Police said Thursday they will investigate death threats against octuplet mom Nadya Suleman and advise her publicist on how to handle a torrent of other nasty messages that have flooded his office.Word that the 33-year-old single, unemployed mother is receiving public assistance to care for the 14 children she conceived through in vitro fertilization has stoked furor among many people.
Police Lt. John Romero said officers were meeting with Suleman's publicist Mike Furtney about the flood of angry phone calls and e-mail messages against Suleman, her children and Furtney.
"We are aware of the media accounts of the threats, and that they are being sent to the West Los Angeles detectives for appropriate action," Romero said.
Furtney said 500 new e-mails were received early Thursday.
In the meantime, MSNBC ponders "baby addiction - when moms always want a newborn, even at the expense of other children." Sigh.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: Nadya Suleman receives death threats.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11959
"Sigh" is right. And because it doesn't even make sense--is it better to have fourteen orphaned children, than a single mother with fourteen on welfare? Not that we should ever try making sense out of the sort of awful people who would make death threats to a woman for daring to have "too many" children.
This comment is pure brilliance. Kudos, pencils.
I totally disagree. No way. Having eight children at a time is too many. It's dangerous to the mother's health and the children's health. There is something wrong with this woman, and she needs appropriate care. You can say all you want about her being mistreated in the media and I'll accept it, but having 14 children, eight at one time, all under the age of 10 is pretty socially irresponsible. Think of the environmental impact! "Better to have fourteen orphaned children"... then maybe Suleman should have looked into adoption.
I agree with you, but this post is about her receiving DEATH THREATS.
The woman has been irresponsible and probably mentally ill or something (I'm not a doctor, so i don't know), but she doesn't deserve to be terrorized or threatened. Think poorly of her if you want, regret that she is achieving some kind of celebrity for her ill-conceived (no pun intended) actions, but in no way does anything she's done justify violence or threats of violence.
It doesn't matter if she's right or wrong having 14 kids. You don't get to murder someone because of that. You simply do not get to threaten people you don't like with death. end of story.
She's a nutcase! I live in L.A. and this is all I hear about, it's a huge story here. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em! That being said, the death threats are really idiotic.
There is so much wrong with this comment, it merits its own blog post.
First: check your language use, please. "Nutcase" is a word that is unbecoming of a self-described feminist, irrespective of her views on human reproduction. Please see my comment below on insults that harm mentally ill people as much as the individual being branded "nuts."
Second: Classist much? Pray, tell me: what is the income level at which you've arbitrarily arrived to decide who should or should not be allowed to breed? What do you mean by "feed"--if they can all happily exist on mac and cheese, would that be good enough for you, the presumed arbiter of who "should" be allowed to "breed"? Please expound further on the fact that sizeable proportions of Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans, southeast Asian-Americans and (non-immigrant) African-Americans qualify for the poverty level, and that restricting poor people's reproduction would necessarily result in less population members from these groups ONLY. Meanwhile, European-Americans would continue having children, with a few South and East Asian-Americans thrown in to prove that your ideas are not as racist and classist as they are.
Oh, and I'm childfree, too, and claim no kinship with you. Your language and views detract from childfree philosophy, not enhance it.
Oh, I'm so hurt. Why can't a feminist have a sense of humor? Lighten up a bit!
The response of people denying their privilege and responsibility for their words everywhere. So tired.
Income has everything to do with this. Having many children when you are unable to feed and care for them responsibly is a severe mistake. The absurd celebration of breeding culture crosses all lines of ethnic and income groups. Please excuse my use of term "nutcase" She is mentally challenged in the areas of family planning and basic logic. It's interesting you would assume that I am a classist. How is it that a decision to have children has little relation to your ability to feed and care for them? This ability is often determined by your own facility to generate an adequate income in order to provide. There is nothing classist about this at all. We all have rights to make bad decisions as well as good ones. We also have a right to determine when bad decisions are unhealthy and dangerous to other individuals.
Thank you for withdrawing your use of "nutcase." Because you came back and offered a serious response, I will also overlook your unfortunate use of the "lighten up, unfunny feminist!" meme.
I agree 100% that we should question "the absurd celebration of breeding culture" in societies around the world. [Note to people with children: I don't denigrate "breeding"--a word I would never use--or "reproducing" itself, but, rather, I endorsed the questioning of the CULTURE of reproduction, which, I believe, merits criticsm.]
And certainly, a higher income can facilitate some aspects of raising children.
But my questions to you remain:
What is the income level at which you've arbitrarily arrived to decide who should or should not be allowed to breed? What do you mean by "feed"--if they can all happily exist on mac and cheese, would that be good enough for you, the presumed arbiter of who "should" be allowed to "breed"? Please expound further on the fact that sizeable proportions of Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans, southeast Asian-Americans and (non-immigrant) African-Americans qualify for the poverty level, and that restricting poor people's reproduction would necessarily result in less population members from these groups ONLY.
You are overreacting. I'm pretty sure childfree meant the line as advice, not as a statement of desired policy. This inflammatory rhetoric insinuating racism is also misplaced-- childfree was referring ONLY to economic standing; it's not an economic fault that some people are poorer than others, it's due to cultural/societal oppression and a whole other can of worms. You can't just take what someone says and extrapolate it to the nearest measurement of racism, especially when that was not the intention.
Suleman made a bad decision. It's not a crime, it's not racism, and it's not classism to say so.
You are overreacting. I'm pretty sure childfree meant the line as advice, not as a statement of desired policy. This inflammatory rhetoric insinuating racism is also misplaced-- childfree was referring ONLY to economic standing; it's not an economic fault that some people are poorer than others, it's due to cultural/societal oppression and a whole other can of worms. You can't just take what someone says and extrapolate it to the nearest measurement of racism, especially when that was not the intention.
Suleman made a bad decision. It's not a crime, it's not racism, and it's not classism to say so.
I find it interesting that MSNBC assumes only "moms" are "baby addicts"; with all the information I've seen around on men sabotaging birth control, and the real examples I've seen in my line of work of men bullying women into having or keeping pregnancies and children they didn't want and can't afford (This happens ALL the TIME), where are the men in all this coverage?
Why don't we talk about how irresponsible the "octo-mom"'s (what a HORRIBLE media tag to give someone; it's like she's a cartoon or a movie villain) friend and sperm donor? I haven't heard anything about him.
According to Nadya's mom - and who knows how reliable she is - the father wants to be in the picture. He asked her to marry him, but she preferred to be a single mother. Now, that doesn't explain why he continued to be a sperm donor for her, but that's the story anyway.
I'm going to assume I'm in the minority here in having children, but I think there are moms who always want a newborn. I can think of several moms off the top of my head who seem to crave that newborn helplessness and will begin to talk about it when their youngest moves past it. These moms all have 5+ kiddos, so yeah, I think there's something to that. (And I must say, I don't get it. I *hated* the newborn stage.)
You're right, I'm sure such moms exist, but I'm also sure that if those addicted moms exist than there are also addicted dads.
Definitely. Remember Andrea Yates? Drowned all five of her kids due, in her defense, to postpartum depression? Her husband was the one who kept wanting more kids, wanted her to stay home with them, etc. etc.
Just one example of how that kind of misogyny can (and does) kill.
Wow. You're blaming her husband for her MURDERING 5 human beings?
That's sick.
Feminism is one thing, but to absolve her simply because she's a woman?
No.
She knew she did wrong, which is why she called 911 after doing it. It was a planned, premeditated act of incredible violence, and she shouldn't be in a mental hospital, she should be on death row.
I don't think Liz was blaming Andrea's husband directly for the murders, but saying that his pressure for her to be a stay at home mom with a half-dozen young children *contributed* to her post-partum depression, because she had no allowable escape from the duties of child-rearing in her household.
The Yates family were fundamentalist Christians, heavily influenced by a street preacher named Michael Woroniecki whom Rusty considered his spiritual mentor (Andrea was raised a Catholic and converted to Woroniecki's doctrines just before her marriage. Rusty made a point of introducing her to Woronicki beforehand, most likely so that Woroniecki could see her and either approve or disapprove of their marriage).
They followed the Quiverfull lifestyle, which teaches that its followers eschew birth control, and Woroniecki's belief that children should be homeschooled and homechurched, with the husband as absolute master of the household. They had their last child after being told that further pregnancies would lead to post-partum psychosis, and a few months before she drowned her children, Andrea received letters from Woroniecki berating her for being unrighteous and condemning her children to Hell.
Rusty Yates not only did not take steps to help his wife during her psychotic breaks after the births of her last two children, he contributed to her problems by keeping her in the orbit of a religious advisor who told her repeatedly that her alleged unrighteousness threatened her children's salvation. He did not assist her with the children, did not allow her to work or have much association with her family, and contributed to her religious issues by leading the family home church. Worst of all, he encouraged her to stop taking her antidepressants after her first breakdown *and* got her pregnant with her fifth children because he wanted another "arrow for his quiver."
"By their fruits ye shall know them." Rusty Yates, through his treatment of his wife, bears a great deal of the responsibility for her final breakdown and the deaths of their children. I have zero sympathy for him, and I fear for his second wife and their young child.
I absolutely am not absolving her, as Irene said in my defense. All I was trying to point out was that if it wasn't for her husband's influence and insistence on more children, more children, etc. (as in ellid.livejournal.com's post) was what drove her to her postpartum psychosis. She developed a severe mental illness as a result of her husband's actions (and lack thereof).
I really don't appreciate you calling me "sick" for pointing out the fact that her actions weren't as simple as cold blooded murder. There is a story behind every act of violence, and hers was exacerbated by the influence of a controlling, misogynistic husband. One of the goals of feminism, for me, is to help more women and men realize that equality in a relationship can keep these kinds of disasters from happening. If her husband had allowed her to make her own choices regarding her body, health, and children, they would still be alive today and "Andrea Yates" wouldn't be a name known across North America in association with extreme postpartum depression and murder.
I second being horrified by the term "Octo-Mom." I heard it on the news the other day and couldn't believe they were referring to a human being.
I have so many feelings about this entire media frenzy. Yes, I believe she is being treated very poorly, and I agree, Where's the conversation about the father??? Death threats? Never ok.
But also, this is exactly the kind of issue that Advocates for Pregnant Women would have something to say about...we criminalize women for snorting a line during a pregnancy (which is because of "harm" it could cause to fetus) yet these huge cases of multiples are sort of glorified, though arguably much more dangerous for mom and babies. And I have so many questions, like where is the ETHICAL medical practice involved here?? How is it that she was impregnated with SO many fertilized eggs? I've talked to people who say, "Oh, well I could never abort any fertilized eggs if that happened to me," but I'm like, we're interfering with "natural" and playing god here already with fertilization and reproductive technologies...what is the difference??
Apologies...I know this post was specifically about the death threats, but there is so much to think about in cases like this.
Really good analysis over at Racialicious on this case you haven't seen:
"White ladies have a bunch of kids and get TV shows. A Hispanic woman pumps out eight babies and gets scorn – and maybe a few high-profile interviews."
Read the rest:
http://www.racialicious.com/2009/02/10/unmarried-nonwhite-woman%E2%80%99s-crapload-of-babies-not-considered-%E2%80%9Clittle-gifts-from-god%E2%80%9D/#more-2231
I'm fairly certain that this white woman, Nadya Suleman, has received a heap of scorn over her irresponsible, probaly deranged decision. Thinking folks are also questioning whether any ethical doctor would assist in this reproductive mayhem.
That all said, the death threats are cowardly and criminal. I propose no governmental policy to stop this from occuring again. Like any advance in technology, some will abuse it.
She was getting crap even before her identity was released, but now that she's spoken publicly, it's worse.
The family from Arkansas (can't remember the name right now) pays for everything themselves, and they don't use credit. They've spoken about the financial realities of having a family as large as theirs and how they worked to pay off debt to be able to afford to have as many children as they wanted.
Jon (who's Asian, right?) and Kate also talk about the financial sacrifice of having their children. They've talked about struggling because she's home with the kids, and he works as a software developer. So while I won't say race isn't a factor at all, the economic situation isn't the same either. I think it's the money that has people up in arms here.
Brandi, if you're talking about the Duggars, if you look at the second of the Community links I posted, I made a comment there analyzing how Quiverfull families' economics work, and how they are not only just as problematic as Suleman's possible receipt of public assistance, but, in the grand scheme of feministm/humanism, even more problematic.
I am not vilifying the Duggars/Quiverfulls any more than I would vilify Suleman (I find the former's religious philosophy repugnant and the latter's approach to reproduction problematic, but refuse to blast either PERSONALLY for it). But, I am amused over how many people believe Quiverfull families are economically "self-sufficient" in the standard U.S. sense of the word; they are not.
I guess this applies to the blogger at Racialicious, but Nadya Suleman is half Iraqi, half Ukrainian, not Hispanic.
And Jon of Jon and Kate plus 8 is half Korean, and all the kids "look" more Asian than white. I know Asians are usually considered a more accepted minority, or whatever, but just saying the mother is white doesn't take into account the kids full heritage.
You're right about Suleman's ancestry (though Racialicious changed the title from Hispanic to "non-White").
But, I'd like ot offer the opinion of someone fatally drawn to message boards on mainstream news sites over the past two weeks since before SUleman was even identified.
Race *did* play a factor before her exact ancestry was even known. I read hundreds of comments that amounted to:
1. Hmm, she was married to a guy called Marcos Guitierrez and lives in Cali, she lives in a tiny house, is most likely on welfare, everyone knows Hispanics don't believe in birth control, plus I met a Mexican once called Nadya--she's obviously one more Mexican broodmare bleeding the system dry.
AND/OR
2. Suleman sounds like a Muslim name and the husband [later learned to be Nadya's father] works in Iraq--I bet they're Arab. Daman, the Muslims just keep wanting to overrun the West; it's part of their plan to gain power over Westerners and take over all of Western society. Personally, if they want to live the same way they do in their country, they should go back there. We don't need bunches of potential terrorists/Muslim extremists in America, and she's breeding a whole army of them.
So, yes, race definitely plays a role here, and no, Minarchist Mouse, the fact that she has a light complexion and a European mother did not/does not detract these racists thoughts and commentators.
As for the Gosselin [sic?] family, it's possible that there might be more naysayers if the father were Hispanic, Native, or African-American instead of Asian (particularly East Asian, though I don't know his specific background).
(Although this brings in the intersectionality issue of gender and race, because it might just be that if the parents were reversed and it was Kate who were Hispanic, Native, or African in ancestry, the situation would seem more messed up to racist-leaning types (the maternal body itself is a fraught notion, so add to that the juxtaposition of a maternal body racists associate with the "out of cotrol" reproduction of historically poor minorities, and you have a big ole' mess).
But we don't need to speculate about the Gosselins. We already have proof in front of our eyes that hundreds of "average" commentaters have plenty of race-based vitriol to Suleman. Some even offered BOTH the anti-Hispanic and anti-Arab arguments, saying, essentially, "Well, I don't know her race yet, but there's problems with either scenario."
I am fascinated by the huge amount of negative press this "octomommy"--the single mother of octuplets has received. Its stunning to see the same women who advocate for pro-choice rail against this woman for choosing to have 14 children.
Apparently its only acceptable to have a "mega family" if there is a smiling husband in the picture (see Jon and Kate + 8 or that other one with 18 kids) When a woman makes a personal choice that is against socially accepted norms, the public outcry is disturbing. In addition, the fact that she's "poor" comes up time and time again, as though only the wealthy can make their own reproductive choices. She has stated that she will never take welfare, and the meager $490 a month she recieves is a social program for her disabled child. Anyway what can you do with $500 bucks?
Its often omitted that she's studying for her masters (which many of us know is hard to do as is), and has gotten this far with 6 kids already...yes another 8 is hard to imagine, but that is her burden to bear and the choice she has made and if she's happy with it then i think its time we let women's reproductive rights be placed back in the private sphere where they belong.
Clarification:
1. She has three disabled children.
2. She receives food stamps, which is a form of welfare, but she says she does not consider it welfare.
Other than that I think the outcry would have died down if she was not actively seeking publicity. She has set up a website for donations to her children and her publicist has said she is looking for a TV deal.
I also think the outcry would be less if she didn't receive public assistance - however small the amount - but have gotten pregnant using fertility treatments. She has a website asking for money to support her family, for Cripe's sake. That's just sad to me, and yet she's afforded all of these fertility treatments. I think that's part of what's so mind-boggling about the whole situation.
She seems to be oblivious to the reality of her situation, though to give her credit there she's probably reeling from very little sleep. I was raised by a 17-year-old single mother. It was HARD. Yes, my mother loved me. Yes, she did everything she could to provide for me. That doesn't mean it was simple. By talking publicly about her life, Suleman's opened up this discussion. To me she just seems so unaware of what she's gotten herself into.
Does anyone know how she could afford the fertility treatments? Aren't those not covered by insurance?
They are specifically exempt from insurance in California.
She worked at a mental hospital and was injured several years ago (2001? I forget) when a desk was pushed into her back during a commotion at the mental hospital. She received disability of about 167,000 and used that for her fertility treatments, plus money she saved from working overtime (before the injury). The injury is to her back, and she had already worsened her condition with previous pregnancies before the most recent octuplet birth.
The problem is not that she chose to have 14 children. At least, *I* don't think that's a problem. Women (and families) have the right to choose how many kids they want to have. That's a basic human right, like it or not. At least it's a right in this country.
The problem is that she chose (and her doctor allowed her) to have IVF administered with an insane number of eggs implanted (six). This is FAR beyond the accepted standard for IVF, particularly with someone her age. I don't think people really understand what it means to have eight children. With each child the health risks to the mother and the children grow *exponentially*. Implanting six is nowhere near a safe procedure; this moves beyond the realm of 'choice' and into the realm of endangering your life. It's malpractice.
Also, it really goes without saying, but the people who sent her death threats are idiots and should be prosecuted.
I'm glad there have been several posts on Feministing/F. Community about this, because I have gotten into a window into other feminists' views.
The vitriol towards Suleman expressed in ABC News.com's Comments section--that, I get. The death threats from members of the angry mobs out there hypocritically ignoring the circumstances under which they themeslves forced human beings into existence? Got those, though they make me ill.
But feminists who are literally trembling with anger over Suleman, who call her "insane" and a "babymaking machine" and who say she should have all her children taken away?
Color me flabbergasted.
Please check out the comments on these two community postings to get a gist of what I'm talking about:
http://community.feministing.com/2009/02/nadya-suleman.html
http://community.feministing.com/2009/02/when-eight-is-too-much.html
As feminists, we DO NOT AND SHOULD NOT agree about everything. I absolutely understand those people who think the decision to have *any children* at all is deeply problematic...because I am one of those people myself. But, I can also try to understand (or at least to listen calmly to) those women who have chosen to have children--no matter how many--as well. I can certainly critique the social backdrop behind their decision (e.g. it's problematic in itself that women are encouraged to bear children and be "mommies" to the degree that they are in this society. But, for anoter e.g., add to that the social policing of women who have what society has decreed are "too many" and women are caught in a no-win social situation).
So, we don't all agree on everything. Fine.
But I thought we had common ground on a few points at least:
I thought we agreed that mentally ill people are not alien species that merit the social approbation that comes along with branding people as "nuts" and deluded" and "insane." Recognize this: the shame you have ready to heap on Suleman is not being thrown just at her; when you use these words, you are shaming and hurting people who suffer schizophrenia, clinical depression, bi-polar disorder, and a host of other problems.
I thought we agreed that "poor people and/or minorities just can't stop reproducing or bleeding the system dry!!" is a position that overlooks a host of sociological elements that deserve sober analysis and not talking points from the FoxNews teleprompter.
I thought we agreed that whenever media and members of the public mobilize en masse to publicly deride a woman's reproductive situtation, that automatically raises a few feminist red flags, irrespective of our own personal views on reproduction or abortion.
In short, I'm NOT disappointed that other feminists think her reproductive decisions were ill-advised--heck, I myself believe reproduction of any type is morally problematic!
What I'm disappointed about is the tenor and language used by some of those posting here against Nadya Suleman's decisions and circumstances.
Agreed, Okra. There are lots of questions to ask, and many places to disagree, but the "she's a nutcase" "crazy!" talk is disrespectful and does us all a disservice when OUR personal decisions, to have children, to not have children, to abort, to adopt, etc come under fire. We are all shaped by social systems that are both invisible and very evident at the same time. As for me, I have a lot of questions about the medical system (and philosophy) that facilitates such potentially harmful things to happen- to any woman. There seems to be a certain amount of "technology trumps nature" sentiment present. This reminds me of the "man vs. nature" paradigm...where of course, man always battles with nature (read:women as nature) and wins.
Thank you for this comment. I have bipolar disorder, and every time someone refers to Nadya - or anyone else - as a nutcase, I feel bad.
And angry, of course. But I feel bad because it means yet another person regards me as laughable, ridiculous, and not worthy to make the same choices as other people.
Thanks for bringing up the 'babymaking machine' thing, too. Women are never machines, we are people, no matter how many children we have, and whether or not others agree with our choices to parent or not to parent.
Okra, thank you for your commentary. I've been reading this blog for a long while and posting at Feministe on and off for over a year...this is the first time I registered here bc I simply had to speak up.
I agree completely with the inappropriateness and harm in using terms such as "nutcase," etc. At the same time, if I come on this board and say that Nadya is a selfish, self-entitled, thoughtless, poor excuse for a mother...inevitably someone will point out something akin to "well she's obviously mentally ill and your slagging on her."
It's a no win situation.
As for class and reproductive rights...I am pro-choice, I fully support a woman's right to reproductive freedom, support a woman's choice to have children regardless of her income level and further, am happy to have my taxes and whatever else I can afford to give go towards supporting women with very young children who would like to stay home and raise those children.
I'm a single mother myself, albeit a white one and a post-doc...but was a child fed by the food stamp system and intermittently homeless.
The anger being heaved at Nadya comes from many different angles. If her marketing firm is so concerned about the hatred and death threats they should *first* look into pulling her rage inducing website, where the two options are "leave a comment" and "how to donate via check, credit card or paypal."
Why? It's insulting. It reeks of her own self entitlement. Here is a woman who by her very actions, is a detriment to every woman who actually needs the assistance of the greater community in order to raise her children. That she thinks she can just pick herself up, attend school and burden the college's daycare system with her 8 fragile babies is ridiculous. How many women won't be able to attend classes during those semesters because the staff at the daycare are overwhelmed with her children?
Resources are NOT unlimited, as much as we would wish them to be. I am a resident of California, and am fully aware that the moment her 8 babies leave the hospital, after racking up over a million dollars in care, they will go right to the Regional Center, each receiving countless hours of in-home services provided to her free of charge. In case you are unaware, the Regional Centers are essentially bankrupt at this point, well past their loan dates and waiting for the state budget to pass. Almost all employees have been or are soon to be forced to take paycuts, some severe. Service providers continue to offer in-home and support services even though some haven't been paid in full in months. Nadya and her children will continue to be provided services.
That is entitlement. That a woman who has three disabled children, two of them autistic, and collects over $2300 per month for those children decides to go forward with a octuplet pregnancy, knowing full well that (a) the odds of having another autistic child are extremely high (b) the odds of those babies suffering blindness, mental retardation, life-long seizure disorders, cerebral palsy, etc. etc. are astronomically high. Her website is heartbreaking, you can look at those 8 babies and sit painfully wondering which ones might have a chance at one day being independent and which will never be able to walk unassisted. Her actions are just grossly inappropriate. Nadya deliberately *sought* a pregnancy that had a high likelihood of being an enormous risk to the children she carried.
It's not a question of who is deserving of being a parent and who isn't. To make it seem as such is to degrade the discussion. It is quite obvious that this young woman is not acting responsibly.
Now, we could argue whether this is our business (likely not), but since she herself is currently supported on the social security disability checks of her children, and is ASKING for hand-outs, she has essentially opened the door for this discussion. Between medical costs, intervention and special education, these children are going to cost the state of California millions of dollars...likely before they are even in kindergarten.
I am and have always been a feminist, and I am not willing to have my card revoked simply because I find this woman's reproductive behavior reprehensible. To me, being pro-choice doesn't negate having an opinion, especially when someone's behavior is grossly negligent. Realizing that the gestalt is broken and the larger system dysfunctional does not mean that we can no longer hold individual's responsible for their own actions.
Thank you. I agree 100%.
I completely agree. There was an interview with one of her oldest children, a 6 yr old girl, in which the girl said she didn't want her mom to bring the 8 new babies home because it would make her mother stressed and sad.
There is a difference between supporting a right in theory, and supporting that right in practice, when the practice is being taken to an unhealthy extreme.
Asking your doctor to implant 6 embryos into your uterus, knowing you have 6 young children already and that there are health risks in doing so; endangering the welfare of your existing children, yourself and the developing embryos, is an incredibly selfish choice as a parent.
Parents are expected to make decisions for the good of their children, and choosing to have 1 very large set of infants at the cost of their ability to develop (because there is only so much nutrition, etc from the mother to go around), is a very bad decision for those infants.
So much have been said about this woman, how she is crazy, dumb,irresponsible, blah ,blah, blah.
Guess what? Nothing, absolutely nothing anyone can say will change the fact that those kids are HERE. We can argue, debate, talk about why she made her choices,but it does not change the fact that these children are HERE. Should they be punished too? She receives 400 in food stamps. That ain't shit. Even with scrimping and saving that amount is hardly enough to feed my family which is much smaller that hers. Some people are behaving like being on welfare is a good thing and that welfare gives you sooo much money.I rather she receive the small amount of assistance because what is the alternative?
In NJ you get around $700.00 to provide a foster home PER INFANT plus medical and child care. If the child is special needs the foster parent receives even more. Who do you think foot the bill?? Now Multiply that amount by 16! So many are bashing this woman, but can we please get pass that and think of the children even if she didn't?
Nadya Suleman certainly doesn't deserve death-threats.
I am kind of appalled by the timbre of the comments here, though. Just because you support a woman's right to choose doesn't mean you have to be pleased with the choices she makes. Personally, I am APPALLED by her choice. What kind of lives are these children going to have? How many more children is she going to have? Have you seen the house that she lives in? How do you expect to raise 14 children in a 3-bedroom house? This isn't 19th century New York! Westerners from developed countries already consume so many resources, do you know how much it's going to take to raise these poor children?
I have the feeling that if Ms. Suleman were a Mormon or Quiverful then there wouldn't be so much fuzzy support for her.
Also, what happened to medical ethics?
Seriously, I read that she loves children. If she loves children so much, why not foster? There are so many foster children that need love. Or why not become a teacher?
because i dont think her circumstances would have made her eligible for fostering/adoption.
Well, if your circumstances make you ineligible to adopt or foster, then maybe it would make sense to not have 14 children?
Yes.
I always say this, because I have a couple of friends who are of the "I love babies/children" mindset and therefore want to have a bunch of kids.
No.
If you love kids, work in an orphanage, become a schoolteacher, mentor, volunteer, or otherwise involve yourself with kids. If you love babies, work in a nursery or a preschool or volunteer to hold babies at the hospital or whatever other options there are. Babysit.
Babies grow up. Children grow up. You get about a year where babies are babies and another couple of years where they're more or less babies+tornadoes. Children are children for roughly 10-13 years and then they start becoming adults.
I feel like this should be common sense--that kids grow up and liking "kids" is a terrible reason to get pregnant and bring another kid into the world--but apparently not.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Nadya Suleman has brought a lot of interesting issues to the table. As someone who is very worried about over-population, I think that having an abundance of children is slightly irresponsible no matter what your economic or marital status is. However, I understand that not everyone has the same ethical values I do, and I support a woman's right to have numberous children if she so pleases.
I think one of the main questions that needs to be asked is how would the media have reacted if instead of being a single mother, Nadya Suleman was married. Even with all of the conditions the same (same economic situation, same number of overall children, using IVF), I am positive that the amount of public outcry would not be comparable if she was married.
I think that her situation brings up some very important philosophical and ethical questions, one of which being that if we go with the idea that this single mother can not support and properly care for 14 kids, what does that translate to for other less-economically advantaged potential parents? It may seem like a slippery sloap fallicy, but what if a single mother wants to have one child that she may not be able to support?
Another very important point is that the children are here, and they need help. The situation is far from ideal, but that does not mean that the children deserve punishment. I do not think that TLC should offer the family a show, but I do think that it is fair for her to ask for help and get help from the government. The children did not ask to be in this situation, and we shouldn't deny them help because of who their mother is.
[b]I think one of the main questions that needs to be asked is how would the media have reacted if instead of being a single mother, Nadya Suleman was married. Even with all of the conditions the same (same economic situation, same number of overall children, using IVF), I am positive that the amount of public outcry would not be comparable if she was married.[/b]
It's an interesting question, made even more salient by the current economic crisis. Perhaps as recently as three years ago, your hypothesis would have stood and the level of outrage could be quantified via marital status. While I agree with your thoughts on this, am not quite sure that theory would stand these days. If a married couple, parents to six children, three of whom were disabled, were living on the SSI checks of those children and used disability payments to fund the deliberate impregnation of an octuplet pregnancy...well I would think that in this economic climate, the outrage might be the same.
Do I believe that we, as a nation should support families regardless of economic status? Definitely. What I think some of us (or more specifically, "I") have difficulty supporting is this gross abuse of the system.
Personally, I hate that she's single. I loathe that she may become the poster child for those who oppose funding for single mothers and those who simply oppose single motherhood.
The children are not going to suffer due to the system, they will however suffer due to HER choices. The octuplets will be automatically picked up for care and services as soon as they are discharged. The state, through various funded organizations is going to pick up a substantial tab of care for all of these children, based on their birth circumstances and birthweights alone. Medicaid will end up covering all of their medical expenses, Medicare will pick up when the disabilities are noted and a barrage of in-home service professionals will be provided as it will easily be determined that requesting her to transport these infants to the numerous therapies they will need will be a hardship for her. Due to their extremely low birthweights and having two siblings with diagnoses of Autism, even if no other disabilities exist, these infants may be eligible for up to 20 hours a week of individual in-home service EACH, at a cost of approximately $1500 per week for only those services. That doesn't include the interventions and surgeries which will be necessary to care for those octuplets who are medically disabled.
And of course, she will be able to apply for and receive public assistance, as she should. I actually have no qualms with that. Eight babies to individual families or eight babies to her, it's still eight children who need aide. Period.
It's the risk she has put these infants through, the risk to those she has already born and her story casting an ugly and distorted light on all single mothers that I have a problem with.
BTW, because I forgot to mention it last night in my barely coherent middle of the night diatribe, no one deserves death threats.
If she were married, frankly, I might have thought her husband forced her to do it. She suffered a back injury, which is why she got money to pay for the IVF, and I would have thought that someone who had a back injury would have not subjected herself without coercion to a procedure of implanting so many embryos considering the risks to her own body. Seriously, this woman could be in a wheelchair as a result of the IVF.
A man has threatened to clone himself 14 times and raise his clones on welfare if the mother of octuplets, Nadya Suleman, realizes her dream of fame and fortune through poor family planning decisions.
"I feel like I'm paying for everybody's kids. Women do this sort of crap all the time and I think if a man did it, welfare would wind up being better regulated ", states Gerard "Big Red" White.
His argument's edge is dulled somewhat by the promise that he will rethink his decision to clone himself if provided with beer.
http://notnadya.blogspot.com/
That is too funny, I love it! Thank you for having a sense of humor.
I wonder how many of the people who hate her for receiving state assistance would conside themselves anti-abortion.
Also, not to get too off-topic, but very few people discuss the ethics of IVF at all.
If it's not right for her to have eight kids (forgt about the rest for a moment,) then why is it right for IVF docs to create that many embryos and implant them, knowing that there is a possibility that they will all live?
The thing with that is, the limit for number of embryos implanted is 3. They can fertilize up to 6 but are only supposed to implant up to 3 of them. Suleman's doctor advised against implanting all of the embryos, as that is "against the rules". But she insisted.
The real question is, why would he do it, even if she did insist?
I agree with everything said here, even when it's contradictory -- it is such a complex situation.
Obviously, death threats are hateful crimes in any situation.
But is the outcry racist or classist or antifeminist? No. I totally agree with the analysis of mobius. It is a question of the welfare of the children. That is and should be the primary concern, and in this situation, it is very difficult to see how you can defend the mother's decision to have octuplets or any multiple IVF implantation. It is reckless to her own and the infant's health to have or risk multiple births in the first place, and in the second place, she cannot fiscally or emotionally provide for them. It is highly likely that some or all of these children -- due to low birth weights -- will be handicapped.
Yet that was what she "wanted." Frankly, I think she has a good insanity defense and can't be blamed. I can't blame her for having a child obsession. Obsessives have lots of "wants." They may want to fly to the moon. Fortunately they can't. The problem is that here the obsessive had the money and the science was there to make her mad dream come true.
The fact is that NONE of this could have happened without the doctor. This wasn't just an act of god after the usual preliminaries between a man an woman. In those cases, you can't really blame people except for not taking precautions when they can't provide for more.
When a medical professional is involved in the very creation, he or she is playing God. There are guidelines (not laws or regulations, but ethical guidelines) that require the physician to assess the health of everyone concerned, and not to implant so many embryos that the health of the mother or children are threatened. That was clearly violated. The risks to the children of multiple births are huge. Also, if the doctor is required to assess the health of the mother, to my mind that includes the mental health. The same doctor was involved with all her births (all by fertilization) and clearly knew the situation.
Turns out the doctor is not board-certified, has one of the lowest birth success rates in the country, and the majority of his successes were with the mother of these octuplets! He seems to be a real bottom-feeder and was using her to prop up his stats, regardless of the good of the patient and her children. More news is coming out about this doctor -- another multiple mom he implanted is in an LA area hospital, and she too is on public assistance.
I would hope there would be some degree of self-policing by fertility doctors as a result of all of this, to avoid the government stepping in and legislating for them. However, the history of medical self-policing is abysmal, so it may be up to the government to start requiring screenings for potential parents. It shouldn't be as simple as affording the procedure. Medicine shouldn't work that way, the Hippocratic oath is "First, do no harm." This is up there with Elvis' drug doctor or Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon.
If you want to focus on the feminist issues, look at doctors like this who profit on unwise choices without ethical concerns. Plastic surgeons and diet doctors come to mind.