Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

So what do you all think about the Octuplet Births?

A place to debate issues or to rant about what's on your mind. In addition to discussions about historical fiction, books, the publishing industry, and history, discussions about current political, social, and religious issues and other topics are allowed, so those who are easily offended by certain topics may want to avoid such threads. Members are expected to keep the discussions friendly and polite and to avoid personal attacks on other members. The moderators reserve the right to shut down a thread without warning if they believe it necessary.
User avatar
Volgadon
Compulsive Reader
Posts: 654
Joined: September 2008
Location: Israel
Contact:

Post by Volgadon » Wed February 11th, 2009, 3:13 pm

[quote=""Divia""]I watched 3 min of it and I wanted to strangle her. With current eco times the way they are no one wants to watch some moron saying how things will be OK, even though we know she will suck off the system as long as she is allowed.

Personally I think she is the perfect example of how the system is flawed and I think there should be a time limit on it, otherwise for the next 18 years she will be on it.[/quote]

Am I the only one sick of hearing how bad economic times are in the USA? Granted there have been better, but are most people in danger of going hungry, of going bare, of going without the basic amenities or even little luxuries?
Of course if I'm horribly wrong I'll apologise and eat my words.
I'm from Israel where the economic situation has been miserable for years. I live in the north a backward region which suffers from HIGH unemployment.
I have a job (though as of today who knows how much longer) even if it doesn't pay much, my parents have a house, we have a car (a rather old Peugeot), we can eat every day, we have a TV, a computer with internet (obviously), we have enough clothes. Things are far from being rosy but they could be a lot worse. I have friends who emigrated from Argentina because of the financial disaster of nearly a decade ago. I lived in southern Russia, a very poor area and lived in the city of Shakhty. The song Dirty Old Town could have been written about it. There is over 90% unemployment!
My fiancee is from Ukraine. If you make 200 dollars a month you consider yourself very lucky indeed. A month or so ago the situation was so bad that businesses couldn't even afford to fire their workers but sent them on indefinite unpaid vacations.
I have friends from West Africa too. Russia nad Ukraine are paradise by comparison.

We are part of a society. We take care of the rotters as well as the good. The fact that their mother appears to be a louse is no reason to deny children support. That kind of person won't look for a job if she has to, no, so don't assume that by denying her the "system" she will somehow change. The only ones to suffer will be the children.

User avatar
Rowan
Bibliophile
Posts: 1462
Joined: August 2008
Interest in HF: I love history, but it's boring in school. Historical fiction brings it alive for me.
Preferred HF: Iron-Age Britain, Roman Britain, Medieval Britain
Location: New Orleans
Contact:

Post by Rowan » Wed February 11th, 2009, 4:41 pm

I think since this thread is about a woman who has been irresponsible by giving birth to so many children with no visible means of support, bringing up the economy is only a natural thing. When there are people struggling to keep their own families from ending up out on the street, it's kind of hard to stir up any compassion or desire to help others. Maybe you're better than all of us because you can see fit to help others when you have what you need.

User avatar
Volgadon
Compulsive Reader
Posts: 654
Joined: September 2008
Location: Israel
Contact:

Post by Volgadon » Wed February 11th, 2009, 4:57 pm

I don't think I'm better than anyone here, not at all. I just don't see the logic in living as a society if we aren't willing to help even the unpleasent sorts. We might as well get rid of all forms of government and society and live each one a law unto themselves in their own homes, each succeeding according to own chances.

User avatar
LCW
Compulsive Reader
Posts: 756
Joined: August 2008
Location: Southern California

Post by LCW » Wed February 11th, 2009, 5:41 pm

[quote=""Volgadon""]Am I the only one sick of hearing how bad economic times are in the USA? Granted there have been better, but are most people in danger of going hungry, of going bare, of going without the basic amenities or even little luxuries?
[/quote]

I completely understand the sentiment behind this statement. We Americans are very lucky compared to much of the world. But the fact is that the US economy is very bad right now and it's on a free-fall to getting worse. And there are people, particularly women and children, in America who don't have places to live, don't have enough to eat, and don't have basic amenities let alone what most people would consider luxuries. Poverty in America is a serious although somewhat hidden problem and the worsening of our economy will only make it worse.

I know there has been a lot of focus on the US economy but there needs to be. We are the biggest economy in the world and are the largest consumers in the world. If we go down a whole lot of other economies will suffer. So I think it's important for people not to get fatigued about this topic but for us all to keep pressuring our lawmakers to do something about it! We're trying and we will succeed but it is a pretty harry time right now.

As far as the outrage shown by some in this thread, I don't think anyone of them would ever actually deny any child food, clothing, or shelter. We in America do have system set up to take care of our poor, and I should add that we take care of a lot of the world's poor as well. No country gives as much aid as we do! Yes, it gets a little heated but I don't think anyone blames the children. The outrage, IMO, seems to be directed right where it belongs, at the mother.
Books to the ceiling,
Books to the sky,
My pile of books is a mile high.
How I love them! How I need them!
I'll have a long beard by the time I read them. --Arnold Lobel

User avatar
LoveHistory
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3751
Joined: September 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Post by LoveHistory » Wed February 11th, 2009, 8:26 pm

I have a fundamental problem with the idea that all (or even most) of those children will have disabling problems, just because of the circumstances involved. Yes premies are at higher risk for some things. Yes it's harder to give adequate attention to 14 kids. But you know what? Other people have done it. There used to be people who raised more than 14 kids and some of those children even went on to be influential in the world (in a good way).

If you want to judge the mother (and really she's not making a good case for herself) fine, but leave the predictions about the kids' futures out of it, please.

And how much attention any child needs (autistic or otherwise) can only be determined on a case by case basis. The particular child in question might actually benefit from having a lot of siblings, as there is constant reference for appropriate social behavior. Every child is different, and every autistic child is different.

I apologize if I seem a bit snippy. It's a long day so far and there's a lot more of it to go.

User avatar
Divia
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 4435
Joined: August 2008
Location: Always Cloudy, Central New York

Post by Divia » Wed February 11th, 2009, 10:38 pm

[quote=""Volgadon""]Am I the only one sick of hearing how bad economic times are in the USA? [/quote]


Well that is most unfortunate, but it is what it is and the US eco is bad. People are losing their homes, people are becoming homeless. It is a mess. One day alone 68 thousand people lost their jobs. It is an issue, and no I do not have sympathy for this dumbass who got pregnant on purpose just so she could have more kids. She already has 6. 6 of which she cannot fund properly.

if this mother is unable to get a job and care for her children properly without sucking off the system then she is unfit in my opinion and her kids should be taken away. Being poor is one thing. Getting hurt and poor is another. Becoming poor and having to take assistance is quite another.

This woman has issues. She is a mental case. If I sound harsh or mean, I really dont care. I am sick of it. I am sick and tired of people like this. And I dont care if I sound snippy. I hate the fact that I make the right choices in life but it doesnt matter.
Last edited by Divia on Wed February 11th, 2009, 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Tanzanite
Bibliophile
Posts: 1963
Joined: August 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Post by Tanzanite » Thu February 12th, 2009, 1:10 am

From the Associated Press:

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman's 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California's taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red.

Even before the 33-year-old single, unemployed mother gave birth to octuplets last month, she had been caring for her six other children with the help of $490 a month in food stamps, plus Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters. The public aid will almost certainly be increased with the new additions to her family.

Also, the hospital where the octuplets are expected to spend seven to 12 weeks has requested reimbursement from Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program, for care of the premature babies, according to the Los Angeles Times. The cost has not been disclosed.

Word of the public assistance has stoked the furor over Suleman's decision to have so many children by having embryos implanted in her womb.

"It appears that, in the case of the Suleman family, raising 14 children takes not simply a village but the combined resources of the county, state and federal governments," Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten wrote in Wednesday's paper. He called Suleman's story "grotesque."

On the Internet, bloggers rained insults on Suleman, calling her an "idiot," criticizing her decision to have more children when she couldn't afford the ones she had, and suggesting she be sterilized.

"It's my opinion that a woman's right to reproduce should be limited to a number which the parents can pay for," Charles Murray wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Daily News. "Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?"

She was also berated on talk radio, where listeners accused her of manipulating the system and being an irresponsible mother.

"From the outside you can tell that this woman was playing the system," host Bryan Suits said on the "Kennedy and Suits" show on KFI-AM. "You're damn right the state should step in and seize the kids and adopt them out."

Suleman's spokesman, Mike Furtney, urged understanding.

"I would just ask people to consider her situation and she has been under a tremendous amount of pressure that no one could be prepared for," Furtney said.

A call to Suleman's publicist Mike Furtney was not immediately returned.

In her only media interviews, Suleman told NBC's "Today" she doesn't consider the public assistance she receives to be welfare and doesn't intend to remain on it for long.

Also, a Nadya Suleman Family Web Site has been set up to collect donations for the children. It features pictures of the mother and each octuplet and has instructions for making donations by check or credit card.

Suleman, whose six older children range in age from 2 to 7, said three of them receive disability payments. She said one is autistic, but she has not disclosed the other youngsters' disabilities, and refused to say how much they get in payments.

In California, a low-income family can receive Social Security payments of up to $793 a month for each disabled child. Three children would amount to $2,379.

The Suleman octuplets' medical costs have not been disclosed, but in 2006, the average cost for a premature baby's hospital stay in California was $164,273, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The average cost for just one cesarean birth in 2006 was $22,762 in California. Eight times that equals $1.3 million.

For a single mother, the cost of raising 14 children through age 17 ranges from $1.3 million to $2.7 million, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is struggling to close a $42 billion budget gap by cutting services, declined through a spokesman to comment on the taxpayer costs associated with the octuplets' delivery and care.

Suleman received disability payments for an on-the-job back injury during a riot at a state mental hospital, collecting more than $165,000 over nearly a decade before the benefits were discontinued last year.

Some of the disability money was spent on in vitro fertilizations, which was used for all 14 of her children, Suleman said. Suleman said she also worked double shifts at the mental hospital and saved up for the treatments. She estimated that all her treatments cost $100,000.

Fourteen states, including California, require insurance companies to offer or provide coverage for infertility treatment, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But California has a law specifically excluding in vitro coverage. It's not clear what type of coverage Suleman has.

In the NBC interview, Suleman said she will go back to California State University, Fullerton in the fall to complete her master's degree in counseling, and will use student loans to support her children. She said she will rely on the school's daycare center and volunteers.

User avatar
Misfit
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 9581
Joined: August 2008
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by Misfit » Thu February 12th, 2009, 2:07 am

and will use student loans to support her children. She said she will rely on the school's daycare center and volunteers.
Student loans to support one's children!!! I thought student loans were loans to pay for schooling. Or did I miss that class?

User avatar
boswellbaxter
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3066
Joined: August 2008
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Post by boswellbaxter » Thu February 12th, 2009, 2:53 am

I wonder if the daycare center and volunteers know yet that Suleman's planning to rely on them. Eight extra kids will probably require one or even two extra employees if they have mandated staffing ratios. And she'd better hope that the student loan company outsources its processing to an overseas office where no one will recognize her name!

A novelist couldn't get away with making this stuff up.
Susan Higginbotham
Coming in October: The Woodvilles


http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/

User avatar
Divia
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 4435
Joined: August 2008
Location: Always Cloudy, Central New York

Post by Divia » Thu February 12th, 2009, 3:15 am

In California, a low-income family can receive Social Security payments of up to $793 a month for each disabled child. Three children would amount to $2,379.
WTF! She makes 100 bucks less than I do and I have a masters degree. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Furthermore the fact that she took settlement money to get pregnant just further shows she is a moron and a mental case.

I would think that a daycare has the right to say no they dont want to take the kids. I mean if there is no room they might have to split them up.
Last edited by Divia on Thu February 12th, 2009, 3:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/

Post Reply

Return to “Debate/Rant Forum”