posted
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?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't either. But I'm quite certain the suggested boycotts are on the wrong side of the line.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read that she only expected one baby from the pregnancy at the outset, or possibly two at most.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
