The mommy track gone wild?
We now know the name of the mother of the California octuplets.
We know she is single.
We know she has had all of her children as a result of in vitro fertilization.
We know, according to her mother, reports the Associated Press, Nadya Suleman has been obsessed with the idea of having children since she was a teenager.
This seems a clear case of someone who was a questionable candidate for fertility treatments and who should have been screened psychologically. At the very least, in the interest of the children.
Comments (10)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Spoken like a true elitist. This lady has just as much right to pass her genes on...and on...and on...and on...as much as some high falutin' businessmen or anyone else. The system somewhere along the line probably gave her a raw deal anyway, so she deserves this. And if she can't support them...too bad. The taxpayers are just going to have to buck up!
Posted on February 2, 2009 8:52 AM
James Harrison, who ran back the interception 100 yards closing out the first half in spectacular fashion is the youngest of FOURTEEN (14) children. I'll bet all the Arizona fans wish some elitist liberal would have been able to talk his mother into an abortion after her allotted number (determined by them of course) of children!
Posted on February 2, 2009 11:51 AM
So you're saying we need "baby police" now so the liberals can decide "who" gets to have babies?
And how many millions of taspayer $$$$ would you suggest Obama spend on that?
Posted on February 2, 2009 12:08 PM
No. I am saying people who are seeking in vitro fertilization should have some type of counseling ahead of time.
Being obsessed with having children is not normal.
This woman obviously is ill and does not have the means to support all of her children.
Posted on February 2, 2009 12:14 PM
"Being obsessed with having children is not normal."
Careful who you say that to, pardner.
Although I can't support the regulation of emotional fitness, I can support the regulation of financial fitness. I hold the crazy, right wing opinion that if you can't support your children, then you shouldn't have any. If you are forcing the state to assume responsibility for supporting your childen, then the state should reasonable require that you not have any more.
Posted on February 2, 2009 1:00 PM
Not a very libertarian attitude, brian.
As I wrote on my blog Saturday, this is a matter of reproductive rights. Want the state to dictate this woman's choices?
Posted on February 2, 2009 5:35 PM
What about the welfare of the children? There at least should be some type of guidelines for fertility treatments.
Posted on February 2, 2009 5:40 PM
Saw on Hannity last night the hospital bill will be in the million dollar range. Seems that would be hard for a single mom, with no job to pay.
Her right to produce, should not become my right to pay for it!
Posted on February 3, 2009 6:47 AM
What's not libertarian about it? If we didn't have a nanny state nannying children and their parents (who do a poor job of nannying their own children), then I'd say have as many as you want. I don't want the state dicating reproductive decisions, nor do I want it subsidizing them.
Posted on February 4, 2009 12:17 PM
Very well said Doug!!
On MANY levels in our socitey, what you said applies beautifully.
Thanks
Posted on February 4, 2009 2:31 PM