Octomom is a disgrace

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2008
Octomom is a disgrace
77
Tue, 02-17-2009 - 11:12am
The more I see this pig on TV the more disgusted I get! At first, the story of the 8 babies was a "feel-good" story on the news and all the Dr.s were shown with huge smiles, & then the truth began to come out. She was unwed, on welfare & disability, already had 6 other kids and she lives in a 3 room apartment and her mother cares for the kids. The doctors obviously had no thoughts for their Hippocratic oaths. All they could see were $$ signs. They had no concern for the quality of life that these children would have in the future. And now, the state of CA (already in the hole for what? 46 billion) has to pay MORE money to this selfish, self serving piece of crap? I'm sorry, but animals have litters of 8, not humans. Isn't this almost like "hoarding" animals? Doesn't the ASPCA usually come and take the animals and put them up for adoption? Wheres the army to come and take some of these kids so that they can be put up for adoption and maybe have a REAL home with 2 parents who LOVE them for themselves and not for how many welfare checks they mean? She's a disgusting pig and someone needs to shoot the b@*&% and put us all out of our misery.

Laurie

=^. .^=

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Wed, 02-18-2009 - 3:02pm

Understood.

Kate


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-28-2009
Wed, 02-18-2009 - 3:22pm

I think there's valid arguments on both sides....so I don't know if I feel that strongly about debating it.

<

Sometimes women get pregnant for all sorts of reasons... to keep a boyfriend, or try to repair a marriage, or for company and someone to love them, because of cultural or societal pressures, etc..

We don't say that people must have only altruistic reasons to procreate naturally, so how can we possibly expect that of those doing so with medical intervention?>>

I agree....but that's not something anyone can really control (nor do I think it should be). That's not to say however, that in a perfect world it would be lovely if only those who would make decent parents would be the ones who could actually procreate. The fact of the matter is though that this is not procreating naturally and is therefore something that can be controlled. I know it sounds cold and unfeeling to those who can't have children naturally, but any opportunity where it IS possible to ensure that children are born into (or adopted by) suitable homes has more of an upside than a downside IMO.

Community Leader
Registered: 04-05-2002
Wed, 02-18-2009 - 3:22pm
That's why I'm torn about the issue of having "some" power deciding people's reproductive rights.





Community Leader
Registered: 04-05-2002
Wed, 02-18-2009 - 3:29pm

"any opportunity where it IS possible to ensure that children are born into (or adopted by) suitable homes has more of an upside than a downside IMO."


The question is who determines what is suitable and what isn't?






iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002
Wed, 02-18-2009 - 4:18pm

***The fact of the matter is though that this is not procreating naturally and is therefore something that can be controlled. I know it sounds cold and unfeeling to those who can't have children naturally, but any opportunity where it IS possible to ensure that children are born into (or adopted by) suitable homes has more of an upside than a downside IMO.***


But that is where it becomes discrimination against a particular group of individuals, due essentially, to a disability. In this case the "disability" is the inability to procreate without assistance, whatever that reason is. Maybe regular infertility, maybe post tubal ligation in a remarriage, maybe a gay/lesbian couple. But it IS still discriminating against a certain group of people only because they need to seek out the services of a fertility specialist.



iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Wed, 02-18-2009 - 4:53pm
~I think there's valid arguments on both sides....so I don't know if I feel that strongly about debating it.~

Okay :)


~The fact of the matter is though that this is not procreating naturally and is therefore something that can be controlled.~


Well,

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-26-2007
Wed, 02-18-2009 - 5:47pm

I skimmed through this post, but can't seem to find the answer to a question that has bugging me since the frenzy surrounding

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Wed, 02-18-2009 - 6:57pm

I'm not American, but maybe someone else on the board knows :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002
Wed, 02-18-2009 - 8:07pm

Creating the embryos may have been done years ago and they were just in cryo storage where an annual fee was paid to keep them frozen. She had been working and saved money from work. The money she was recieving for herself were disability payments, not, welfare. As far as the cost of the actual implantation procedure for already existing embryos, I don't know what the cost of that would be. But if she had regular cycles and there was only one



iVillage Member
Registered: 01-14-2008
Wed, 02-18-2009 - 8:28pm

Bristol Palin is simply another teen who made bad choices, but unlike those who go to get in line for foodstamps, aid to dependent children and on and on and on, she is married to the baby's father and they are making a life and earning their own way.

Pages