AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Octuplet Mother

101 15551
steevo15
offline
steevo15
1,562 posts
Peasant

Recently on T.V. I saw news about Nadya Suleman, the mother of octuplets. Later, I saw an interview about the whole situation and she is unemployed and on welfare. She also has 6 other children. Even before she had the octuplets, she was unemployed and on welfare.

What are your thoughts on this?

For me, I think that she is downright irresponsible. She wasn't even out of college yet, but she continued to have children. Could she possibly have a mental problem? Why would you want to have a bunch of children when you know that you cannot support them? What kind of example would this set for the kids? Isn't it bit selfish?
From a Catholic prospective (me being a catholic I decided that I might address this, If you are an Aethiest or do not believe in God, you don't have to respond to this part if you don't want to.) Nadya said that she thought that these children were a gift from God, yet she had conceived these children through in vitro fertilization and from my understanding she had a fertility issue. If she had a fertility issue in the first place, why would the children be a gift from God? So was she really meant to have these babies? Or was it just our human technology playing that made it possible?

  • 101 Replies
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Wait before people slam her for going against the Catholic Church, is she even a Catholic? If she believed in other forms of Christianity would it be ok? And it's not that she wants donations I think. I mean, get welfare money for the kids, spend the money herself, get arrested, get portrayed in the media as some horrible woman? I mean who would do that after the whole world knows about her now? She just has this mental condition that surges her maternal instinct or something along that line.

opentotruth
offline
opentotruth
472 posts
Peasant

imagine when all those kids are growing up they can form a gang anywhere they go their are so many of them lol.

opentotruth
offline
opentotruth
472 posts
Peasant

imagine when all those kids are growing up they can form a gang anywhere they go their are so many of them lol.

thelistman
offline
thelistman
1,416 posts
Shepherd

Personally I have no problem with welfare, or with someone desperately wanting a child

The problem is that she lives in California. Cali is bankrupt and paying all their employees (judges, police, teachers, politicians, civil servants, etc) with IOU's. So tax dollars are going to this woman out of her pure selfishness and refusal to get a job, while people who are actually contributing to society are not getting paid. Morally, she is downright horrible.

Agent_86
offline
Agent_86
2,132 posts
Nomad

Yeah, and the hospital that she went to could find her an unfit mother and give the octuplets to CPS where they would go into the foster system.

Vert3x
offline
Vert3x
122 posts
Nomad

Personally I have no problem with welfare, or with someone desperately wanting a child, but financial issues aside, having this many children seriously limits this woman's capability to care for them all. Unless she can magically split her attention between 14 children, when the max recommended number for a single mother is two then it is highly likely these children will be inseceure in later life, due to developmental disabilities. To stop things like this happening again, there should be some form of legislation limiting the numbers of children single parents are allowed to have through legislation.


I believe a welfare system is unnecessary. Why does the government have to take our money by force like we a some kind of slave, when we could just donate the money to needy people ourselves? That is the whole point of capitalism: when people see a need, somebody is going to fill it. Welfare is only a program for lazy people who like eating out and refuse to go to a homeless shelter and start saving money. Use Salvation Army peoples!!!

I know of a family of 9 (2 sets of twins) who live on the money supplied by a single parent (father, who is a teacher at a private school). They do not use welfare or food stamps, but make the best of what they have. I have often asked their kids how they feel about having so many siblings, and they think it is cool, because they never have a lack of family to support them emotionally. Two of their kids have now graduated and live successful lives, and due to the hardships of their childhood, seem to be more capable of taking care of themselves and saving money than most other graduates I know. Instead of lacking emotional help while they were growing up, they might have had "too much".

As for limiting the amount of children a family can have, look what it has done to China. They have to import girls from other countries to make people keep their economy going, while India is rapidly speeding ahead. I say let them have as many kids as they want; America is already at a record low in birthrate, and if it keeps going, the economy will suffer someday (as if it wasn't already :P).
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

That is the whole point of capitalism: when people see a need, somebody is going to fill it.


That is actually incorrect. There are merit and demerit goods that wouold not be supplied if left to the free market. That is why the government intervenes.

Why does the government have to take our money by force like we a some kind of slave


Then why not stop all taxatin and let the free market get on with it? Because the system doen't work like that. The unegalitarian spread of wealth is a symptom of unrestrained capitalism. By its very nature, for every wealthy individual there will be a very poor individual-who works just as hard. Why? Because it is a recipriocal system.

Use Salvation Army peoples!!!


How do you expect a donations based organisation to feed and house all of the poor in the US. I think you underestimate the cost involved in doing so.

As for your large family example, you cannot base government policy on a case study of one famly. It lacks ecological and populatoinal validity for one thing. They do not represent the majority of people on Welfare.

I acknowledge there are problems with welfare, but getting rid of it completely is ridiculous.

As for limiting the amount of children a family can have, look what it has done to China. They have to import girls from other countries to make people keep their economy going,


Despite their birth rate dropping, that is not the reason their economy is faltering, that is the world financial crisis which has completely unrelated causes. Before the crisis, China's economy was doing well, and its birth rate was as low as it was now. You cannot instantly associate the two variables. America gets enough immigrants each year to fill the gap anyway.
Zootsuit_riot
offline
Zootsuit_riot
1,523 posts
Nomad

America is already at a record low in birthrate, and if it keeps going, the economy will suffer someday (as if it wasn't already :P).


You realize that the world population has grown by 4.5 billion people in 50 years, right? If we continue at that rate, we'll cap off at about 30 billion and from there all hell will break loose. A lot of scientists estimate that the world is only sustainable (meaning that we can use the amount of resources necessary for us, as well as ensure the well-being of future generations) for about 2 billion people.

However, if we take the right measures, and maybe, maybe if the wold averages out at 2 children, (One to replace each parent) the population will cap off at about 9 billion.

Right now, we aren't exactly doing much to make sure the children of our children will be set for resources. This is a difficult task, because needs will constantly be changing with new technology, but the government should at least be making an effort.
Vert3x
offline
Vert3x
122 posts
Nomad

That is actually incorrect. There are merit and demerit goods that wouold not be supplied if left to the free market. That is why the government intervenes.

That is because you underestimate the power of Capitalism. The thing is, people WOULD fill the needs of the poor, especially if the poor come around and ask for help. The Salvation Army does not have the resources to fill the needs of all the poor in America because people depend on welfare and so fewer people see the point in donating cause the government already forces them to. If the welfare system went away, people would suddenly give tons of money to Salvation Army like places because they would think that the poor have nothing anymore.

Then why not stop all taxatin and let the free market get on with it? Because the system doen't work like that. The unegalitarian spread of wealth is a symptom of unrestrained capitalism. By its very nature, for every wealthy individual there will be a very poor individual-who works just as hard. Why? Because it is a recipriocal system.


Who told you that? Actually, it might seem like a recipriocal system on the outside, but really, Capitalism/free market is an extremely fragile equilibrium, which, when touched by the government, will fail to do its job. Take minimum wage for example. What is the point of it? Because of minimum wage, a store owner cannot offer jobs like sweeping floors to people, because he has to pay them more than he wants to. Thus, he must give the little jobs like that to another one of his employees, so there are fewer jobs. If somebody wants to underpay an employee for his/her work, then the employee, if dissatisfied with the wage, will leave to find a better offer. That is the beauty of capitalism! Somebody is eventually going to find a place where the balance is off, and they will offer whatever for less. If a big company becomes a monopoly and they start selling for too much, somebody will come along and start a business selling stuff for less, cause they see an opening for some good profit. If the government messes with anything, really, it is just making it worse. Stock markets might crash, economy might go bad, but a true free market will always right itself unless some outside force influences it (war, high taxes, bail outs, etc.).

As for your large family example, you cannot base government policy on a case study of one famly. It lacks ecological and populatoinal validity for one thing. They do not represent the majority of people on Welfare.

Oh, you want more? I can give more examples if you want. My point was, you assumed that children in a large family will be emotionally lacking; I was showing you that that is not true. Go back a few centuries. People then had huge families! Benjamin Franklin had 16 siblings. George Washington had 9. Even Charles Darwin had 5! Having a large family doesn't mean that a person will be disordered or whatever.
I acknowledge there are problems with welfare, but getting rid of it completely is ridiculous.

I agree. Too many people depend on it, and some people would probably die before they could get used to working/using the support of charities to live. Too many people would be opposed to getting rid of welfare.
Despite their birth rate dropping, that is not the reason their economy is faltering, that is the world financial crisis which has completely unrelated causes. Before the crisis, China's economy was doing well, and its birth rate was as low as it was now. You cannot instantly associate the two variables. America gets enough immigrants each year to fill the gap anyway.

There is your problem! You assume that China's economy was doing well before the crisis, thus they were fine. Nothing could be farther from reality. Outwardly, they might have been doing fine, but does that mean they were not headed straight for a big problem? I know this is a weird example, but if a 2 ton anvil was falling straight for your head while you were sleeping, but you are not dead yet, does that mean everything is okay? Do you see what I am getting at? Also, America does not get enough immigrants, at least not since they put a limit on how many could come in every year.

You realize that the world population has grown by 4.5 billion people in 50 years, right? If we continue at that rate, we'll cap off at about 30 billion and from there all hell will break loose. A lot of scientists estimate that the world is only sustainable (meaning that we can use the amount of resources necessary for us, as well as ensure the well-being of future generations) for about 2 billion people.

So they are saying that it would be best to kill off all except 2 billion people on the earth? Wow. On the other hand, I think that humans will always find enough to sustain their needs. Thirty billion is amount scientists estimate the earth can sustain using the resources we have at hand. By then, humans could find new ways to get resources. Back in the middle ages, they didn't have genetically enhanced wheat and steel plows. What makes you think future generations won't be more advanced than we are now? Besides, there will always be other planets we could colonize. My point is, there will always be more when we need it; somebody will find a way to get more.
Lain
offline
Lain
176 posts
Nomad

I agree with the very first post on this. She is one of the most irresponsible people to have ever lived. Not only does she now have 14 children, she says that she wants to have more. On top of that, she just assumes her mother will take care of all of thjem while she goes to college. The saddest part about that though, is that the job she wants wouldnt even pay enough for child care while she was at work. If that's not irresponsibility and optimism far passed the point of foolishness incarnate, I don't know what is.

Zootsuit_riot
offline
Zootsuit_riot
1,523 posts
Nomad

So they are saying that it would be best to kill off all except 2 billion people on the earth? Wow.


No, they are saying that 2 billion people was the max that the Earth could endure without completely ruining it.

By then, humans could find new ways to get resources


It's not that we wouldn't be able to find new ways to get resources, it's that resources are limited. You say "Oh, well they'll find new ways for it in the future," but we need new ways NOW to help prepare for the future.

My point is, there will always be more when we need it; somebody will find a way to get more.


No, there isn't. Things are limited. Food, water, arable land, there's only a certain amount of all of these basic necessities of living. It's fine now that the United States and most of Western Europe are the only developed countries, but once other countries are industrialized, the competition for resources will begin. The only reason we're doing so well for ourselves now is because the countries are poor and they don't need as many of the resources we do.

When everyone has a home and a septic system and a bed to sleep in however, they begin to expect higher standards, many of which we as a Western culture have set. Thus, the competition grows for the resources, and we either have to outbid each other or fight for them. THIS is where capitalism falls short.

Take minimum wage for example. What is the point of it?


Because many of the people work multiple jobs just to survive. Minimum wages in states are minimal in that they pay for the basics: shelter, food, water. People live off of them. It might be hard to see from the top of the corporation, but people don't always have the resources they need to survive

The Salvation Army does not have the resources to fill the needs of all the poor in America because people depend on welfare and so fewer people see the point in donating cause the government already forces them to.


Why do you think getting rid of the welfare system would automatically eliminate any restrains on people donating stuff? If anything, there would be less to donate because there would be less money circulating. Why should people find a job if they can rely on getting food from a charity? What would stop the people from selling the goods they get for drug money? All it does is create another chain the process.
Legatus88
offline
Legatus88
451 posts
Peasant

I can't believe the woman misused IVF fertility treatments and wound up with eight babies at the same time, and she has six more kids under the age of 7 at home. How many embryos would you ask to be implanted if you had a history of miscarriages and limited funds? The cost of raising 14 children would easily be up into the 2 million dollar range. And knowing that my tax dollars are going to help her and her damn 14 kinds really frosts my cupcake...

Zootsuit_riot
offline
Zootsuit_riot
1,523 posts
Nomad

Thirty billion is amount scientists estimate the earth can sustain using the resources we have at hand. By then, humans could find new ways to get resources.


Also, I forgot to add this, but the estimations were made for 2050. If we were going to find alternate energies and ways to implement them into mainstream society, we should have started 50 years ago. Which, of course, we didn't, because the auto companies wanted to make more money, despite the knowledge of an oil shortage.

All in all, we can't have people like this mother just running around and having as many damn babies as they want. Conserve for the future. You're living just great now, but at the current rate of consumption and births, everyone will be in the hole several decades from now.
Vert3x
offline
Vert3x
122 posts
Nomad



No, there isn't. Things are limited. Food, water, arable land, there's only a certain amount of all of these basic necessities of living. It's fine now that the United States and most of Western Europe are the only developed countries, but once other countries are industrialized, the competition for resources will begin. The only reason we're doing so well for ourselves now is because the countries are poor and they don't need as many of the resources we do.

When everyone has a home and a septic system and a bed to sleep in however, they begin to expect higher standards, many of which we as a Western culture have set. Thus, the competition grows for the resources, and we either have to outbid each other or fight for them. THIS is where capitalism falls short.


No, this is where capitalism shines. First of all, water and food are renewable resources; they do not run out because they are recycled. Because of competition, the standard of living goes up, and people find ways to make the standard of living cheaper and easier to maintain. Resources will never run out because they are still here and they continually renew, including oil and trees. Solar and nuclear energy will make energy easy to get, and may eventually run cars instead of gas. The better technology gets to maintain standard of living, the more efficient people are and the more people we can have. The more people we have, the more intellect we have to find new technologies and the cycle goes on. Eventually, people could conquer space and move to other planets to find more space, so that is not a problem either.

Because many of the people work multiple jobs just to survive. Minimum wages in states are minimal in that they pay for the basics: shelter, food, water. People live off of them. It might be hard to see from the top of the corporation, but people don't always have the resources they need to survive


If there was no minimum wage, people could work smaller but more jobs. They might get what they need to survive, but eventually they will save up enough to live a better life or start a business, so they gain more money and climb up the class ladder. Just depends on how hard they are willing to work for what they want. If they want it bad enough, they will find a way to get it.

Why do you think getting rid of the welfare system would automatically eliminate any restrains on people donating stuff? If anything, there would be less to donate because there would be less money circulating. Why should people find a job if they can rely on getting food from a charity? What would stop the people from selling the goods they get for drug money? All it does is create another chain the process.


Oh come on! Where do you think the government gets its welfare money? Thin air?? No, they take money from hard working citizens. No less money is circulating. And I should ask you the same: why should people work if they have welfare and food stamps? Because charities are voluntary, it makes people think about the money they are getting. Where did it come from? Relying on gifts doesn't go well with most people's consciences. Because welfare is from the government, people think they can depend on it because it is not voluntary. And what stops them from spending their welfare money on drugs? A voluntary system would work better because it requires the poor to ask for gifts.

I can't believe the woman misused IVF fertility treatments and wound up with eight babies at the same time, and she has six more kids under the age of 7 at home. How many embryos would you ask to be implanted if you had a history of miscarriages and limited funds? The cost of raising 14 children would easily be up into the 2 million dollar range. And knowing that my tax dollars are going to help her and her **** 14 kinds really frosts my cupcake...
Yeah, it is stupid, but she can do it, so why not? All the more reason to kick out the welfare system. Definitely wastes money when people think they can waste money they don't earn.

Also, I forgot to add this, but the estimations were made for 2050. If we were going to find alternate energies and ways to implement them into mainstream society, we should have started 50 years ago. Which, of course, we didn't, because the auto companies wanted to make more money, despite the knowledge of an oil shortage.

All in all, we can't have people like this mother just running around and having as many **** babies as they want. Conserve for the future. You're living just great now, but at the current rate of consumption and births, everyone will be in the hole several decades from now.
We are fine. When we run out of oil, companies and people will get the hint and we will start using nuclear power and electric cars. Actually, the rate of births is decreasing rapidly for what it was 50 years ago, so we might just come to a halt soon.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

That is because you underestimate the power of Capitalism.


That is because you clearly do not understand macroeconomics. For one thing the Salvation Army is not an example of capitalism because they are a non profit organisation. Secondly, the Salvation Army and other such organisations have been having to cut back because so few people are donating in this time of crisis. So the opposite has happened.

If the welfare system went away, people would suddenly give tons of money to Salvation Army like places because they would think that the poor have nothing anymore.


The US spends $1.6 trillion on Welfare, and that's just the federal government. Despite the fact that donations to charities have been dropping due to the recession, do you think people would suddenly donate such a large sum? I don't. They would save the extra income they gained from the drop in taxes.

Who told you that?


My economics proffessor, as well as my economics textbook. It pretty much makes your entire paragraph null and void.

you assumed that children in a large family will be emotionally lacking; I was showing you that that is not true. Go back a few centuries.


Why do you think, that statistically, single parents with more than 2 children tend to develop attatchment disorders.

Go back a few centuries and these disorders were much more common.

There is your problem! You assume that China's economy was doing well before the crisis, thus they were fine. Nothing could be farther from reality. Outwardly, they might have been doing fine, but does that mean they were not headed straight for a big problem?


Any evidence for that at all, or are you just using metaphors to make up for your lack of factual evidence. Before the crisis they were experiencing growth of up to 10% p.a. Considering most developed, Western nations grow at around 2-4% p.a this is huge.

Resources will never run out because they are still here and they continually renew, including oil and trees.


You're joking right? You do realise that the entire purpose of economics is to solve the question of there being limited resources and finite wants? That is what the entire study of economics is based on.

Hmm let me explain, there are 4 resources:

Capital
Enterprise
Land
Labour

All of these are limited. Capital is investment. Enterprise is the idea behind a business, Land is land and all the resources located within it and Labour is the workforce. Are these all renewable?

The better technology gets to maintain standard of living, the more efficient people are and the more people we can have.


Yes, in America perhaps. What about all the other countries where they do not have this technology. They will be even poorer, if Aerica is using up more resources which are not by the way, renewable.

If there was no minimum wage, people could work smaller but more jobs


If there was no minimum wage we would see a return of Dickensian esque industry. Extremely hard work for very low pay, with the very few business owners benefitting. Why would you want to reverse 200 years of progress? In addition people simply would not have the time to have multiple jobs as you suggest, especially if they have families.

A voluntary system would work better because it requires the poor to ask for gifts.


Which would not be available because there would not be enough donations.
Showing 76-90 of 101