Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-10-2009, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Northern NH
4,550 posts, read 11,671,804 times
Reputation: 3873

Advertisements

What everybody said this woman is a wack job However I do think that this (thank god) is a highly unusual situation so we should not get carried away with this and let our thoughts be governed by one ...well idiot
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2009, 06:11 PM
 
Location: La lune et les étoiles
18,258 posts, read 22,476,398 times
Reputation: 19593
Had Nadya Suleman been a Black woman or a Latina....she would have already been labeled a "Welfare Queen"

This woman has 6 other children (3 of which are disabled and/or mentally challenged). There is a high probability that some of the octuplets will have developmental issues. The woman claimed on national tv that she is receiving no gov't help yet she receives food stamps(nearly $500 a month), bogus disability payments and gov't help for her disabled children. Not to mention the shady real estate shell game that she and her mother have going on...along with a suspect bankruptcy filing. On top of all of this she has had some pretty disturbing cosmetic procedures (a Michael Jackson nose and exaggerated Angelina Jolie lips)

Could someone please toss her into a psych ward before she can spend more of MY hard earned tax money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2009, 06:23 PM
 
20,187 posts, read 23,785,444 times
Reputation: 9283
Quote:
Originally Posted by M3 Mitch View Post
And Arnold wonders why California is going broke...
And the ironic thing is people are blaming Arnold for other people's mess... if CONGRESS doesn't pass the budget... its Arnold's fault? Huh? If people don't get their taxes because CONGRESS didn't pass the budget, its Arnold's fault again? Huh? Is Arnold in the state congress? No... Does he vote in the state congress? No... oh I see, we just blame him for other peoples mess... I wonder if it was Arnold who was the one who fertilized that lady... cause surly it was all his doing... he one person can get blamed for someone else's mess is just amazing... but then its California... liberals love to blame everyone else but them... oh yeah, Congress is mostly liberal... and that mom... she has liberal thinking "it's not welfare" and people should be obligated to give money to raiser her children (i.e. liberal policies)... but we don't blame liberals or their policies... we blame Arnold... and he is going "WTH is wrong with these people..."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2009, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Minnesota
1,761 posts, read 1,707,951 times
Reputation: 2541
When I first saw the picture of her I told my wife that she wasn't quite right. I don't know if my opinion came just from her looks or her "bad energy" or what......but I know she can't be right in her head.

I feel so bad for all those kids who had no part in being born into such an impossible situation. Their life will be difficult no matter what course it takes. I think at least some of the kids will not be living with her in the very near future. There is no way a single mother can take care of 14 kids.

I was shocked when she at first announced to the world that she wasn't on any sort of government assistance (welfare)....and a bit angered the other day when it was revealed that she is indeed on food stamps as well as disability for herself and several of her kids. Talk about playing symantics with words to mislead people.

Quite honestly I don't think she is going to have many "friends" regardless of the point of view. The conservatives will rip her due to her "welfare queen" status and having kids without a father figure. The liberals will rip her, or at best remain silent, due to her stretching the limits of the social welfare system put in place to help honest and prudent people who need temporary help. The feminists will probably remain somewhat silent on this one too since defening the indefensible would probably set womens rights back due to the magnitude of her irresponsible behavior.

Again, I just feel bad for all her children....her failure to be responsible will affect her childrens lives as well as many others in many adverse ways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2009, 07:28 PM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,803 posts, read 8,732,363 times
Reputation: 3022
The irresponsible nut job who implanted the embryos should have his paycheck garnished for life to pay for the upbringing of these last eight. What was that clinic thinking? And where did she get the financial wherewithal to undergo in-vitro when she can't even support her own children without a heavy dose of the American taxpayer's dollars going into her pocketbook every month?

Unbelievable.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2009, 09:22 PM
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
8,028 posts, read 12,205,927 times
Reputation: 9803
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap1717 View Post
this sort of thing is hurting taxpayers, for sure, but more importantly, it is KILLING the planet. Because I desperatly wish to believe in a just universe, I subscribe to a theory of karma that includes cause and effect, beyond the grave. I won't argue for that view, but it helps to keep me calm when considering such situations.
Honestly, I never considered it from an environmental point of view ... but I think you make a good point. The world has a population of approximately 6.8 billion, and keeps multiplying rapidly. The areas that are experiencing the highest birth rates are mostly the poorer third world countries, where they can't feed, shelter, or clothe the babies appropriately ... but they keep spittin' 'em out like rodents!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZugZub View Post
I'm more for a maximum allotment. For instance, you can get assistance for up to two children, no more. After that you're on your own. That way, we don't infringe on someone's reproductive rights, but we don't get screwed as the taxpayer either.
I don't mind some limited public assistance on a TEMPORARY basis, but I highly despise those who make their living permanently on the public dime, regardless of how many children they have. The main problem I have with your statement is the phrase "reproductive rights". I suggest you read the Constitution, and get back with us when you find the article/amendment which specifies that procreation/reproductivity is a right. Lots of luck.

I am pleased to read, however, that you at least recognize the fact that taxpayers are getting screwed ... and there should be limitations. My idea of welfare reform, however, involves much deeper cuts to the point of practically eliminating entitlement programs as a whole, except on a temporary basis (which I previously mentioned).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper1372 View Post
When I first saw the picture of her I told my wife that she wasn't quite right. I don't know if my opinion came just from her looks or her "bad energy" or what......but I know she can't be right in her head.
I agree. Anybody who desires that many children as a cure for being "lonely" can't be playing with a full deck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper1372 View Post
I was shocked when she at first announced to the world that she wasn't on any sort of government assistance (welfare)....and a bit angered the other day when it was revealed that she is indeed on food stamps as well as disability for herself and several of her kids. Talk about playing symantics with words to mislead people.
Translation: she's a LIAR, plain & simple. She'd probably make a good defense lawyer. They're certainly good at twisting words around.
()
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 06:28 AM
 
Location: Charleston, WV
3,106 posts, read 7,359,487 times
Reputation: 845
I think the doctor should be made to pay for the care of all these children (to age 18) instead of us taxpayers.

As to the woman - she either HAS to have a loose screw or is totally selfish and figured this was a good way to get money (via a TV show or something - like the reality shows of the people with 8 kids and the ones with 18 kids).

I am furious that my tax money will be supporting her and these kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 06:35 AM
 
1,788 posts, read 4,745,984 times
Reputation: 1253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
I don't mind some limited public assistance on a TEMPORARY basis, but I highly despise those who make their living permanently on the public dime, regardless of how many children they have. The main problem I have with your statement is the phrase "reproductive rights". I suggest you read the Constitution, and get back with us when you find the article/amendment which specifies that procreation/reproductivity is a right. Lots of luck.
Reproductive rights are protected not only by the United States Constitution, but also by the constitutions of each of the individual states. The federal constitution creates a baseline protection of individual rights; each state's constitution may safeguard additional rights or provide protection to rights.

I suggest you read -- and understand -- the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 07:26 AM
 
Location: downeast
473 posts, read 712,680 times
Reputation: 362
first- i think that the woman and her doctors acted irresponsibly.

second- the issues raised here- some of the comments made- think about the social and political side.
as with most legislation- someone does something stupid and someone else decides we have to prevent anyone else from making that same stupid mistake- so a law is made.
some thoughts i have heard here -we start regulating how many children a person/couple can have. we have to provide proof that we can afford to raise the child(ren). we deny financial aid to families that have 'too many' (defined?) children.

how do we as a society deal with all these unwanted (by society) children? do we block all restrictions on abortions and become a state with mandatory abortions? do we require contraceptives to all women regardless of parental consent starting at the age of menstruation (can be as young as 9yo)? do we prosecute men who abandon their responsibilities as a parent and somehow force them to stop procreating? do we enforce forced sterilization procedures for women and men after a certain number of children? who pays for those procedures? these are not sarcastic responses, but a call to think about where do we go from here.

then we have to consider the consequences. what can we do to prevent infanticide of babies that were born outside the rules to people who did not know they were pregnant or could not afford or did not have access to medical treatment? do we need to prepare for gender selection? how about the seperation of church and state issues (some religions ban contraception and abortion)

as much as this outraged me- it outrages me more that some poeple dont think through some of the great ideas they have on how to stop/prevent this from happening again. think about china, india and other nations that have either government or religious interference when it comes to the right of bearing children and then think about how we think of them in this regard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Maryland
1,667 posts, read 9,364,840 times
Reputation: 1654
Quote:
Originally Posted by vec101 View Post
I think the doctor should be made to pay for the care of all these children (to age 18) instead of us taxpayers.
Miss. Suleman expected 8 premature children by this multiple birth. Just the first year, a premature baby costs $41,610 help reduce cost: The Cost to Business . Multiply by 8 embros, the doctors were guaranteed to add $333K for the first year, in addition to the 6 children she already had. $1 million hospital bill, $1 million debt already, college tuition, child care... With expenses like this, it is assured that the children will either be welfare dependent, or will lack sufficient supervision and health care. That is one stipulation of child endangerment. If the woman had more than 10 cats, she would be considered cruel as the potential problems would be obvious, probably arrested, and the cats would be confiscated. Why can you raise children with less chance of peace than you can cats?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top