Author Topic: Octuplets (Read 2147 times)

WylieKy · « **Reply #30 on:** February 03, 2009, 11:35:00 AM »

Quote from: crustaceous on January 31, 2009, 09:10:07 AM

Someone's letting their repressed liberal scum tendancies show by trying to vilify the reproductive rights and freedoms we enjoy in our great nation.

Amen! Since the government does such a good job with our driver's, hunting, and professional licenses they obviously need to be involved in who can have children...and when.

It doesn't get more "Left Handed" than getting the government involved in the bedroom.....

I am not taking up for her...She's an idiot. She should be evaluated and if she is unable to provide the children should be removed from the household.

hotrunner · « **Reply #31 on:** February 03, 2009, 11:51:47 AM »

...but the government WAS NOT involved in the bedroom in this case; she was excercising her "reproductive rights"!
Now she and her 14 kids will (probably) be a burden on society for doing what you claim she has a right to do.

WylieKy · « **Reply #32 on:** February 03, 2009, 12:26:14 PM »

Quote from: hotrunner on February 03, 2009, 11:51:47 AM

...but the government WAS NOT involved in the bedroom in this case; she was excercising her "reproductive rights"!

Yep. I'm not sure how she got the funding to get this procedure done. From what I understand it is in excess of $10K...but if she came up with the funds on her own, then regardless of other issues she has the right to have this done...

Quote from: hotrunner on February 03, 2009, 11:51:47 AM

Now she and her 14 kids will (probably) be a burden on society for doing what you claim she has a right to do.

The probably aside, this is two different issues.
1. She has the right to have as many kids as she wants. I had an old boss who had one of the best sayings I have ever heard. "Don't invite me to your party unless you want me to come." BRILLIANT!!! Do not invite the government into someone else's bedroom unless you want them in yours. Once they are their, they WILL NOT stick with the reason for the original invitation, either. Genetic engineering, genetic prescreen, population caps, gender requirements, etc....will have a foothold because of these kind of outcries. Just like a maniac with a couple of .45's with 50 round clips was the beginning of the gun control snowball.

2. If she makes the choice to continue having children she can't support, then the government will not support them. If she is unable to provide basic needs for her children they should be removed from her custody as in any other issue of parental negligence. I'm sure that there are 10's of 1000's of couples waiting for the opportunity to adopt healthy babies, now they get their wish.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #33 on:** February 03, 2009, 01:31:10 PM »

Quote from: damascus-doug on February 03, 2009, 10:49:57 AM

Quote from: 45-70.gov on February 02, 2009, 01:15:59 PM
freedom isn't free
she can have all she wants
and if she can't survive with them let her and them die

or who ever wants to help let them help her
but don't FORCE me to help her

This statement really bothers me. I do not agree with what she has done and feel that all she has done is created another burden on tax payers. But to make the statement "if she can't survive with them let her and them die" tells me that the children are being judged for the stupidity of the mother. How can we let them die? Don't we kill enough babies everyday with abortion. There are many families that are willing to adopt children so why in the world would letting them die even be mentioned. As for the statement "i say if they have more than they can raise let a few die", what happens if someone loses their job and has to get help in order to make end meet. Do we just let the children die in the mean time. I have 2 boys that I have/do/will give everything I can to them. My oldest is autistic and I promise that right now I fell he has more sense about him than some do. Instead of taking the punishment out on the most innocent why not look at the cause and try to look at ways to make sure this is not a common occurrence. And yes I do not like the fact that we will be helping support her lifestyle more than her children which is a common theme with these type of cases. Just my 2 cents.

i don't like it when people speak in first person plural

why do ''WE '' have to decide whats right or wrong......... if you want to help a fool no one is stopping you

just don't FORCE me to....i am helping some others and haven't ask you to be forced to help my cause

but when ''WE'' have to help some one the taxes are teken at gun point by government to do so ... then missmanaged

start taking note when people say ''we'' and ''our''
they are usually liberals

damascus-doug · « **Reply #34 on:** February 03, 2009, 02:17:33 PM »

You asked "why do ''WE '' have to decide whats right or wrong" First if I and/or you do not decide what is right or wrong then we leave it up to the government to do which is what liberals do. I believe that we as a people have the right to speak up for what we feel is wrong instead of just letting the powers that be make the call. I think that is what the majority of the people who read this think should be done. So that does not mean that WE are liberals. If you want to ask what I believe then ask instead of making little remarks like "start taking note when people say ''we'' and ''our'' they are usually liberals". The use of "we" and "our" do not imply that a person is any type of political affiliation. It means that I felt that I was not the only one who felt a certain way about this subject. I could be wrong but that does not change how I feel.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #35 on:** February 03, 2009, 02:29:54 PM »

Quote from: damascus-doug on February 03, 2009, 02:17:33 PM

You asked "why do ''WE '' have to decide whats right or wrong" First if I and/or you do not decide what is right or wrong then we leave it up to the government to do which is what liberals do. I believe that we as a people have the right to speak up for what we feel is wrong instead of just letting the powers that be make the call. I think that is what the majority of the people who read this think should be done. So that does not mean that WE are liberals. If you want to ask what I believe then ask instead of making little remarks like "start taking note when people say ''we'' and ''our'' they are usually liberals". The use of "we" and "our" do not imply that a person is any type of political affiliation. It means that I felt that I was not the only one who felt a certain way about this subject. I could be wrong but that does not change how I feel.

Thank you!

45-70.gov · « **Reply #36 on:** February 03, 2009, 02:30:32 PM »

you can not just let them die

i like that better....didn't meant to sound like such a smart @$$

we and our are just one of my pet peeves

the people speak up and try to compel government to take my money from what i feel is important

i think private charities are more efficient

but ""WE"" means some leach organizes ""US""
like obama the comunity organizer

damascus-doug · « **Reply #37 on:** February 03, 2009, 02:55:03 PM »

Quote from: 45-70.gov on February 03, 2009, 02:30:32 PM

the people speak up and try to compel government to take my money from what i feel is important

i think private charities are more efficient

but ""WE"" means some leach organizes ""US""
like obama the comunity organizer

We agree on this.

Private charities and free enterprise are efficient. I don't think government and efficient can be used to describe the same thing.

Oldtimer · « **Reply #38 on:** February 04, 2009, 03:41:00 AM »

I read a lot of concern for the health and wellbeing of the children, something I wish we could have implanted into the mother. There are immediate and long-term risks for the health of the children in these super-twin births. Many of these risks will mean that they will continue to call on public coffers for health care. I do not begrudge the children this, nor anyone else, but still say that the mother and the doctor made an unholy alliance and should bear some continuing responsibility. If we can chase down some lowlife who fathers children and then splits, I do not see why the same laws would not apply to a doctor who does such a dangerous procedure. Here is a link that covers the risks to the children: http://www.news.health.ufl.edu/news/story.aspx?ID=2995

Heather · « **Reply #39 on:** February 04, 2009, 04:35:51 AM »

JMO, but I think that the woman had every right to have those babies. Our government has never had, doesn't have, and should never have the right to dictate how many kids a person has. They may feel that they do because it is them that pays the bills for them. Simple solution, stop paying the bills. Hmmm...wonder how much $ would it save the taxpayers and how much it would help the economy? Along with the right to have them, she has the right to raise them on her own. If someone has kids they should be responsible for them. If she couldn't afford them, she should have never had them.

Heather

jumpsteady · « **Reply #40 on:** February 04, 2009, 07:05:30 AM »

I agree with Heather 100%.

gypsyman · « **Reply #41 on:** February 04, 2009, 07:18:16 AM »

Heather, your right, as of right now, she probably didn't break any laws. Just the laws of common sense. But how far down the road are we going to go, before we're killing each other in the streets because of over population.Food shortage's,water shortage, housing, etc. Don't think it can't happen. It's going on right now all over the world, happened in Russia after the collapse of the gov't there in the late '80's. It will happen here. Just a matter of time, and I think that time is growing short. This will just add fuel to the fire. More children growing up, no fathers, gov't dependents.Even animals take better care of their young than what some people are doing now. Will she make a bunch of money off of this, probably. Lot of idiots will pay money to read about this. I know I will not. Maybe, 50 years from now, if there is much of a civilization left, they'll look back and wonder just how stupid we were. gypsyman

Heather · « **Reply #42 on:** February 04, 2009, 07:23:43 AM »

Gypsyman,
It is my belief that if the state and fed govt weren't there paying for everything from food, hospital bills, housing, and so on and so on, there wouldn't be so many people having babies that couldn't afford them. People know that gov will help them out. There are women who calculate how much their welfare check will go up and how much more food stamps they will get with each addition to their family. The more kids you have the more money you get. Stop the handouts and I would bet that the birth rate would fall. If not the death rate would rise. Either way the population would decrease.

Heather

billy_56081 · « **Reply #43 on:** February 04, 2009, 01:50:53 PM »

She may have not broken any laws, but the doctors sure as heck broke the Hippocratic oath.

The worst thing about this is and this is just speculation, how many will be mentally or physically handicapped where we have to pay for them for their whole lives?

45-70.gov · « **Reply #44 on:** February 04, 2009, 02:13:43 PM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on February 04, 2009, 01:50:53 PM

She may have not broken any laws, but the doctors sure as heck broke the Hippocratic oath.

The worst thing about this is and this is just speculation, how many will be mentally or physically handicapped where we have to pay for them for their whole lives?

"WE'' would not have to support them if not for ''OUR'' government
is any abortion violate the oath?

everything heather said was right
she just didn't mention they will die like i did

i didn't have my kids till my house was paid off

it is funny she is more hated than a woman that kills her unborn child
who do you all think is worst???

gypsyman · « **Reply #45 on:** February 05, 2009, 04:26:51 AM »

On the religious side of this, where do you think God stands? Absolutley nothing in this entire affair was done, according to Gods plan. Implanted eggs, artificial insemenation, bet he's scratching his head on this one. gypsyman

Oldtimer · « **Reply #46 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:49:22 PM »

It just keeps getting better. Do not go to this website unless your blood pressure is dangerously low and your pulse rate is less than 10. Otherwise, you just may splatter all over your computer screen: http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/

OLDHandgunner · « **Reply #47 on:** February 13, 2009, 01:40:15 AM »

Sure people have the right to have kids, but they have to be able to take care of them.
This doctor should be held accountable for his stupid actions. ( Make him pay for this mess he created )
Last night on the news the said that just the hospital cost for these 8 babies for 3 mo. stay will run well over $1.5 millon. This does not even begin to cover all the other cost. And this is only just the beginning.
No wonder she is in hiddening now because of all the death threats againt her from the California taxpayers.
The 14 kids shouldn't be judged just because they have a stupid parent.

powderman · « **Reply #48 on:** February 13, 2009, 07:04:08 AM »

HEATHER. Right you are, agreed 110%. Another thing, this had nothing to do with the bedroom, drs office or hospitol. POWDERMAN.

Singleshotsam · « **Reply #49 on:** February 13, 2009, 07:13:11 AM »

Quote

Someone needs to donate her some Xanac or Valium or we will likely see 14 serious injuries or deaths when she finally snaps.

Heather

Hehe, Is this coming from a person that has a couple young kids herself

I've got one 4 year old son and feel as if I could use some chill pills on occasion

j/k he's really a great kid and the light of my life