I read Jackie C.'s three-line, one-sentence blurb on this topic and decided I did not want to leave a comment that would be longer and more thoughtful than her post. Supporting people who post comments, questions, or irresponsible nonsense instead of complete articles falls in the same category as watching FOX news or shopping at Wal-mart for me, so I will not do it any more.
I will not mention the names of any families who have delivered full litters of children, because I would prefer they not get the publicity that everyone gives them already. My purpose is to share my response to Jackie's blurb - "I don't understand why a woman who all ready has 6 little on ranging from 2 year old twins to 7 years and then have fertility treatment." (I capitalized her 'I' so you would know that was the beginning of her sentence, and added the period at the end. The rest is unaltered.)
Unlike the commenter on that thread, who said, "It's a mother's personal choice and being a mother is the greatest gift in the world," I do not think this should be a mother's choice. Being a mother should be the greatest gift in the world to the child, not the parent. Bringing an unhealthy child into the world with a full litter of siblings is a selfish act, not a gift.
I think responsible adults who wish to raise children adopt if they are unable to conceive and deliver. If the need to produce a child is greater than the need love and raise a child, I doubt those parents have sufficient parenting skills for one, much less a litter.
Invariably, since normally there are only a few ways that multiples are conceived, multiple births are the result of fertility treatments - trying to play God. Yet, the parents who have already tried to play God in conception, state they have no right to play God and trim their self-induced "miracles" to healthy proportions. My guess is that many of them are also of the "hold on to my hard-earned money, no welfare" persuasion, yet they cannot raise their litters without the assistance of others (welfare).
The delivery of the latest octuplets required 46 medical professionals (who had practice runs before hand) just for the Caesarean section. These children will need continued medical attention. A couple are still on respirators.
In my opinion, it is totally irresponsible to purposely deliver children into danger, to purposely deliver children that you know you cannot afford to care for properly, and to purposely deliver children that you cannot possibly give the time and attention they deserve.
(In case my first paragraph didn't make this clear, I also think it is irresponsible to post a one sentence "article" with no facts or opinions. People who posts to Gather also have access to the internet where they can look up the information they need to actually form an opinion and write something. I can't understand why those "articles" receive high ratings and comments, while work that others have put thought and time into go ignored. In the future, any time my comment would be longer than the article, I am posting it as an article.)
Naked mole rats have up to 27 offspring in a litter, with an average of 12. Anybody want to shoot for that record?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/28/octuplet.risks/index.html extreme multiple births carry tremendous risks
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 185
personally, i think it is also irresponsible, and should be illegal of the medical experts to allow this to happen as they are being paid to put these children at risk, so they can get paid to fix them later.
When a woman uses responsible contraception, she hurts no one. When a woman opts for a legal abortion, she hurts no one. And this contingent gets all up in arms about this. But, having babies that place a financial and societal burden on the rest of us is alright and we are supposed to shut up about it and praise Jesus?
I don't think this issue is really about a large family either. It's about the irresponsability of a woman with her health and the health of her children. She had no business in purposely having that many babies when she can't afford the ones she has.
"Thinning the herd" can be difficult for some people. They haven't really been saying a lot about this birth, and I have questions. Were these all invitro and implanted? That's a LOT of embryos to implant. Was it the result of fertility drugs that made her body release a lot of eggs? I just read that recommendations are changing on how many embryos to implant at once ... doctors are finding people just can't abort the extras and in the interests of having at least one survive and be healthy, they're cutting down on the number implanted.
I think that anyone who gets these procedures needs to be ready and willing to cut down the numbers to a point where they can realistically care for the babies AND that the babies will arrive healthy. Pumping out litters of unhealthy children destined to add to the public debt isn't such a great idea for a society. Sure, sometimes things happen, but to do it on purpose just isn't right, in my opinion.
I've read a few things that seem to indicate that certain religious groups forbid "thinning" ... that once conceived, you are morally bound to to HAVE those babies, come what may. God will provide.
It's going to take a whole village to raise those children. What of the children born before this media fiasco? I bet they are going to have a lot of "what am I? chopped liver?" kind of issues. I know I sure would.
I know how incredibly hard it was to raise my children one at a time. It's almost more than a parent can do ... if you're doing it right. IF you're paying attention to the child's needs. It's not easy noticing those little things that tell you something is wrong ... and physical problems are much easier to spot than subtle emotional ones.
When multiple births were a shocking surprise, that feeling of the whole community gathering around to help was much more reasonable. Multiple births do happen. I'm not sure what the highest number of children born without the benefit of fertility drugs is, but I think the last I heard was five. Those are the people who deserve the community's attention. Having huge numbers of kids on purpose is like chopping off your own ear for attention. In my opinion.
Now maybe the parents are just whackos and really wanted this many kids (and didn't do it for the attention and donations), but it's getting harder and harder to believe that when one after another of these huge "litters" are born and you watch the ensuing maelstrom of media attention.
I wish them well. I especially hope the children who live are healthy.
Food, shelter, love, support, guidance - who needs that feel-good hippie crap?
CC, I've thought about how irresponsible it is for doctors to allow this. I would be interesting to see how Bush's little "if it's against your religion you don't have to participate" would fit into this, huh? Think doctors and hospitals that do this would have to hire rational people and then let them refuse to assist this patient?
You aren't dreaming, Lisa. I tried to imply that in my little-more-than-a-blurb-almost-sorta-article.
I love you, Richard.
I agree, Nippy. Actually, I'm proof.
babies are a big money maker. that's what this comes down to. if it really wasn't about the money, the treatments would be a free service.
fertility treatments are a way to feed one's ego. a person becomes so obsessed with their own desire to pass on their genes that they will go to any length to get it. the doctors are feeding their egos by proving or attempting to prove that they can force conception when there otherwise wouldn't have been one.
Lacey, you might disagree with my opinion - and that's fine, with me - but it is not uneducated or ignorant (I think those words mean the same thing, but will assume you don't since you used both.) If a person/couple can't afford adoption, how do they expect to be able to afford to raise children?
Is she a part of some whacko religious group that stresses breed til you succeed Barbara, I don't know if this is true in this case. My first thought was Quiverfull, which always makes me a little sick. I wish them well, too, but can't imagine that all will be well for those children - physically or emotionally.
is whether each of the 14 kids is going to have their own ATV and their own gun. Good question, Sara. I'm sure there are several groups, probably right here on Gather, taking up collections to make sure they all have these things.
I read this morning that very early in the pregnancy, the mother was offered the option to "reduce" the litter, and she refused. But I agree with La Lady Lisa...women have two breasts. Doesn't that suggest what a maximum "litter" size should be?
I don't know if anyone else mentioned it...this woman already has six kids! Why on earth would she resort to fertility treatments to have even more? Her actions are irresponsible as a parent, and irresponsible as a member of the human species...which has disastrously overpopulated the planet.
You're just courting trouble now, aren't you? ;-)
I had low-level fertility treatments to conceive FOW#1, and by that, I mean: I was on Chlomid. One cycle worked. Thank god in his wisdom that he was not part of a Crew O' Baby Critters. I doubt I would have survived.
Having said that, the whole octuplets story is one I've avoided, mostly because I'm afraid there will be a reality show about it eventually, and I don't want to ruin my own surprise. Isn't that why people do things in this day and age -- for their 15 minutes?!
I'm more interested in the possible 128 year old woman in Uzbekistan. I'll bet she's exhausted.
I hope no one said they were "blessed" because that isn't being blessed. That is playing with science.
Let's have insurance pay for infertility treatments but screw stem-cell research (to save lives), birth control and healthcare for people who truely need it.
Yes. You first.
In response to your article, though, I just don't understand why they wanted more kids after 6 anyway and took fertility drugs to boot. That's like those old men and women that are cat/dog hoarders. Just ONE MORE, knowing damn well you can't care for them but you do it anyway.
In all honesty, we should step back and think, WWSPD?
Another thing to consider here is the health of the mother. What good would it do her living 6 kids if she had complications and died from trying to carry and deliver 8 babies? This is beyond absurd.
And I hope that I am misunderstanding Lacey's argument against adoption as it being 'hard' and 'costly' and the fact that you don't get a perfect little baby - that the children may have problems. Every time you have a child, you take the chance that something may be wrong with them - physically or mentally. It speaks volumes about people that they feel that they would accept a 'damaged' child of their own, but not one that actually is alive right now and in desperate need of love and a family.
I'm done here. My pregnancy hormones make it impossible for me to seperate myself from the debate. It's too personal for me and like I said in the other article, ignorance just irritates me anyway. Clearly, that's the case here.
you said it, it's all about the 15 minutes of fame to stroke the ego, and not about the welfare of the children both prior born and recently whelped.
But, i do think is ridiculous is to go thru fertility treatments if you already have 6 children. I don't know the womans full story though as all I read was the original article online that she had 8 babies. So I will refrain from saying anything else till I read more info about it.
In this case Sheryl, I think two "wrongs" would have made a right.
Adoption might be really expensive. But isn't it more affordable if you adopt within your country? And what is wrong with foster care? If I ever feel the need to have more children I think I would try out foster care first. They even have a weekend option.
But... I don't know why anyone with 6 kids feels it necessary to undergo treatment to have more children. If they couldn't have one, it would be different. If they couldn't have a second, slightly more understandable. But... After having six, why the necessity for more?
CREEPIEST thought, ever -- but it's dead on in this situation. Maybe that's what's been skeeving me about it the whole time...
I'm glad you brought up this topic of human litters. What kind of doctor is willing to treat a woman with fertility drugs when he knows she's successfully given birth? Why doesn't s/he have the woman's best interests at heart? Why so willing to bring multiples of children whose health is going to be questionable from the start? Is medicine all about the dollar?
I even have to question people who can afford medical assistance when trying to conceive.
There was a lawyer/educator I worked with who actually put her fertility treatments and invitro procedures on her credit card that earned frequent flyer miles. I could never figure out WHY she wanted children (she had twins), except perhaps as a way of "fitting in." She did not talk about them, have pictures of them in her office. They were trotted out at the company's holiday party so everyone could see what maladjusted brats she had spawned.
In contrast, there was a lesbian employee who had adopted two "unadoptable" toddlers. (One with developmental issues, one of mixed race parents.) She and her partner managed to raise two charming kids were obviously the reason their mommies got up in the morning.
If there is some physical reason a woman can't bear children, then she probably shouldn't, either for health reasons or mental reasons.
That is always my reaction to 4, 5, 6, 7 and now 8 births at one time. . .
Sandy I agree, I no longer view on nor will I comment on certain kinds of posts.
They have no purpose except to generate views and comments and never involve any effort or thought from the poster.
They are all of a kind, certain posters, and all view and comment on each others' deliberately highly controversial posts.
All share a lack of ability and knowledge to actually discuss the idea or topic posted.
I will not view, I will not comment, my refusal to do so has no effect, on the overall list of articles, but does leave me time to find real posts, consisting of real effort, even if the writer is not always successful in presenting their idea, information or thoughts.
I applaud them, read their posts, and sometimes comment.
I agree it is beyond irresponsible and I wonder how this person and her partner(s) have managed to live in such an oblivious bubble without friends, family, neighbors, medical professionals, etc., calling them to shore.
I say a cage match with that "John and Kate Plus Eight" crew. It could be a pay-per-view opener for WWE Wrestlemania Summer Slam.
Ha, Dorian! I think you are correct. Many women view motherhood as a sacred 'calling' and this is their only validation in life, unfortunately. Maybe they don't feel they can do anything else of worth in society beyond using their reproductive powers.
I also question these people who compare the 'costs' involved between adoption and raising a child. Who do they think is paying for all their delivery costs now? Even if it is covered by their husband's insurance, the entire pool of insureds for that plan is being affected and paying for thier 'joy' in popping kids out routinely.
Do you know how much a normal delivery costs now in the hospital, Sandy?
As I overload on thinking about 8 for sure but probably 9 kids in diapers, I project to 8 kids getting their drivers' licenses at the same time. No way they can all. borrow the family car, but buying 8 cars is what corporations do, not families.
Birthing a baby in a hospital costs between $5000-$6000 these days.
If you add special circumstances, I'd assume you add special costs.
Dorian, thanks for the chuckles.
Sheryl, I'm glad you brought this issue up. I didn't want to make this about the case currently in the news (but welcome the discussion of them in the comments), because I hoped to discuss the overall topic and problems. When I was young, pregnancy was part of life - not much changed in life for a pregnant woman other than she wore ugly clothes. Nobody made over her like she had done something that had never been done before, and she certainly didn't expect that. In recent years (okay, the last fifteen are recent to someone my age), this strange "aren't we special" phenomenon has accompanied pregnancy - even with the fathers, who are now part of "we're pregnant". Many people act as though getting pregnant is something only they have done, call it a "miracle" as though every living thing on the plant can't reproduce as a matter of nature, and expect special treatment (handicapped parking spaces, no frisking for suspected shoplifting, etc.)
At the same time, we're trying to tell kids not to get pregnant, they are seeing that the best way to become special is to get pregnant.
(my apologies to anyone who was blinded by the bold version of this comment)
Oh, I don't know about this -- that Kate seems wicked mean!
all achieved naturally.
there is nothing wrong with big families to an extent, but all were done in marriage and self supporting.
a few of us who don't have children by now have chosen not to for various reason, but also have made the decision that at our ages and lifestyles are not conducive to properly caring for children to the extent that they would be well provided and taken care of.
that's call mature responsibility and is something i think was lacking in this woman's case.
St. Joy The Baptist M. © Cranky-Pants, Mercenary and Coroner , Jan 30, 2009, 3:15pm EST
holy cow! you are so right! for a year the only television channel i got was Discovery Health (weird reception i know) and i really felt bad for John on many an occasion. NOTHING pleases that woman.
Ya, and it is those genes that the earth would probably be better off without.
What I can say is that this woman shouldn't be publicly throttled for choosing to not reduce. I couldn't do it. Some women [with naturally conceived twins] agonize over reducing one twin that will kill the other one. It's no easy thing to say, "Yes, doctor, please pick which 4 of my eight children to kill, to make sure the others live."
In any event, fertility treatment after 6 kids [if she really has 6 kids]...Why would you do that, not only to your family, but to your body?
vacations were spent visiting friends and family and sleeping on their floors and communal meals.
we didn't get our own toys, we got one we had to share, and being middle child, i got to wear only hand me downs rather than ask for donations.
Condoms weren't "in" and birth control was totally a woman's responsibility. Ever tried saying no to a husband who has been brainwashed to think sex is his "right"? (It's not rape when you're married, you know, the bible says so.)
Now we're supposed to applaud every baby bump. That's all fine for the people involved, but sisters, you don't automatically get any more respect from me for having a baby. I want you to be well, comfortable, and reasonably accomodated while you're incubating, but you'd better be up to the job when junior arrives. That's the stuff they don't tell you - the puke, piss, and poop. Having to make all decisions with someone else's best interests at the center of it all. Putting aside what YOU want because someone YOU chose to bring along has needs greater than yours.
If you choose to take all that on, either with a partner or without, good on you. But don't expect me to fall down and worship at your birth canal. Popping 'em out is the easy part.
When my son was home for the holidays from college (he's 22, a senior and lives in an apt with a friend), he said that he walked in one day and his friend was watching a show on the Discovery channel. This is what he said (pretty close):
"So, I walk in and Brian's watching this show and I asked him what it was. He said he didn't know but it was totally crazy. So I sat down and watched it for awhile. It's about this married couple with a bunch of kids - I think there's like sextuplets or something. "
[at this point I tell him I think it's the John and Kate plus 8 show - he just shrugs and goes on]
So, anyway, we're sitting there watching this totally show about these people who are absolutely miserable...like, we couldn't imagine anyone being that miserable. And the mother...such a bitch! And the husband is looking at her while she's talking, and Brian and I are laughing, because he looks at her like he absolutely hates her and wants her to die. And he wants the entire family to just go away...his wife, the cameras, all the kids. Man, that guy's life is HELL!'
[then I reminded him to always use a condom...to which he replied, "Shit,yeah!"]
Isn't that the truth!
In regards to the litters of babies, I tend to find it a bit selfish as well. I can understand a mother wanting that mother-baby bond, but seriously . . . Have any of these families thought about the babies? It's hard enough growing up in a household with one or two siblings, let alone 14! Talk about sibling rivalry!!! Imagine being the middle child in that family. I'm all for having babies but you have to take into account the child's future as well. Are some going to go to college while the others flip burgers for a living? The ages range is so close together, that they will be holding onto a wing and a prayer that all these kids end up with full ride scholarships! How is "family time" managed? 14 kids with only 24 hours in a day minus 8-10hrs spent sleeping = only an hour or so per child per day . . . if that!!! I would hate that!!!
My other argument regarding IVF and it being selfish is that there are millions of children just waiting (hoping) to be adopted and find a loving home. Granted, the adoption process is long and expensive, but no more expensive as all doctor's visits, hormone treatments, etc. that goes along with IVF. Adoption, in my opinion, would be great! In essence, you'd be able to interview your future child and decide whether or not he or she is compatible with your family.
She lives with her freaking parents. She obviously cannot afford to live on her own, or doesn't want to grow up (one article says she's "fairly young") and move out, so why in the world would she not reduce the children? An even bigger question is why in the world did she, in her predicament already, feel the need to take fertility drugs and have more children?
Her parents were as educated as a black couple could be 100 years ago. (Wil's mom is nearly 80.) They sent their children to school and many of the 9 received a college education and had professional careers. They all worked for it as a family.
These days you would have to be at least a millionaire to accomplish that. It makes no sense to have huge families. What can you do to survive? Pimp your homelife out on national tv?
Another thing that bugs the hell out of me is how these litter producers get promises of goods, services, and college educations for their kids. When it was a novelty to see triplets and a freak of nature to see quads or quints survive, I could see sponsorship being a generous gesture, and necessary to the family. But if you plan to spit out an unholy number of pups, you had better be able to provide for them because your nothing but a freak show these days.
So basically, this young mother can go on and keep having kids if that's what she chooses. Maybe she'll take Sandy up on her offer and have a bazillion kids.
You know, typically not wanting to take birth control (assuming so with the 6 other kids) or reduce the babies ... BUT playing God and taking fertility drugs to have kids God mustn't have wanted her to have.
Now THAT'S newsworthy!
" In the future, any time my comment would be longer than the article, I am posting it as an article."
I agree with that sentiment. In fact, that often becomes the case with me. Hmmmm.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
For most of us, infertility treatment is about being "normal." No explaining to people over and over again that, "No, your daughter is not blonde, blue-eyed and white as a ghost because she must look like your husband. She looks like her birthmother." Infertility treatment is about not having your children having to explain. Not having to parent a child with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome when you don't drink. Not having people ask if your children all have the same mother...or father. (I am the mother of all my children--DUH!)
Having 8 babies is not what infertility treatment is about. There is something wrong here that we don't know.
While infertility treatment and adoption may not be for everyone, I'm happy to say that while I failed at infertility treatments, I was successful three times over at becoming a parent through adoption. Yes, we spent way more on adoption than on infertility. Yes, that beautiful blonde looks nothing like me...or her dad. All three of my children are beautiful, bright and for the most part well-adjusted. They all have baggage from their birthparents...whether they came at birth or age 10. But they also got wonderful things from them.
The hard thing for many people about adoption is that your odds of ending up with a healthy American newborn are slim at best. 90% of the children in foster care are there because of drugs...and most have suffered some form of sexual abuse (ranging from seeing porn to being traded for drugs). Not everyone is ready to take that on. In that case, better they don't.
My main point is that the birth of these babies is not what infertility treatment or mothering is about.
Now THAT'S newsworthy! "
My ex-MiL was one on 17 kids. Trust me...not a good game plan.
I'll do it. Where's the pills?
Just sayin', I agree with you. Let's take care of the kids who are already here who need homes and let's make adoption something that normal people will find accessible. There are lots of non-infants and older kids who need parents too.
That is (one of) the stupidest thing(s) I've ever written. Of course I wish no such thing. It's an ill-conceived figure of speech.
I think this may be the crux of the whole matter. Those who act up all concerned about the unborn or gush over motherhood as if it were the epitome of human achievement are in some ideal fantasyland. They ignore the very real needs of real children and the immense responsibility and pitfalls of motherhood especially for the unprepared or overwhelmed. As it stands everyone I am aware of carries scars from their childhood that to a greater or lesser extent seriously limit their lives. Call me crazy, but I do believe quality of life matters.
I'll do it. Where's the pills?
Joseph H., Jan 30, 2009, 4:34pm EST
Not that kind of shooting, Joe Joe.
Now THAT'S newsworthy! "
My ex-MiL was one on 17 kids. Trust me...not a good game plan.
Doyle ( aka the MAN of 6 senses ) C., Jan 30, 2009, 4:32pm EST
80 years ago, having 9 kids didn't even make the gossip rounds unless you had 9 different fathers.