were 6, or 9, or 14, or 17.
Before anyone asks, I don't know the magic number. I don't know how many is too many. It's different for everyone. For some families, two is plenty and three would be too many. For some one is the perfect number - I know families with only children that are perfectly happy with their choice not to have more. For others it might be three or four...I love having four kids and I don't regret it at all but I feel stretched and pulled very thin...five would be way too many for me. The only way things work with four is that my mother lives with us and is another adult who loves and cherishes my children and invests time into them as my husband and I do.
I just don't see how fourteen or seventeen can get the type of emotional commitment from parents as I believe children need. I may be wrong...I don't know these people...the Duggars at least have a better support system and the advantage of having a father at home. Even with two people, though it doesn't seem humanly possible.
I've heard the same trite sayings as most of us "Love isn't divided when you have more children, it multiplies." Looks good embroidered on a potholder but maybe isn't as practically true as we might like. The real world, harsh truth is that children take huge commitments of time, energy, emotions, and finances. Each new child that comes into the family takes more of those things. At some point even two people cannot divide their energy, emotions, finances and time into enough increments that every child gets what he or she needs.
*shrug* Just my opinion of course, and probably an unpopular one among some circles. Still, I cannot help but think there IS a point where families can become too large.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I've heard the same trite sayings as most of us "Love isn't divided when you have more children, it multiplies." Looks good embroidered on a potholder but maybe isn't as practically true as we might like. The real world, harsh truth is that children take huge commitments of time, energy, emotions, and finances. Each new child that comes into the family takes more of those things. At some point even two people cannot divide their energy, emotions, finances and time into enough increments that every child gets what he or she needs.
Yeah, you know, I really would wanna call it quits on the kiddos after 2 or 3. I cannot imagine that short of acquiring superhuman neversleep timetraveling powers I would run the risk of having too little to give between the kids I have, and even worse still that it would cause me to have to sacrifice attachment to the kids just to salvage an angstrom of my own sanity, because they would be consuming all of my time.
I do not want to become 'tired' of 'dealing' with children, so it is incumbent upon myself to realistically assess what limits are best for hypothetical future children.
quote:*shrug* Just my opinion of course, and probably an unpopular one among some circles.
Circles which try to inspire people to pump out as many kids as they can, regardless of the reasons, are stupid to me >_<
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I feel pulled in many pieces with just four children. Some days I am overwhelmed with guilt and grief because I cannot be with one who needs me because I have obligations to another one. I have a gymnastics meet for one and a color guard tryout for another on the same day next week. The gymnast wants me with her, and I missed her last meet because of yet more obligations so I have already promised I would go. Unknown to me when I made the promise, the oldest is trying out for color guard captain and needs me there to agonize with her as she waits for results. My husband can help, yes, but it's not the same. I am the one who drives them to gymnastics practice and who talks with them endlessly over issues with color guard. I am the one who is most involved in their school and sport commitments so I am the one they both want with them.
My mom sometimes had the same problem with only 2 children. My dad was in the airforce band and sometimes had to go out of town on a 3 week tour. This happed 2-3 times a year. My brother and I both played baseball, but because of our different age and genders we were on two different teams. When she had to go out of town one weekend, and leave my dad home with us he asked how to deal with us both having games, at different fields and at slightly different times. She laid out a plan for him that went something like this:
"Well, first you drop Andrea off at her game. Then you take Lewis to his game and you watch the first three innings. Then you go back to Andrea's game and you watch the rest of the game. Once the game is over you go back and see if Lewis is still there. If not, you go home and start calling around the neighborhood to find out which of our friends has Lewis and let him know that you're home and he can come home when he's ready."
It was done in that order because the majority of Lewis' team lived in our neighborhood and the team members were all Lewis' friends, so if my game ran over, someone on his team would make sure he got home and was somewhere safe, until he got home with me. But the members of my team did not live in my neighborhood, and I knew only one of them outside of the team, so there was no one to take me home if the game ended before Lewis'. It worked, and it wasn't often necessary, but it stunk when it did.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I grew up in a family of six. We were often a bit tight on money for extras but well fed and clothed and so forth. We got plenty of parental attention. We were also somewhat more independent. Back in the 70s in a small town, we didn't have the kind of constant adult supervision that kids have now. We would just "go out side and play". If we wanted to go somewhere, we rode our bikes. Mom didn't even have a driver's license till I was in high school.
I don't have a problem with big families. I do have a problem with having more kids when you aren't supporting and caring for the ones you already have.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Belle -- I know what you mean. When I had my first child I thought, "This isn't as bad as I thought, maybe I could do 3 or 4." When I had my second I knew I was done. It's just me personally, but 2 children is all I can handle. I love spending personal time with each one. In the evenings, my husband and I will sometimes play trade the kids. He gets one on one time with one and I get the other, then we switch. Even one more would make that dynamic impossible. Granted, I'm sure there are women out there who could EASILY handle 3 children and would want that kind of bustle but for me my family feels complete and manageable.
When I think about 14 kids, I just think that if you spent a dedicated 30 minutes a day with each one of them, that's 7 hours of the day. And I do feel that children, especially very young children and babies, need that kind of direct attention. I think 3 or 4 or 6 would be much more manageable spaced out so that the kind of attention each needs is different and can be balanced a bit better. Even so, as Belle pointed out, sometimes there are gymnastics and color guard at the exact same time.
Of course, people come out all right in all kinds of families. Kids are adaptable. But even adaptable babies will suffer if they can't properly bond with a parent because they are competing against 7 other tiny, needy babies at the exact same time (not to mention 6 older siblings). When I think of the amount of one on one bonding time I got with each of my children as newborns....it's just so important to them to have that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, some families with high-order multiples do pretty well at giving them what they need emotionally, or seem to at least. (I'm thinking of the Gosselins, specifically.) It definitely wears on the parents, but they do it. I think the difference is that they have a HUGE amount of family/friend/community support, especially for the first year or so. Who is going to help this woman? I don't see people coming in in shifts to help with the other kids, where are they going to come from when (if) the babies come home? She's doing a great job alienating the public so far. I would still go help her if I was her neighbor, for the sake of her kids, not because I like her. But I don't see her neighbors volunteering.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I just wanted to add a few thoughts to this discussion - I came in too late to reply to every interesting bit that I saw here. There have been some good, thoughtful contributions, though.
I hear a lot of criticism being hurled around in this situation that seems a little too broad. Granted, Nadya Suleman is her own particular case of shady, but it saddens me that this is being generalized to large families.
I'm not sure what I think about the ethics behind implanting 6 embryos - I don't know enough about fertility treatments to reconcile this situation with my pretty firm pro-life stances. What I do say, though, is this: a single woman shouldn't have been given fertility treatments in the first place. To some, I suppose, this makes me my own kind of heretical.
I don't worry much about financial qualifications for having children. While I disagree with families relying on welfare assistance when they could conceivably be working to support themselves, I do balk at the idea of trying to set a minimum income on the right to reproduce. I don't buy the accusations that large families of low SES live in "squalor." This is the United States of America and by and large we don't understand the meaning of squalor.
I do, worry though about a child's right to have a mom and a dad. Private piano lessons and iPods and skiing trips are not a vital part of a child's upbringing; a loving parent of each gender is. When mothers and children are abandoned or widows and widowers are left to be a parent alone, things are hard enough (as countless psychological studies show). Why on earth would we voluntarily wish this on a child.
My attitude toward abortion is similar to my attitude toward what should have been done in Suleman's case: why did this even become an option? Why do people who could have used other forms of birth control turn to abortion to get rid of an unwanted baby? And why are eight children allowed to be born to a woman who (is poor but that's not the issue; has a big family but that's not the issue) thinks she can raise them to be healthy, well-balanced people without a father in their life?
There is nothing inherently wrong or unnatural about large families. Do we forget the way that human beings have lived for thousands of years? Even a hundred years ago in our own country (twenty years ago in my part of the country) it was entirely normal to have 8, 10, or 12 children, and families functioned. Parents could handle it. A good family friend of ours, who is the mother of 12, used to explain to people "I didn't have a family of 12, I had 3 families of 4." Her older children played a very important role in the social health and upbringing of the younger children. Contrary to some of the other anecdotal experiences that have been shared here, the 4 very large (over 10 children) families that I know personally are all typically very happy and functional people. Human beings can do it, and do it successfully.
Some may say it's unfair to expect older siblings to help raise the younger ones. As the oldest of six, I would disagree. My 3 youngest siblings were born while I was in high school, and I treasure the relationship I have with them - I was more like an aunt than a sister, I get to take them on special trips and let them stay overnight at my apartment and I've learned so many valuable lessons on child rearing that make me more confident to become a parent of my own.
Sorry about the soapbox. I just have too much personal experience with a family system that works very well for many that I know to let a vocal majority of Americans who speak from very little personal experience paint the whole situation with a broad brush.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There is a big difference between family dynamics in large families that are composed of children who were single and/or twin births and large families that contain higher-order (over 3, but especially super-high-order multiple) births, to my mind and from what I've been able to observe (granted that both are rather rare phenomena at this point and the latter is especially rare.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Annie, attempting to create a false equivalence between a time in which half or more of the children born were expected to die before having children themselves, and a time in which one woman is having 8 children at once through artificial means is... well you know what it is don't you?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Good thing that's not what she's doing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: There is nothing inherently wrong or unnatural about large families. Do we forget the way that human beings have lived for thousands of years? Even a hundred years ago in our own country (twenty years ago in my part of the country) it was entirely normal to have 8, 10, or 12 children, and families functioned. Parents could handle it. A good family friend of ours, who is the mother of 12, used to explain to people "I didn't have a family of 12, I had 3 families of 4." Her older children played a very important role in the social health and upbringing of the younger children. Contrary to some of the other anecdotal experiences that have been shared here, the 4 very large (over 10 children) families that I know personally are all typically very happy and functional people. Human beings can do it, and do it successfully.
This is portion of the post I am referring to. And yes, I do think it attempts to establish a false equivalence.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Because you have a (previously acknowledged) prejudice against large families.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't have that prejudice and I think that is what Annie is doing in that paragraph. Life now is very different from when more people lived on farms and large families meant more help with the farming. Or child labour in factories. Or were quite poor and did not expect all their children to survive.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Annie -- you seem to be just as judgmental of non-traditional families as you accuse others of being of large families. I would not want to put reproductive restrictions on women because they do not have a husband. There are all different kinds of families out there and they are each tempered by the personalities involved. I know that many people from large families turn out fine, including my husband. The dynamic from a large family is very different from the smaller family I prefer, though, especially when you talk about extremely large families like 8, 10, 12, 14...
But I think the specific thing I was trying to get across about this family (and not large families in general) is that it is an impossible and UNHEARD of dynamic! Normally, if a mother is to have 14 children, by the time she has the last the first will be grown up. There is a bit of natural spacing that takes place, more or less, for each mom. I have never heard of another family where 14 children meant the oldest was 7 and the youngest 8 were all micro-premie newborns. This is not a normal dynamic because none of the older children can really pitch in and help with the younger ones. It is only this particular dynamic that I find to be so problematic. There is no equal.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Life now is very different from when more people lived on farms and large families meant more help with the farming. Or child labour in factories. Or were quite poor and did not expect all their children to survive.
Which is why such large families are no longer the average. Doesn't mean there is something inherently wrong with them, as many in this thread have implied (or stated outright). Nor that they are as unusual as all that.
And yes, some people have only been talking about the specific family and its very skewed situation. But not everyone has -- Belle certainly wasn't. And I believe it's primarily the ones who were speaking more generally that Annie was reacting to.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: What I do say, though, is this: a single woman shouldn't have been given fertility treatments in the first place.
Why on earth would you want single women to not be allowed to receive this treatment if they wanted it?
quote:I don't buy the accusations that large families of low SES live in "squalor." This is the United States of America and by and large we don't understand the meaning of squalor.
Visit Appalachia someday.
quote:Private piano lessons and iPods and skiing trips are not a vital part of a child's upbringing; a loving parent of each gender is.
I'm sorry. I know plenty of wonderful people — arguably a good number who are fairly more competent and successful in their lives than I am — who were raised by a single mother or father. To proclaim that a male/female pairing was necessary for them (vital, as your words would put it) is at best factually negligent and at worst insulting to plenty of single parents and even same-sex couples.
quote:There is nothing inherently wrong or unnatural about large families. Do we forget the way that human beings have lived for thousands of years? Even a hundred years ago in our own country (twenty years ago in my part of the country) it was entirely normal to have 8, 10, or 12 children, and families functioned.
We must also remember that plenty of children growing up in the good old days were also raised outside of the traditional family structure, and many more children suffered in the strife of loveless 'obligated' marriages whose fate would have been better served by divorce. Go back even further and those Hundred Years Ago times were fundamentally different from our own, and that the production of enough children to maximize survival of some beyond childhood was the situational norm.
We do not live in that world anymore. Missus Primary doesn't have to pump out ten kids because sam jr's 1 through 6 died of diphtheria and 7 died in a horse accident. Nor do I have to worry about the farm going under and us starving in a particularly bad winter due to a lack of available hands.
You're saying that there's nothing inherently wrong or unnatural about large families. I wouldn't say that at all, but what you do seem to be saying is that while big families are Right and Good, a single mother can be slapped with your brush of 'wrong or unnatural.' You even go so far as to suggest that to preserve a fictional right to a nuclear family, single women should be barred from receiving fertility treatments? ...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm opting out of this high quality thread.
[ March 01, 2009, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Orincoro, I do not think she was trying to "grief you into shutting up." I think she was trying to point out that this situation is not the typical large family and that the dynamics are different, and was defending a response to some comments that were made that seemed to be moving away from the specific situation at hand.
I do not think she was saying that you do not have a right to your opinion or a right to discuss it, and frankly I think your anger in the last post (or what I percieve as your anger) seems to be out of proportion in response to the post she made. I'm just saying this to provide you an opportunity to try to re-read and see if what I say has any validity, perhaps from a calmer perspective. I do not think you personally were being attacked and I have noticed you have been a little hair-trigger in your emotional responses lately, for which I am sure you have good reason, but I am not sure whether you knew that, and as a friend (I hope) or at least a person who cares about your well-being, I don't know what's going on in your life but your emotional response seems to be coming more quickly in discussions where I think a year ago it wouldn't have. I hope that you are okay emotionally and if not I hope you have someone to talk to, either us or someone IRL, who can help you deal with it.
Really, this post is not to dismiss or make fun of you or your response, just something I've noticed and have been concerned about, as someone who values your participation in the community and hopes the best for you.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
If you'd like to send an email I'll take my time and respond- but it's not for this thread.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I really don't think your personal issues need discussion, I was just addressing that specific post, and others with the same level of anger I've seen recently, in the hopes that you will do an emotional check and take appropriate action if necessary. Because really, I don't think she was saying what you think she was saying.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I was remembering this little comment.
quote: One of the many things you think you're an expert on with no actual experience. *shrug*
Which was accompanied by no other response.
That pissed me off.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Life now is very different from when more people lived on farms and large families meant more help with the farming. Or child labour in factories. Or were quite poor and did not expect all their children to survive.
Which is why such large families are no longer the average. Doesn't mean there is something inherently wrong with them, as many in this thread have implied (or stated outright). Nor that they are as unusual as all that.
And yes, some people have only been talking about the specific family and its very skewed situation. But not everyone has -- Belle certainly wasn't. And I believe it's primarily the ones who were speaking more generally that Annie was reacting to.
"Not inherently wrong" is still not equivalent to "we did it 100 years ago, so it is okay." I clearly don't think that large families are necessarily wrong, but I also don't think that one can ignore that the wisdom and practicality of having very large families is very different for most people now than it would have been 100 years ago. It isn't a case of "forgetting" that people used to have large families; it is a recognition that things have changed since then.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: "Not inherently wrong" is still not equivalent to "we did it 100 years ago, so it is okay."
Which I still don't think is what she was saying.
But it does not surprise me that the ways and degree to which you think things have changed from 100 years ago and that I do differ. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I am the second child of four children, but we are spread out over sixteen years. (I am thirteen years older than my youngest sibling). Four children was hard work for my parents but they had two teenage children to help. I cannot imagine having fourteen under eight.
As for the past, aside from the obvious point of there being no choice, it was not idyllic.
When things did go well, it was often because families were extended: there were grandparents, aunts and uncles, much older siblings etc. Not to mention that people back then were much more familiar with looking after children (as there were just so darned many of them) and so there was more acceptance to bring your children to work with you or to let them run around wild in the fields if they had the choice.
The world is not set up in this way any more.
As part of a reasonably large family I think it's nice to have mixed sizes of family and I think it's important that children be present in the lives of all potential parents. However, that does not mean that large families are better or somehow idyllic-- especially that they were in the past.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I don't have the time lately to keep up with Hatrack discussions or even check them daily, so I apologize if my comments and then lack of response made it seem like I was ignoring the reactions.
Nor was I targeting anyone specifically; I'm sorry if my comments were construed that way. I haven't been on Hatrack for so long, that I don't even know most of the posters in this thread and I was responding to some general comments and attitudes and not attacking anyone.
Just a couple clarifications:
quote:Annie, attempting to create a false equivalence between a time in which half or more of the children born were expected to die before having children themselves, and a time in which one woman is having 8 children at once through artificial means is... well you know what it is don't you?
I don't think this is what my comments did. I didn't say that we should live now like we lived 100 years ago. I wasn't justifying Suleman's situation at all. I was reacting to the comments that parents are just not capable of giving appropriate care and attention to more than two or three kids. I was using the example of the bulk of human history to show that parents are, indeed, physically and mentally capable of caring for large families. (I know there are individual exceptions. I'm not talking about exceptions.) The fact that there were high mortality rates (not really anywhere near "more than half" in Western societies, but I'll grant you your hyperbole) and that parents survived is, I think, even more a testament to the human spirit. That must have been awful - I wouldn't wish 3 children dying in a smallpox epidemic on anyone. But parents survived it, and went on and lived their lives. It's surprising how resilient a human being can be.
quote:Why on earth would you want single women to not be allowed to receive this treatment if they wanted it?
Because it's not about what they want. It's about what is good for children. I know there's plenty of anecdotal evidence of people who turned out just fine from single-parent families. I'm one of them. But I don't think a single one of them would not have done better with a stable family and two parents. It's not just what I think - psychological and sociological research shows that children do better in many, many variables, when they have a stable, loving, two-parent (one of each gender) home.
quote:Visit Appalachia someday.
I've been, thanks. I've also been to the rural South and the rural West and worked extensively on Indian reservations. I'll counter your travel offer with one of my own: visit Mexico someday.
quote: To proclaim that a male/female pairing was necessary for them (vital, as your words would put it) is at best factually negligent and at worst insulting to plenty of single parents and even same-sex couples.
It's only insulting when someone deliberately takes offense. I was not impugning anyone's parenting skills. I was stating the fact established by psychological and sociological research that children do better with two parents.
quote:As for the past, aside from the obvious point of there being no choice, it was not idyllic.
I totally agree. I'm glad we have the modern conveniences and advancements in medicine that we do. But I hesitate to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Each age has its strengths and weaknesses. I think we can learn from the examples of the past without having to re-live the past. There is certainly much that is sick and dying in our society today, and much of it has a sociological basis. The problems we face now are often a direct result of the lack of family support that you highlight in your description of the world of the past. I hope to be able to find the right balance in my own life, and while I would never mandate that someone else should live as I have chosen to, I retain the right to state my reasons for doing so and to speak out about the principles that I have learned help families and societies thrive.
[ March 03, 2009, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Annie ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Because it's not about what they want. It's about what is good for children. I know there's plenty of anecdotal evidence of people who turned out just fine from single-parent families. I'm one of them. But I don't think a single one of them would not have done better with a stable family and two parents. It's not just what I think - psychological and sociological research shows that children do better in many, many variables, when they have a stable, loving, two-parent (one of each gender) home.
If "It's not about what they want. It's about what's good for children." then you would also have to refuse fertility treatments for couples who were not financially well off, because the financial affluence of a child's family is arguably more associated with bad things than simply having the 'vital' mother/father pairing.
If you would disallow single mothers from getting fertility treatment because of the negative associations of one thing (not married) but ignore an even stronger negative-results correlation (being poor) in determining what you would allow to be an acceptable condition for prohibiting fertility treatment, we're now firmly in the realm of double standard.
quote:It's only insulting when someone deliberately takes offense. I was not impugning anyone's parenting skills. I was stating the fact established by psychological and sociological research that children do better with two parents.
You are necessarily impugning many people's parenting skills, especially those outside of traditional marriage structures. Would you say that a family with two gay mothers or two gay fathers is incapable of 'correctly' raising a child?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie:
quote:Why on earth would you want single women to not be allowed to receive this treatment if they wanted it?
Because it's not about what they want. It's about what is good for children. I know there's plenty of anecdotal evidence of people who turned out just fine from single-parent families. I'm one of them. But I don't think a single one of them would not have done better with a stable family and two parents. It's not just what I think - psychological and sociological research shows that children do better in many, many variables, when they have a stable, loving, two-parent (one of each gender) home.
What is considered a favorable outcome for a child?
I will grant you that there are strong correlations between loving, dual-parent households and a wide variety of favorable outcomes for children, but I still think that it is not up to us to decide who gets to be a parent and who doesn't. Among other things, it is impossible to test how loving a couple will be, and plenty people have been royally screwed up by picture perfect families that weren't so great on the inside. Statistics can't look into people's hearts.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:the financial affluence of a child's family is arguably more associated with bad things than simply having the 'vital' mother/father pairing.
What "bad things" are you talking about here? Do you know of studies that back this up? I was talking about psychological well-being.
quote:If you would disallow single mothers from getting fertility treatment because of the negative associations of one thing (not married) but ignore an even stronger negative-results correlation (being poor) in determining what you would allow to be an acceptable condition for prohibiting fertility treatment, we're now firmly in the realm of double standard.
Poverty is already its own filter for fertility treatments. Medicaid doesn't pay for IVF. The only reason Suleman could afford it was because she had won a large legal settlement some years earlier.
quote:Would you say that a family with two gay mothers or two gay fathers is incapable of 'correctly' raising a child?
Yes, actually. Coincidentally, the government of France agrees with me on this one. So maybe this is a discussion that wouldn't be very useful for us to continue.
[ March 03, 2009, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Annie ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Here's a little more detail on the French perspective (from that Wikipedia link):
quote:A parliamentary "Report on the Family and the Rights of Children" was released on January 25, 2006. Although the committee recommended increasing some rights given in PACS (civil unions), it recommended maintaining prohibitions against marriage, adoption, and access to medically assisted reproduction for same-sex couples, arguing that these three issues were inseparable and that allowing them would contravene a number of articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which France is a signatory (although many UN nations do grant some or all of these rights to same-sex couples). Referring to the rights of children as a human rights issue, the report argued that children "now have rights and to systematically give preference to adult aspirations over respect for these rights is not possible any more."
They cite the International Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and psychological research on the ideal environment for child development as their reasons for not permitting gay couples to marry, adopt or receive fertility treatments. I know it's an unpopular stance according to some, but it's a very well-supported perspective.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
(although many UN nations do grant some or all of these rights to same-sex couples)
...
So one country's committee - a country that has a pretty shady reputation with regards to discrimination, at least on the basis of race, I might add - comes down on one side of this issue while many countries come down on the other side, and we should conclude that "it's a well-supported perspective"?
Wow. I'd be embarrassed to admit to being your teacher in any sort of science field.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I thought that studies showed best parenting grouping was a lesbian couple, followed by straight, followed by male homosexual. So, if further studies back that up and lesbians are indeed the best coupling to raise children, should we allow only lesbians to breed?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Wow. I'd be embarrassed to admit to being your teacher in any sort of science field.
That was uncalled for. We are allowed to have differing opinions here and defend them vehemently.
I am a graduate student in the social sciences and I understand academic writing, thank you very much. There is nothing in the scientific method about countries voting on the validity of an argument.
I promise to stay away from personal attacks if you will, OK?
quote:I thought that studies showed best parenting grouping was a lesbian couple, followed by straight, followed by male homosexual. So, if further studies back that up and lesbians are indeed the best coupling to raise children, should we allow only lesbians to breed?
Maybe some studies say that. There are many other studies (which form the basis of the French parliamentary committee's decision) that point to children being raised without a parent of each gender lacking some serious psychological stability.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Annie, by picking and choosing your data to fit your favored hypothesis, you're being a bit of a disgrace to your academic discipline. Edit: Academics don't cite wikipedia as an authoritative source of "studies" - they cite journal articles. Academics don't just point out one study that works for their point - they survey the entire literature, and come to a reasoned conclusion. Academics don't point to political committees as good sources of well-balanced reasoning on politically-charged issues. The good ones, anyways.
And I've taught graduate students in the social science (economics, too, which is about as statistically sound a social science as you can get), if you want to just randomly assert authority in a field.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie:
quote:I thought that studies showed best parenting grouping was a lesbian couple, followed by straight, followed by male homosexual. So, if further studies back that up and lesbians are indeed the best coupling to raise children, should we allow only lesbians to breed?
Maybe some studies say that. There are many other studies (which form the basis of the French parliamentary committee's decision) that point to children being raised without a parent of each gender lacking some serious psychological stability.
Which studies. You have yet to actually cite any psychological or sociological studies which support your opinion, making your statements currently nothing but opinion. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion. However, as an academic, you should know that you cannot put forth your opinion as scientific fact just because you feel like it. The French Parliament is not a psychological or sociological scientific organization, they are a body of the government, which does not have to take any scientific studies into account when making law, and they can pick and choose studies that support only their decision, ignoring other studies which contradict them.
I find your current "scientific" argument unpersuasive. Where is your source data? Your posts don't even cite where you got the information on the French Parliament (not that the French Parliament is a scientific source). How can you expect us to take your scientific opinion seriously if you do not provide source data to back up your opinion.
Give us your opinion. You are entitled to it, even if I happen to disagree with it. But don't try to claim that your opinion is scientific, when you have provided nothing to back up that claim.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: quote:Would you say that a family with two gay mothers or two gay fathers is incapable of 'correctly' raising a child?
Yes, actually. Coincidentally, the government of France agrees with me on this one. So maybe this is a discussion that wouldn't be very useful for us to continue.
:SNORT: I've never seen the government of France used as a trump card to end a discussion. Do you think you've "won," or something? Or is the mere mention of France, along with your homophobia, enough to stop any argument in its tracks?
quote: I am a graduate student in the social sciences and I understand academic writing, thank you very much. There is nothing in the scientific method about countries voting on the validity of an argument.
Which is why what you said made people embarrassed for you.
Edit: And before you go off on me calling you homophobic, that is not directly evidenced by your claims that there is some scientific support for your conclusion. I draw that opinion of you from your offhanded willingness to make the claim with no actual support. I also just get the sense that you are homophobic, whether for personal or religious reasons- can't prove it, but would be surprised if it wasn't true.
It's quite funny how the modern arguments (and the strategies of argument) against gay marriage and parenting today are so fittingly parallel to the arguments against interracial marriage and child-rearing of the past. There were studies, and governments made laws, and the whole thing is now an embarrassment, and a continually present scar on our history.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What "bad things" are you talking about here? Do you know of studies that back this up? I was talking about psychological well-being.
Bad kids, of course. Unsuccessfully parented kids. Poor folk tend to create a lot of them. And I'll start posting my studies when you post yours.
quote:Poverty is already its own filter for fertility treatments. Medicaid doesn't pay for IVF. The only reason Suleman could afford it was because she had won a large legal settlement some years earlier.
You're trying to duck the issue. Suleman was poor and managed somehow. Others can manage. So, should poor married couples be prohibited from taking fertility treatments? Remember, your own rationale is that it's not about what the parents want, it's about what the children need.
quote:Yes, actually. Coincidentally, the government of France agrees with me on this one. So maybe this is a discussion that wouldn't be very useful for us to continue.
Yes, it would. It would be useful because I don't care about what the government of France thinks, as I live in America.
You want to make the case that same sex parents are too harmful to be allowed to adopt children for whatever reason, you have to start presenting facts.
We'll start with these 'psychological/sociological' studies you keep hinting at.
[ March 04, 2009, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
It occurs to me, on the subject of studies of gays vs heterosexual couples, that I would be dubious of any study suggesting that one is better than the other in this current climate of anti-gay sentiment. There are too many confounding variables. Trying to compare the outcomes for children of a stable, legally recognized, socially acceptable, and societally supported union vs the outcomes for children of a couple who may or may not be able stay committed because of all the social pressure working against them....anyway, it certainly isn't anywhere near the level of proof you would need to deny parental rights to someone.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think it's possible to have a well-created study, but I personally wouldn't trust one until I read the actual article myself, and saw that the statistical analysis took care of confounding variables, that the instruments used were appropriate, that the data that was analyzed was gathered appropriately, etc, etc.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
This article has been bouncing around the Chinese-oriented news sites
quote: With her bouquet of roses and fluffy white dress, Han Xincheng looked the epitome of the glamorous modern Chinese bride. But, although her parents had been pressing her to marry, the photographs were not what they might have expected: she is gazing adoringly at another woman, surrounded by onlookers.
The series of "wedding pictures" staged by lesbians and gay men in the heart of Beijing might not raise eyebrows any longer in most western countries, but they are evidence that attitudes are finally changing in a country where gay sex was illegal until 1997 and homosexuality classified as a mental illness until four years later.
There is still no legal protection against discrimination in China and few role models: no mainstream figures are openly gay. Yet now parts of China's gay population are calling for the right to wed - and meeting with some sympathy.
"Many reactions were quite positive and some people even came up to give us their blessing," said Han, though she acknowledges that overall the public reaction was negative. ...
Li Yinghe, an academic at the prestigious Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, has repeatedly proposed legalising gay marriage, but thinks the Chinese political system must develop first.
"When there are ways to deliver these demands, this issue can be put on the agenda. Maybe it will take 10 years - maybe it needs decades," she said.
Yet the underlying ground may be fertile. Gay men and lesbians say there is less overt hostility than in the west and certainly less physical harassment. Li's research in cities suggests about 91% of people are happy to work with gay colleagues - a higher rate than in US surveys - and that 30% back gay marriage.
She argues that Chinese culture has historically been more tolerant than others: "We don't have religions which are absolutely against homosexuality, for example. But the pressure to marry is huge - far greater than in the west."
quote:Public support for legalizing gay marriage is somewhat higher today than what Gallup found at the outset of polling on the subject 12 years ago. In 1996, about one in four Americans thought marriages between homosexuals should be recognized by the law as valid. That increased to 35% in 1999 and to 42% in 2004. However, for the past four years, public support has failed to grow in a linear fashion; rather, it has fluctuated between 37% and 46%.
I found this fairly surprising, in my experience if this was say 8 years ago, I would have given 20:1 odds that the US would approve gay marriage before China. Alternatively, maybe just a couple years after Canada (it is now approaching four years).
I still give the US better odds, say, 5:1 (and maybe 10 years after Canada) but it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Resilience to the idea even in states as liberal as California has truly surprised me and the tenor (as well as the derivative) of the articles out of China has been surprisingly muted.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Wow, this just got really personal and nasty.
I do know how to cite sources. I read the entire 35-page report in French that the parliament issued. I have specific articles that have informed my opinion. I typically don't compose my Hatrack posts in APA format, however, and I'm noticing that none of you do either.
I used to enjoy having spirited discussions here with people who disagreed with me, but this is just nasty and intolerant and I'm done.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Annie, you're the one who brought up studies first - the burden of proof is on you. You're also the one who first presented your opinion as informed by scientific studies, but didn't care to cite any of them. And you're also the one who, when I pointed this out, brought out the "I'm a graduate student in a social science field" argument as if appeals to authority were logically valid arguments.
You can't make claims like "I know it's an unpopular stance according to some, but it's a very well-supported perspective." without backing it up, and I think it's rather disingenuous to try to do so.
In the end, it's your choice to take your ball and go home, but many people - at least those who don't remember you from the "good ol' days of Hatrack" - aren't going to see this as reflecting well on your character.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Character has nothing to do with how you cite your writing. It has to do with how you treat people.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
The point about character was made with regards you dropping out of the conversation when people criticized you and your posts. Some people have been less than polite to you, or perhaps even downright hostile, but it's you choice to leave the conversation when others have not been.
(Note, I include myself in the first group, but not the second. I was not polite, but I was also not what I would call hostile. I do think that what you've written does not show a mind well-educated in the expectations of academic reasoning, and I would be embarrassed to admit to being your teacher and not beating such bad thinking out of you. And no, I'm not talking about your stance on homosexuality, but the willy-nilly way you cite sources (wikipedia?!?) and present the opinions of political committees as having some sort of scientific value. Frankly, I expect more out of the high school students I tutor.)
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
It's a time issue. I'm not citing journal articles here because 1) there are not handy internet links to them, you have to be subscribed to academic providers, 2) I do not have the time to go write a bibliography and make it available to you right now and 3) that is not the accepted format for casual internet forum discussions. I was highlighting and summarizing by referring you to the Wikipedia article. I promise you that I do not cite Wikipedia in my research work. I am not an idiot just because I happen to disagree with you. Here is the link to the report of the French parliament (it's a 453 page pdf document in French) that includes citations of the studies they cite, some of which I have read myself.
I'm dropping out of the conversation because of the personal attacks, not because I don't have the resources to back up my opinion.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
If you have any more disparaging remarks about my academic qualifications, please keep them to yourself. You don't know me. I'm not writing a research paper for you.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: If you have any more disparaging remarks about my academic qualifications, please keep them to yourself. You don't know me. I'm not writing a research paper for you.
I wold like to say, that I did not mean for any of my comments to be insulting. That said, I do believe that I was right in saying that you need to cite your sources. If you do not have the time or inclination to cite sources then do not bring them into the conversation, because people in this community will ask for them, and as the one who brought them up, it is on you to provide the information, rather than expecting others to go do the research.
Edit: Also a link to the French Parliamentary decision in French does me no good (and probably several others) as I do not speak French.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Wow, this just got really personal and nasty.
I do know how to cite sources. I read the entire 35-page report in French that the parliament issued. I have specific articles that have informed my opinion. I typically don't compose my Hatrack posts in APA format, however, and I'm noticing that none of you do either.
I used to enjoy having spirited discussions here with people who disagreed with me, but this is just nasty and intolerant and I'm done.
If you don't feel like debating with others then you have the option of debating solely with me, since the words of others have no bearing on what I intend to address, nor do they affect the manner by which I have been debating.
You have made a claim to factual science and you have made a claim that you posses all the capacity required of one to process and evidence these claims. The onus is on you to give substance to these claims, as right now they only exist in an unsubstantiated form. You might as well be citing claims from NARTH or religious front groups, so I have no choice but to give no credibility to factual claims that come without fact.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: If you have any more disparaging remarks about my academic qualifications, please keep them to yourself. You don't know me. I'm not writing a research paper for you.
You are correct I don't know you. Which is exactly why a statement which was essentially "I'm a grad student in this so I should know" does not impress me. I don't know you. I've never met you or (as far as I know) anyone else here on hatrack personally. Therefore, I have no way of knowing if you are a grad student or not, where you go to school, what you are studying or how you do in school. You could be a student with a 4.0 at an Ivy League school or someone who's not actually a student at all.
That's not to say that you are lying, you may well be a grad student in this field of study and an expert in all things parenting, but I can't take that just on your word, which is why I asked for citations. Citations in a language that I can read would be even better. Citations that are not the French government (which could easily choose to use studies that only conform to their opinion, since I can't read the document I have no way of knowing) would be best.
If you choose to stay gone from this conversation that is up to you. I would hope, that as a scholar who states that she has references, you would be willing to post them. You don't have to find a link. Give us names of journals and the article names and journal numbers. People who are interested will go look them up themselves.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
The "fact" I gave was in French. The report I linked to included a review of the scientific literature they used to justify their decision. I cited that decision because it's one that's very similar to mine, it's one I've spent a long time studying and from which I draw many of my opinions, and I have not conducted a thorough study of my own. It's not in English - I'm sorry, that's all I have access to right now.
Here is a summary of the French government's decision in English. It's not totally thorough, but it provides other links. It's from a pro-traditional marriage group in Canada, so I suppose you will scoff at it as well. But it does provide a very good list of studies showing that having a parent of each gender matters for a child's well-being.
Is that a good start? Can I now discuss my opinions on equal footing here with others who give their opinions without a thorough scientific bibliography each time?
[ March 04, 2009, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Annie ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I did not tell you I was a graduate student to impress you. I mentioned it because Jhai said
quote:Wow. I'd be embarrassed to admit to being your teacher in any sort of science field.
and I was trying to point out that I work with scholarly research on a daily basis.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Some people have been less than polite to you, or perhaps even downright hostile, but it's you choice to leave the conversation when others have not been.
(Note, I include myself in the first group, but not the second. I was not polite, but I was also not what I would call hostile.
Then you and I have very different definitions of hostility. And I'm not just talking about this conversation; I have recently (past month, I think) noticed an increasing level of hostility, condescension, and a general lack of the consideration I had come to expect from you. I wasn't going to say anything, but if you're going to bring it up . . .
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Andi, this is maybe one of the most compelling English sources I could find during a quick search, and it cites the studies upon which the American College of Pediatricians based its decisions not to endorse homosexual parenting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: [QB] Here is a summary of the French government's decision in English. It's not totally thorough, but it provides other links. It's from a pro-traditional marriage group in Canada, so I suppose you will scoff at it as well. But it does provide a very good list of studies showing that having a parent of each gender matters for a child's well-being.
Is that a good start? Can I now discuss my opinions on equal footing here with others who give their opinions without a thorough scientific bibliography each time?
The citations primarily come from IMAPP. As far as I can see, they don't actually manage to back up the assertion and the fundamental premise that the primary source stands on, and are reliant on many cases of gross naturalistic fallacy. If they do otherwise you would have to show me specifically the scientific evidence that supplants these claims, not a link to the end statements of others who profess the same. You might as well link me to your own posts.
But you're jumping ahead of my earlier questions, re: socioeconomic placement, prohibiting poor parents from receiving fertility treatments even if they are in a male/female married pairing, etc. Let's deal with those first.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Andi, this is maybe one of the most compelling English sources I could find during a quick search, and it cites the studies upon which the American College of Pediatricians based its decisions not to endorse homosexual parenting.
I will agree that the article here is the most compelling. Although I have started looking at the articles in your previous links, I must admit that I am put off by them. First, they are coming from a website that opposes same-sex marriage, which means that they are likely only going to have articles that support their view point. Second, at least one of the articles is from NARTH, who's organization seems to be questionable at best. Unlike the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Counseling organization, NARTH believes that homosexuality is something that can be "cured," and according to their position statements found here they seem to be claiming that homosexuality likely stems from early sexual molestation (although they are careful to state that there isn't really enough data to support that claim at this time). All of this calls into question the validity of their arguments in my mind.
With regard to your link above from the American College of Pediatricians (which appears to be fairly conservative.) I would like to counter with a link of my own to the American Academy of Pediatricians, which supports gay marriage here and this article from the American Psychological Association, which states that there is no empirical data showing that Lesbian and Gay parents are not fit.
Edit: added a close parentheses which I missed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The American College of Pediatricians does not do research. They're an ideological group formed by a handful of people (under ten) who left the AAP when the AAP refused to take a stance that homosexual parents are categorically bad for children. Since then they've received funding essentially to make a very legitimate looking website that religious organizations (primarily the National Catholic Register) can cite when they make statements like 'spanking is superior to not spanking' or 'same-sex couples are damaging to children's mental health'
They don't really do research, like the AAP and the APA. They just exist as an ideological front. They are also miniscule with $69,000 in membership dues and assessments in 2007. The extent of their activities are promotion of their website as a source, and writing conclusive statements about cherrypicked data.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Annie, I'm glad you've decided to remain in the conversation.
Jhai, you have a history of listening to and taking constructive criticism well (or at least I've observed that)--so I hope it will be taken as constructive when I say that your early response to Annie (you know the one, I'm sure) did come across as awfully hostile to me--and I am very far from agreeing with Annie. So take that for what it's worth.
This is going back to something on the previous page--I disagree that Belle was being critical of large families. I think she was very careful to phrase her concerns as just that--concerns. I have concerns about kids who are raised in households where both parents work, particularly when they work long hours. This doesn't mean *anything* about what I think should or should not be done legislatively or culturally or within a single household. (I should hope not, considering I am raising a child in a household where both of us work!) But I've seen enough lonely, neglected kids whose parents are hardworking and affluent that I hope that every family considers the impact their career choices have on their children.
Just like I hope that parents and potential parents who want a large family consider the impact that will have on their children. (I'm concerned about the impact being an only child will have on my son if we choose not to have more kids. It's a real concern. Not a criticism.)
I think an even more telling difference between large families of 100+ years ago and large families of today is the cultural expectations of parents and views of what childhood (and adolescence) are and should be.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'm sorry you thought that the ACP stance was unconvincing. I thought the data they cited (you call it cherry-picked) was legitimate and compelling.
There's bias inherent in every researcher's motives. What you call cherry-picking I call finding research to support their claims. Researchers with an agenda to prove that gay parenting was just fine do the same thing when they make their arguments. Rejecting anything backed by NARTH would be, in my opinion, the same type of attitude that you call cherry-picking.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Some people have been less than polite to you, or perhaps even downright hostile, but it's you choice to leave the conversation when others have not been.
(Note, I include myself in the first group, but not the second. I was not polite, but I was also not what I would call hostile.
Then you and I have very different definitions of hostility. And I'm not just talking about this conversation; I have recently (past month, I think) noticed an increasing level of hostility, condescension, and a general lack of the consideration I had come to expect from you. I wasn't going to say anything, but if you're going to bring it up . . .
I suspect that you and I have different definitions of hostility. You might have noticed more of what you term hostility because I have recently been participating in threads which are more given to direct conflict of ideas.
I don't see a point in refraining from calling a duck a duck. Annie, as she presented herself here, is not what I would call a good graduate student in the social sciences. She's not presented the minimum I would expect from a senior high school student headed to college either. Perhaps I have different standards than other people, but the students I've worked with have lived up to mine.
Either way, I thank you and LizB for your comments. I'll take them into consideration in the future, but I do hope that others will in turn take into consideration the fact that blunt speaking is not necessarily hostility - hostility requires, at the very least, ill-will, and I feel none towards Annie. I will admit that I was not polite, but I tend to not value politeness near as much as many other people I know (both here and IRL).
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:First, they are coming from a website that opposes same-sex marriage, which means that they are likely only going to have articles that support their view point.
Whereas, if you were making an argument here that same-sex marriage was a good idea, you would only cite articles that support your viewpoint.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
You are confusing two different posts. I did not refer to anything as cherry-picking. Likewise, I never said that I would not believe anything that NARTH supported, however, their opinions are not supported by many other well respected organizations, and some of their core beliefs are questionable at best. That is going to call into question the validity of their research, with me, and I'm sure with many members of the academic community.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie:
quote:First, they are coming from a website that opposes same-sex marriage, which means that they are likely only going to have articles that support their view point.
Whereas, if you were making an argument here that same-sex marriage was a good idea, you would only cite articles that support your viewpoint.
Yes, but I am an individual with an opinion, not a group claiming unbiased scholastic research. Likewise, I have read their arguments, and provided reasons why I don't agree with them.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:I don't see a point in refraining from calling a duck a duck. Annie, as she presented herself here, is not what I would call a good graduate student in the social sciences. She's not presented the minimum I would expect from a senior high school student headed to college either.
And you made this evaluation based on having read two or three posts I made on a casual internet forum. I do not "present myself here" with all of my professional credentials, and neither does anyone else.
I am a very intelligent person, I am a good scholar, I am striving to learn more. I wrote a literature review in educational technology that is being published in a journal right now. It was offensive to me for you to so harshly criticize me with absolutely no knowledge of who I am or the kind of work I do. That was hostile. The fact that you made it a personal attack made it hostile.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:You are confusing two different posts. I did not refer to anything as cherry-picking. Likewise, I never said that I would not believe anything that NARTH supported, however, their opinions are not supported by many other well respected organizations, and some of their core beliefs are questionable at best. That is going to call into question the validity of their research, with me, and I'm sure with many members of the academic community.
I was talking to Samprimary. Sorry - I'll try to reference who I'm answering.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I'm sorry you thought that the ACP stance was unconvincing. I thought the data they cited (you call it cherry-picked) was legitimate and compelling.
Why? What data are you presenting? Which research? You're not delivering citations to anything other than advocacy groups.
More importantly, the groups you are delivering us to are ones that have distinct and deliberate bias. You say that there's "bias inherent in every researcher's motives," but this is far away from making an equivalency argument for the level of bias versus the levels of empirical fairness between all research and all groups.
You are delivering us only advocacy groups that we could say we could safely ignore due to preconclusive bias and evident ideological intent.
quote:Rejecting anything backed by NARTH would be, in my opinion, the same type of attitude that you call cherry-picking.
Why would you say that? As I haven't told you anything about my analysis of NARTH, you have no grounds under which to determine that it is a case of cherrypicking.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I don't think the number of children (newborns) has anything to do with the reaction of people to her irresponsibility. The only thing is that people likely wouldn't have found out about it if it were only twins. The irresponsibility is still the same. A single mother of six (one of them Autistic, two others developmentally delayed) who undergoes IVF to have another baby is the problem.
Unfortunately, the fact that there are EIGHT babies does complicate things. It makes it even less likely that all the children will be able to thrive. It means that they were born premature and will have additional health problems. It means that even if they are taken from the mother and put in a foster or adoptive situation in will be abusive because there is not fostering situation capable of taking 14 siblings, and separating siblings (especially twins or multiples) is cruel.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
More importantly, you are still jumping way ahead of my original contentions. I'll repost.
quote:you're jumping ahead of my earlier questions, re: socioeconomic placement, prohibiting poor parents from receiving fertility treatments even if they are in a male/female married pairing, etc. Let's deal with those first.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: You might have noticed more of what you term hostility because I have recently been participating in threads which are more given to direct conflict of ideas.
Maybe. But I really don't think that's it. I've certainly seen you participate in such threads for longer than the past month.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I don't see a point in refraining from calling a duck a duck.
I know. But there is a difference between bluntness and personal attacks. And that is the line I have noticed you crossing more and more of late. Say that you don't agree with Annie or her ideas -- that's fine. Why bring her teachers into it? Why make statements about her as a person?
I expect that sort of thing from KoM, not from you.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Why? What data are you presenting? Which research? You're not delivering citations to anything other than advocacy groups.
Because I don't have a bibliography of everything I've ever read on the subject, I was referring you to easily-citable statements that did have bibilographies. So to answer your question of "what data are you presenting," I'll refer you to the data cited by the articles I quoted:
quote:ENDNOTES
1 American Academy of Pediatrics, “Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics. 109(2002): 339-340.
2 Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting, Washington DC; Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001.
3 P. Morgan, Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-sex Parenting, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Christian Institute, 2002.
4 J. Paul Guiliani and Dwight G. Duncan, "Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," Appeal to the Supreme Court of Vermont, Docket No. S1009-97CnC.
5 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45
6 Sotirios Sarantakos, "Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development," Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.
7 Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, "Comparison of Parenting and Children’s Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23-54.
8 Elizabeth Thomson et al., "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors," Social Forces 73 (1994): 221-42.
9 David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146.
10 Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.
11 D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.
12 Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.
13 "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.
14 Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.
15 David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 253.
16 M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).
17 M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.
18 A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
19 Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.
20 A. A. Deenen, "Intimacy and Sexuality in Gay Male Couples," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23 (1994): 421-431.
21 "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.
22 Maria Xiridoui, et al., “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in “steady relationships” reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)]
23 J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.
24 Theo G. M. Sandfort, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85-91.
25 Bailey, J.M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56 (1999): 876-880. Author states, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...."
26 Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244
27 R. Herrell et al., "Sexual Orientation and Suicidality, Co-twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.
28 Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939.
29 Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.
30 Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58 (2001): 85-91.
31 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213.
32 J. Michael Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129
33 Ibid., pp. 127, 128.
34 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?" Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7.
35 Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.
36 D. Fergusson et al., "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999).
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'm now going to respectfully bow out of the discussion. I have a lot of reading I'm supposed to get done by Friday and I don't have time to keep checking this thread. Thank you to those of you who were willing to debate respectfully with me.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
*shrug* I've spoke my piece on the matter. I don't see it as a personal attack - it's a reference to her scholarship and standing as an academic, maybe, but not her personhood.
Annie, I've not criticized your intelligence (edit: I would consider that a personal attack, since it's not something under your direct control). You may consider yourself a good scholar. And maybe by the requirements of your field, you are. But from what I've seen in this entire thread, I would not call you that, and I would not be pleased to see a student I've worked with presenting arguments like you have.
[ March 04, 2009, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You know, it is somewhat funny. The first cite on your list starts with
quote:Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports legislative and legal efforts to provide the possibility of adoption of the child by the second parent or coparent in these families.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Anne, That's not a particularly impressive list.
I'll only take those articles that are actually about the children of same sex couples (edit: they are all supportive of gay parenting and adoption):
quote:1 American Academy of Pediatrics, “Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics. 109(2002): 339-340.
This is not research. It's basically a policy statement of the AAP. It can be seen here. It is overwhelmingly in support of gay parenting. edit: some of the references at the bottom, however, are to research, which is also supportive of the non-intrinsically badness of gay parenting. /edit
---
quote:31 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213.
Here's the abstract of that article:
quote:"A longitudinal study of 25 young adults from lesbian families and 21 raised by heterosexual single mothers revealed that those raised by lesbian mothers functioned well in adulthood in terms of psychological well-being and of family identity and relationships. The commonly held assumption that lesbian mothers will have lesbian daughters and gay sons was not supported by the findings."
---
quote:32 J. Michael Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129
The abstract for that:
quote:The sexual development of children of gay and lesbian parents is interesting for both scientific and social reasons The present study is the largest to date to focus on the sexual orientation of adult sons of gay men. From advertisements in gay publications, 55 gay or bisexual men were recruited who reported on 82 sons at least 17 years of age. More than 90% of sons whose homosexual orientation could be rated were heterosexual. Furthermore, Gay and heterosexual sons did not differ on potentially relevant variables such as the length of time they had lived with their fathers. Results suggest that any environmental influence of gay fathers on their sons' sexual orientation is not large.
---
quote:34 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?" Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7.
That abstract:
quote:A brief narrative description of the journal article, document, or resource. Examined whether parents' sexuality can influence the sexual orientation of their children. Subjects were 27 lesbian mothers with 39 children, and 27 heterosexual single mothers and their 39 children. Found that although children from lesbian families were more likely to explore same-sex relationships, the large majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified themselves as heterosexual.
---
quote:35 Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.
The abstract:
quote:Whereas opponents of lesbian and gay parent rights claim that children with lesbigay parents are at higher risk for a variety of negative outcomes, most research in psychology concludes, somewhat defensively, that there are no differences at all in developmental outcomes between children raised by lesbigay and heterosexual parents. This paper challenges this defensive conceptual framework and analyzes the ways in which heterosexism has hampered intellectual progress in the field. We discuss limitations in the definitions, samples, and analyses of the studies to date. Next we explore findings from 21 studies and demonstrate that researchers frequently downplay findings of difference regarding, in particular, children's gender and sexual preferences and behavior that could instead stimulate important theoretical questions. We propose a less defensive, more sociologically-informed analytic framework for investigating these issues that focuses on 1) the role of parental gender vis a vis sexual orientation in influencing children's gender development; 2) the role of selection effects produced by homophobia that may intervene in the relationships between parental sexual orientations and child outcomes; and 3) the relationship between parental sexual orientations and children's sexual preferences and behaviors.
[ March 04, 2009, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Jahi, you're doing something very similar to what you're accusing Annie of. We have only your word for you credentials; why should we believe that you've taught graduate students, or know anything about research studies?
Why should your perception of the quality of Annie's scholarship bear any weight at all? Notice that other people were able to ask her for sources without touting their own credentials. You could have done that. There are many people on this forum with graduate degrees in various disciplines. Most of them manage not to mention their schooling in every serious thread they participate in.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Wow. I'd be embarrassed to admit to being your teacher in any sort of science field.
quote:*shrug* I've spoke my piece on the matter. I don't see it as a personal attack - it's a reference to her scholarship and standing as an academic, maybe, but not her personhood.
Jhai. You are sufficiently trained in logic and reasoning to know an ad hominem attack when you see one and to know why this kind of argumentation is not only fallacious but counter productive. If that is typical of your intellectual honesty, I'd be embarrassed to admit to being your teacher in any field of ethics or reasoning.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Anne, When/if you come back, could you explain why you think this list of research that seems to strongly support the idea of there being nothing intrinsically wrong with gay parenting supports the exact opposite claim?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
dkw, the only point I've made explicit my credentials was here:
quote: And I've taught graduate students in the social science (economics, too, which is about as statistically sound a social science as you can get), if you want to just randomly assert authority in a field.
which, as you may gather, is making the point that credentials don't matter that much at all. As far as teaching students or knowing anything about research studies - well, it's easy enough to see that the first is merely used as a point to make clear my opinion on the scholarship shown, and the second is an opinion. I'm not saying "I have a degree in such and such field, therefore I know a lot about research studies". I'm saying "I don't find your research studies good" by way of example. The only real place I can find where I've gone into specifics about research (beyond just opinion) is in this quote:
quote:I think it's possible to have a well-created study, but I personally wouldn't trust one until I read the actual article myself, and saw that the statistical analysis took care of confounding variables, that the instruments used were appropriate, that the data that was analyzed was gathered appropriately, etc, etc.
which, again, is little more than a statement about what I personally would need to see to find a study credible.
Rabbit, I believe we've had run-ins before on ethics and reasoning, and I don't remember forming a favorable impression of you in the subjects. And yes, I'm well aware of your credentials.
As I was not making an argument, but expressing an opinion, I don't see where ad hominem comes into the picture. As far as being productive, well, I've already mentioned I know (and knew) it wasn't polite.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit, I believe we've had run-ins before on ethics and reasoning, and I don't remember forming a favorable impression of you in the subjects. And yes, I'm well aware of your credentials.
And I could say the same for you. But at least when I have the audacity to insult your rhetoric, I have the integrity to provide a clear example of your flawed reasoning.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I've just pointed out how it wasn't flawed reasoning, as I wasn't making an argument based on the comment. And, again, I'm just stating my opinion that I don't find your opinion on reasoning and ethics to be particularly meaningful to me. Do you back up all of your opinions with citations?
It wasn't meant as a "ooh, look everyone, Rabbit had bad reasoning skills and here's why" argument. It was a response to you more along the lines of: A. You said X about subject Y B. I have reason to doubt your opinion on all matters pertaining to subject Y. C. Implicit (You know point B) D. Therefore, I am not going to find your statement of X very credible, and you know why.
If you want some citation for point B, I can find one, but as it was a response to you, and you were part of the conversation (s?) where we had the disagreements, I'm not sure what the point it.
Edit: and, really, "audacity to insult your rhetoric"? It doesn't take any audacity to insult anyone. From your wording, I get the feeling that you think this is a Big, Important Argument we're having here, but from my side, it's, uh, really not.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Jhai, you've studied philosophy of language. What would you say is the illocutionary force of repeatedly comparing Annie to students you've taught, or to what you would expect to see from a student you were teaching?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I have no history with you, Jhai. But I see "I'd be ashamed to be your teacher" as a pointedly hurtful comment. You can criticize poor reasoning without that kind of insult.
Note that I do not think that Annie has done a good job of justifying her opinions. The following comment neatly illustrates the problem:
quote:There's bias inherent in every researcher's motives. What you call cherry-picking I call finding research to support their claims.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I've actually not studied philosophy language in any formal sense, and I think you're talking about the subject of rhetoric, anyways.
The only reason I've ended up repeatedly comparing Annie to students I've taught (or, rather, my expectations for students I've taught) was in response to others who were, in turn, responding to the original comment. Frankly, I don't really care about Annie or her studies - it's not like I keep popping into the thread saying "you know what, everyone - Annie is a really bad graduate student!" All I'm doing is standing behind my original remark, which I continue to think is true.
scifibum, a statement is only as hurtful as you allow it to be. If it helps, it wasn't meant as a "hurtful comment", and I personally (and most of my friends IRL) wouldn't take it as such.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
OK, just want you to be aware that others perceive an intent to hurt.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I'm now going to respectfully bow out of the discussion. I have a lot of reading I'm supposed to get done by Friday and I don't have time to keep checking this thread. Thank you to those of you who were willing to debate respectfully with me.
Annie, do I have any hope whatsoever that you have any intent to answer my questions, or should I move on and assume that my critique stands?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Edit: addressed to scifibum
I do appreciate your remark, and as I've mentioned earlier, I will consider such remarks in the future. I already realized that I have a much, much thicker skin than the vast majority of people posting here, but the shocker is that apparently the vast majority of people I regularly associate with also have a much thicker skin than the denizens of Hatrack. I suppose the two populations aren't all that alike, though - for example, I can't think of one person I hang out with IRL who attends church.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Jhai, another explanation is that online communication strips much of the nuance from conversation. We can only imagine the tone of your voice.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I have no sources. It's either my own experience or things I've picked up in an undergrad history degree or stuff I've picked up from the world.
I think I've posted a long thing here before against the vast array of non one-female one-male 'parents' who have raised children in the past.
Prior to the decline of deaths in childbirth, mothers so often died in childbirth that children were often without a mother from a very early age. The reverse was also often true. Children grew up with caregivers of various kinds.
In the medieval era, young children were often raised in monasteries which were, of course, often all male or all female.
This aside from situations where younger children were mostly surrounded by female nursemaids and mother. Father was a face at evening dinners until children reached a certain age. What about cultures where the men were away for lengthy periods? Did anyone bemoan the families lacking fathers in the World Wars in this way? Did we get a generation of boys unable to relate to men?
The balanced male/female couple in which the father has equal influence is a modern construct. Given loving, caring people surrounding them children manage in all kinds of environments, provided they are stimulating and consistent.
You line adults up and try to divide them by their parents without knowing their actual status, you will end up with a mixed bag.
On the flip side, I think that being shipped between homes from a young age is often but not always detrimental. I think that children who spend a lot of time in crappy day care are getting shafted but this is equally the province of two-parent families as the single parent. Lots of single parents have other people around to help them out.
But then, some mothers and fathers are simply crappy parents, even if they spend time in the same room as their kid. Perhaps they have little experience. Perhaps they actively dislike being parents. Perhaps they approach it far too scientifically because it's the only way they know how. Perhaps the kid was a total mistake.
One thing you can say about gay and lesbian parents is that it's almost never a surprise.
I care more about the quality of the parenting rather than the form the parents take.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I've actually not studied philosophy language in any formal sense, and I think you're talking about the subject of rhetoric, anyways.
You're dodging the question. You have not, to my recollection, ever mentioned studying rhetoric, but you have mentioned philosophy of language. I believe that someone who has studied philosophy at the level you have implied should be aware of the concept of illocutionary force and able to answer my question.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'm not dodging the question - my answer was in the second paragraph. To be more explicit: whatever the illocutionary force of repeatedly discussing the issue, any discussion stemming from the original comment was made in response to others.
Suppose John Doe says, "Man, that was a dumb movie - I went to see it with my BIL, the movie director, and we both hated it," off-hand during a group conversation. Then the other people in the conversation repeatedly question this comment, and try to discredit it, and argue against it, etc, etc, and John defends his original remark as warranted. "No, I did really think it was a dumb movie, and so did my BIL." "Yes, I saw it with him and we talked afterwards and both thought it was dumb." "Yes, I know you liked it; nonetheless, he told me he found it bad..."
After an hour of such back-and-forth, would it reasonable to say, "Jeez, John, you shouldn't use the credentials of your BIL the movie director as an argument for how dumb the movie is! No, I know you weren't making an argument of how good the movie was based simply on your BIL's status as a movie director, but don't you know the illocutionary force of such a conversation?"?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wait...the guy who directed the movie thought it was a dumb movie? That does not speak well for it.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
No, the BIL is just a movie director who watched some random (bad) movie not of his own making.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'm not dodging the question - my answer was in the second paragraph. To be more explicit: whatever the illocutionary force of repeatedly discussing the issue . . .
That was not the question. The question was about repeatedly positioning yourself as the teacher and Annie as the student.
I have noticed the same changes as rivka in the last few months. I actually wondered if it were time to congratulate you on an academic milestone, because you're showing a lot of the classic signs of "new PhD syndrome." At any rate, it might be worth considering that the difference between the reactions you get here and among your real life friends might have less to do with relative skin thicknesses and more to do with whether you treat your friends as peers.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I wasn't positioning her as a student to my "teacher status". If it makes you feel better, whenever I was a student in discussion-based classrooms I had no difficulty in telling other students when they were showing poor reasoning or research skills either. That sort of attitude, was, in fact, encouraged by many of my professors - in my senior philosophy seminar, for instance, we were each assigned a peer's paper which we were expected to tear apart in the next class session.
Peers, if anything, get a worse treatment from me. They should know better.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
If this recent attitude was encouraged by your professors, then I'd be ashamed to be your teacher.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Cool beans.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
ooh, ooh, I went to the varsity too!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
OK, so the evidence about what kinds of parenting is optimal is mixed. However, the evidence that poverty is strongly correlated with various poor outcomes - such as criminal activity - is pretty solid.
Regardless - do we want to get in the business of telling people who gets to make babies?
Aside from living in a glass house in that regard - I'm not an optimal parent, probably will never even be particularly close - I think it'd be a bad idea. I don't want extra forces causing humanity to breed selectively for the most compliant, most conformed outcomes. (At best we'd be less interesting, at worst we are ripe for totalitarianism.)
Rather, I think we should try and figure out which ways people can adapt to avoid things we generally agree are bad, such as going to jail, not having financial resources, and being in a bad mood all the time. Don't prevent the poor from having kids, but try to help them not to be poor any more. Don't tell the lesbians "no sperm for you!", but educate ourselves so we know whether there are any particular concerns with a two mommies household.
I don't think we need to limit our choices so much as to understand the implications of them. It's easy to see that this generally works: people act in self interest, and in the interests of those close to them, so when there's disagreement about benefit, we need study, not proscription, at least when it comes to able adults.
And remember you're not permanently safe from the whims of the majority just because you currently belong to it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I wasn't positioning her as a student to my "teacher status".
Jhai, You said
quote:Wow. I'd be embarrassed to admit to being your teacher in any sort of science field.
and I can't see any logical way to interpret that statement other than that you were positioning her as a student to your teacher status. Furthermore, that comment came before most of the other responses to Annie's post so your seeking to justify it by saying
quote:The only reason I've ended up repeatedly comparing Annie to students I've taught (or, rather, my expectations for students I've taught) was in response to others who were, in turn, responding to the original comment.
falls flat. Anyone reading this thread can see that it is factually and verifiably incorrect.
Then you claimed that this was not a personal attack. Get real Jhai. I can't believe that someone with the credentials you claim could make that argument with a straight face.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Another logical interpretation: the first quote you use is about status, not actual student-to-teacher relationships. Thus, I am saying that I do not believe I am "better" than her because I hold "teacher status" while she holds "student status". You see how this is different from the other two?
One is a comment on status, two & three are comments on hypothetical situations. Pay closer attention to my word choice next time.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie:
quote:First, they are coming from a website that opposes same-sex marriage, which means that they are likely only going to have articles that support their view point.
Whereas, if you were making an argument here that same-sex marriage was a good idea, you would only cite articles that support your viewpoint.
Yes, if you were making that argument. Of course, you're making an argument, and only citing other people who are also making that argument. None of your links is actually to a single study, (as far as I can tell) only statements and discussions of other studies- and none of them appear to be from peer-reviewed journals themselves.
If you're actually using this stuff as a basis for any of your own "research," I'm startled.
And you've provided us with a bibliography... someone *else's* bibliography. Have you read these works? Do you know the data they present? It's really kind of irresponsible to post them as if they are representative of your viewpoint. They may not be.
It would be very easy for you, if you are at a University, to log onto JSTOR and generate a bibliography of actual studies you have actually read. You wouldn't have to provide stable links. Many people here have ways of accessing online databases. Because, really, so far what you've contributed is almost worse than when you weren't providing any sources. At least then we could pretend that if the sources did exist, they would be reliable or relevant.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Regardless - do we want to get in the business of telling people who gets to make babies?
Apparently, her answer is not only yes, but she wants it arbitrarily limited, out of a fundamental assumption that it's okay to discriminate based on being single or lesbian, but not on other factors like being poor, which turns the whole sociological justification (not yet rendered) lopsided.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm just glad there isn't a smell test.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You say that and I think "Well, y'see, I smell lahk keystone light and chew, an' th missus smells lahk chesterfields an' cat poo, but, y'see, wahr in a tra-dis-nul family strutcher. So, w'all good fer ten mer kids."
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Apparently, her answer is not only yes, but she wants it arbitrarily limited, out of a fundamental assumption that it's okay to discriminate based on being single or lesbian, but not on other factors like being poor, which turns the whole sociological justification (not yet rendered) lopsided.
Please do not put words in my mouth.
I am legitimately busy with schoolwork, I already wasted too much time on this thread this morning, and I'm not interested in continuing a discussion in such a hostile atmosphere.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Please do not put words in my mouth.
I am legitimately busy with schoolwork, I already wasted too much time on this thread this morning, and I'm not interested in continuing a discussion in such a hostile atmosphere.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. That's a straightforward interpretation of the extent of your position so rendered. If you don't want to correct it, then, fine.
But I'm somewhat disappointed that the actions of others are what you are going to use to decide not to address my points, since they're really rather pointed and necessary critiques of your position.
So rendered.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Liz B, I really liked your post. I share many of Belle's concerns about large families (though to many people, 4 kids IS a large family). I grew up in a family of 6, and it was not the fairy tale of love and team work that many people seem to want to portray. There were many days where it was pretty hellish, and every last one of us (except maybe one) has suffered some not-insignificant emotional scars from some of the negative aspects. On the other hand, there were many positive aspects, and in the end, I think large families are still wonderful in many ways.
That being said, even parents with the best of intentions end up sometimes raising children or families in situations they themselves do not consider idea. I'm a single mother of only one son who works full time an hour away and goes to school part time. My son also has a half sibling he only gets to see every couple of weeks. There is almost NOTHING about the family dynamics my son has that I am happy with. This is NOT the situation in which I think children should be raised - yet I'm doing it the best I can, and I think that my son is doing ok too.
I have real concerns about my son being raised as an only child and missing out on almost every aspect of a sibling relationship. On the other hand, I could never, in good conscience, bring another baby into this world given my circumstances. I honestly believe it is unfair to never give a kid a chance at a "normal" life. I am, however, considering adopting a child from foster care. My son wants a sibling, I have more love to give, and many foster children never get a chance at any family at all, so half a set of parents is better than none! Even with all these considerations, I am still waiting until I am out of school because I realize that more than money children need their parent's time.
I am not suggesting that any laws be passed regulating who can and cannot have a child. There are some laws I'd like to see revised (such as those banning mentally handicapped people from receiving sterilization procedures if they consent) but the truth is there is no practical and fair way to do it. However, I do have real concerns that people honestly believe that "all families are equal".
Some people seem to think that if two parents can handle four kids, then it's just as easy for a single parent to handle two kids - but that's just not true. I'm not sure exactly how much having both a mother AND a father matters, but I definitely think that having TWO parents is a big deal. Heck, there was a reason that grandparents often lived with families in the "good ole days" and it didn't all have to do with poverty, lack of space, and no nursing homes. Kids need a variety of adults they can count on for love and support. No adult is perfect, and there will be times when an argument or punishment from an adult will hurt the child. That child needs to have at least one other person to turn to for validation in those circumstances. I don't mean validation as in telling the child he/she is right, but validation in the fact that the child is still a person worthy of love. (Remember grandpappy in the first chapter of 7th son).
Thus, while single parent families can work, I do shiver at the thought of actually encouraging them to exist. There are legal hoops that a person must jump through to adopt a child. I do not understand why equally stringent hoops should not be placed on a person wishing to undergo fertility treatments. After all, isn't the end result essentially the same?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Thus, while single parent families can work, I do shiver at the thought of actually encouraging them to exist. There are legal hoops that a person must jump through to adopt a child. I do not understand why equally stringent hoops should not be placed on a person wishing to undergo fertility treatments. After all, isn't the end result essentially the same?
This is an interesting question, and I'm not sure if the answer is as simple as it should be. The rules for adopting a child are put in place to protect children who *already exist* and to help place them in loving homes. Fertility treatments create new babies and those babies are biologically and legally the responsibility of the mothers who bear them. There is a real knee-jerk reaction involved when you try to get into the business of regulating reproduction. I'm one of the people who has such a reaction, though I understand the practical concerns you've put forth. It might be fairer to stop a child from being brought into existence if that existence would be unpleasant and/or make others' existence unpleasant, and certainly easier than dealing with it after they are born and potentially shuffled through the foster system, and yet who gets to say who's a good parent and who is not?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I just want to say that there is an enormous and critical difference between being pissed off at irresponsible parents and thinking that society or the government should have a say in who can have children by whatever means.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: This is an interesting question, and I'm not sure if the answer is as simple as it should be. The rules for adopting a child are put in place to protect children who *already exist* and to help place them in loving homes. Fertility treatments create new babies and those babies are biologically and legally the responsibility of the mothers who bear them. There is a real knee-jerk reaction involved when you try to get into the business of regulating reproduction. I'm one of the people who has such a reaction, though I understand the practical concerns you've put forth. It might be fairer to stop a child from being brought into existence if that existence would be unpleasant and/or make others' existence unpleasant, and certainly easier than dealing with it after they are born and potentially shuffled through the foster system, and yet who gets to say who's a good parent and who is not?
It's very difficult to make a case based upon happiness/utility alone that it is better to not exist at than to exist even if you're disadvantaged - it's called the non-identity problem in philosophy. The only cases which are legitimately/seriously argued are things like children born with Tay-Sachs disease. There are other ways you can argue about the morality of conceiving a child that will be disadvantaged, but harm to the child-to-be-conceived is a tough one. (We once had a debate case on this issue concerning a child who had been conceived with the sperm of a family with a long history of deafness - it was a pair of lesbian Deaf women who already had one other artificially-conceived Deaf child. They wanted another child, and the wanted the child to be deaf if at all possible.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I just want to say that there is an enormous and critical difference between being pissed off at irresponsible parents and thinking that society or the government should have a say in who can have children by whatever means.
there should prolly be exceptions in the case of people who are mentally ill in certain ways or people who've run afoul of the law involving their care of children but yes, for the most part. 'legislating fertility' is a horrific sounding idea which has no place outside of a dystopic future where it is necessitated by horrific events.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: We once had a debate case on this issue concerning a child who had been conceived with the sperm of a family with a long history of deafness - it was a pair of lesbian Deaf women who already had one other artificially-conceived Deaf child. They wanted another child, and the wanted the child to be deaf if at all possible.
I'm failing to see how this could possibly be a debate. I can see arguments for why it might be ethical to want a child even though there was a high probability or even certainty that the child would be deaf. I can understand that a deaf life can be worth living and that there are valuable things in deaf culture. But actively seeking to make a deaf child seems to me to cross a line into the clearly unethical zone. In my mind, I can't see a difference between deliberately passing on a genetic defect to a child, performing a procedure during pregnancy with the intention of creating a birth defect and poking the child's ears out with a nail at birth.
I am very curious to know what arguments there are on the other side of this issue.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I know a lot of deaf people do not consider deafness a defect. I know that some members of the deaf community also argued against hearing parents getting their child the occular implant along similar lines. One of the profs I know works in that field and says that the amount of hostility he gets from the deaf community is shocking.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... In my mind, I can't see a difference between deliberately passing on a genetic defect to a child, performing a procedure during pregnancy with the intention of creating a birth defect and poking the child's ears out with a nail at birth.
Theoretically, its slightly different. For example, if you use some form of genetic screening to screen for fertilized eggs that are deaf then you're not really poking out the child's ears as much as you're choosing to have a child thats deaf. (I mean conversely, if we screen against a disease, we don't really think of that as "upgrading" the child at birth)
That aspect of the theory aside though, I'm still not a fan.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Theoretically, it's very different.
The problem is that you can't point to an entity that is harmed by the decision to go with "defective sperm", so to speak. There isn't a child being harmed, because the child that is born because of the choice to go with that specific sperm would not have been born had the choice been otherwise. Some other individual would have been born.
So in the case of the Deaf family, they did end up having a male boy who was completely deaf in one ear and nearly completely deaf in the other. Let's call him Mike. Mike would not have been born if his mothers had chosen other sperm. He hasn't been harmed by their choice - that choice is what gave him life. If Mike's parents had chosen to go with the sperm of a man whose family didn't have a genetic tendency to be deaf, then some other kid - call her Linda - would have been born. Now, I suppose you could say that Linda was harmed by the parents' decision - but we aren't typically in habit of saying that you're harming all potential children by not giving birth to them. It'd be a hard case to make.
Then there's the part of whether being deaf is really a defect. As scholarette noted, the Deaf community typically doesn't see it as a defect - differently-abled, not defective. I don't agree with that stance, but you do have to argue against it. So the first third of my case was just focused on making it clear why being born deaf was an actual defect, rather than like being born with brown eyes rather than hazel. The second third was talking about the non-identity problem, and why harm couldn't be a principle used to argue against the mothers' choice. Then the final part was putting forth an argument for why it was still the morally-wrong choice on deontological lines. That's also a difficult case to make as you don't want to go with a principle that's too strong - one that would require, for instance, people with any genetic problem to not have children.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Then there's the part of whether being deaf is really a defect.
The answer is "yes" and the 'deaf community' is sometimes very weird about their differently-abledness, sometimes balking when doctors recommend fixing their hearing as children.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Then there's the part of whether being deaf is really a defect.
The answer is "yes" and the 'deaf community' is sometimes very weird about their differently-abledness, sometimes balking when doctors recommend fixing their hearing as children.
Agreed. Some segments of the deaf community are strongly opposed to cochlear implants. They have been known to ostracize deaf people who receive the implants and oppose giving implants to children. I find their attitudes highly unethical.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I don't disagree, but it's still an argument that must be laid to rest before proceeding further. There are some arguments, as I recall, that initially sound plausible (access to a unique culture & language, sharpening of other senses, discrimination is less than what, say, a black person faces, etc), but they ultimately fail.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The problem is that you can't point to an entity that is harmed by the decision to go with "defective sperm", so to speak. There isn't a child being harmed, because the child that is born because of the choice to go with that specific sperm would not have been born had the choice been otherwise. Some other individual would have been born.
I have difficulty with this distinction. I know too much biochemistry to see a genetic defect as fundamentally distinct from a developmental defect. Our individuality is at least as much determined by chemical signals that regulate gene expression in the womb as it is by genes. Scientifically the distinction just isn't there to say that a change in the genome means you are a different person but a change in conditions in the womb does not. Yes, if you used a different sperm, a different person would have been born. But if you'd changed conditions in the womb to prevent proper development of the ears, a different person would have been born as well. Some of the key traits that define us as individuals (like gender) are as much controlled by the hormonal environment in the womb as they are by genetics.
I can't see any clear difference to distinguish between deliberately selecting a genetic defect in a child and deliberately inducing a defect in the womb.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
If you have a fetus, and you do something to it, you've changed an entity. If you don't have a fetus yet, then there's no entity to change. In one case you can point to an entity and say "you've harmed this entity". In another case, there's no thing or person that has been harmed.
How can you cause harm to a thing that doesn't exist?
Note: in the case of your last sentence, you can certainly talk about motivation of the actors, and whether an action is right or not. My initial comment was not about that - it was about whether the action caused harm or not. Many ethicists like to fall back on some sort of harm principle to show that an action was wrong - this case is one where you cannot do so.
Upthread I linked to a section in a philosophical article on this issue. If you read it (just the "non-identity problem" section), I think you will understand the issue better.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If you have a fetus, and you do something to it, you've changed an entity. If you don't have a fetus yet, then there's no entity to change. In one case you can point to an entity and say "you've harmed this entity". In another case, there's no thing or person that has been harmed.
How can you cause harm to a thing that doesn't exist?
I fully understand that argument and the problem it creates for ethicists. Unfortunately, I think it leads to a very irrational conclusion.
Biochemically, If I knock out a gene so that it simply is never present in an entity or use chemical means to completely suppress expression of a gene -- I end up with exactly the same out come, yet you would say the first one does not harm because no entity existed when I knocked out the gene but in the second case the entity already exist and so it can be harmed. But from a scientific perspective, the two acts are performed for the exact same reason and have identical outcomes.
What I'm saying is that an ethical theory is deeply flawed if that theory leads to the conclusion that one of two acts is ethical and the other not, when the two acts are performed with the same intent and have exactly the same outcome. I find that conclusion irrational and evidence of a serious limitation in the ethical theory.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Upthread I linked to a section in a philosophical article on this issue. If you read it (just the "non-identity problem" section), I think you will understand the issue better.
Jhai, I am very familiar with the non-identity problem. My problem is not lack of familiarity or understanding. I think that this philosophical model is unsound because it leads to irrational and contradictory results. It may be useful in some cases, but has severe limitations.
I believe we've had this discussion before. I know I've had it with more credentialed ethicists than you, two of whom understood and accepted my point as a valid concern.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
But the two acts you speak of don't have anything close to the same outcome, because the individuals are very different. In one case you have "healthy" sperm combining with an egg to create an embryo, and then you alter the embryo - in the other you have "deaf" sperm combing with an egg to create an embryo. Even if you end up with two deaf babies from this experiment, you've used different sperm and two different individuals have resulted from the experiment.
The first individual could reasonably inquire: "Why did you perform that gene therapy in the womb that caused me to be born deaf? If you hadn't have done that, I would have been just the same as now, but with ears."
The second individual cannot reasonably say a similar thing.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
*shrug* If you don't want to discuss it, then that's fine. If we've discussed it before, you must not have persuaded me that your reasoning was valid, since I don't think your biochemical example fits the constraints of the case.
And, frankly, I don't care what sort of ethicists you've talked to about this issue, and whether or not they've agreed with you. I think a lot of philosophers are wrong on a lot of things. The wrongness of other philosophers is probably the only thing philosophers can agree on.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Jhai, ou don't actually understand what I'm proposing. Consider the following throught experiment.
1. We take an egg and a sperm and knock out a gene critical for hearing in each gamete. Then we allow the gametes to fuse to form an embryo.
2. We select an egg and sperm which we know to be identical to some other egg and sperm in every way except that they have lost the hearing gene through some natural process. Then we allow the gametes to fuse to form an embryo.
3. We select an egg and sperm, allow them to fuse to form an embryo and then chemically suppress expression of the hearing gene.
All three options are performed for the exact same reason and have the identical outcome. An ethical theory that would conclude that 1 or 2 was ethical, but three was not in my mind is seriously flawed.
Now I know that none of these scenarios is exactly what was done. But I think that ethically it is very difficult to distinguish between option 2 and what these women did. While its true that they did not have the technology needed to select a sperm that was genetically identical in all respects except the defective hearing gene, it seems evident that that their intent and the outcome are identical to option 2. Their reason for selecting the sperm donor was so that they would have a high probability of having a deaf child. The only difference I see between that and option 2 is the technology that was available to them.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
(I'll reply when I get a chance. Things just got hairy at work.)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
How about the married heterosexual couple who wish to take their sperm and eggs, fuse them and then use genetic testing to eliminate all the non deaf embryos?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I've just pointed out how it wasn't flawed reasoning, as I wasn't making an argument based on the comment. And, again, I'm just stating my opinion that I don't find your opinion on reasoning and ethics to be particularly meaningful to me. Do you back up all of your opinions with citations?