too many children rant

[Sassy]

I've always wondered, "what's going to happen when all these half brothers & sisters start getting hooked up together?"  Since no one knows who the fathers are, how would they know if they are related or not   

[cordwood]

 CAUTION!!! HOT COFFEE!!! Ring any bells?

[glenn kangiser]

Don, I don't know if you should talk about priming the pump on this thread.

[Dog]

So you guys say if the sperm donors sperm ends up being used irresponsibly then he should have no responsibility?   Just because the system is set up so that right now they don't, it doesn't mean it should stayt hat way.  Sure married couples might want a child using a sperm donor, it is no different than single moms in terms of receiving the donation.  What I am suggesting is that a human life is created from the sperm donation and everyone involved should be mandated to a line of succession concerning the child's well being.  In other words if the mother is somehow unfit when the child is born, and no other provisions are made by her, and the clinic is strictly in the business of providing sperm not arranging other parenting options, then who is responsible for the child the taxpayers?  And is everybody fine with that? 

Yes Tanya. An anonymous sperm donor is not responsible. It is the clinics responsibility to screen the potential mother/sperm recipient to ensure that she is a proper candidate to mentally and financially care for the child. As a business this is part of the service they are getting paid to provide. The sperm donor is not the responsible party and it should stay that way. btw...in this particular situation she knows who the donor is. Maybe he was hoping to profit from the book/movie deal as well. I don't think he or she will profit from this story because it's just so sad and ridiculous. Maybe we'll see a documentary on the situation at some point. It wouldn't be pretty and would hopefully discourage mentally challenged copy cats.

The doctor who agreed to implant this women is an idiot and should lose his license to practice medicine. Hopefully this is already being investigated. Maybe he was also hoping to profit from the movie deal? This would be in addition to the money he received from her to preform, in this situation, a ridiculous procedure. From what I understand his success rate was very low. He may have considered this an opportunity to beef up business.

Yes Tanya. The taxpayers end up being the responsible ones who end up carrying the burden for the child. In this case, the children. Of course no one wants to see an innocent child suffer. The already extremely burdened tax revenue will pay to care for these 14 children that this unstable women chose to bring into this world.

No Tanya, everyone is not fine with that by any means. Taxes are being raised all the time on hard working families and this makes it more difficult for them to care for their own children.  Is that fair? Certainly not.

As for Grandma...she didn't sign up for this. Calling her names was cruel. She already had a house full of grandchildren she was helping to care for. Overnight that number more than doubled. Give her a break.

[considerations]

This pretty much says it all for me. Nadya was an only child, and now her folks have six, and will soon have 14.  Smells at worst like revenge, and at best patently irresponsible.

(CNN) -- The California home where Nadya Suleman plans to raise her 14 children is at risk of foreclosure, CNN affiliate KTLA reported Wednesday.

Records show a notice of mortgage default was filed Feb. 9 against the home where the octuplets' mother is living.

Records show a notice of mortgage default was filed Feb. 9 against the home where the octuplets' mother is living.

Los Angeles County property records show a notice of mortgage default was filed Feb. 9 against the home of Suleman's mother, Angela Suleman, the station reported.

Angela Suleman is $23,225 behind in her mortgage payments and the three-bedroom house could be sold at an auction beginning May 5, documents say.

Suleman has said that she was raising her six children in her mother's home and planned to raise her newborn octuplets there.

News of the foreclosure is the latest twist in the tale of Suleman and her children.

Suleman, 33, had the octuplets through fertility treatments, despite being single and already having six young children and no clear source of income.

The television station could not reach Suleman or her mother for comment, because the phone number at the home had been disconnected.

A spokeswoman for Suleman recently quit because she had been flooded with death threats from people angry that Suleman is receiving disability payments and food stamps to help raise her children.

That spokeswoman, Joann Killeen, told CNN's Larry King on Monday that grandmother Angela Suleman had taken care of Suleman's six children at the home while Suleman was on bed rest for 10 weeks before giving birth to the octuplets.

"Grandma is tired," Killeen said. "Grandma and grandpa are in their 70s. You know, they've raised a daughter. I'm sure they didn't think that they were going to be helping to raise six children."

[tanya]

Well apparantly a former BF of the mom has stepped forward and although she denies he is the sperm donor says he will help her raise those 14 children ANYWAY because he has two children and knows it will be hard for her with 14. So you see there are nice people, helpful people who do care.  I think that if a sperm donor is going to donate potential children then his liability for those children should remain with him until they are raised.  In other words if the mother (or parents) carries out the potential duties, fine, he has not had to worry himself BUT once the mom/parents are unable to and particulalry in the case where no other arrangements are possiblee then yes the donor should be accountable why not.  If they are automatically not accountable then what stops everyone from just using IVF and saying hey she had those kids!!!  Until fairly recently that was how things were, if the coule was married then great dad was responsible but if they were not married that could be anyones child (sperm donor) but now there are tests so why should those tests prevent a sperm donor from responsibility?  As far as MY thoughts go onthe thing I think everyone should have as many chldren as they want to have and care for.  I ALSO think there should be FREE sterilization clinics for both sexes with nice fat stipends for having the procedures.  Then the people who do not want children won t be having them and the ones who dowant children can have a bunch without everyone being all pissed off that they are paying for taking care of low income children because there wont be nearly as many to take care of.  Lots of free sterilization with BIG stimulas stipends attached.  That is my idea. 

[NM_Shooter]

Did you say sterilization with stimulation? 

Whoa. 

[glenn kangiser]

Sounds exciting.

[MountainDon]

Yep, a guy came forward and claims he's the donor and O-M denies that as not true. Maybe he just wants his 15 minutes of fame?  Maybe he's an honest to goodness good guy. That's superb.

As for...

what stops everyone from just using IVF and saying hey she had those kids

...
That would be; the donor Dad truly loves the Mom, he is a responsible, caring father who loves his child, and so on. IVF is also too expensive for general indiscriminate use. Then there's also the loss of the fun factor.     Married folks do like to have fun too, as well as have kids. We've had a lot more fun than kids, but that's another story altogether and totally irrelevant too.

I absolutely agree with your statement...

I think everyone should have as many children as they want to have and care for.

... The key phrase there is "care for". Care for involves more than simply love for the child. It encompasses financial responsibility as well.

If people want to have themselves sterilized that should be an available personal choice with no financial rewards involved, just as there should be no financial rewards for having children, other than the usual income tax exemption.

Whether or not there are paternity tests is irrelevant. Donors, especially anonymous donors, are providing a service wanted by others. The donor provides one half of the required material. The prospective birth person provides the other portion. Wham! You got a baby, or two, or more. The donor is no more responsible for the baby than the guy who sells you the 2x4's you use to build a houseis. If the house falls down because the builder made the poor decision to glue the lumber together with Elmer's school glue instead of nails it is not the fault of the lumber vendor.

Sperm donors responsibility ends when the donation lands in the specimen cup.

[MountainDon]

Or, I guess with the rational that donor's should be responsible, then if someone donates blood to a person and that person survives (hallelujah!!) but then kills someone    , then the blood donor is just as responsible and should be held responsible for the killing.   

[annamay]

I see there are many opinions on this matter already but I would like to give mine as well. This woman is mentally not all there. She has since given an interview and in one sentence says she is not on welfare, but in the next, she says that she does get $475 dollars a month in foodstamps. She believes that they are not government assistance. hmmm...  Also, she has been raising her first 6 babies (all from invitro) on school financial aid. she went to 6 years of school but used most of the money to raise her "kids". She also gets money because 4 of the first 6 kids are disabled in some way, which, gets her money from that. She is sick, sick, sick!! Her doctors ae unscrupulous for continuing to take money and implant more kids. There should be a psych evaluation after say 5 children!
Also, since the inital birth of the the 8 babies, she has recently lost the home she was living in. It was her parents but it was a rental they had, and no payments have been made since October, so CPS recently came and took all of the kids from her at least temporarily so already there are problems and the taxpayers are paying!!! 

I would not presume to say how many  children a person should have and have even considered medical help to have a child myself because it has not happened for me and I am 38 but something keeps me from going that far. I guess I am trying to have faith that it will happen naturally for me. I come from a large family, myself and 6 older brothers. My dad had 12 brothers and sisters. Our life was poor although at the time I never felt like my life was terrible and all of us grew up to be hard working good people so lets not bash on large families. They have a lot to offer and I think each family usually continues on in the manner their family has for generations and it usually works out.

I believe the for profit medical system took advantage of this womans mental health because it is clear at least to me from just one news interview that she is misguided and ill. Kind of like those people you hear about who have 50 animals in their house because they want to help them all. There heart was in the right place but mentally they had no idea what they are doing.

OK.... glad i got that off my chest... he he
I am glad to have found this forum and it is nice that it wanders to different subjects from time to time!
Have a great day all!

[MountainDon]

  to the asylum annamay. 

[tanya]

I still think free sterilization with a nice fat stipend attached would provide faster results than any other govt. regulations.  IF they are going to get involved in peoples choices concerning family size whether it is because they have to pay for, feed or provide medical care a nice fat stipend and sterilization would save billions quick! 

A welfare family recieves about $6,000 cash assistance for a year with two children.  That is just cash assistance, notmedical coverage or food stamps.  WEll if that one family choose a one time $6,000 sterilization stipend instead of having children the state would save the $6,000 PER YEAR PLUS the additional monies involved in food stamps and medical costs to raise the children.  I am not saying Govt. should mandate it by any means but I am saying it would be a lovely cost saving initiative.  Not only would it help taxpayers but families who have the number of children they want would also get a nice benefit by taking responsibility before any little "mistakes" could happen. 

[MountainDon]

I am bothered by something that I see underlying your statements about either being paid to be sterilized or the alternative of paying for the children that can not be supported by ones own family. You want people to be rewarded for both good and bad behavior. That is, pay people to be sterilized or else pay for the upbringing of those people's kids. The fact that the money to pay for those policies would be coming from other hard working Americans seems to be lost on you, or at least doesn't bother you.


I strongly feel that you do not really want to get the government involved in any of this "family planning by sterilization". Every time you open a door a crack governments big foot gets firmly inserted making it impossible to close again. Start down that road and before you can say "tubal ligation" somebody will be advocating that be done as a normal part of the birth of a second child.


I'm glad to see you clarified what you mean by the sterilization payment. You are advocating a one time payment, not a stipend. A stipend is a recurring payment, like weekly, monthly or annually.

[annamay]

You know i am not a big advocate of welfare or just giving money to people that don't try to help themselves but IF it is really necessary why not take away welfare if you have MORE kids while you are on it and maybe we could come up with an incentive plan for young adults NOT to have children before they can take care of them. Lets say a one time payment of $10 grand, if you reach 28 years old without being a drain on the system, to use for buying a first home or something to that effect?  Surely if you focus this offer first to children in disadvantaged areas it "Could" work I am not saying this is a well thought out plan but surely this would both save money for the government, give young adults time to learn about responsibility, and grow up enough to fully understand the implications of having a child.
 

[glenn kangiser]

I just can't let this pass.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/25/state/n103410S81.DTL

[MountainDon]

I'm speechless   

[glenn kangiser]