LarryMullen's POPAngel
Blue Crack Distributor
What a damn fool.
What doctor let her have in virtro 7 + times???
One that has dollar bills in his eyes.
It's so sad that for some it ultimately comes down to the almighty dollar.
This is really getting sadder all the time. I understand that those companies that usually bless people with free stuff don't want to encourge her, or others may follow her example on purpose just to get famous and get sponsored into an easy life. But the real victims here are those 14 kids, with their mother shunned, they're likely to suffer poverty and neglect all their lives, and be made fun of at school
If she's obsessed with having kids maybe she can rent out her body as a surrogate. That way she won't have to keep and raise them all, and she can make childless couples happy. Maybe some doggie rescue group can save this litter and adopt them all out to approved families before it's too late.
Suleman says it took seven years of trying before she became pregnant with her first child.
It's a reproductive choice.
I thought she looked a bit like Angelina Jolie.
Angela Suleman said Nadya's boyfriend was the biological father of all 14 children, but that she refused to marry him.
"He was in love with her and wanted to marry her," she said. "But Nadya wanted to have children on her own."
Nadya Suleman, a divorced single mother, told NBC's "Today" show that the same fertility specialist provided in-vitro fertilization for all 14 of her children.
Angela Suleman seemed to contradict that account, saying the fertility specialist who helped her daughter give birth to the octuplets was a different doctor from the one who aided in the birth of her first six children.
Angela Suleman said she and her husband pleaded with Nadya's first fertility doctor not to treat their daughter again, so Nadya found another doctor to work with.
"I'm really angry about that," Angela Suleman said of the doctor's decision to perform the procedure.
A Medical Board of California spokeswoman said Friday that it was investigating the doctor — who has not been identified — to see if there was a "violation of the standard of care." The spokeswoman did not elaborate on the nature of the potential violations.
Angela Suleman also challenged her daughter's remarks in the NBC interview that she always wanted a large family to make up for the loneliness she felt as an only child.
"We raised her in a loving family and her father always spoiled her," Angela said.
Looks like she had at least a nose job and gross amounts of lip work She's obviously capable of coming up with the money for that on her own.It looked like she had plastic surgery on her face.
This is my huge problem with the whole thing. This statement and her own words in an interview I watched last night where she said she had the need to connect and that's why she had children.Angela Suleman also challenged her daughter's remarks in the NBC interview that she always wanted a large family to make up for the loneliness she felt as an only child.
"We raised her in a loving family and her father always spoiled her," Angela said.
How Many Children is Too Many?
By Lisa Belkin (columnist)
New York Times, February 9
Nadya Suleman has told her side of her story to Ann Curry, and I don’t feel the outrage I’d expected to feel. With her doctors, yes, but not with Suleman. For her I just feel sad. What I saw on the Today Show this morning was a woman with Angelina Jolie’s lips, and, one might extrapolate, her dream of a sprawling family. Her reason, Suleman told Curry, was she’d felt lonely and unloved as a child, and wanted to fill that void.
As she tells the story, 6 embryos were transferred with each of her previous pregnancies. 4 of those transfers resulted in a single baby. One resulted in twins. This final time though, the 6 embryos led to 8 newborns, meaning she was never trying to have 14 children, she was trying to have 7, with a slight risk of 8, but knew going in that she would not selectively reduce should there be more.
So let’s just talk about the 7 or 8 anticipated children. 8 children? When you have no income and just one pair of hands? When your goal in the first place was to give your kids the time and attention you didn’t get as a child? How do you give enough time and attention to 8—never mind 14? The question at the core of all this is: how many is too many? It was a question explored by Kate Zernike yesterday in the Style section, in an article about the stigma parents of large families feel—the stares from strangers, the assumptions that they are some sort of “religious freaks.” A few of the families in the story had as many as a dozen kids, but most were feeling judged with 5 or 6.
So, public opinion, as judged from the talk shows and the blogosphere, says 14 is too many. And it feels like Nadya Suleman’s quest for her seventh was also too many. But 5? How about 4? Is there such a difference between 4 and 5? Or 5 and 6? Or the jump to 7? What’s one more, really? Then why do we feel so strongly? The “line,” when you start examining it, is arbitrary. In China, where the law limits most families to one, a poll shows that 70% of women want 2 or more. (The fact that Chinese authorities released that poll earlier this year is seen as a hint that the law might change. Perhaps that has something to do with stories like this.)
The “right” number seems to lie somewhere between China and Nadya Suleman. And each of us believes we know it when we reach it (and we know that it’s been crossed by someone else). But on what do we base that belief? The ability to pay for the children? The limits on the attention they will receive? Is Suleman right when she tells Curry that people are judging her not because of the size of her brood, but because she chose to have them as a single Mom? How many is too many, and who gets to decide?