Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
If you honestly believe she is crazy, then she can't be held to terms like negligent and common sense. I think she made a poor choice, I think the state of California ought to impose strict sanctions for doctors who go against medically established guidelines and I think people are treading awfully dangerous territory when they start talking about things like cutting children off from much needed assistance.
Sorry Sass - I have to go with the "she's crazy group" I think that the fact that she has used so much money for IVF rather then take care of the kids she does have already is telling. Maybe OCD is better then crazy because she is obsessed with having kids.
I do agree with you that the fact is - the kids are here and we can't change that and that they have to be taken care of - but this woman did more then make a bad judgment call in this instance. She already had 6 kids that she was ill-equipped to financially support and purposefully went out and got pregnant with 8 more. The money she used for IVF could have been put to a better use - such as finding herself someplace to live and paying to take care of the kids she already had rather then depending on her mother for that care and financial support.
Also - she states that she is going to school to become a counselor and that will support the kids - there is no freakin' way she can do it. I make double what she will make just starting out and I can barely afford the 3 kids I have (granted - they are fairly spoiled between what I do for them and what my parents do) I have no idea how she plans to do with.
The diapers alone for 8 kids - wow. Not to mention the cost of formula and food - but I guess she has signed up for WIC - so formula and food will be covered for them.
What about college?? what about having enough clothing for them? How do you comfort 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 crying babies all at the same time? Particularly when she does not seem to have the biggest support network.
And should we even talk about the obvious plastic surgery that she has had done?
I think people are treading awfully dangerous territory when they start talking about things like cutting children off from much needed assistance.
Actions have consequences. If she can't afford to pay for them, give them up for adoption. It's not the public's fault she deliberately brought 8 kids into this world without the means to feed, support, and house them (her home is going under foreclosure).
Assistance is a privelege, not a right. If there was no welfare in place, would she have had 8 more babies? No chance in hell. She gives a bad name to every single mom out there, trying to do the right thing.
Welfare was put in place for unforseen events, losing a job, the death of the breadwinner, accidental pregnancy . The way this lady deliberately abused the system is a slap in the face to hard working Americans.
I feel absolutely terrible for the kids, I really do. I hope the government intervenes and puts them up for adoption with a family that sees them as human beings and not paychecks. They deserve better than her.
I don't purport to have answers to all the questions and I absolutely agree that 14 children will require more resources and care than any of us could ever imagine. But again, what is the point of this thread -- I think we're all in agreement that the decision to have eight more children wasn't the best course of action. So is the point of this thread simply to judge someone with whom none of us will likely ever have any personal dealings, someone who is availing herself of resources that are available to people who need them? And if so, how does that better any of us or that situation?
Insofar as college is concerned, a lot of parents don't have the luxury of sending their children to college, be it one child or fourteen.
Actions have consequences. If she can't afford to pay for them, give them up for adoption. It's not the public's fault she deliberately brought 8 kids into this world without the means to feed, support, and house them (her home is going under foreclosure).
Someone who spent the better part of her lump sump disability payment for in vitro fertilization is not going to put up her children for adoption.
It's not my fault that people in my town are procreating to the point that we're running out of room in the schools and my tax dollars are going to be used to build more schools. But hey, it behooves me to have educated children walking the planet, so I'm not going to complain about it.
Assistance is a privelege, not a right. If there was no welfare in place, would she have had 8 more babies? No chance in hell. She gives a bad name to every single mom out there, trying to do the right thing.
If you meet the established criteria it is, in fact, a right.
Welfare was put in place for unforseen events, losing a job, the death of the breadwinner, accidental pregnancy . The way this lady deliberately abused the system is a slap in the face to hard working Americans.
Do you have any evidence that she is abusing the system for financial gain? Mayhap you should take a look at the numbers...no one's living high off the hog on welfare or WIC or any of the other hundreds of social assistance programs out there.
I feel absolutely terrible for the kids, I really do. I hope the government intervenes and puts them up for adoption with a family that sees them as human beings and not paychecks. They deserve better than her.
Again, you're making an assumption about her motivation for having these children.
I don't purport to have answers to all the questions and I absolutely agree that 14 children will require more resources and care than any of us could ever imagine. But again, what is the point of this thread -- I think we're all in agreement that the decision to have eight more children wasn't the best course of action. So is the point of this thread simply to judge someone with whom none of us will likely ever have any personal dealings, someone who is availing herself of resources that are available to people who need them? And if so, how does that better any of us or that situation?
Insofar as college is concerned, a lot of parents don't have the luxury of sending their children to college, be it one child or fourteen.
I don't know why the thread was started. It's a current event. A topic for debate. Is it helping anybody out? No. But neither is debating what song Phish will open with or waht everybody ate for dinner last night.
And for college, I have almost 20k in student loans. I pay almost $200 a month for that on top of my own rent/food/utilities etc.
I have a friend whose family were first generation immigrants. They had zero. He worked 40 hours a week (and pushed a lil corn) and took classes at night to get his Associate's and then his bachelor's. It took more than 4 years but he got it. If you have the determination and will power to do something like that, you can do it. If you rely on excuses, you'll end up nowhere.
Edit: I don't want to sound like I'm looking down on people or saying that everybody needs to go to college. Just that we're in America. There are opportunities for everybody. Some might need to work a little harder than others to get them, but they are there, regardless of your background. Check out the new President, for example.
What do you mean? The gov't does it all the time. Not that I'm saying it's right for them to do, but gay marriage and marijuana legalization are two that I can think of off the top of my head that are legislated pretty heavily.
These aren't entirely moral issues. There are other interests behind both of these. An example of each would include HMOs not wanting to expand coverage to gay spouses, and the "war on no-no words" as an excuse for states to increase their capacity for control through police etc.
Honestly, this thread is sickening. It's really sad that on a board for a festival that is all about espousing personal freedom, there is so much judgment and a seeming lack of compassion.
Her personal freedom shouldn't guarantee her the right to live on other peoples' money. You mentioned that she's NOT receiving hundreds of dollars a month for these children, when in fact she IS receiving hundreds per month for some of those individual children.
My parents were in the WIC program when I was a toddler. I was born two months after Mom graduated high school. I'm not against the programs themselves - just people out to benefit themselves by taking advantage of them. She's obviously not just asking for a "hand-up" here - she has knowingly & willingly put herself in a situation so dire she's not getting out of it. This is a hand-out, plain and simple.
I just think that there's a point where common sense should intervene to check a knee-jerk compassionate reaction. When you were a kid, did you ever read If You Give A Mouse A Cookie? It's like that.
I don't understand the point of this thread. There hasn't been any healthy dialogue...it's been a bunch of criticism -- some of it unsubstantiated, some of it misinformed and some of it downright assuming. There are limits in place within the welfare system and it's hardly as though this woman is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government. You should be more worried about people like Ted Stevens and all the other nimrods up on Capitol Hill. Those are the people really going to town with your tax dollars.
I think we have established that there is no legal grounds to limit the number of children Nadya may spawn. Give me one specific example of a limit currently in place regarding Nadya's benefit payments or child-bearing potential, and I might believe you. Otherwise, I think you're off the mark here. Using an out-of-office Senator as your example isn't the best way to show off your knowledge of current events, either.
If you honestly believe she is crazy, then she can't be held to terms like negligent and common sense. I think she made a poor choice, I think the state of California ought to impose strict sanctions for doctors who go against medically established guidelines and I think people are treading awfully dangerous territory when they start talking about things like cutting children off from much needed assistance.
The state can't enforce any such guidelines. Fertility clinics are self-regulated, meaning that there are no laws holding them responsible for their practices. Consider the situation a "gentlemen's agreement" between an industry that doesn't want binding regulations and a government that's reluctant to take decisive action. It's a situation of letting the wolf guard the henhouse, as far as I'm concerned.
Sorry, I have to run but I'll address a few of your points here.
I may have made a typo -- meant to say she is not making hundreds of thousands...sorry on that one.
I'm not disputing that she's getting a handout, only the assertion that she bore 14 children for financial gain. I simply don't think that's the case. I believe she's accepting government assistance because she wouldn't be able to support the children otherwise. Insofar as limits are concerned, her WIC payments will cease as the state deems appropriate or when the children turn five. I never spoke to limits on her child-bearing potential. It grows tiresome to continually read that some people still believe there are riches to be made within the welfare system, but I absolutely do not dispute that some people work the system for personal gain.
I've met Ted Stevens, I'm well aware that he's out of office and I know why he's out of office. I used him as an example because he was in the news relatively recently and many people -- even those who don't consider themselves as politically enlightened -- know who he is and are familiar with the bridge to nowhere appropriations. If people are going to get up in arms about how their tax dollars are spent, I meant only to point out that that are far larger sums being squandered by our government.
I'm not familiar with the laws as they pertain to fertility clinics specifically, but an MD is regulated by a state medical board and this particular instance has certainly opened up the door for exploration of existing laws and practices, do you not agree?
I said, in her case, yes, there SHOULD have be a law restricting how many children she could have. But I am well aware that there is not one and probably never will be in this country. I know it sounds like some 1984 shit, but we just have to draw the line when someone is causing such financial burden on society...imo.
Alright. How about you tell me how much you pay in taxes each year? If by my arbitrary definition it isn't enough, how about I dictate what you are and aren't allowed to do as a member of this society? Seems pretty fair, right?
Honestly, this thread is sickening. It's really sad that on a board for a festival that is all about espousing personal freedom, there is so much judgment and a seeming lack of compassion.
How can you even equate how much I'm PAYING in taxes to how much someone is GETTING PAID by other tax payers (for free)? You are comparing apples to steak. I'm not a financial burden to society. I support myself. ...kind of like when I was under my parents' roof and they were supporting me-they had a right to tell me what to do in certain instances. Now that I'm older and completely support myself, I certainly wouldn't expect my parents to be telling me what to do. I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. I completely support welfare, but people like her who abuse the system make it to where people don't support our welfare system. Like someone said, welfare is for the single mother of 2 who is making minimum wage. This woman is a total nut bag. Sorry if I sound judgmental. I am judging.
2012 Wishlist: Radiohead Phish Daft Punk Ghostland Observatory Broken Social Scene Roger Waters Bell X1 Bonobo Chemical Brothers Fiona Apple Built to Spill Modest Mouse
I wasn't making an apples to steak comparison. I was illustrating that one person arbitrarily assigning value to another person's contribution to society vis a vis taxes is as preposterous as another person suggesting limits on the number of children one can bear simply because that individual may require public assistance.
I still don't understand how she is abusing the system. I don't know why she decided to have 14 children, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't because she thought she was going to make a lot of money on the dole. And as far as whom welfare is for, it is for those who need it whether we agree with their choices or not.
I still don't understand how she is abusing the system. I don't know why she decided to have 14 children, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't because she thought she was going to make a lot of money on the dole. And as far as whom welfare is for, it is for those who need it whether we agree with their choices or not.
I don't think she thought she'd make a lot of money living off welfare. Obviously, like everybody here, I don't know her actual reasons at all. (It seems that she doesn't either because she apparently told Dr. Phil, "In hindsight, I don't know what I was thinking.") However, I do think that it's entirely possible that she thought she'd make a lot of money writing a book or selling a reality tv show to TLC or something else along these lines. The problem is, rather than being drawn in by a compelling story, America was disgusted, and now she's left with all of these kids that she's not going to be able to support.
2/5- Papadosio 3/3- MUSE 3/12- John Mayer 3/19- The Werks 3/31- Passion Pit 4/18- Ben Folds 4/20- Against Me! 6/10- Bonnaroo 6/30- Eric Clapton and Roger Daltrey
Yeah. The titular Kate had to go that route because of fertility difficulties, too.
Those kids, I don't worry about as much. Kate was a nurse before all the kids, and John has an IT job. Not to mention the TV shows, promotional tie-ins, and book deals they've milked it for. I think those eight are in better hands than Nadya's fourteen.
I'm not disputing that she's getting a handout, only the assertion that she bore 14 children for financial gain. I simply don't think that's the case. I believe she's accepting government assistance because she wouldn't be able to support the children otherwise. Insofar as limits are concerned, her WIC payments will cease as the state deems appropriate or when the children turn five. I never spoke to limits on her child-bearing potential. It grows tiresome to continually read that some people still believe there are riches to be made within the welfare system, but I absolutely do not dispute that some people work the system for personal gain.
I don't think there's too much of a difference between an action one directly profits from and an action one takes to prevent losses. As far as Nadya being able to "support the children otherwise," she was already receiving government funds for the first six when the second eight came along. It's not like she suddenly starting receiving money with the recent octuplets. If you don't dispute that people work the system for personal gain, would you agree that she is one of them?
I've met Ted Stevens, I'm well aware that he's out of office and I know why he's out of office. I used him as an example because he was in the news relatively recently and many people -- even those who don't consider themselves as politically enlightened -- know who he is and are familiar with the bridge to nowhere appropriations. If people are going to get up in arms about how their tax dollars are spent, I meant only to point out that that are far larger sums being squandered by our government.
If we're going to turn things around as a nation, we need to increase efficiency in all areas. This pertains to both legislative appropriations and government entitlement programs. They both abused the system - one just had more power than the other.
I'm not familiar with the laws as they pertain to fertility clinics specifically, but an MD is regulated by a state medical board and this particular instance has certainly opened up the door for exploration of existing laws and practices, do you not agree?
Doctors are only regulated so far as state & federal regulations go. In the absence of enacted law, there is either voluntary regulations (business watching their own) or complete no-man's land.
I definitely agree that this has opened the doors. Look at the article Meg posted. I hate to say "I called it," but if the shoe fits...
I wasn't making an apples to steak comparison. I was illustrating that one person arbitrarily assigning value to another person's contribution to society vis a vis taxes is as preposterous as another person suggesting limits on the number of children one can bear simply because that individual may require public assistance.
I still don't understand how she is abusing the system. I don't know why she decided to have 14 children, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't because she thought she was going to make a lot of money on the dole. And as far as whom welfare is for, it is for those who need it whether we agree with their choices or not.
I wasn't arbitrarily assigning a value, though. She is NOT contributing. She is getting and gaining from other people contributing. And I don't think she's having kids for financial gain AT ALL b/c one does NOT get a lot of money from welfare. I think she's having these kids b/c she is a total loony tune who happens to be eligible for assistance. Welfare is for those who need it, but I also think it should be for those who are trying to help themselves. Having 14 children with no job is not helping yourself...and more importantly, not helping the children. B/c if helping yourself isn't a requirement, people would have no reason to get a job. Why should they? The gov't is giving them money for free with no stipulations. We give you money-you play by our rules. Period.
2012 Wishlist: Radiohead Phish Daft Punk Ghostland Observatory Broken Social Scene Roger Waters Bell X1 Bonobo Chemical Brothers Fiona Apple Built to Spill Modest Mouse
Maybe value was a poor choice of words, but you seem to be suggesting that a limit be set with these statements: "maybe mandatory birth control to welfare recipients" and "there SHOULD have be a law restricting how many children she could have". Do you really believe that people who may find themselves in a temporary bind should have their reproductive rights taken away? Because if that type of restriction was put in to place, it would apply to everyone availing themselves of public assistance. It's not likely to happen, but that is what you're advocating with those statements.
I think it's preposterous that people are clamoring to see legislation enacted. Is this an opportunity for governmental assistance programs and physician ethics to be reviewed? Absolutely -- but we should demand ongoing review rather than waiting for one very extreme case to come along before we take an interest.
Truthfully, I haven't followed this case enough to know the intimate details of the situation. I'm bothered by what seem to be knee jerk reactions to television interviews and newspaper articles. And again, regardless of her mental health status, there are now 14 children here who will not survive without assistance.
Maybe value was a poor choice of words, but you seem to be suggesting that a limit be set with these statements: "maybe mandatory birth control to welfare recipients" and "there SHOULD have be a law restricting how many children she could have". Do you really believe that people who may find themselves in a temporary bind should have their reproductive rights taken away? Because if that type of restriction was put in to place, it would apply to everyone availing themselves of public assistance. It's not likely to happen, but that is what you're advocating with those statements.
I think it's preposterous that people are clamoring to see legislation enacted. Is this an opportunity for governmental assistance programs and physician ethics to be reviewed? Absolutely -- but we should demand ongoing review rather than waiting for one very extreme case to come along before we take an interest.
Truthfully, I haven't followed this case enough to know the intimate details of the situation. I'm bothered by what seem to be knee jerk reactions to television interviews and newspaper articles. And again, regardless of her mental health status, there are now 14 children here who will not survive without assistance.
No, I don't think people who are in a temporary bind should have their reproductive rights taken away. Not at ALL! But someone who already had 6 kids and is drawing welfare, and then takes money to have invitro so she can have 8 more kids (as opposed to using that money to take care of the 6 she already has)-yes, I do think a person like that should have their reporductive rights suspended (not revoked). B/c that is hardly a "temporary bind." It's not like she had unprotected sex and accidentally got preggers (<---that is an example of a "temporary bind"). But I agree, the 14 children are here, and now someone must care for them. And it's going to be the state of California. And I won't be surprised if those children are taken from her. She has got more than just a few screws loose in her noggin.
2012 Wishlist: Radiohead Phish Daft Punk Ghostland Observatory Broken Social Scene Roger Waters Bell X1 Bonobo Chemical Brothers Fiona Apple Built to Spill Modest Mouse
What you are describing is an impossibility -- that is my point. Either there would be restrictions in place that applied to everyone or no limits at all. It's just not feasible to expect that type of expansive government program to be run on a case-by-case basis. And there are limits in place: 40 states have time limits that can result in the termination of families’ welfare benefits; 17 of those states have limits of fewer than 60 months. Not to mention that WIC terminates once a child reaches age 5 (or earlier, at the state's discretion).
I've volunteered with children in the foster care system for the better part of four years. It's really not that easy for children to be taken from their birth mother unless abuse and neglect as defined by the state are ongoing and proven. I doubt that's the case here.
What you are describing is an impossibility -- that is my point. Either there would be restrictions in place that applied to everyone or no limits at all. It's just not feasible to expect that type of expansive government program to be run on a case-by-case basis. And there are limits in place: 40 states have time limits that can result in the termination of families’ welfare benefits; 17 of those states have limits of fewer than 60 months. Not to mention that WIC terminates once a child reaches age 5 (or earlier, at the state's discretion).
I've volunteered with children in the foster care system for the better part of four years. It's really not that easy for children to be taken from their birth mother unless abuse and neglect as defined by the state are ongoing and proven. I doubt that's the case here.
But these limits should apply to everyone-everyone who purposely has 8 kids in addition to the 6 he/she already has and can't afford. And I know it's not gonna happen.
2012 Wishlist: Radiohead Phish Daft Punk Ghostland Observatory Broken Social Scene Roger Waters Bell X1 Bonobo Chemical Brothers Fiona Apple Built to Spill Modest Mouse
She didn't purposely have eight children because she didn't know that all embryos would take. Purposely implies that the eight children were not an accident. The doctor implanted six embryos, two of which split. I don't know what the incidence of all eight embryos going to full-term are, but I think it's safe to say no one expected all of them to implant. Regardless, you are right...it's never going to happen. And I think that's a good thing.
I think it's preposterous that people are clamoring to see legislation enacted. Is this an opportunity for governmental assistance programs and physician ethics to be reviewed? Absolutely -- but we should demand ongoing review rather than waiting for one very extreme case to come along before we take an interest.
In policymaking-speak, Nadya's case would be considered a "catalyzing event." Extreme cases like this come about precisely because of prior inaction, and it just takes something like this to make the need for action more pressing.
She didn't purposely have eight children because she didn't know that all embryos would take. Purposely implies that the eight children were not an accident. The doctor implanted six embryos, two of which split. I don't know what the incidence of all eight embryos going to full-term are, but I think it's safe to say no one expected all of them to implant. Regardless, you are right...it's never going to happen. And I think that's a good thing.
In the beginning, they thought she'd have seven babies but the eighth was a surprise - that's the first thing I heard about this case.
I'll admit that it's not unreasonable to expect that not all embryos will take. However, it's also possible for all of them to take. Obviously (I would assume) the more embryos you implant, the more children you are likely to have.
Voluntary guidelines by a self-policing fertility industry recommend implanting no more than three embryos at a time. Even if she had only intended to implant six, that is still double the industry guideline. We've all seen how well fertility self-regulation has turned out in this case...
There might not be anything that can legally prohibit Nadya's further reproduction, but there should definitely be something done to prevent the next quack doctor who tries to top Nadya's doctor's numbers.