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.
Probably because the 1.2 million (and/or the donations) will be going to a fund for additional IVF procedures. I just KNOW she'll try it.
Maybe - but at this point, I wonder what nimrod RE would even come NEAR her. We pretty much know now that the RE she used was a hack who is going to be investigated inside & out. No intelligent RE with an ounce of self-preservation who wants to keep practicing will take her on as a patient.
Maybe - but at this point, I wonder what nimrod RE would even come NEAR her. We pretty much know now that the RE she used was a hack who is going to be investigated inside & out. No intelligent RE with an ounce of self-preservation who wants to keep practicing will take her on as a patient.
Yes but there have to be SOME who would give up their license for all the endless attention..there are TONS of people out there (from all walks of life) who jump at chances to get such extreme publicity at almost all costs and would do anything short of committing a murder to get it. I guarantee she'd find one that's enough like her and get them to do it.
IMO she's just one of the most extreme examples of this type of people (and she has endless other issues IN ADDITION to this issue) but there are plenty of people out there with that issue.
This is not fair to the babies, I do not want to reward the mother for her choices, but robbing the children of resources because of public opinion is just wrong.
No one will be taking these babies away from her because she has been labeled a "nut case" by the public. Parental rights are not so easily lost in the USA, unless the state of CA determines the kids are being neglected or abused they will not be taken from her. Lack of income does not equal neglect either.
I think the more resources she gets, the more she will be encouraged to do this again. She can have more, you know. If the US law is protecting her right to do so, she probably will.
If she got no help from her mother or public assistance for the first 6 she may not have had the second batch.
The behavior that we throw money at, we reward.
There is no check on her behavior if the law does not change to prevent such cases.
As has been discussed before, she does have serious mental issues.
I don't have a problem with women who use public assistance to get themselves back on their feet. IN all honesty most of the time it is the deabeat dads who are getting paid CASH to avoid having to give money to support their children is one of the reasons the mother has to be on assistance in the first place.
I do not like women getting pregnant repeatedly just to stay on public assistance so they do not HAVE to work. But that is very hard to PROVE- that they INTENTIONALLY had more children even though they have no means to support them. More than likely it is just neglience to use birth control on their part and not an actualy intentional pregnancy. But again, either way it is HARD to prove.
In THIS case however it is EASY to prove she intentionally got pregnant while having no means to support the children. She intentionally is robbing the taxpayers of California and this is where someone needs to step in.
They either need to change the law so that you may not receive benefits from the state if you intentionally seek to get pregnant (and the only way to prove it was intentional is if you are doing IVF or fertility drugs) and at that time are unable financially to care for them, or they need to authorize Fertility doctors to require proof of financial stability BEFORE they offer to work with the patients.
This seems to be a very rare case, but anytime a woman gets pregnant INTENTIONALLY and does not have the means to support the child is just depressing because they have no social responsibility inside of themselves. They are not productive members of society and it just drags all of us down.
I DON'T agree with what she's doing AT ALL...as you can clearly tell by reading my posts. BUT, I think the definition of "adequate" is very liberal and as long as their BASIC needs are being met there's really nothing that could be done. A 3-bedroom house with 17 people may not be adequate in most people's minds (including mine) but they ARE being provided shelter and as long as it's safe, I don't think there's anything they can do.
I understand that you are relating the attitude of our legal/social service system, but think there is a point at which we are rearing our children as ignorant and crude animals, herding them instead of nurturing. I think there is the humanity of the thing to consider. Otherwise, just dump them in a barn and shovel in food once a day.
Look, we have told the world to get out of our wombs for years now. No one could tell her not to have the children, so no one should be able to tell her how to live now. We can not have it both ways, it is her body and her right to have children, just as it is her right and her body to abort same said children. We can not say cover children with heath care and then pick and chose which are deserving.
I agree. This mentally disturbed woman has NO IDEA how completely crazy her life is about to become. My nephew and his wife had a premie who was in the hospital for a few months. A few weeks after he came home they both looked like wrecks because he required so much monitoring and care. THIS WAS ONE BABY!!!
I think you're right. When she realizes how hard life is, and how little money she's getting from the deal she will just take off (or have herself committed - there certainly are enough witnesses to her mental health -- or lack thereof.)
Well, she must know something, because the oldest of the six she originally had is seven years old. Though, it is probably the grandmother who got stuck with them.
Look, we have told the world to get out of our wombs for years now. No one could tell her not to have the children, so no one should be able to tell her how to live now. We can not have it both ways, it is her body and her right to have children, just as it is her right and her body to abort same said children. We can not say cover children with heath care and then pick and chose which are deserving.
Sure, we have a right to forbid this sort of thing. We're paying for the kids, so we have the right to call the tune. If she could afford to give the kids good treatment who would be complaining?
Well, me maybe. I think huge families are disgusting - but most people, if the children were to receive good care, would not be bent.
Just got a little tidbit on the news about the doctor... he now has a 49 year old patient (client?) pregnant with QUADRUPLETS.... 7 embryos were implanted.
This guy is most likely doing it for cash...without any regards to ethics at all.
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.
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.
