California octuplets case dismays fertility experts

Post Reply New Topic

Does there need to be? I mean, wouldn't the practicalities & impractilalities of child-rearing become self-evident?

Are you planning on undergoing fertility treatments anytime soon, Fnord? Are you and the wife trying to conceive?

And it is her RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to raise them, not her Mom's nor the states.

No one needs 14 kids. That's just selfish.

Even if you were the best mother in the world you could not raise 14 kids. 14 kids having to compete with each for attention, for affection ... how is this fair to the kids?

You'd be better off collecting dolls or something.

The question of who is going to pay for the children is not a medical or a reproductive "rights" problem; it's a socialism problem. The correct answer--as tough and mean as it is to say--is: "That's not our problem." When I say that, I mean as a collective society and not on a more individual level.

It is amazing that people seem quite content with advocating abortion under the guise of reproductive rights, but can whip around and suggest the notion of reproductive responsibility. Many of us conservatives have been saying that from the beginning and were drowned out by nonsensical shrieks about whose right is where.

What's funny is that when we didn't steal from everyone to give to some (welfare), families were often large and from them came some great minds . . . like Benjamin Franklin, who was the 15th of 17 children (though to be fair, it was one father and two different mothers for the whole group). Saint Catherine of Siena was 24th of 25 children and I'm sure there are quite a few more.


This story perfectly illustrates what will happen with nationalized healthcare. Once everyone is paying, they all seem to think they should dictate instances such as this.

Fnord,

Reproductive rights in this country do not mean a laissez faire hodgepodge of whatever. The second amendment quarantees the right to bear arms, yet we have limits on it. How many people are allowed an army of weapons in their rec room.

The first amendment as well has limits-when that speech is done to inflict or incite harm, it is illegal.

In certain cases we lose rights to our bodies when the draft is instituted, and people are inducted into the army.

We can argue all we want about theory and rhetoric-but I'm talking about nitty gritty reality here. I'm talking the social contract here. You can hold the stance that abortion is wrong but to make an assumption about other people's beliefs about a woman's situation and then out of left field blast it out is head scratching. You ignored everyone's arguments and posts, and just blasted it out.

When did I say, or anyone else say, there was a total freedom of reproductive rights? Nature doesn't guarantee that. The state won't guarantee that, and the state has the ick job of figuring out where the best interests of the state(i.e. the people) lie in guaranteeing rights in that case. Between the rabid right wingers who bomb clinics, and those who would abort up to the end of gestation, it's not easy. The state has a far different set of rules to go by than anyone who goes strictly by religious convictions. The state has to figure it out using the Constitution and who has rights, and how to define "who" is a citizen.

Two, you asked for citations-NBC and the LA Times reported what I wrote, and guess what? I didn't say it was confirmed.

Yes, the state is now investigating the case. Per the LA Times.

Also, there is a society for Reproductive Specialists who devise a standard of care. Societies exists for all specialties, and hospitals routinely follow those guidelines. For a physician to go against standards of care, even in private practice, they would lose membership (woohoo, I know) in that society and access to research in the field, then lose hospital privileges, and then that physician would be reported to the state association and have her/his license taken away pending hearing. In the meantime the license would be suspended, and the physician unable to practice. Practicing without an active license is then a crime.

There are penalties here in the States.

The reason physicians and specialists in the states believed this woman went outside of the country was EIGHT embryos were implanted, which is against guidelines.

The other reason many specialists and physicians thought she went outside of the country was she got a ob/gyn doctor in LA after she was pregnant. Usually the specialist who does the implantation follows the woman throughout her pregnancy, and this woman refused to id the doc who did her procedure. People want to know for the reasons I listed. S/he is going to lose his/her license and never practice again, and the state may go after him for damages, which would be hospital costs, and there might even be criminal charges.

One other thing...abortion is safer than carrying to term. Citation, C. Everett Koop, and many others who actually do research. Don't forget to cite.

It sounds like to me you think we live in a black and white world, and we don't. We aren't islands no matter how much we as Aspies act like it, and defining who and what we are as people and as a society is pretty messy.

I don't know where you get the idea a lot of women want to willy nilly spurt out kids without thinking about it. Fewer children are born to unwed mothers today than twenty years ago, but more are keeping their babies. The trend is towards women deciding to have a kid by themselves because they want to be mothers, and they are more able to care for a child thanks to having educational opportunities and good jobs.

And the other thing: many of these women who id as single moms do have a dad in the picture but because they don't believe in a piece of paper, they are automatically listed as "single" in many polls.

And please don't make me break out the cites. I'm tired.

Metta.

Actually, it's not a socialism problem. It's a problem, period. To be for reproductive rights means that if someone has the means and it's ethical, go for it. I have reproductive rights--I just don't have the means. So are my rights being denied?

And did you read my post? Maybe it's different in your state. In my state, there's a two year total time limit, and the system actively pushes the parent to look for work and decent housing. Then they are booted off, no ifs, ands or buts. That's it. Oh, and now homeless families have tripled in this state. And those reforms were pushed and passed by a Democrat with a Democratic congress.

The problem I see with "conservatives" is that they want to push their own lifestyle on everyone else, and call it responsible. They don't like it when people go outside the lines and say there are other valid ways of doing things and also being responsible.

I don't see the conflict between having rights and responsibilites. Why do you? Or is this a sham argument to focus on a different issue, which is abortion? Sounds like a red herring to me...

How do you know this? The Duggers may be religious wack-jobs in my book, but they managed to raise their kids somehow.

This woman wanted her kids, and people are saying she is a good mom, hell she even wants to breast feed her 8 new-borns! This tells me that she is determined to look after them, which is more then some mothers of 1 or 2 are.

This is the choice of the mother alone, she can have as many kids as she wants. Not my business. Having kids for the purpose of getting hand-outs is a whole different story.

Stop and think about the quality of life a boy or girl with 12 siblings might have. In schools, class-sizes should be kept smaller for this very reason. I'm not going to spoon-feed you this one. It's an easy connection to make.

No, it's a socialism problem. The fact that the question of who is going to pay exists makes it one, as it shows that in our society we intend on making sure that someone pays. It's a matter of personal responsibility. Who should pay? The woman should pay, period. Anyone else who pays should only do so on the basis of their own volition.



By "means" I presume that you mean in a more monetary sense (if not, please correct me); in which case, then we aren't talking about "rights." Rights are inherent and not initially based on variables--especially ones that are so subjective.



My point wasn't to address any particular state and I could care less about your partisan politics. I do care about the sanctity of being consistent and people understanding what is and is not a right (or in many cases, should and should not be considered).



I'm not sure how this relates at all to my post.



I don't see a conflict; however, unlike you I am capable of distinguishing between the two and putting them into proper perspective. A right isn't something that you have if you are being or can be responsible--you have it one way or another. If you show a complete disregard for your responsibilities, then AND ONLY then may we subject you to a diminishing of your rights (like tossing you in jail for a crime--which diminishes one's right to freedom).

Again, to be clear, you seem to be suggesting that a right exists only in the presence of responsibility (at least in this case), while I am saying that right exists period and only upon one's dereliction of responsibility may we diminish any rights.

My view is reactive, while yours is preemptive. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Well done. What you posted makes more sense than all the talking-head sound bites I've heard since the news broke.

I'm still concerned that "Reproductive Rights" have not been fully codified into law. Some states allow for one kind of abortion, while others don't. Some people are ridiculed, if not discriminated against, for being single parents or childless couples.

Truly, it should be of no concern to others how a woman exercises her reproductive rights, as long as the legal aspects are considered.

- Should it be legal for a woman to have as many babies as possible, all at once?

- Above what age should a woman's right to bear children be curtailed?

- Below what age should a woman's right to bear children be curtailed?

- Should a single woman be allowed to have children?

- Should a single man be allowed to father children?

- Should a man be allowed to decide whether a woman should give birth or abort?

- Should a married woman be allowed to decide whether to abort or give birth without the knowledge or permission of her husband?

- Should a single woman be allowed to decide whether to abort or give birth without the knowledge or permission of the sperm donor?

- Should a man be prevented from challenging the paternity of any minor children that are allegedly his?

- Should a paternity test be automatically administered to a newborn infant?

- Should people become parents only after a rigorous screening and training process?

Scary, huh?

Having all of these kids was her own decision if she really sticks to what she says about raising and caring for them, all the power to her, I know that times are different now, but large families where the norm not too long ago, my mom has 7 sisters and 2 brothers, my grandparents have less then what this woman has and my aunts and uncles came out ok.

You may not be able to raise 14 kids, doesn't mean this woman can't try. Child protection services are nearby to take these children if they feel things aren't done right.

Why this woman wanted this many kids is beyond me but it was her choice, just as much if she wanted a abortion.

If she had these kids for the sake of getting hand-outs, attention and charity, then she had them for the wrong reasons and should have them taken away.

Agreed.


Having a child for "The Wrong Reasons" is insufficient ground for intervention and removal. Abuse, endangerment, and/or neglect are (to my knowledge) the only "lawful" reasons - along with the arrest of both parents - to remove a child from the custody of his or her parents.

I wonder ... what are the "Wrong" reasons for having a child? What are the "Right" reasons?

Those are good questions.... wish I knew the answers.

for the meatr industry

One of her older children is autistic.

I think its possible she is on the spectrum too. from quotes by her mother it says she has been obsessed with children since she was a teenager. Its possible this is a sighn that she is on the Autistic spectrum or at leas the broader autistic phenotype

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/ ... age2.shtml

Last edited by Ravenclawgurl on 03 Feb 2009, 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Without a hubby, does she stand a chance at caring for all 14 of her brood?

Without a father, does her brood stand a chance at a normal life?