<p>It’s possible I am the only person in the world finding Nadya an oddly sympathetic character. I can really understand how she got there. My original life plan was for one baby, but mother nature had a different plan and gave me multiples. My babies were healthy. I had a huge support system. Then childbirth hormones took over. I really really really loved babies. If one was wonderful, 10 would obviously be 10 times more wonderful. It was an incredibly intense urge. I started researching super-sized families. My mother confessed she had felt the same way. My father told me it wasn’t sensible to have babies you couldn’t physically or financially care for and my husband just said no and made sure to protect me from myself. If my family had been less forceful and there had been unlimited access to IVF…</p>
<p>Again this is not a scenario that could exist without an out of control doctor in addition to the would-be mother. Relying on mother nature this woman may have had no children, but unless she had twins every other year (or some even more unlikely higher multiple combo) she could not have had 14 so quickly. I am guessing even with the twin scenario she would have just physically given out before getting close to this number. Though she seems to be pretty darn successful and comfortable with pregnancy. </p>
<p>The results are horrific and I am not in any way discounting what a terrible situation all those children are in, and like all the rest of you am very concerned about them. But I’m just not hating her.</p>
<p>alh, I don’t hate Nadya. I think Nadya needs “help” as she has some issues. I have nothing against very large families even if I would not choose one myself. For instance, look at the Duggars. I cannot relate to them at all. But I see that case so differently than Nadya’s and they even have 19 kids which are more. In their case, they seem to have the resources for a large family. The kids were born mostly as singletons, and there is one (or two?) sets of twins. It is a lot different to have only one baby at a time. As well, the children’s ages are spread out. She has teenagers who can care for the young ones too. Nadya has 8 infants at once and 14 kids under age 7. The Duggar family has two parents which helps. Nadya, for starters, has no job and no means to support herself. She is living with her parents. Nadya has special needs kids which is a lot more work than typical children. Even with six kids, Nadya already had a large family. It was going after way more that is the issue here. By having six embryos implanted (I fault the doctor for that), she put her own life at risk and that of the potential babies even if the odds for multiples were low. It is against standard procedure to implant more than two or three. If she wanted a super large family, she could have saved some of those frozen embryos for a later time. Even after seven embryos “took”, she should have had some removed as the odds for the kids to have a normal survival and for her own self to survive septuplets was very risky. </p>
<p>This isn’t just about having a large family. There are many factors which make THIS large family a major issue and that is what the outcry is about. Already, even YOU mention that YOU had a healthy support system. Nadya is missing all the necessary factors that would be needed to have a large family.</p>
<p>Agree with Sooze. I dont see people “hating”-- I see people in utter disbelief at her lack of judgment and reasoning.</p>
<p>I apologize alh that I do not know how many children you have, but am happy to hear that they are all healthy and that you have a wonderful support system. You also sound like you discussed your thoughts and feelings with your family as you explored the idea of a large family. Nadya did not. I read somewhere yesterday that her mom didnt know that she was pregnant again until she started showing. </p>
<p>Nadya’s dishonsety and manipulative behaviors, her self focused attitude, her inconsistent stories and ongoing bad, BAD judgement just simply don’t make her, IMO, a sympathetic character. The babies I have plenty of sympathy for, but not Nadya. If she showed a little bit of a genuine sense of being overwhelmed and worried about what she is going to do for herself and the kids I might feel some sympathy. But her bashing of her mom while she then expects mom to babysit all the kids while she flits about town having her nails done or being filmed is disgusting. Her ungrateful, selfish, narcissistic behaviors are awful, and her claims that she is looking out for the babies are simply disengenuous and unrealistic. Her bulldozing over those who try to talk to her, her smirks and grimaces, her general “attitude” and her incredible level of denial just don’t IMO, make her a likeable character. I pity her. I dont agree with her behaviors or choices. </p>
<p>I can understand why someone who has felt a strong pull to have a large family might feel some sympathy for Nadya, as you can identify with how she might feel. I think that is more difficult for many of us who didn’t have those feelings. I feel some sympathy for Nadya, but largely because she is clueless as to what she is up against, and those poor babies are at risk.</p>
<p>I absolutely think all your criticisms of her are justified BUT still blame the doctor more than her. I don’t approve or agree with any choice she has made but think medical ethics is the real issue.</p>
<p>LOL I don’t have the really large family I dreamed of but still have some pings of regret. I “get” the urge even when it is irrational.</p>
<p>As recently as six years ago, I would have still been so irrational as to actually be envious of her being the mom of octuplets and wish someone would give them to me. If someone offered them to me now… well, I just got too old to do it competently.</p>
<p>When those urges come, you start wishing for grandchildren! My kids can’t wait to have kids so that I can have another baby to dote on. Plus, when we tire of them, we can give them back to their mom and dad. The joys of being a grandparent is that you can spoil them and love them!</p>
<p>And I will confess to having spent quite a few hours in fantasy land the last few weeks trying to figure out the logistics of compently raising octuplet babies. Whether it is even possible becomes the question. And I do understand that is what is offending all of you about the mom.</p>
<p>alh, it would even be a dilemma if she simply had the octuplets. That would be for anyone. ADD in that she has six others under age 7, a few with special needs. These preemies may have special needs and won’t be babies forever. She also has no husband, nor resources, etc. IF it were only about octuplets!</p>
<p>That said, I used to think I wanted twins so as to do the whole baby thing at one time. After having a baby, I was wondering what was I thinking? LOL</p>
<p>^^ Right. If she had been childless and trying desperately to have kids and ended up with octuplets and was flabberghasted, overwhelmed and genuinely baffled as to what she was going to do to provide for the babies, she would surely have all the sponsorship she needed, and offers of financial and personal help would be pouring in. Instead she has doctors and lawyers (justifiably) expressing concern for the interests of the kids, a family feud being played out in the media, and a total trainwreck with lots of rubbernecking.</p>
<p>alh- you use words like “irrational” and “in fantasy land” to describe your feelings. That means you have a reasonable head on your shoulders and recognize that those thoughts and feelings aren’t ideal. Nadya hasn’t demonstrated that ability to engage in rational thinking. I do fault the Dr for his ongoing part in this mess, but Nadya is hardly blameless.</p>
<p>jym626: I am just barely rational enough to identify irrationality and usually the effort makes my head hurt so I don’t try too often. This story has me watching talk shows I haven’t seen in years and perched on the edge of my seat waiting to see what happens when the octuplets are ready to be released from the hospital.</p>
<p>I sort of get the urge idea. I remember as a teen, thinking I wanted lots of kids. … then I worked at a pre-school. Even at 18, that was a reality check. Reading this now, I can hardly believe I felt that way. For awhile after having 2 kids, I couldn’t believe I DIDN’T feel that way! For years, it was like wiggling a sore tooth to see if it still hurt. Nope!</p>
<p>“Baths? It would take all day to give 14 baths and she only has one in the first place.”</p>
<p>All day? Those are long baths. And once they are older, you bathe a few at a time. I used to put more than one kid in the bath at a time. Obviously, a lot of good points are being made on this thread, but let’s not forget that people had lots and lots of kids for most of history and made do – not all at the same time, but lots of women popped out a baby a year and sometimes twins along the way – like that family on TV with 18 kids. If you’re having a kid every year, you’ll have five under five, etc. Larger families have a different dynamic than families with two kids, but they make do. I realize 8 babies at once is different than 8 under the age of 8 but I also think (and I’m not intending this to Sooziet but the thread in general) that the modern bias for small families where no kid ever has to wait for anything is showing on this thread. That’s a relatively new phenomenon in history with the advent of good birth control, etc. and has not always been the norm.</p>
<p>One more quick point – people did not use to just raise their own kids. They raised the orphaned kids of their family members, etc. So it was completely possible to have a great number of our own kids and then take on the kids of your brother or sister who died in an epidemic/childbirth, etc.</p>
<p>I am very sympathetic towards these children. I am NOT sympathetic at all towards the mom. She brought this upon herself. The children had no say in the decision making.</p>
<p>MimK6, I come from a heritage of large Catholic families. But the older kids helped the younger kids, and relatives were often close by. Lots of relatives. There was ALOT of support, and never 14 kids under the age of 8 with a single parent, one set of grandparents in their late 60’s, no aunts or uncles and NO CHURCH to help with things. The circle of support was huge in my experience with large families. That is NOT the case here. The the big church we heard about–>she was never a member and only visited once looking at youth programs for her children. They have gone on record that they will not be involved.</p>
<p>Sure it can be done, and kids can be raised healthy and happy in big families. But this family is pathologic. It cannot be done safely in the family model we are presented here.</p>
<p>OK, I exaggerated when I said ALL day to give 14 baths! But as someone else said, in many very large families, the kids’ ages are spread out (ie., the Duggars are a great example). When you have 14 that range in age from infant to age 14, you are not giving a bath to all 14. You are not even truly helping to feed or dress all 14, and so on. Most of Nadya’s kids will need assistance with bathing and dressing and feeding as ALL are under 7 right now (and 8 are infants no less). Sure, one can bathe two or three kids in the tub at once. You can’t take your eyes off of them and who is watching the others? I mean the feedings alone for infants with a bottle takes an adult and they can’t all feed at one time. I can see several hours per day devoted to bathing and dressing, let alone the laundry for that. Buying the food and feeding the kids would take many hours in a day. Even making up the bottles she’ll need is a major task for 8 infants’ feedings per day. Changing diapers as well. In another very large family, you don’t have 10 children in diapers which she likely has. That is a lot of diaper changes, enough to keep someone very busy constantly on that one task alone. Just doing these very basic things for the kids would involved more than 24 hours in a day if only ONE adult took care of it. That’s no sleep. This is without even the nurturing of playing and talking to each child, reading books, tending to illness, taking them on outings, and so on. Can you imagine if they are going to play outside and how long it would take to dress them all up for that? (granted they live in southern CA and don’t need snowsuits!!! thankfully!!). I’ve taught preschool and it took several adults to get 15 kids dressed to go outside and they were not even infants and could help themselves somewhat. So, it is not just that the family is large. The age span alone is mind boggling. Just the octuplets alone with NO other kids is mind boggling. Add in special needs…I mean at our school, an autitstic child would have a ONE ON ONE aid all day in the classroom. Imagine if one or two are sick and the extra care involved in that. </p>
<p>In my view, this is NOT just about having a LARGE family. It is the span of the kids’ ages (14 kids in seven years), the fact that 8 are infants at ONE time, the fact that they are preemies, the fact that she has special needs’ kids and likely several to come, the fact that she is a single parent, the fact that her home setting is inadequate, the fact that she has very little support system currently in place (not a large extended family for instance), the fact that she has no financial means of support unless she gets government assistance or something like a book deal. I don’ think this is just about having a large family, as many families over generations have had. While i am not personally into the Duggars’ situation, their older kids help the younger kids. Very different than what Nadya will have given the age ranges involved.</p>
<p>I also don’t quite agree with the “no kid ever having to wait for anything” as the issue. I mean with 8 infants, they are gonna cry a lot. How long should the baby have to wait to be held, fed, or diapered if crying when the mom has 13 others to tend to? There’s waiting for attention, OK, I will grant you that, but that is not the same as having to wait to be fed or have a diaper changed or other things that are of a more pressing nature.</p>
<p>Here are the sort of calculations I’ve been doing: Low birth weight babies probably need 12 feedings a day (this isn’t even taking into account the special preemie needs in this case) One adult can give two bottles at a time. Assume 30 minutes for each bottle feeding. That makes 2 (babies) x 30 minutes x 12. I get 6 hours daily to feed two babies and 24 hours hands-on time daily to feed all eight. I am not very good at math but think this is right. The baths aren’t really bothering me. You can do a lot of wiping up with a washcloth but they do have to be fed. My calculations don’t even leave time for diapering if you are assuming one caretaker—which obviously no one is!</p>
<p>edit: apologies if someone else has already pointed this out. I am trying to keep up with this thread but it is soooo long.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree, sunnyflorida, that there is not enough support. I do think it is worth remembering that she did not go into this with the goal of having 8 kids. The odds of all the implantations actually taking, of two of them splitting and all eight going to term are astronomical. She is not the only woman in America who would have refused selective reduction, as is evidenced by some of the other high-multiple births that have taken place.</p>
<p>I do tend to think there is a bias in our modern society against larger families. I had four kids, which does not seem like a lot compared to a generation ago, but people often act a little shocked when they hear that I have four. When I was pregnant with my fourth, people would say things like, “Are congratulations in order? Was it planned?” The bolder ones said things like, “Are you nuts?”</p>