Based on what - pure arbitrariness?

And does that mean living kids or living and dead kids? So if I have 4 children and then one of them dies, can I have another one?

Pretty please.

And advocates for eugenics?

One woman--one--goes crazy, and y'all want to summon the fertility police.

i would support kudzu for president. He is one of my favorite posters and i think he is probably correct in most things. He just happens to be wrong on this issue however, i'm rolling his ideas around in my head to see if perhaps i've overlooked something.

I think that my position is correct because i'm thinking of the fate of the children and not the rights of the woman. Which, I understand, kudzu sees as a hypocrisy. I say it's best not to bring kids into the world if you don't have the time or the means to take care of them properly. It is a harsh world and why should kids be subjected to the whims of narcissistic parents? As Mrs. Utah and others pointed out, having 8 kids implanted is not only dangerous to the mom it's dangerous to the babies. It causes unnecessary suffering. I just can't stand even thinking about it. It's inhuman to bring babies into the world to make them suffer. That's why i really feel that the doctors should be held accountable, but the mother too as I'm sure she was told that her uterus wasn't designed to hold so many babies.

I think we have social responsibility to our community, our neighbors, our families, but most of all, to our kids.

As for the men who run around and have multiple babies with multiple girlfriends, I have no empathy for them. They show complete indifference to the lives of the little ones they are fathering.

yeah, I actually do believe in God and I know he's very disappointed in me for these views.

This is too obvious to bother answering. You already know the answer.

No, you've already got two too many. You'll have to kill three of them first.

I would not necessarily forcefully sterilize her. But I certainly would not let her even think about IV. After three or four I would let the state pay for any sterilization, and make it available to anyone on welfare or whose kids are supported by welfare.

If the woman (or the loser bf) displays this sort of behavior, I would forcefully make her undergo a psych evaluation before deciding whether she must be sterilized. Rationale is the following: after 5 kids, it's extremely likely the children will not be getting adequate attention and Child-protective services have to get involved anyway.

Bullpoop, Katy. If there is a god, I'm sure he values individual thinking at least as much as regurgitating what you hear around you or are raised to believe without giving it much thought. Do you think he gave you either a brain or free will and hoped you would use neither?

I was wondering when we were going to get around to that.

I strongly support people not being able to get on welfare, or have conjugal visits in prison, unless they are on some sort of birth control that they can't just skip or forget.

Now that God has been brought up here is an article that I found-it mentions the couple that had sextuplets from Minneapolis. (5 of which have died)

Multiple births bring dangers;church teaching urges caution

Just found this interesting.

Unfortunately if hyperovulation is accomplished and conception occurs this is where couples are faced with the decision to reduce. For many it is not even a consideration because life for them begins at conception.

Babies are not generally viable until 23 weeks and then will still have a multitude of problems. They are formed and tiny. I have held them before-about the size of my hand (which is seven inches long)

I am hoping that with all of the talk that has come from this story that regulations will follow-including couples agreeing to reduce if necessary as a requirement to being given these medications and procedures.

A perfectly acceptable and sensible idea. But still not the issue here.

Or, rather, not the issue I was more concerned with. In reading some of the other posts, I'm struck by how similar in structure this debate is to that of abortion rights. Some here want to make it about the rights of the individual, and some want to put the focus on the rights of the collective, just like prolifers try to make the issue about the rights on an unborn entity, while the pro-choice side wants to make it about the rights of the individual who is carrying the said entity. It is definetely not a simple situation, and I can see both sides. But when the rubber hits the road, I'll choose the rights of the person who I know is sentient over the rights of an entity that I'm not even sure is alive.

By the same token, with this issue, I will go for the protection of the individual rights of everyone, rather than the extrapolated "what ifs" and assumptions that have to occur for the negative consequences being discussed to take place.

I don't have a problem with a few cents being taken from my tax dollars to pay for the exploitations of a few, if it means that my civil rights, and those of others, are kept intact.

So what do we do with this particular situation? Or what do we do to see that this (probably uniquley extreme) situation doesn't reoccur? And is that prevention that important to you that you can so easily accept the notion of possible cessation of civil liberties?

Should she have been sterilzed after the first child, or the sixth? Where is the line drawn? Do we take these children away from her? Cut off any public assistance, and make her children suffer for her trespasses?

Or what?

Again, I have no problem with fitting the bills to keep the civil rights in question here intact. I would rather my tax dollars go for that, than , say, enforcing drug laws or killing brown people the world over. You , and most here, do have a problem with it. That is fine. I don't think the children should suffer for their parent's mistakes, nor do I think the state has the right to decide what anyone does with their body.

Also, if we lived in a state where there was no public assistance, do you not think this woman would continue to have children? I am guessing she would. Would you then feel better knowing that her children were suffering, but at least you weren't being charged needless funds for the purpose of alleviating their misery? Because that, after all, was "what they deserve." I do not want to live in a world where we allow her children to suffer because her mom pissed us off. If we do aspire to a more compassionate society, it will be exploited. That is the very real price we'll pay. But that is no reason to lose sight of the bigger picture.

My point to this whole situation is this: the woman in question is an isolated incident that everyone has gotten so angry about, they have allowed the notion that the right over one's own body should be superseded by the will of the state.

I can decide when I'm trying and when I'm not, thanks. As omniscient as you think you are, you don't know what goes in in my head. If I ask for clarification and you want to run to the comfort of finger pointing, I can't stop you.

But it was not clear at all. You jumped from one social situation to another. The issue was never that costs were involved in "society having too many babies." Hell, we know that, even assuming we let you decide how many is "too many". The costs you were mentioning had more to do with illegal immigration that the reproductive rights of American citizens. I had made a point that welfare exploitation, as practiced by the citizens we were discussing putting reproductive limitations on, was not as costly as it was often made to seem. Your response was some out-of-the-blue statement about how much it was costing us to fit the bill for illegal immigrants who came here to have babies. Different issue entirely. The issues are only tangentially related.

I asked you to further explain something, and your response is to put the onus of understanding on me, when yuou are the one making a point using an example that only made sense in your head. Nice. Put the onus of stupidity on others. Good little trick, there.

Now who'se dealing in hyperbole? At the turn of last century, they were "expecting" us to have flying cars and be living on the moon. Again, more assumption as an ad hoc strawman.

Global warming neither proves nor disproves your declaration that "overpopulation is responsible for most of, if not all, of the conflict" in the world today. Even conflicts that may have overpopulation as a ancillary component are not due to mere shortage due to population concerns, but exploitation of a crooked power structure that is using it for the furthering of their own power. History shows that exploitation would occur if there was half the population and twice the resources.

The issue at hand is not the overpopulation of our society. Again, no one has questioned this familial aspirations of, say, Angelina Jolie, because she can afford the expenses for all those kids. No one has suggested she not procreate again becuase of overpopulation concerns. No one has said that about this lady, either. The real uproar has been caused by who will fit the bill, not the long-term ramifications, on a global level, of a California woman having eight more kids. If she were weatlhy, I'm sure there would be some residual snideness. but it would otherwise be a be non-issue.

Yes, I know a lot of Jolie's kids are adopted, but she has had three biological, and wishes to have more biologically, which runs counter to the ideals I have seen brought up here.

The only reason I brought up China is that it truly is a repressive society, and such laws regarding childbirth are indicative of such.even in this instance, with such seemingly altruistic motives. The concerns of individual rights were shoved aside for a state-sponsored initiative. And more, I might add, to allow for better control and containment by it's governing body, notfor the betterment of humanity (either domestically or worldwide), or any noble, planet-saving intent. I don't think even you would buy their posturing to the contrary.

Nor am I . But I do consider it the lesser of two evils, and resent the stirring up of emotions in an effort to assuage them.

I brought up Reagan, but it is a strawman still being used by Limbaugh, Gingrich, etc. I was not intentionally using a figure because of your "hatred " of him, he was simply the most immediate and accessible personification I could think of.

The idea of fear mongering is not a mere historical anecdote, it was only perfected by Reagan and his minions. But to be aware of them is no less pertinent today. It is still very much a propagandic weapon, especially regarding this very issue.

By the way...I don't hate Ronald Reagan. I disagreed with him, and did not vote for the man. On the whole, he was not a bad president, in spite of my intense dislike of some of the beliefs he harbored.

The minute you decided to chime in with your two cents, when I was discussing this with Katy. Her argument was for the enforced limitations s of reproductive activities, and mine was against it, when you decided to chime in about your agreement with Chinese population control and your superfluous analysis of the cost of illegal immigration.

As I said before, monetary considerations are pretty much a dead end, either too insignificant to worry about, or more expensive to implement and enforce than the "problem" it was being set up to alleviate. Your desire to spread the issue to be one of all encompassing corrosiveness due to overpopulation, in an effort to rationalize your ideas, is all well and good, I don't disagree with you, at least not completely. But it is not the discussion I was having with Katy or Mrs. U or even Sylar. Perhaps your frustration is due to being involved in a conversation that only you seem to be aware of.

Forced sterilization (as well as other aspects of governmental infringement upon reproductive rights) was the concept we were discussing, and if you don't wish to be involved in such a debate, take a seat and shut the **** up. And if you wish to discuss your ideas on welfare refrom, start a thread.

Yes, your ideas about fiscal responsibility make sense. I don't disagree with them in principle. And your ideas about welfare control make an enourmous amount of sense. But they are only peripherally related to the issue we were discussing.


You know what, Blarg? The grand declaration that "two kids is plenty" is not for you to decide. Nor is whether I have kids, nor how many anyone else has. Sorry, I am not prepared to cede that choice to anyone, least of all someone whose sole contribution to society seems to be their fanciful bloviation.

You are only a cog in this machine, a little louder and more abrasive than some, but of no more authority to make such a claim than the mother of octuplets is to make the claim that the world needs more children. She can, after all, only speak for herself, as can you, and myself. Unlike you, I only wish to be allowed to make choices for myself, and think others should be afforded the same right.

There is a pot/kettle observation just waiting to be made, here.

Not in this thread though.

Actually, I'd like to hear the answer to these questions as well. Those who favor such, what do you base it on if not pure arbitrariness?

Wait a second...you don't think I'm perfect?

That hurts.

That said, I hope you aced your test.

Look, I have no truck with anyone who is concerned about the kids, but to say someone cannot adequately handle them after a certain volume is just to assumptive for my taste.

And I definitely have no issues with those who think the agency should have refused this woman the procedure for safety concerns. Like I have said, I think they have tremendous blame to shoulder.

Let me put things in a little more personal perspective. I am an only child, and so is my wife (well, she actually has a half brother who is 23 years younger than her, so she grew up as an only child). It is a damn lonely life, one that neither of us would wish on anyone else. I used to watch bigger families, or see how my dad interacted with his nine brothers and sisters, and it seemed damn near idyllic to me.

Now, to be fair, I do seem to be able to develop more durable friendships than many I know, and think that is one reason why. But still, I always wanted a big family.

I have three kids, and I see how much joy each one brings me, and each in a different way. And the thought that I would have missed out on one, or would be told that I could never have another, strikes me in a personal way that only enhances my position. I don't think anyone should be prevented from trying to grab all the happiness they can, even if that means sometimes nudging society in a direction it does not like. If that is selfish, so be it.

Granted, the mother in question may have pushed that whole thing a little too far. Hell, I wanted more, and stopped. Perhaps she should have shwon that kind of mindset. It is easy for me to consider her selfish, and immature, and delusional. Part of me is no different than anyone here, in wanting to grab her by the shoulders, shake the living **** out of her, and scream "What the hell are you trying to prove?"

But I can't help thinking that growing up in that environment, in spite of the material things they may lack, will give those kids something that is truly different. And who am I to take that away from someone due to my own personal consternation?

As has been posted, God gave you a brain to think. If you sometimes come to conclusions that are not perfect, that is not a disappointment. It's a joyful part of the process.

Okay, enough fun for one day. I go now to watch Supernatural.

Yeah...well...you just may be right about that.

ahem, I believe i drew the line at four.

Public assistance should be given people who find themselves in need, after trying on their own and suffering a setbaack. It doesn't appear that a woman who chose to have 14 kids is trying very hard to find a job


I do understand your point of view on the first sentence above, and I have to admit that I'm not 100% comfortable with my position on this. In general people should be able to decide what to do with their body. But I am sure NO ONE in this thread wants to see the children suffering. That's the point. I don't know why I keep coming back to the long-term outlook for the kids. It seems to me that the Calif. mother has blinders on or complete indifference for the health of her own children.

Gah. Yes I realize that I am being judgmental and yes it is bothering me. I am struggling with it in my own head. Should I judge her harshly, or should I be more compassionate? I really don't know. I do see your point, kudz. But in the end, I feel that what this one individual is doing to her own offspring is wrong. How much attention can her 6 children at home get when she is caring for 8 newborns? Geeez. You may not see it from my perspective and in the end I might be way off the mark, but right now I just feel like she is not looking at the big picture or any of the repercussions on her kids.

I know you think that my concern is the societal burden and the injustice of having to foot the bill for this woman. But actually, I'm pretty appalled at her choices and how they impact her babies. The whole point is some of us do not want to see babies suffering. If I were in her shoes (not that I'd ever want more babies after having SIX at home) I would have selectively aborted, just as Mrs. Utah is saying. It is the only sensible thing to do.


Actually, I think we did question Angelina's actions a year ago. Someone else refresh my memory, didn't we frown at what she is doing? I'm sure we did in one of our threads. I do respect your position that a woman should be able to decide how many children she wants and not have the state step in to our bedrooms. But weigh this against the potential for children to be neglected and harmed. I see continuous disregard for the safety and welfare of kids who are often brought into the world by narcissists, as if they are kittens to be played with when they are small, and then neglected as they grow out of the cute stage. It is not fair to the kids. I've seen too many terrible parents and too many children shunted around from foster home to foster home. It's heartbreaking. And the thought of someone choosing 8 kids all at once seems so negligent to someone like me.

But katy assuming that having more kids automatically and summarily equals your kids being raised poorly/badly is not justified because it would have to be applied across the board, to everyone.

My mother has 8 brothers and sisters (would have had 9 but one died at birth). My grandmother had kids every 2 years, just like clockwork (my mom is the baby and there is 20 years difference between her and her eldest brother). They were a poor farm family...they NEVER had enough money for everyone and everything that society would deem that they ought. My mom never wore shoes and clothes that weren't hand-me-downs and/or self-sewn. There was never any money for any of them to go to college...but some of them still found a way to go.

So - by your logic - since they didn't have a lot of money and my grandparents never really planned out their child-bearing (or merely relied upon "Catholic" birth control ), my mother and her siblings were raised poorly/badly/unjustly?

I don't think that any of them would agree with you.

Narrative fallacy.

Meaning what?

LOL. I always know Blarg has taken a weak stance in an argument when he starts relying on the two word responses.

Meaning that just because you have a story, it doesn't mean a good argument is being made by it.

Do you feel that those stories people love to tell you of their third uncle smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day since he was 12 years old and living to the age of 95 are indicative of the health effects of smoking?

Sure, you can have another one. In my mind it means four living kids. come on, what good are four dead kids? Why would I make a rule that says you can only have 3 living and 1 dead kid? How mean do you think I am? And all kidding aside, I'm not suggesting that we go around and dictate how many kids EVERYONE can have, only those people who show severe lack of judgment and common sense and already have SIX OF THEM AT HOME and don't have any means to support any of them (well except maybe sending grandpa to Iraq). Also, those loser dads who go around impregnating multiple women and not helping to raise their own offspring. Those guys should be fixed if you ask me.

China messed up when it decided on 1 child per couple. That is a dumb rule, too rigid and anyone can see that it asks too much. They should have made the policy 2 or 3 kids. Then families would have been happy and parents could have felt comfortable going into their old age.

My 4 children rule is perfectly reasonable given the world the way it is now. We don't have farms that need a lot of children to help with chores. I guess if you have a ranch or something you could petition for 5 kids if you really thought that it was necessary.

My story is just as valid a justification for my stance in this debate as are the huge assumptions being put forth by katyseagull and others, including yourself, about how the mother is going to be raising these children. As far as I know, she isn't using government-sponsored assistance of any kind to raise her children...so how is that a valid justification for your argument? And the children haven't been raised yet so automatically assuming that they're going to be raised poorly/badly/unjustly etc. merely because the mother has an excessive amount of children according to current societal standards is an equally shaky support for your stance.

So...what is your point again?

Pass.

No no no no. First, did you not see where i said that maybe Catholics should be exempt? Second, I'm not saying that anyone who came from a big family, or whose parents came from big families, are irrelevant/worthless/were raised badly, etc. Not saying that at all. Give me a little credit for realizing that many people were raised in large families either because of religious beliefs or because their culture encouraged it (farmhands? fishing families?) That doesn't mean that I think they or their parents were bad. I'm saying starting RIGHT NOW, in today's society with today's economy and social structure....exempting Catholics because they don't do the birth control routine ....given that most of us aren't trying to run a farm....RIGHT now might be a good time to decide that single parents with no live-in partner and no job should not have more than 4 kids. phew.

I'm sure your mom and her siblings were raised by loving parents in a very secure home. Let me ask you, were her parents married to each other? Did your grandmother ever have 8 babies implanted in her all at once?

oh gee, really?

Sure...MOST of us aren't...but some still are. What if they want to have a large family then, following in the same tradition as their grandparents and parents, etc.? Then what? If you're making your 4 kid/rule across the board, then you're restricting their rights also.


Yes, they were married (but only one officially had a job - i.e., farmer - so it is somewhat similar in that this mother will be the sole breadwinner. Of course she didn't have 8 babies implanted in her. But she also didn't have someone telling her what she could and couldn't do with her own body.