<p>Actually, JYM, it was your tasteless joking about “wombs with a view” and “lactation stations” that prompted my reply. This stuff is no joking matter, and yes, these issues are all interconnected. All part of the same big picture. Enjoy your day and play nice.</p>
<p>I thought JYM’s posts were funny. Having posted with her for years, I understand her humor as well as her compassion and insights. It can be hard, though, to know where someone is coming from when one is a new poster here.</p>
<p>Nice try, keepitsimple. People with their own personal agenda tend to use any excuse to manipulate a conversation to their own issue, and try to insist that their opinion is the only possible, and of course the only correct opinion. Move on. The fact that some people who do IVF also consider selection/reduction of embryos when there are too many goes completely against your “only possible correct opinion” argument. The only thing that is tasteless is your attempt to blame others for your attempted manipulation of a thread. Your posts #671 and 674 had nothing to do with the humor about wombs or lactation, nor about many of the other 600+ posts here. They are about an attempt to introduce a personal agenda into this thread, and I suspect that anyone who had politely asked that this not occur would have been targeted as the “reason” hyou tried to hijack the thread. Please take it elsewhere. Good day.</p>
<p>Thank you for understanding, NSM!! Appreciate your kind comments. And to bring back the levity a bit, here is the link to that old “breast milk ice cream” thread. It was funny and clever. For those of you who enjoy humor you will find it amusing.
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/570198-peta-asks-breast-milk-icecream.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/570198-peta-asks-breast-milk-icecream.html</a></p>
<p>*** Addendum:
NSM-
Thanks too for pointing out that keepitsimple is a new poster. I hadnt noticed that. Those of us who have been here a long time have seen what happens to threads when polarizing issues such as choice are brought into them. No one’s opinion changes-- the thread just becomes contentous and ultimately tanks or gets closed. I initially politely asked that that not happen to this thread and I am doing so again.</p>
<p>Keepitsimple,
I am pro-choice.
I don’t agree with Suleman’s reproductive choices but it seems it was perfectly legal in California. I would not wish the state to interfere with her choice. I disagree with the Gosselin, McCaughey, Dilley choices to not selectively abort in order to give the remaining fetuses and mother a chance at good health. But I respect their beliefs and their choices. And I merely wish for others to repect the choice of a mother to terminate her pregnancy.</p>
<p>Gee, I wonder if the gag order was only for 3 months, b/c Nadya knows she’ll need dear old Mom than…figure it out she’ll probably be bringing home the babies about that time.</p>
<p>I am sure the publicist has asked when the babies might be coming home, thus she also wants to sell Nadya’s pics before Grandma.</p>
<p>With everyday I lose more and more respect for the publicist, they actually might be more disgusting IMO than Nadya.</p>
<p>I wonder if Nadya is shocked and the animosity people feel towards her, or is she so self centered and out of touch she truly believes that the criticism is unfounded</p>
<p>I think the publicist is doing their job, and it’s a darned tough job to have!</p>
<p>I think that Nadya believes the criticism is unfounded just like she believed her own parents’ criticism of her choice was unfounded. I believe she is narcissistic. While some here have suggested that she could benefit from mental health counseling, I imagine she may be able to benefit from help with stress, but counseling wouldn’t help her address her obsessive need for children and her delusions about how well she can care for her kids. She doesn’t think she has a problem. That wouldn’t bode well for counseling. In general, to benefit from counseling, one needs to believe one has a problem.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see when she gets sued or charged with fraud.</p>
<p>"Records obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations show that Suleman received $167,908 in disability payments for a back injury suffered during a riot on Sept. 18, 1999, at the hospital where she worked. The payments were made between 2002 and 2008, during which time Suleman gave birth to most of her first six children, even though she was separated from her husband during part of this time. Psychiatric evaluations of Suleman portray a well-mannered but very depressed and anxious woman who reported severe lower-back pain, which limited her ability to pick up her 15-lb. baby without first sitting down. She also had difficulty sleeping. Wrote one doctor: "Since the birth of her baby, she has become very fearful that he will be kidnapped, injured, etc. She is anxious both for herself and for him, particularly in public places to the extent that ‘somebody, my husband or my mother, has to take me almost everywhere.’ " (The evaluation was performed when Suleman and her husband were attempting a reconciliation, which lasted for about one month.)</p>
<p>The documents paint a very different picture from the one put forth in the media following Suleman’s hiring a public-relations agent less than a week after the octuplets’ birth. Joann Killeen, president of the Killeen Furtney Group, was hired to field book, movie and TV offers for her client. During an interview on Larry King Live on Feb. 3, Killeen portrayed Suleman as a “wonderful woman.” “She’s smart, she’s bright, she’s articulate, she’s well educated. She is just a delight. And I can’t wait for the media to get to meet her,” Killeen said. “She’s a very balanced woman. She’s got perspective. She really wants to tell her story.”
[The</a> Octuplets Mom Speaks, and the Questions Grow - TIME](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1877962,00.html]The”>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1877962,00.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By allowing the physician to implant those embryos, she (and her doctor) acted in a way that was unconscionable and put the lives of the children at risk. To me, that doesn’t suggest a person who values human life–it suggests someone who wants what she wants no matter what the consequences. These kids aren’t out of the water yet–babies born that early almost always suffer complication (healthwise) as they develop. As far as choice goes–yes, she has a right to make her choices. IMO when one is relying on others (e.g., the government, one’s parent’s one’s friends) for financial and emotional support, then one loses the right to do whatever she wants. I agree with jym. Let’s not turn this into a debate about abortion.</p>
<p>" These kids aren’t out of the water yet–babies born that early almost always suffer complication (healthwise) as they develop."</p>
<p>True. I remember reading that the #1 factor influencing how preemies do is socioeconomic class. That’s because the more educated and well off parents have the sophistication, time and money to pursue the options their kids need to flourish.</p>
<p>My younger son was a 28-week preemie, hospitalized for 6 weeks after birth, and then rehospitalized for a few days when he was about 8 months old. Many if not most preemies are rehospitalized during their first year of birth.</p>
<p>We paid $1,000 in occupational therapy for him during his first year – therapy that our insurance wouldn’t cover, but that he needed due to muscle spasticity. At 20, he’s now the most coordinated person in our family, some might say the only coordinated person in our family. He’s a talented dancer.</p>
<p>He also had speech therapy – as a toddler because his speech was delayed, and as an elementary school student. </p>
<p>During his first year, I was taking him to the doctor virtually every week for a variety of appointments and follow-ups, and I was doing extra things with him at home to help him develop well.</p>
<p>There is no way that a mother of 14 kids under 8-- including several special needs kids – could devote this kind of time to one child, even with the help of volunteers.</p>
<p>"Along with many Americans, Angelina Jolie herself is said to be ‘‘totally creeped out’’ by Nadya Suleman, the now-infamous mother of six who just gave birth to octuplets – all thanks to artificial insemination.</p>
<p>Though Suleman categorically denies she’s undergone any plastic surgery to make her look like Jolie, neighbors, friends and family members of the unemployed single mom of 14 challenge those denials – as do earlier photographs of Suleman clearly indicating thinner lips and a different-looking nose.</p>
<p>Furthermore, a source close to Jolie – herself the mother of six children – tells me it’s not just reading about Suleman in the press that fuels the Oscar winner’s irritation.</p>
<p>Apparently, over the past year or so, Suleman has made attempts to reach out the the actress – sending her admiring letters and extolling her talent and humanitarian efforts on behalf of children’s issues around the world…
[Octuplets</a>’ mom ‘creepy’ – irritates Angelina Jolie :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Bill Zwecker](<a href=“http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/zwecker/1426927,CST-FTR-zp12.article]Octuplets”>http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/zwecker/1426927,CST-FTR-zp12.article)</p>
<p>NSM,</p>
<p>Just saw the link you posted about Angelina Jolie. That puts a whole new twist on it. </p>
<p>Many people have complained that Jolie and Pitt have had too many children, too fast. The differences seem to be that they can afford these children. They have resources that most of us couldn’t imagine.</p>
<p>Angelina has adopted half of those children. Her love of children doesn’t seem extended only to her own uterus, but also to children on each continent desperate for a home. Her and Pitt may adopt more before it is over. It would overwhelm most of us, but they seem to manage so many children, just fine.</p>
<p>I suggest that fertility treatment be available for up to two children (replacement for mom and dad) but that beyond that, the doctor should use his/her skills to help someone else.</p>
<p>Medical care in our society is de facto rationed. Artificial fertility for a mother of more than two children is hogging a scarce resource, even if she could pay.</p>
<p>If a couple wants to adopt or have more children naturally, then the only limit should be their ability to care for the kids. I admire Brad and Angelina and honor their comittment to children.</p>
<p>The thing with Angelina Jolie is that she has six children of different ages. Some go to school already and it doesn’t appear that any have special needs. That’s a whole other kettle of fish than 8 of exactly the same age and several with special needs. There are also clearly two parents in that household and bucketloads of money.</p>
<p>I agree there is a vast difference and it is not just about the money to raise the kids. While I would not want such a large family, some do and that’s OK. But there is a big difference between having six kids and 14 kids. Then, when the ages are spread out…even by one year…that is a big difference than 8 who are all the same age and infants at one time. There is a big difference if some kids have special needs. It is a big difference if dealing with preemies. It is a big difference to have two parents or just one who can nurture this number of kids. That’s before even adding in having a home and the resources to raise kids. A large family is one thing but 14 under age 7, where 8 are preemies at once and there are special needs cannot compare to just any 'ole large family.</p>
<p>“I don’t agree with Suleman’s reproductive choices but it seems it was perfectly legal in California. I would not wish the state to interfere with her choice.”</p>
<p>Exactly. We’re not the legislature. People make all kinds of crummy personal choices that I disapprove of, but I don’t support making bad choices illegal or putting the choosers in jail. The court of public opinion (aka this thread) is an entirely different matter, especially when someone goes on TV to publicize her choice.</p>
<p>Most people on the thread seem to agree that this instance of medical recklessness should be dealt with like other professional incompetence – by the profession enforcing its own standards and withdrawing the licensure of those who commit egregious malpractice.</p>
<p>Sounds like she wasn’t much of a member, but the church is rising to the occasion by gathering the resources to help her.</p>
<p>I imagine that she hadn’t reached out to the church before because she wasn’t concerned about her parents’ being overwhelmed by taking care of her 6 kids under 8 for 6 or more weeks. She also may have been assuming that after the birth, she’d get mega help from large corporations.</p>
<p>Check out the comments to the article. Most readers are negative about the church’s helping her. </p>
<p>"
Calvary Chapel–Golden Springs, a nondenominational megachurch in Diamond Bar, California, will be providing assistance in the form of childcare to Nadya Suleman, the single mother whose birth to octuplets by in-vitro fertilization January 26 has received much media attention (and criticism) the last two weeks.
Pastor Rex Wolins told the Whittier Daily News that Calvary’s women’s ministry is gathering volunteers to help Suleman once her octuplets, born nine weeks premature but in good health, come home from the hospital. Suleman has six other children ages 2–7 who were also conceived by in-vitro fertilization.
Suleman and her publicist told Whittier Daily News that she attended Calvary in the past. “[Suleman] thought it was a wonderful church,” said publicist Mike Furtney. “She was more than delighted to take her kids up there. I think they went there frequently.”
Pastor Wolins says he does not remember Suleman and does not know other members who do. “We just know this person is extremely hurting . . . and this church wants to take care of needs, whether she did or she didn’t attend this church,” said Wolins…"
[Octuplets</a>’ Mom to Get Help from CA Megachurch | Liveblog | Christianity Today](<a href=“http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/02/octuplets_mom_t.html]Octuplets”>http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/02/octuplets_mom_t.html)</p>
<p>I’m skeptical that she was ever a member of this church. Maybe she went to services a few times. I’m also skeptical that given the fact that no one from the church knows her that the volunteers will last for any significant amount of time.</p>
<p>perfect, that’s what I was thinking. The novelty will wear out very soon, and the volunteers will disappear. It makes me so sad to think about these kids.</p>
<p>I think the volunteers will quickly disappear. If she is as narcisstic in person as she appears on tv, it will be hard for people to remain generous with their time, esp. if she isn’t an active member.</p>