Is Breeding a Sin?

Our excess population is causing global warming, lack of food and reducing supplies of oil, increased poverty--and yes, unemployment. In my 77 years I have seen the world's population more than double. Are we ever going to do something about the number or people--and the quality of parenting??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jolie can support all her kids. Suleman couldn't even support the six she previously had without some form of government assistance. She was totally irresponsible to go and have more kids in that situation. Kids that taxpayers will now have to support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So Suleman wants to devote herself to parenting, because of her dysfunctional family, but accepts all this help from her parents? Where did her dysfunctional family come from? The neighbors?

I think it's a conflict in an addictive personality, which is in need of help, that's focused on something that appears to be "good" - parenting - the same way that parts of the society would commend a workaholic for his 16-hour days. If her addiction were drugs or alcohol, gambling, etc, it would all appear less ambiguous. A drug addict could never get a website or a TV show begging for donations to keep a habit going. (errr... unless he's Rush Limbaugh)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone who has more than one kid (even just one is too much, in my opinion) is a selfish asshole- especially those who can't afford them. In my opinion, if you have kids knowing well that you can't take care of them yourself, you are on par with the criminal clowns currently running wall street- concerned with the satisfaction of #1 and the hell with anyone else.

Megabreeders, be they rich or not, would be better served as fertilizer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hoarding is a part of Obessive-Compulsive Disorder and this is a shining example. I have heard of hoarding cats, hoarding dogs, hoarding 'stuff', but hoarding babies has got to be THE MOST irresponsible thing one could do. The woman is clearly sick.

In hoarding cases involving animals, the animals are taken (ummm RESCUED)by authorities as conditions are usually filthy and neglectful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jolie adopted most of her kids, AND can afford to take care of them. Suleman on the other hand expects public assistance to pay for everything. She can't even afford a psychiatrist, which she desperately needs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Angelina Jolie has a family which she can well afford. Motherhood agrees with her. The 'baby machine' on the other hand is incapable of supporting herself. None of the 14 babies were born in the traditional sense. They were created in a laboratory. I consider her actions along with the fertility clinic to be criminal. 3 of her existing children have developmental problems and of the 8 recently born, it's unrealistic to believe that they will all be normal and healthy. I would be curious to know how much they have cost us to date. They are all on Medicaid and we bear the cost. I'll bet the figure is well in the millions. The article is insulting to Angelina Jolie and to us. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This woman is totally unfit to have children. Her mother and father have taken care of her children while she spent her disability money having fertility treatments. Her parents have supported her and the children and her mother has cared for the children. She drove them into bankruptcy. This is not your average garden-variety case of irresponsible behavior. She is obviously out of touch with reality if she says she will go back to school and earn her counseling degree and support her 14 children and be with them constantly, holding them. Impossible! She also endangered the viability and quality of life of these eight babies. The chance of profound physical and mental disability, not to mention death, is overwhelming for premature, low-weight infants. The rage generated by her selfishness is warranted. The responsible people who have the children they can afford will pay millions and millions to support her children. Now on to her appearance. She has had plastic surgery, in the opinion of experts, to dramatically change her appearance to resemble Jolie. Everything about her suggests profound mental illness and for the sake of the children, they should all be taken by Child Protective Services. I feel so sorry for Suleman's mother.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The octo-mom is delusional. She already has six children. Jolie is compiling her own UN of children. Jolie has the resources to care for the children she has or adopts. Not that I'm saying that only the well-to-do should have more than two children. But children should get proper care and have enriched lives so that they grow up to be as well adjusted as possible. How is Suleman going to care for all of her children? She has stated that she wants to go to back to school. Who is going to care for her 14 children while attends classes? I also understand that she now has a website where she solicits money for the care of her new babies. My main question is what idiot doctor agreed her ridiculous quest to have more babies? Has she paid for the implant services? Don't they screen their clients as to how many children a candidate already has and her psychological status? Childrens' services should get involved to sort all of this out. She obviously isn't able to make appropriate decisions. I can only hope that her children won't suffer because of their mother's obsession with babies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only because she's family. They've said that they want her and her kids out of their house, which has only three bedrooms. That's not enough for three adults and six children, let alone 14 kids.

There's a reason Mother Nature makes 50-year-olds infertile (unless they have doctors in Italy or Beverly Hills). Raising children is a young person's game. The octuplets' grandma has raised her family. She doesn't want to raise her daughter's family, and she shouldn't have to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's something to be said for waiting to procreate until you can afford to raise your kids. And having science intervene to cook up a batch isn't the way to deal with the demons from your childhood.

This article really illustrates how liberals discredit themselves, making victims out of every half-wit that chooses not to live responsibly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Addendum to my earlier post. Her baby making apparatus should be surgically sealed so that she cannot have any more children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And enough with this carbon footprint overtalk. Trying to restrict breeding is a bit too overkill although if they're trying to do this in a densely populated city, they had better be prepared to deal with the expense hell. Those people need to learn to plan their lives accordingly. Sometimes, decisions can be tough to make especially long term but go unprepared like those two and this is the mess they get into.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let me see if I understand you: if Ms. Jolie had contributed to Save the Children or some other NGO that tries to save third world children she’d be lauded, but by taking complete responsibility for four children from distant lands she’s selfish? She chose to take on the care of four of the children in our desperately over-populated world; Suleman chose to burden it with 14 more. Plainly Ms. Suleman is not thinking clearly; most of the blame should be placed on the fertility doc.

As for Ms. Jolie taking her kids with on jet planes, yes, rich people consume more than poor people. I doubt very much she’ll be sending a separate plane for each child.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're wrong about thinking it's fine for Branjolie or whatever she's called to have so many children and not the other one who is trying to be a clone of her idol.

They're both a little nuts. Has either one of them read Paul Ehrlich's book - The Population Bomb? The planet will not hold too many more people and nobody can tell me that a parent can care properly for that many children. It may have been a little more acceptable when the survival rate of children was lower but babies live very well these days and the likelihood of all these children surviving is very good. Also we do know how to prevent pregnancies these days and it's hard to imagine that any woman or man would find it joyful to be a drudge to that many children. Don't get me wrong - I loved having my daughter but I also liked having just one child because I was a professional opera singer and that was just about right for me.

I would think that being a movie actor, Jolie would have enough on her plate with as many children as she has. Being able to afford a nanny to care for your children is not the same as raising your own children.

It is absolutely unconscionable for this woman to have this many children with no way to care for them except by being on the dole. That may sound hard but it's the object in life to be able to provide for the children that you bring into the world. She is more than a little bit nuts. One is expected to think about this subject before she deliberately has herself impregnated with a bazillion babies.And the doctor must be held accountable as well. What was he thinking? It's all just a little too bizarre.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your points are well-taken, and the comparison apt. I'd give Jolie some credit for adopting children who already exist and who need good homes. But, yes, it's extremely irresponsible for her or anyone else to have more than 2 children (1 or none would be much preferable). The fact that Jolie can "support" them is irrelevant. The octuplet mom is rather freakish, but I fail to see the motivation for the hate directed her way, when other overbreeders, such as Jolie, are applauded, as though mere reproduction were an achievement to be proud of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK: I've read a lot of the posts by now and I can even agree with some of the reasoning: Jolie can afford her brood and Suleyman is on welfare. There may even be legitimate questions about her sanity, although I really have no idea.

No doubt she is putting her parents through a wringer for some time to come, since they have decided to help her raise those too many kids to handle.

Throughout all these posts, most writers have focused on the finances of the two women, although I did note a few who raised reasonable questions about the welfare of the actual children involved.

But when all is said and done, most of the hyperventilation appears to revolve around the fact that Ms. Suleyman and her children will be helped out by us, the taxpayers, and in these tough economic times, we've come to be annoyed by this. I do agree that not every poor person is a "victim" and in this case, Suleyman may even be an opportunist, of a certain peculiar sort.

If we pause to take a deep breath, however, we might consider a couple of facts. First of all, now that she's got the kids, she has to raise them---not even her parents can take the load off altogether. I do hope, for their kids' sake that her love for them truly is "unconditional" even if I am a tad skeptical whenever anyone makes such a claim. The main thing is: she has what she wants, now let her deal with it.

Secondly, when it comes to paying taxes for things we can't stand: I count the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; the hiring of mercenaries (YES, with US taxpayer dollars---or had you forgotten?); NATO; the bailout to the bankers (which I would mind a whole lot less if reasonable conditions had been set); the possibility that Bush and Cheney might be paid pensions; the DEA, and I'm sure if I thought longer I could come up with some more "beneficiaries" of my tax dollars that I think are LESS deserving than single mothers, even one so apparently unbalanced as Ms. Suleyman.

In short, if I had to pick between financing war and financing a woman who has waaaaay too many babies, I guess I'd pick the Octo-Mama.

At least, this way we are subsidizing life instead of the merchants and machinery of death.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I never heard of or met any minister of religion who advocates population stability, let alone decline. They preach: "Be fruitful and multiply."

We can try to shame all those who have more than two children, but there are those who will have as many children as they want because all religions promote population growth. No one mentions the religious convictions of Nadya Suleyman, but I'm sure, if pressed, she would come forth with a religious justification for having 14 children. The Mormons have their religious justifications.

I agree with "ibolyap" who wrote: "Her baby making apparatus should be surgically sealed . . ."; but how can that be done legally? I have thought of cutting of all federal/state benefits to people who have more than two children--but in cold reality, how can that be done?

Help me out here. Could someone write a post explaining how we can forcefully, and legally, stop over-breeding? I wouldn't want to live in China, but on the other hand, their one-child family policy had to be enacted and enforced because of overpopulation. Contrary to one poster, we must not for one second stop discussing our carbon footprint or the consequences of over-breeding.

How about incentives: for all women who had two children, that a $10,000 cash benefit be paid to have her tubes tied? Likewise for men who have vasectomies.

But what about people like Nadya Suleyman who would reject such cash benefits because of her determination to breed?

Any move to enacting population stability/reduction legislation would bring condemnations from the pope and the so-called pro-life groups. So we would have a strong voting block against any attempt to control population growth in this country.

I take a deep breath here because I can't think of any workable suggestion to solve this problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can go on all day comparing Brangelina and Suleman. They're just amusing examples of a much bigger cultural problem.

Suleman's comments in interviews reveal that at the root of our lust for breeding--in addition to biological and religious factors--is the fear of being Eleanor Rigby. Everybody these days is filling their void with children. They get you attention at work and in your social circle. You have something to talk about, complain about, and brag about. And as Suleman suggests, you have a bunch of little reasons to wake up in the morning.

Not long ago, kids were seen more as accidents, responsibilities, and sources of farm labor than the center of our lives. Nowadays, that may sound callous and absurd, but that's the point. We have become too psychologically dependent on the parenting experience, and it's screwing up everybody, including the kids and the planet. Damn that Harry Chapin!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If I was the editor on this article it would not have seen light of day. The absurdities of this merit-less "comparison" are glaring.

Alternet, who made the decision to post this?

The most glaring absurdity is this: Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are paying their way; the parent of 14 children has no source of income and will no doubt want me to pick up the cost of a million diapers. That's just for starters.

Her own family members have expressed dismay.

In addition, this mother has willingly and apoparently avidly accepted invitations to appear on all sorts of media circuses.

To compare these two situations is a specious argument of no merit and, quite frankly, an attempt to discredit Jolie and Pitt, who are parents of several adopted children and are in a loving and supportive relationship.

By your own account, you see nothing wrong in ridiculing people who are of means. It smacks so much of the same-old, same-old of so many liberals (I happen to be one, but not of this ilk) who pit rich v poor without examining the conditions which led to each situation.

Get over yourself. You need an editor.

And you also need to move away from the spurious "breeder" -- a word that suggests disdain for any woman who gives birth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The economy is still imploding at an alarming rate. Just yesterday (Friday), four more banks collapsed. You can check it out on the FDIC website where they post all bank failures this decade.

The reason this octuplet story has become the shitstorm it is is because the media wants a distraction from the dismal economic news that all points toward catastrophe. So you just find some non-wealthy woman to beat up on to get some of the public heat off the corporations and their incompetent, heartless leaders.

It's pure propaganda, and once again most of the American people, in their seemingly bottomless stupidity, are falling for it. More and more I see this country is hopeless because it's citizens are so easily duped.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is the author of this article serious?! Angelina Jolie has money and fame- if she wants to have 14 kids she can afford it. I haven't read anywhere that Angelina has saddled her parents with the primary child rearing responsibilities. Her man, Brad Pitt, is right by her side. He isn't being a sperm donor who only speaks with Jolie 1-2 times a year and never sees the kids.

This other lady is on the other side of the spectrum! She has no job, is on welfare (oh, excuse me- she believes 'public assistance' ins't welfare), apparently doesn't raise the 6 kids she had previously and sets up a website for people to give her money!

A film crew was able to capture the insides of the house she lives in- it is in horrible shape! I am willing to bet Ms. Jolie's house is quite a bit larger and in great order with a support staff to help her care for her children.

Having 14 kids (3 are special needs kids) without a job or financial means to support them is mentally, morally and financially irresponsible! It is criminal to subject children to the type of life that stare those kids in the face right now.

There is no reasonable comparison you can make between Angelina Jolie and Nayda Suleman. One has traveled around the world to save kids, made millions in movies and has adopted other kids. The other has simply brought 14 kids in the world via IVF with money should used to help take care of the kids she already had here instead of being on welfare!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is this self-involved star-gazing moron able to love her children? Where will their sense of self and well-being come from? Mom will never have any time for any of them, on an individual basis, and these children will forever be remembered as 'those kids.'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In my opinion, the real story is this: Should the fertility doctor who approved this take on the financial responsibility of his decision?

I say, better him than me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for this. I agree this woman's villification by our cable-news-obsessed culture has been complete. Yet when you think about it, we should be defending-- and befriending-- her. If you're pro-life, what's not to love here? If you're pto-choice, hey: this is her choice! My maternal grandparents were Irish Catholics and had a combined 25 siblings. The children of Iowa farmers, they were poor but nonetheless happy and raised with strong values. Their family size was no one's business, and neither is this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

. . . here are "all at once", "all in one go", "mega-multiple births".
Jolie is at least spreading hers out over a reasonable period of time -- and Jolie can afford to care for that many children. Can Suleman?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

lets face it .. the technologies to make our impact on the biosphere less damaging are being viciously denied by the greedy CONTROL FREAKS that constitute our real goverment.. your 1890 internal combustion engine and your 1900 steam engine power plants should have extinct 75 years ago .. How about the suppression of hemp?? this alone would save a trillion tons a year of poison from further toxifying youyr environment.. I BELIEVE THIS POISONIONG IS DELIBERATE AND AIDED.. LOOK AT CHINA. Our reasonably clean factories were closed to build them in china where poison is dumped directly into the air water with no regard to anything...PUT "AGENDA 21 GAIA" IN YOU YOU TUBE SEARCH BAR.. THE ELITE ARE CREATING A POLLUTION PROBLEM BY DENYING THE GOOD TECHNOLOGY AND SAY WE MUST DEPOPULATE THE PEOPLE FOR THE GOOD OF THE EARTH ..WHICH IS WHAT THEY WANT IN THE 1ST PLACE... THE GREEDY FUCKS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

yes, if you can not afford it you can't have it!!!goes for everything ,houses .....
but the doctor , why did he do it, who paid him, where is his responsibility to make this happen, he is criminal as well.
both he and the woman should go to prison, and the babies given for adoption , not to make money but to pay for their expenses in the hospital up to now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everyone who hates this woman generally traces the reason for their disgust and horror to the prediction that she will become a burden on the state.

I don't doubt that this possibility annoys them, but I think the reason for their hate is somewhere else.
It might be simply that on the issue of childbearing, our society sees the number and method of her pregnancies as too much, too soon and not explained well enough.

It might also be that Americans are too nosy about reproduction and they think someone shouldn't be able to do think kind of thing without telling them why.

I don't think this woman did anything wrong, but if she's bothered by the negativity, she should just go on Oprah and say something along the lines of, "I know this is a little unconventional, but I love my kids ... and this is America, right?"


Howard Taft
www.largesse.wordpress.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No one has a Natural Right to fertility technology.

Therefore any person undergoing artificial fertilization must make some good faith effort to demonstrate their capability of providing fot the resultant children.

Tie Medical Liscences to this by obliging the fertility doctor to the spawn of his craft in some legal way and watch this issue disappear.

So why is Alternet even discussing this?

Because the TV is and it will generate hits?

Oh, how the "Alternative" have fallen.

-matti.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The moral ignorance this article betrays is astounding! The 8 children born into the world, as the 6 who had already been born, eat from the taxpayers' plate: not one afforded by efforts predicated on parental love (like mine: a single father of two who is fully-employed (with part-time work also) - up at 4:30am every weekday, and at home cooking dinner,...). Well, maybe she does "love" those children. I see no similarity to Jolie; I'm sure there are millions more similar. What's the significance? Even in the case of Jolie, however, having money is no guarantee that children will be happier or lead better lives: recall the plethora of wealthy children who "off" themselves or try to do so (that's why I thought the Madonna topic was morally diseased).
This article fails to see a point that so many who have been reared in American society typically fail to feel: the woman seems to 'toy' with Life, perhaps for the purpose of becoming a media star (a neurotic pursuit of Warholian 15 minutes). "Let's implant enough to break a record."
It's sad to me that nobody has objected to the blatant disrespect for Nature or for Nature's 'intelligence' here, displayed in that human arrogance (or all-too-American arrogance?) that champions even the most whimsical intervention in virtually any biological process. Life induces competition among the millions of spermatozoa: the winner, a healthier one, more likely to survive, takes all. Artificial insemination dismisses Life, and its designs. Human selection usurps Life's way of being, to satisfy whatever desire a human can contrive. That is an egregious disrespect for Nature - not unlike the disrespect that toys with Earth's habitability.
Has everyone forgotten that we human beings belong to the animal kingdom????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I didn't read the article.

That's because the question posed is the only one that needs an answer.

Given the current trajectory of human caused climate chaos, deforestation, methane outgassing in the arctic, fishery collapse, dead zones at over 400 estuaries world wide, unsustainable commercial practices, procreation without control, health care that provides for extended living without consideration for quality of life, soon to peak oil economics, ignorance of science, acquiescence to medieval or more ancient mythologies, and absolutely NOTHING on the horizon to indicate any chance for changing this trajectory, momentum and velocity...

It is totally immoral for ANYONE on the planet to have another child.

Period.

www.vhemt.org

I'm so happy to be a volunteer, no one can blame me!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the Frankenstein of reproductive technology! I had no babies because I want to help save the planet, and yet these two broads proliferate thoughtlessly just because they can. Any horny idiot can make babies! The doctor who burdened our world with these freaks ought to be shot. Big Mama should have gone to school BEFORE she hyper-fertilized herself. Maybe she would have learned a little social responsibility. Let's sue that doctor for child support! If you are lonely, making and keeping friends is a lot more difficult. But your friends can support themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. the use of the word sin is outmoded and gratuitous.
2. both should feel useasy, as every american born adds greater stress to the biosphere than any other nation
3. the motives of the octuplet mom are questionable and she and angelina should both strive for two children each. end of argument

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's is the "breeding" I am offended by, not the number of children

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only our ridiculous "judeo-christian" ethic about life being "sacred" or "divine" or every one is 'equal'(whatever the hell that means) prevents us from doing what our ancestors who established homo sapiens would have done over the tens of thousands of years they inhabited the earth: used the brood of brats and the dumb low iq breeding machine posing as a woman as pig fertilizer.

Darwinism must be the way to go in the future or we all will perish or the morons will rule the earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I mean, hell, she's Iraqi-born, an Assyrian-Christian and she's on wel...fare....Oh, that's it she's on welfare.

What a bunch of hypocritical scum, the M$M is. I mean, why weren't they all over Kenny and Bobbi McCaughey for bringing in a litter of seven into the world, at a Des Moines, Iowa hospital, 11 years ago. As if we don't have enough little bastards on this overcrowded old Earth, these inconsiderate a**holes have the temerity to bring in seven more at one time! Just as irresponsible as Suleman, in my book.

And old man McCaughey publicly said he wouldn't exploit the birth, then promptly signed commercial endorsement deals for himself and the brats!

But, y'know, the McCaughey septuplets was a "Miracle," with a little science thrown in, so all praise be to gawd.

Oh, and what about that nutcase family in Arkansas? What are they doing to control over-population? The old man and lady have been married twenty years and they pump out another kid every year! But they're Christian.

See what I mean, the M$M should be happy--happy I tell you--that Nadya Suleman, an Iraqi-born, Assyrian-Christian has pooped out a litter of new Assyrian Christians. I mean, hell, Assyrian Christians are a dying breed, a little island of the world's oldest Christian sect in a sea of Islamic extremeism.

The M$M shouldn't care if Ms Suleman's on welfare, she's a f*cking Christian, after all. And who cares if she's a nutcase or not, hell, Bobbi McCaughey's a retard so what's the difference!

And all I have to say about that collagen-lipped skank with a passel of young'ums, Angelia Jolie, she's as big of nutcase as Nayda Suleman and she ain't all that!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, there are more differences than wealth/celebrity here.

A. number of kids
B. ability to take care of those kids
C. having a father around to help with taking care of them.
D. Jolie didn't have all of hers, she adopted some from other countries
E. One is special needs.
F. Jolie didn't have even more kids on top of the six she couldn't take care of in the first place.

Its not about being a celebrity or even being rich. It is about being a responsible parent who can provide for and take care of one's children and if not, having the good sense god gave a Tapir not to more than double the number of children one has to satisfy one's own desires.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

got a question... this flock didn't just show up without the help of some donated sperm... is the sperm donor on the hook for child support times 8??? was he consulted somewhere along the line???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Angela Jolie has 3 bio-kids. The other 3 are adopted. The kids have a father, and she can afford to take care of them. At her house, the child to parent ratio is 3:1, not 14:1.

There is really no comparison here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In my opinion, the fact that Angelina Jolie adopted most of her children, which is an act to be applauded, sets her apart from the Octuplet mom. However, I still believe it is irresponsible to have more than two children, whether or not you can afford them. The fact is that over-population is the primary cause of almost all of our major problems; political corruption caused by corporate influence would be the other major one.

Personally, I think the U.S. should adopt a two-child maximum policy, since people can't seem to make rational decisions on their own. I hate to advocate for such a thing, for I believe the government interferes in our personal lives far, far too much already.

We need to do the exact oppsoite of what GOPS want, which is zero regulation in the financial markets, and complete regulation of our personal lives. The GOPS also embrace "pro-life" not because they care about children--this is obvious by the fact that as soon as the child is actually born, they don't want to give any help...they even block legislation like S_CHIP to give all babies healthcare. See, the Repugnicans WANT there to be lots of poor, unproperly taken care of children, because these children grow up to be the perfect military recruits: people with few choices, which the military can manipulate with promises they usually break, even if one survives. This--and keeping their religious right support--is the real reason Republicans support "pro-life" and are always trying to supress birth control and sex-ed.

So, this is not a "liberal" problem at all. A liberal is a person who loves liberty.This is a human problem, and one that GOPS perpetuate.

We desperately need to slow the population growth of the planet. We have decreasing resources coupled with increasing need. America represents a mere 5% of the population, yet we use up 25% of the world's resources. So, none of us are innocent.

Despite the fact that what this crazy mother has done is irresponsible, I believe there are much more important things upon which we need to focus. I'm so tired of people like Nancy Grace exploiting people's emotions by focusing on issue's like the poor child Kaley (or is it Caley?) Anyway, you know whom I'm talking about. Nancy Grace has been covering this topic, milking it for every tear she can ring from the public's eye, for months now. Is it really because she cares so much? If so, why doesn't she show any of the thousands of Palestinian children with bodies covered with burns all the way to the bone due to the illegal use of white phosphorus, or show the children whose little bodies have been riddled with shrapnel from carpet bombing and land mines? Millions of children die horrible deaths every second, and while what happened to this poor American child is awful, I find it in extreme distaste that Nancy Grace is using it to promote ratings and her own gain. I'm not saying she doesn't care at all, but she acts like this is the only child who has suffered terrible injustice when millions of children do so every day--most of them just aren't white.

Americans have a nasty habit of being incredibly nosy and judgemental, despite having troubles of our own;it seems like many Americans are truly addicted to self-righteousness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't agree with this article, although I think the author's heart is in the right place. Certain disparities in judgements/justice between the rich and poor ARE outrageous. For instance, the fact that Bernie Maddoff is sitting in his penthouse under house arrest while the average pot smoker who gets busted goes to jail is obscene. Or that the media points fingers at how the fat housekeeper who has some chips on her way to her second job is driving up health care costs, but ignores how health care corporations rip the system off left and right is total hypocrisy.

But this is not the same thing. Any responsible person should consider their ability to support a child before bringing it into the world. This woman's children just did not happen along naturally (or by adoption as some of Jolie's did), she went above and beyond to have many children she has no clear means of supporting. In all likely hood, she will depend on help from others at some point. Only considering herself was very selfish. And she seems to be exploiting the attention she is getting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alas, sometimes money can buy the "get out of jail card" - we're much more tolerant of rich drunks and addicts than we are of street junkies, who try to swipe our wallets. The medical personnel who assisted Ms. Suleman on her latest impregnation were utterly corrupt and unprofessional. When I underwent fertility treatments, my blood hormone levels were monitored daily, and the doctors conducted follicle scans - they should have realized that her ovaries had been hyperstimulated, and refused to proceed with the implantation. Super-gestation is not the only medical risk - there are other, critical threats to maternal health involved.

Fundamental responsibility and ethics should have indicated that Ms. Suleman is a troubled woman, and the clinic should have declined her business. Doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath - "first, do no harm;" it does not seem to have been upheld here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The father of Suleman's kids is a sperm donor. She is not half of a couple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This asshole is not trying to protect your privacy; he's trying to steal your identity.

If you click on his "Privacy Center" hyperlink, the server the link points to will install a keylogger on your computer, which is used to steal your credit card number, SSN, etc.

Please, report the comment to Alternet's staff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What!?
-When has the "money card" NOT been both the dividing line and the motivating factor?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You'll love this, Honky. She used disability payments she received for an injury she sustained during a riot at a mental health center where she supposedly worked. I'd be more apt to believe she was a patient there, not an employee.

It sounds to me like she's also using disability payments she's receiving for a couple of the kids she already had for things other than caring for their disabilities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't get it, do you?

You wing nuts should be opening up your wallets for Nadya Suleman. She's a member of the oldest Christian sect on the face of the Earth. A refugee from Saddam Hussein's Muslim dictatorship.

What would Jesus do?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No matter how you feel about the mother, the children are innocent and didn't ask to be born. They're already suffering plenty due to their selfish mother and birth circumstance. They do not deserve to suffer just so you can make an example of the mother.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why bother responding to the brain damaged?

It seems like a pointless endeavor to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. Why are there tax breaks for having more kids when more kids cost society more in resources?
Shouldn't it be the other way round, more kids, more taxes? First half a creation is tax free, beyond that reproducing costs the breeder more each time. Half per person means one child per couple LIFETIME limit. You divorce and re-mate and then that is new mates 1st then only 50% tax-free because you already blew your tax free wad. 10 birth children and you should be in the 75-80% tax bracket. NOTE; I would endorse additional tax benefits for adoptive parents.

2. Why can you produce a human being without any training and an operators license but you need both to cut hair or paint nails?
Frankly I think we can all agree that the are some parts of the gene pool that don't need to be preserved. That there are many people unable to be proper parents out there is undeniable. Just look at those who are breeding and killing their offspring featured in newspaper stories weekly. I say we need a BREEDERS PERMIT requiring means testing, training and genetic screening before you can get your tax credit. Only authorized, approved reproductive couples get tax credits and maybe other benefits too.
Make having a child costly, difficult and see if we can get to a reproduction rate of less than 1 per couple.

NOTE: I am 56 years old, never breed, never wanted to. I decided at a young age that I would rather spend my dollars on me when I realized that the estimated cost of a child [in the 70s when I was of prime breeding age] was over $300,000. I decided that if I had kids I would end up a wage slave for somebody else. 18 + years of indentured servitude. That I would never own a Ferrari.
I have owned two.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nadia's good Doctor and her boyfriend the sperm donor, the latter being the father of all 14 kids. The whole process should be the age old 'natural selection process' and the law of 'survival of the fittest'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ms. Jolie has worked to become a celebrity and can afford her children of which half are adopted.

While Ms. Sulman is working on becoming the "Jolie Celebrity Wannabe" with "Welfare" money paying for her lip injections and plastic surgery's, and food stamps to pay her single parent expenses of feeding 14 children, while putting the burden of housing on her parents 3 bedroom home.

The story goes her sperm donor is a boyfriend who she refuses to marry, why?

I find Ms. Sulman's actions irresponsible and self-centered, expecting the generosity of strangers and financial handouts from the government to support her, while her dream of returning to school to major in family counseling unrealistic in both time commitment and her personal life being a perfect example of how not to raise a family.

While Ms. Jolie has the $ means to support her brood, the idea to increase its size through more childbearing herself is equally irresponsible. I'm no fan of Ms. Jolie's, but I will commend her for adopting 3 children who will have a better future for it.

Ms. Sulman is nothing more than a parasite who has the tax paying citizen, parents and expects strangers acts of kindness to continue supporting her ambitious lifestyle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The difference is that Angelina Jolie can afford to raise her kids - She's a multi-millionaire. 'OctoMom' is doing it on the taxpayer's dime. We had a hard enough time raising our two kids to middle-class adulthood on our own paychecks.
I don't care too much about the number of kids someone has, as long as the taxpayers don't end up footing the bill. That's what this issue is really about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...between Jolie and Suleman. One has 6 children she can easily afford, while the other has 14 that she cannot afford so the taxpayers will be picking up the enormous bills for her irresponsible breeding.

The public outrage is understandable. The people have had enough of an unjust system that steals money from the pockets of workers and gives it to irresponsible individuals and corporations.

There are many families who would love to adopt a baby and can afford it so the fair thing would be to adopt out the babies and get the taxpayers off the hook.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Poster after Poster wrings their hands about how she is on welfare and Jolie is not, perfectly illustrating the class bias that the article is about. If it's somehow blessed and exalted to get millions for being in crappy movies but evil and abdominable to recieve a few hundred a month to care for children. Some of the posters sound like some type of medieval lynch mob. Please get over it all of you receive welfare in some form or another, corporations receive more welfare than anybody except you all don't spend your times shaking your head and feeling superior about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In all of this I don't see any discussion about the responsibility of the medical people and clinic that performed Suleman's fertilizations. As far as I'm concerned, THEY are the father of the children. They should be sued and forced to pay "child support" for their part.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have one woman who had two pregnancies resulting in three children. Then we have another woman who had 6 pregnancies resulting in 14 total children.

I agree with others that this article suffers from a severe lack of editing and probably never should have been published.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who wrote this article?? Let Vanessa Richmond support this woman -- not me and the other citizens of the United States!

This is insane* behavior from from Octuplet-Crazy and insane writing from Richmond.

*Maybe not so insane - she loves children, so if she can get somebody else to support her - where's her husband??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When I first heard the name, Nadia Suleyman, I said, "Here goes! She is an Arab and Muslim! Wait for the 'hue & cry'!" She turned out to be an Assyrian Christian but still of Arab origin. The Christian part has shielded 'camel hajjis' from further vilification and demonizing, as if we are not getting enough! By the way, one of the commentators was angry because his tax money would be going to this woman's litter. Why isn't he equally worried about his tax money going to the Israeli 'litters', who comprise about 50% of all Israelis, who are all living on his tax money? Or about why his tax money is being used by the Israelis to kill, maime, burn, "phosphorize" and "DIME", Gazans?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've considered her a deranged, repulsive freak for years.

Maybe finally the rest of the public will be catching on to how screwed-up this woman is.

The other woman -- just one step worse because she will be raising 14 kids she can not properly educate or care for.

Answer== they are BOTH SICK!

Our society needs to examine what we are doing to women to produce these freaks. We pay so much attention to it -- that's the key. These women are hungry for attention and approval and they get it by doing something stupid, destructive and wrong.

That's because society rewards that.

They are sick and society made them sick.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is NOT about sin or the lack thereof. Angelina Jolie can afford to have the number of kids she has. As for the other television parents, at least there is more than one to take care of all of the children. Ms. Suleman decided to have 14 children on her own. First she made the interview rounds. Now she has set up a website and is requesting donations. In the end it will be California taxpayers (and the rest of us when you consider the cost of the Stimulus Package) who will be supporting her obsession. Anyone can have any number of kids they want. However they should be able to provide for them. Furthermore there is nothing charming about a woman who already has six children, and finds a clinic who implants EIGHT MORE! It's not about being poor. It's about having respect for yourself and for society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't believe Alternet put something as stupid and illog-ical out here for people to read. It's not logical. The reason most people are against this litter the woman had, is because taxpayers are paying for them.
And probably Angelina Jolie would agree with me when she points out that she didn't personally create ALL of her kids. Instead, she acted socially responsible by adopting many of hers. She took on the responsibility of adopting kids already living in poverty, to give them a better life forever. That's not only thoughtful and responsible, it's a big difference between that and some poor woman without money or a husband.Big difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jolie = moviestar with money to support her brood.
suleman = welfare queen who can't.

Theres nothing more insulting than having to foot the bill for someone else to spam the gene pool when you cant afford to have even ONE of your own. You know.. after paying off college loans and trying to carve a suitable life for yourself. It's outright theft and i cant believe its not illegal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In this case one registers with a positive "name" recognition while the other scores as the "devil." Interesting as many pointed out ... the bottom line, just follow the money ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's begin with a little George Carlin, shall we?:

"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn; they will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that they don't wanna know about you! They don't wanna hear from you. No nothin'! No neo-natal care, no daycare, no headstart, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothin'---if you're preborn, you're fine...if you're preschool, you're f*****! Conservatives don't give a shit about you until you reach...Military Age! Then they think you are just fine, just what they've been lookin' for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise 'em to be dead soldiers."


To me, the sensationalism around this story reminds me of Terry Schiavo--it's a means to rally "the moral majority" against the stimulus, to find a way to divert attention from the economic crisis, or, frankly, to continue to blame poor people for it.

I'm disgusted when I hear people screaming about how their taxdollars "shouldn't" go to the most vulnerable children among us, but express no outrage over the far far far greater percentage of their tax dollars that have gone to killing children in Iraq and Afghanistan. So much for "the right to life."

My own story: my father refused to work--he was a gambler, an alcoholic, and a con man. He also was fanatical about his manhood, which meant that his wife would. not. work. on some sort of partiarchal principle. My mom had no car, and was trapped in the house with 2 kids to feed and no income. So, I grew up on welfare. Our clothes came from relatives, as did any birthday or holiday gifts. Most of our furniture was taken from peoples' garbage heaps, and our television?? My father bought that when he won the bingo jackpot.

Those on the right would have you focus on my father's lack of character, his poor choices, and his mental illness. He was someone who abused the system and who didn't deserve the assistance.

But what about my brother and I, born into circumstances beyond our control? We SURVIVED because of those taxpayer dollars. In fact, those taxpayer dollars were our only means to afford a trip to the doctor's office. (The dentist or eye doctor?: forget it, I didn't see those until my mother remarried when I was a teenager.)

It's one thing to question this woman's mental state and to criticize her choice to have children she is not realistically prepared to care for. It's quite another to refuse to help the kids as some sort of wouldbe vengeance against her, or, worse, to use her story as some kind of rallying cry against all poor people and the social safety net.

I tell ya, the GOP must be lovin' how easily they can whip up a national moral hysteria not only as a distraction from those who REALLY have robbed the country (military contractors, big oil, corporate CEOs, and bankers) but also as a means to attack any kind of spending for poor and working people. So enjoy your sense of moral superiority...really, enjoy it...cuz soon it's all you'll have left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What an irresponsible rant. The entire come-from of this piece is that this is purely a conversation about money. All of this indignant prose and it missed the single most important issue: Responsibility. By all reports (over several years now), Jolie puts the welfare of her children first and foremost, both in terms of physical needs and personal attention. Sure, it helps to have tons of money, but that simply makes it easier for her to marshall the resources necessary. She found a committed husband who was like-minded and they collectively made choices on increasing the family size. She has consistently made career and family decisions that keep the care of her kids as the first priority. Her planning and actions show that she is committed to raising these kids in a physically and emotionally supportive environment for their entire upbringing.

Contrast that with Suleman who has NEVER put the welfare of her children first. She apparently has a pathological need to have tons of children. That may also be true for Jolie, but that is where the comparison ends. Aside from securing sperm samples (appearantly under false pretenses), Suleman created all of these babies without the father's involvement and participation. She has apparently never considered planning for her children's care beyond relying on the kindness of her mother and divine intervention. Suleman's priorities are clearly about giving birth; not about raising her children. A further contrast is that Jolie heavily relied on adoption, which requires demonstrating responsible planning and preparation BEFORE acting and further demonstrates her willingness to focus on raising her children.

There are tons of families with lesser means than Jolie who responsibly raise large broods. The difference is that their children's needs come first. Whether it is through organizing resources through their extended family, their church, or the local community at large, rich and poor families cope. They crimp and save, to make things work for their children. Suleman, however withheld her monies from her kids and spent it on fertility clinics. The care and feeding of her existing children, let alone the new ones never seems to have been very important to her.

There are lots of inequities in our culture, and financial inequities is a big one, but Suleman is the wrong poster child for this issue. Close scrutiny makes Jolie look like a saint compared to her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not that I agree with her choosing to have this many children, but it seems that most of the commenters' main issue is having to foot the bill. Hopefully you will be this vocal about your bank bailouts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow, I concur. This is perhaps the most pointless, stupid article I have ever read. She can't care for the kids. Kids require money. She has none. Even the jackasses on the right aren't criticizing her for being poor, just irresponsible. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is obviously a strongly judgemental streak in alterneters, which takes the form of disapproval of 'breeders'. (Their term, not mine)

The story is fundamentally unimportant; this is not a serious examination of the evils of the world. Anyone seriously concerned about population, and access to wealth, and impoverishment, will surely have to consider more than their personal prejudices about children, having or not having them.

The most important factor in arriving at a stable and sustainable human population is income. The right amount of wealth, such that people, families, have sufficient food, shelter, and cultural activities to restrain the desire for procreation. The occasional familes of large size, are unimportant in the mass, because they will be balanced out by the infertile, whether by choice or biology.

On the subject of the 'suitability' of large families (Larger than say 4 children, and bearing in mind that the replacement rate, for a stable population, is ~ 2.1 births per couple), I had a great-aunt, who emigrated to USA in the 1920s. She lived in San Francisco, and her response to the need she saw, was to adopt children. She eventually raised 39 children, over ~40 years. A few of her own biological children, the rest from whatever was the mechanism of the time.

She provided that group of people with a stable and loving environment. There probably was not a great deal of spare cash, but it was worked out.

Who should care enough to judge this lady, Nadya Suleman?

It does not matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

implanting so many embryos at once was incredibly risky and irresponsible.

that ALONE is enough to label this nut a nut.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get a life, you snobs. You sit around on your fat, dimply asses railing against this woman, calling her a nut job, a welfare queen and worse. I hope her hiring a PR firm to cash in on her notoriety works and she is able to give all her kids access to the excess you all take for granted. If you really have such strong feelings against breeding then DON'T do it yourself. It's really the only thing you can do about it and in the process save us all from descendents raised with the same intolerance you exhibit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Being brought up as part of an assembly line, which is what raising these multiples is like, is dehumanizing. No parent/s can possibly raise these children and meet all their needs for socializing and moral and ethical development. It will be like being raise in a Kibbutz or an orphanage (not that those two arrangements are bad necessarily). Parenting needs to involve quality care and caregiving. It's humanly impossible for one or even two parents to care adequately for this many children.
What do we know from other children raised as multiples: parental stress and dysfunction (because of financial and other pressures) and the children often have problems far in excess to those from raised in smaller more cohesive families.

The world is too crowded already to allow this kind of excessive breeding. There is no right to breed litters and litters of young. There is in the USA a pronatalist ideology that says the more children the better. Often this takes the form of having ever more children to raise them in one's conservative faith and grow that faith (a "quiverful" is how one fundamentalist group puts it--note the phallic imagery).

This is pronatalist ideology gone amuck. Some antisocial personalities go out and kill people to get their names and faces in the news. Some people 'excel'or breed-to-excess as their way of saying to the world that they are a success. I think this is a huge failure on the part of many people who should know better and should have insisted that this woman have her tubes tied or go on birth control. Instead they aided and abetted her psychotic fantasy by implanting her with fertilized eggs and pumping her full of fertility drugs. Brainless. Immoral.

gentlewoman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The article is sexist because it ignores the paternal side of the argument. That is differance between the two. As another stated before, the ratio of kids to parents in the families is 3:1 for Brad and Jo, 14:1 for Octo.

Does that make having a brood Okey-dokey? No, not in my book (as a single-child family), but the only way the author can even pretend to discuss this is by ignoring the father, his rights, his support, and ability to help nurture and raise children. It is not impossible for a single father to successfully raise three balanced children and provide a loving and nurturing life that allows those three to achieve their potential.

It IS, in my opinion as a parent, IMPOSSIBLE for a single parent to offer the same support for 14 children. I think the tipping point is probably around five kids if they are all born with a couple years of each other. Of course if you can pay someone else to do the laundry, cleaning, shopping, and home administrative stuff, then you have more time to interface with the offspring WHICH BRAD DOES AND OCTO DOES NOT.

I could give two wiffs about the welfare angle, I am more concerned about how the emotional stability of the children. Resources do count as a factor in responsible parenting. Money is a resource, time is a resource, and support is a resource. There is no similarity between the two familes at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you have ever tried to drive in traffic in Los Angeles you know there are too damn many people on the planet already. I don't care if a serial mom is rich or poor.

On our public school playgrounds I see moms at closing time surrounded at closing time with a bunch of little rugrats and she's pushing a carriage containing one or two more.

Adoption is the answer. Reproduction should be severely limited. It places our planet in peril. I have no sympathy for couples who give birth to more than one baby. Any more is iresponsible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comparing Suleman with Jolie is absurd and offensive. Suleman is a mentally ill woman who deprived her 6 existing children of badly needed resources to have plastic surgery to make herself look like Jolie. As a further indulgence she spend at least 100K on invitro in an attempt to exploit and cash-in on her "miracle." Jolie is a stable, successful mother of 3 adopted children, a goodwill ambassador, and philanthropist. Suleman is an attention seeking, unemployed, taxpayer dependent, boderline personality and narcissist. She is also, it appears, incapable of telling the truth. Intentionally having 8 preemies who suffer and struggle for survival and who will probably have significant health issues is callous and heartless. That a mentally imbalanced, seemingly amoral person could do such a thing for celebrity and money is despicable and should be regulated in such a way that it never happens again. While Jolie's children will enjoy that best that life has to offer Suleman's children will most likely become wards of the state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As someone with much experience with premature newborns I am fighting mad that this woman decided to give birth to 8 children, with taxpayers footing the 1.2million dollar bill! Yes, that's right, taxpayers. She's already on welfare and she gets disability payments for 3 of her children likely due to trauma from being born prematurely. Let's see the list for premature infant disesases starts out with cerebal palsy, mental retardation, blindness, deafness, I could go on and on and on. I work with this every week and see these children suffer just because some people have to have what they want!!!! I think it's unbelievable. If you don't have the money don't have the kids. It's plain and simple. So what if Angelina Jolie has a lot of money. At least she has it and us poor taxpayers aren't footing the bill for her desires.. I am so angry I could spit. This has nothing to do with breeding. There is a big difference between Jolie and this woman. Jolie supports her kids with her OWN money, not MINE!!! Get it!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, the Right To Life movement has this pesky hangup with money? If you can afford kids they're fine, if not, you'd better not! The moral hypocrisy screams out, but it appears to be lost on those picketing the few doctors left that will provide an abortion. My, my, my...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are in this population mess because women have always been seen as the producer of children, one of the chief sources of cheap labor to enrich everyone else besides their own families.

Stop blaming women who actually are dumb enough to believe all the pro-life lies and fairy tales about the joys of having huge families.

If you want to stop the overpopulation and excess that is ruining our planet, make sure that the liars are outed for everything they do and say to insult and injure females everywhere in the world.

Human rights for everyone, NOW!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...and paid all that food stamp money back? Theoretically, she would then be on a similar social par with Brangolina. What if the book or television deals have legs? Just sayin, morality is pretty relative, huh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While Ms. Jolie's actions of bringing six into the world are deplorable. It's most likely that all the kids will grow up to be healthy and well educated. We will hope that they become productive citizens as well.

The problem with the Octomom is that she doesn't have the resources to raise her first six kids let alone the next EIGHT. That is a clusterf*ck way to parent, guaranteed to have bad results.

And she knew she didn't have the resources when she started on the current batch. So it becomes a tragically and pathologically selfish thing she is doing. I really think she does it because she wants the attention.

Having too many kids is the worst thing that you can do for the environment. But, it's often hard to see.

My next door neighbor in California demonstrated it well though. At age 90, she had no kids. Her sister, though had made up for it with over 100 descendents at the time of her death.

There is little my neighbor could have done to equal the ecological damage that her sister's spawn will do and continue to do in coming generations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can see parallels between the two women, but that in no way makes the equation made in the headline of this story.

First, the difference between bringing 14 new babies into the world and adding three to a brood of three adopted children, is significant, regardless of the relative wealth of the mothers involved. Bettering the lives of children who have no families of their own, to my mind, is infinitely more giving than simply finding a sperm donor to produce 6 kids, which I understand is what Nadya has done.

Second, the idea that just because Nadya wants to have more babies, she should be able to produce multiple births at the drop of a hat, is ludicrous. She has no means of support beyond welfare and foodstamps and disability. It is irresponsible to keep making babies just because your body Can make them, when you are without the means to support them. And whether or not you can monetarily support them, 14 kids will wind up raising themselves more often than not.

I understand the need to be loved, but this is not the way to go about it.

On the Jolie-Pitt side of things, I fail to see how you can hold their celebrity against them when it comes to controlling access to the kids. I don't think that you can blame them for wanting more kids, given the fact that they have the means to support a lot more babies than Nadya can, even with the State's help. The J-P kids have a better chance of being seen by their parents as individuals as they grow. I have a hard time seeing how Nadya will be able to say the same.

Besides, if I were one of those first 6 kids, I want to know why we weren't enough for her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I had 2 children, a boy and a girl at the ages of 21 and 23. I was married to their father. Both were surprises (birth control malfunction)especially my daughter. After she was born, I had a tubal ligation as I felt strongly about having more than two. I was 23 then and have never regretted it.The marriage collapsed and I raised them as a mostly single Mom. I did receive Welfare checks when they were really young (this was in the 70's). When I worked and paid some untrustworthy person for childcare I ended up with less for food and rent etc. I did get a Pell Grant (they were available then) and went to school when my kids started and would have loved to go on but life happened differently. I worked mostly in retail and we muddled through. They are both fine adults and we actually like each other (there were those teen moments...). I'm not a grandmother and certainly not encouraging them to breed. So, I have accepted Welfare and I have paid plenty of taxes as well. I was a single mom and my spawn are productive, talented and all round good humans. Am I a criminal?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Having litters of children when one cannot afford their medical care nor the costs of raising them is unconscionable. I cannot think of a word to describe a person who does this and also does it because she wants someone (thing) to love. It is selfish. The taxpayers who are struggling to raise and educate their one or two children should not have to pay to help raise this woman's as well. The fertility doctors who were complicit
in this situation would not have been as eager if they had to fork over the money to raise these children to adulthood. Perhaps a better use of taxpayers money would be for psychiatric care for this woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

with it's great refrain:

"one is a-toddlin'
and
one is a-crawlin'
and
one's on the way"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The difference between Jolie and the Baby Momma is eight kids and income to provide for all of them. Also, it is not fair to call Jolie a "breeder" because some of hers are adopted. Jolie can provide for her kids, all ten of them if she gets that many, and she could do it even if Brad left her tomorrow. In contrast, What'shername couldn't provide for the kids she already had, much less 8 more. Now she wants to rack up student loand and get a job that will pay at best 60-80K, which will leaver her in poverty with that many mouths to feed and backs to cloth and special needs to attend, much less how can she give them opportunities when there are so many kids competing for so few resources? That is what has people furious, and those objections don't apply to Jolie.

Personally, I don't want to have any kids at all. I am pessimistic about the future of the planet and the world, and brining in more mouths and hands that will need a job really makes no sense whatsoever, but making sense isn't on top of anyone's list when motherhood is the topic, it seems. Whatever psychological force that's driving both Jolie and Whoeversheis might be the same, but then it's like how depression leaves some people completely crippled, while others remain high-functioning. This mother of 14 might see herself institutionalized before it's all over, and in contrast, Jolie has enough nannies that she can shoose when and hoe much to mother. It ain't fair, but who ever said there was a fair comparison between the very wealthy and the poor?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush, Cheney and company, will receive FREE MONEY for the REST OF THEIR TRIFLING, THEIVING, and REPLUSIVE LIVES! Why don't we cement that hole shut?

Furthermore, the taxpayers will also be paying for the criminal MONEY CHANGERS for generations! Why don't we cement that hole shut?

I would far rather see money going to mothers than MURDERERS and MONEY CHANGERS!

Triumph

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On the face of it this article looked like yet another AlterNet snoozer (but I am so sick of the plethora of other threads here on which the clueless are banging away incoherently about the stimulus bill as if they're all 4th year economy majors and ignorantly throwing words at Obama such as communist and socialist as if any of them have a freaken clue what the words mean and as if they're weaponized pejoratives) so, I paused to read it anyway.
It's a curious little piece. Why is it titled "Is Breeding a Sin?" when the author focuses on the financial/ Caste System rather then religion? Shouldn't, as it stands, be titled "Is Breeding A Right Or A Privilege?" I don't, it's a bit convoluted.
One would expect an article titled "Is Breeding a Sin?" to include at least a passing reference to the diabolically anachronistic, skin crawling Quiverfull movement (based on completely submissive and utterly castrated females completely dominated by out-of-control chauvinists) and the infamous Quiverfull 18 baby family that has de-evolved into a patriarchy and are being touted as religio-American-folk-heros. Surely an article titled: "Is Breeding a Sin?" could easily have made room for even a brief riff on those frreaken biblical literalists (a percentage of whom I am certain are the trolls I referred to above) who refuse to acknowledge that their favorite book was written when parable and fables were used as a teaching method and who refuse to acknowledge that a book as lengthy as the bible might contain a even a single freaken metaphor!
But alas...against my better judgment I read the article and a number of the posts and now find myself feeling more preoccupied by the topic than it merits.
There are some very good points being made here (scattered among the vitriol which often leads me AWAY from such sites) regards both Jolie and Sulemans lack of good judgement and the latters ability/inability to care for such a shocking number of human beings- BUT- being staunchly pro-choice (pro privacy) for me it's really a bit of a conundrum.
I found myself agreeing with posts up until they made comments such as "it's okay to breed so long as one limits themselves to 1 or 2".
Personally my husband and I have elected to abstain from child bearing. This was a deliberate and calculated "sacrifice" for the sake of the environment, but still I find such dictates as "1-2 is the only acceptable limit" as-(stumble/can't find the word) -encroaching in an area of personal rights and freedom that- well this article scarcely touched the surface of.
Authentic "Pro-choice" in action must be just that, the support of personal, private choice. However I can't help but concur with some of the objectors at least in-so-far IVF goes.
Go ahead and breed if you insist on doing so on an already deluged planet but to do so against natures balance by indiscriminately spraying sperm across any and every available female reproductive tract or otherwise indulgently implanting any and every available uterus doesn't seem to me to be so much choice as availability, some sort of arrogant "choice-on-steroids", that invites people with poor impulse control to make rash decisions.
A really truly in-depth look at that is something I would call upon AlterNet to consider. In fact an article about couples who decisively avoid breeding to counter-balance this "limp" article would go a long way to restoring AlterNets rapidly flailing standards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bashing Woman who want and have children. Are there better things for us to do or to take a stand against or for?? What have we come to. What about all of us ran up credit cards or tapped out our equity and walked away from our homes. Can anyone cast stones? Who has not gotten some help for our choices. People we are better than this. Does it pay to send this woman such ugly hateful energy when she has babies to take care off? Cant take it back, lets help her by reserving judgment and sending her good energy so she can take of the new lifes that are her responsibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When the world population reached 4,000,000,000 in 1983, I said that is enough. How much pressure are we willing to subject our home to? We couldn't take care of the number we had in '83. We can stop now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The fact is, both Sulemon and Jolie are crazed lunatics. But Jolie can pay for her kids, and, yes, stupid, of course it makes a difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The difference is Jolie didn't have fertility treatments, she adopted children, has not had 14 of them, and can afford to support all of them. The other woman doesn't have a job, and with 14 children is unlikely to be able to hold one. I question the ethical standards of the doctor who treated her and helped a woman with six children bear any, much less eight, more. There is no comparison possible between Jolie and this woman from California.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think it's pretty obvious this was a part of a plan she'd been thinking about for a long time.

If the attention brings her enough money to make her rich, who's the stupid person?

Although people can call her mentally ill, look at how many mentally ill people end up in hollywood and people still respect them because they put on a good show for the public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you can pay your own way, feel free...

If you expect the society to pay for your litter no only no, but HELL NO!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's a damn good thing that her parents only had one child, so that they can afford to support their daughter and her baseball team.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Although Jolie can at least well afford her children, she is still nuts IMO to want to continue birthing more on our overpopulated, polluted, shrinking, warming planet. Rich or poor, the more people involved, the more natural resources will be consumed and the quality of life will detriorate for all but the wealthy elite...and eventually, perhaps, even for those pampered s.o.b.s. Suleman is even worse, since she has no way to support her litter. They are both wack jobs, IMO, but Jolie at least is a rich one who can afford her "hobby".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...that feminist ideology holds the promise of transforming people's lives.

Instead, I feel, as a feminist, tired of making excuses for people like this latest candidate for the Darwin Award.

Between this wackjob (irrespective of class because anyone who goes against clearly established medical and ethical guidelines like she did, is a nutter) and the 13 year old "dad" in Britain, every feminist sensibility in my person has bailed and is on holiday with Amy Winehouse in St. Lucia. Mai Tai, anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't believe Alternet decided to publish this stupid article. Yes, we need to have a discussion about the birth of these 8 children, and the ramifications, but can it be intelligent?

Comparing this woman with 14 kids to an actress with six kids, doesn't fly. There is a difference of 8 kids. The Actress adopted 4 that were already born and not being taken care of, and has provided them with a comfortable life. That sounds like something worthy of praise. The Author dismisses the fact that one can afford the children and one can not as a problem with how society views the situation. Since when has personal responsibilty become a bad quailty. I am a progressive person, and believe the poor and disadvantage should not be thought of as less than the rest, and be given every chance to succeed, but in this case there is truly something else going on. The Author is just off base, as much as the woman that had the 8 kids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A world without children would be a pretty abysmal place but what we can't allow is techno-assisted multiple births for exploitation. The whole concept is horrendously offensive to our sense of humanity. Alarmingly, a woman incapable of feeling empathy or compassion, ( how could she really?)took some settlement money to a greedy, unscrupulous doctor and purchased 8 infants which she planned to parlay into wealth and celebrity. It didn't matter that she was so mentally ill that she had altered her face to resemble a movie stars, that she already had 6 children,(3 of which have disabilities), that she had a history of depression plus, was unemployed and lives at home in a tiny house with her parents. What do we need to do to protect children from this kind of exploitation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't it chilling that a woman could be such a desperate attention seeker that she is unwilling to settle for anything less than stardom for herself while denying her children even the modicum of parental attention that all children require for healthy development and wellbeing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I read ever single comment made regarding Ms. Sule
mans "over breeding" I am not going to judge her that is for her children to do. However, the vitriolic spewed against her is truly deplorable. Why don't the truly angry people have the courage to go against the TRUE evil.. Bernie Maddof, Dick Cheney, ALL the greedy bastards at the upper levels of wall street and the corporations of America which have brought America to it's
financial knees. That would take courage, not this hateful bullying of a woman who is truly fragile on so many levels. Shame on all of you for this CRUEL
"verbal lynching"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While I do not support the idea that only the rich should have children, I have my issues with the less-than-rich - or anybody else - overpopulating the planet.

No, it is not only about the resources. It is, as it's been noticed here, about the quality of parenting. Every new human being deserves a lot of attention to grant full development. When the human beings start coming in litters of eight, the full attention must be divided by the factor of 8, and hardly anyone can thrive on 1/8 of attention. That is exactly the reason why we are all fighting for smaller number of children per teacher.

As to satisfy the material needs of such a large family, all we have to do is to cut military budget by 2/3, and we will have money for everything in this country. Wouldn't it be better to use the money for sustaining life instead of manufacturing death? Certainly.

About how will the children of that litter feel, when they grow up enough to understand the situation? What if the hamstermom will give them more siblings, say, a litter of 12?

My daughter decided not to have children at all. She may consider adopting, if and when she is ready to assume parental responsibilities. Will she ever be ready? I don't know. Does she get irate when she hears that some hamstermom decided to have, on top of already 6, a litter of 8 at her expense? You bet'cha.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm a romantic. I sort of accept that someone has to produce billions of the cute little squawlers, and that someone isn't me.

My advice is, if you're a fertile woman, and if your friend's shrimp production device often gets switched to armed and dangerous, is to stay at least 10 feet away. Oh wait, my phone's ringing. Hello? Sure, I'd love to see a movie. See you tonight. Love ya! Um, like I was saying, don't worry about these things, it'll never happen.

14, huh? She told the guy what? Oh just put it away for some day, you never know. It's not like these things can ever hurt you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This isn't Breeding! That's between a man and a woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Noooooooo, it's not a sin. But maybe you should need to get a license? Or at least pass a course? Or be able to touch your nose with your eyes closed?? SOMETHING!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Plain and simple there is something really wrong with this woman and it is crazy for the media to give her so much attention. I only had one child and my daughter has decided not to have any. Who in their right mind would want to bring children into a hell like this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In connecting these fragments, many authors seem to indicate that this demographic or that one is unjustly or disproportionately burdensome and thus implicated as being somehow 'more' responsible for our present and perpetual circus of crises. It would perhaps be illuminating for each and every one of us to strike that all too familiar pose of pointing the finger while standing in front of a full length mirror.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...while you're at it.

Yeah, when it's a woman misusing her biology to spit out kids everyone is all over it but there's not a word about the men who do it.

Fucking 'liberal' hypocrites.

If you're gonna talk about neutering females you'd better start by talking about castrating men. It'd save a lot of resources, cut down on war and make women's lives a helluva lot easier.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I couldn't read this thing. I know, I know, we should read the whole article before commenting. My guess was it is about how unfair society and the media are and there is a terrible double standard at work blah blah blah....

WHATEVER.

1)The woman couldn't support herself before she spawned again.
2)But Fuck Jolie and Pitt too. Having more than 5 kids should be fucking illegal but adopting poor brown children from the third world while being very chic is sort of nice I guess and not the same as out of control breeding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop the class warfare already. She is wrong to have 14 kids when she cannot afford them. yes, Brangelina can afford them, it's their $$ raising them, not mine.
This woman is a sick and disturbed individual, and I don't see why US taxpayers have to support her sickness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone noticed women going into breeding mode?
Higher brain functions turn off - reptilian nesting mode takes over. Unnerving singlemindedness and lower IQ after birth is a real turnoff and they never recover from that state. How bad can it get after 14 births?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. A&B have adopted a few. They haven't MADE all of them themselves.
2. They DO work for a living. Regardless of what you think of that work, they are making an income commensurate with the demand for the products they help generate.
3. This other woman is obviously a nut case.
4. A&B may yet choose to stop or to adopt the rest. They're only at 6 now. This other cow is at 14 already, and she can't support one of them.
5. If Suleman manages to raise sufficient money to care for her kids through stupid publicity stunts, then shame on us.

Nobody should have more than 2 kids. Period. Most of us shouldn't have more than one.

But A&B have exceeded that (first) number by ONE. Suleman has exceeded that number by TWELVE.
If the author of this article thinks she can flippantly ignore that difference just to help make her point, she's a worthless tool with a suspicious agenda, and we should take her words with a ton of salt.

Shameful! There is no comparison here!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only thing that irks me is that I'm a man who can't afford a family, it's to costly, while women can have kids and get the free ride. These are fortunate times for women, unbelievably fortunate.

I get nothing, just pay more taxes to help people like her out. Or take the risk, get married have kids, and risk not even being able to see them because of the family court system in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The difference between Jolie and Suleman is that Jolie can afford her kids although the issue of wealthy people and their enormous carbon footprint as opposed to that of people with lesser means is relevant.

However there is nothing saintly about a pompous American running around the globe buying the children of impoverished people out from under them, so she can live in some fantasy world where she has somehow saved the world by advocating that wealthy white Americans are entitled to buy poor peoples families from them. Only Americans oblivious and impervious to the conditions of the mothers of these children and the politics of their own government which create those conditions can be so crude and self involved as to believe buying foreign babies makes anyone a hero. If Angelina Jolie really wanted to change the world and save babies she would advocate politically rather than joining organizations like CFR or buying women’s babies from them the way you buy a handbag. But I suppose buying babies and making yourself out to be a saint is more glamorous than angering middle American with your “liberal” political beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I love all these people who keep saying that discussing this topic (which leads to the discussion of overpopulation and responsibility) takes away from the discussion about the economy. BULLSH*T!!!

Our continous growth in population has a direct and indirect effect upon our economy...and also our environment, health, psychology, and overall wellbeing. To blame all our economic woes upon the "rich", Wall Street, corporations, politicians and/or banking is plain ignorant, illogical, myopic, and foolish.

Simply put...too many people and not enough resources to support these people in our current civilization will have a negative effect upon our economy, environment and overall wellbeing.

Ultimately, it is not humans' abstractions that affect our economy, environment, health and wellbeing...but ultimately humans themselves. We are all "responsible" for our society. As far as I am concerned, overpopulation is a very reasonable problem to discsuss, especially after taking measure of the recent events that have affected our economy, resources, environment, social stability, health, and overall wellbeing.

One last thing, I want to make clear that I do not think that overpopulation is the "only" major problem upon our society...but I do feel that it is many times the elephant in the room that no one wants to speak of when discussing humanity's problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The easiest and most obvious answer is...

They're both insane!

And selfish, and irresponsible, and egomaniacal.

At least Jolie is adopting children from parts of the world where they conceivably won't be cared for, and providing for them herself. I don't agree with her lifestyle, but it still seems like she put some thought into this whole family thing. "Make several movies, and then millions of dollars, and then have an irresponsible amount of little ones."

As for not-Jolie (don't care enough to find her name in the article), shouldn't she have thought about how she was going to provide for those kids before she had them artificially implanted into her body? Its not like this was an accident, she meant to do this, and now she's worried about providing for them financially?

If one of them had to take the cake for most irresponsible, crazy mom, it'd be not-Jolie, hands down.

Why won't this "news" story just go away?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most people seem unaware that Suleman was on ssri antidepressants, and this may have led her to make some bad judgements:

'Paragraph 5 reads: "Suleman also was on disability, according to reports, because of a bad back, which was complicated by pregnancy. In addition, she suffered from depression and had been prescribed anti-depressants. Having more children when she had several health risks and coping problems does not appear responsible. Someone else easily could have ended up having to care for her children."

SSRI Stories note: This woman appears to have suffered from hypomania due to her antidepressant use. She had the classic symptoms of hypomania: poor judgement, excessive risk taking, impulsivity, tendency to overestimate capabilities, failure to see the obvious risks involved in ventures, the desire to take on too many responsibilities, etc. The person who is hypomanic can still function and is not considered "sick" by his/her relatives, friends and acquaintances.

=========================

Mother deserves criticism



Nadya Suleman, who recently gave birth to octuplets, has opened herself to a great deal of criticism.

Motherhood is a responsibility that should be honored and taken seriously. But Suleman obviously is a woman obsessed with having children without consideration for their long-term care.

First, Suleman put herself at great risk to have more children when she already had six.

Her 14 children were all implanted into her womb. The last in vitro fertilization, six embryos, apparently exceeded the number that is safe to implant for a woman her age. The California Medical Board is reviewing the process, and it should discipline the doctor who implanted the embryos if that’s the case.

Suleman also was on disability, according to reports, because of a bad back, which was complicated by pregnancy. In addition, she suffered from depression and had been prescribed anti-depressants. Having more children when she had several health risks and coping problems does not appear responsible. Someone else easily could have ended up having to care for her children.

And actually, that’s already happening. Suleman’s mother is complaining publicly because she is caring for the six while Suleman recovers and prepares for bringing home the eight newborns.

We are not trying to set a limit on the number of children a woman can have, but it appears Suleman had children without considering how much assistance she would need to care for them. Some mothers need help because of circumstances beyond their control. Suleman had control, but didn’t consider the consequences.'
suleman on antidepressants

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How many is too many children? Most people limit their children because of their finances. Someone like Angelina Jolie has the finances to be able to care adequately for lots of children (even though most of the time she's not there herself), so people don't have a problem with it, per se. However, you have somebody like Nadya, who is on disability, living with her parents, and she keeps going back to a fertility doctor to have more children, even though it is apparent that she cannot support any of them, then people have a problem with it, because Nadya will require a great deal of taxpayer support to properly care for and raise 14 children.

Three of Nadya's children are on SSI (one for autism and two for "unspecified" disabilities). The state of California allows $769 per month per disabled child. Now there are 8 more who were born very prematurely and require intensive medical care right off the bat. Most likely (and very unfortunately), they will range from diagnoses of cerebral palsy, mental retardation, hypotonia, to autism (which can be mild or can be so bad that they are uncontrollable and in diapers for their entire life). That's another 8 children in the social security system at $769 per month EACH. She's also getting food stamps and WIC.

The way she's bringing children into the world is not natural and is causing (so far) 50% of her children (before the octuplets) to be disabled. This in itself is a crime as well as a heavy burden on a broken system.

Nadya doesn't care, though, and that's what gets me.....she loves to be pregnant and pop out kids. What happens to them afterwards seems to be every body's problem, including her parents, who are put in the unenviable position of having to care for a lot of kids who are nearly all disabled.

I work with mentally disabled children, and even one can be a challenge to care for properly without losing your mind. Why didn't she have just one or two, and love them dearly as treasures? This is where the mental illness comes in.

The government needs to go after the sperm donor as the absent father for child support, and there needs to be a serious national discussion as to individual rights to breed versus a society's responsibility to pay through the nose for other people's children. If Nadya thinks she is going to make lots of money in counseling, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell her.

Bottom line: If I'm gonna have to help pay for her kids, you bet I'm gonna judge her. If she can do it on her own WITH NO ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND, then it's none of my or any body else's business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ya lets see:

one can hold down a job
the other can't

one is stable
the other has profound psych problems

one has a support system
the other doesn't

one adopted her children
the other had babies that weighed onces

forget the money and fame factor
the woman is sick and we know it

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It was a real education reading all the comments! Here's my tally for best comments:

1) Where's the men? That is, aren't men equally responsible here--because they were irresponsible? Sperm donors, don't you think you it would be a heck of a lot more socially responsible to be a real father? Fertility doctors, don't you think it would be more socially responsible to ask how your patients are going to support these children you are helping them to create? Verdict: The sperm donor and the doctor should be paying child support here. In fact, I would support legislation to make both sperm doctors and fertility doctors legally responsible for the care of children produced by them in the event the mother cannot support them. Fair's fair.

2) I think Nadya's real crime is bringing children into the world with the plan that they will never have a father. Adopting a child without there being a father I can see. Birthing a child with the plan to deprive it of a father--wrong. That's child abuse. Children are human in the first place because they are linked to the two halves of humanity, male and female. To me that is the starkest difference between Angelina Jolie and Nadya Suleiman.

3) There is no surer way to end up in a North Korean "paradise" than to say that the state should regulate who should have children and how many. That is giving the state more power than God. Yes, we should hold donors and doctors strictly accountable for their "sperm" actions here (see #1) and create a reasonable web of incentives and disincentives, but let's face it, pro-choice means choice. All we can hope is that those who would be good at raising children will choose to have more, and that those who would be terrible at raising children will not have any. But best to make that a self-selecting process, if we hope to maintain a viable democracy.

Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This thread has been up already for a few days, but if anybody is still looking at it tonight 2-16, go to townhall.com where there's an article (followed by Comments thread) about the point in the stimulus bill that funds testing of medical methodology with an eye to the eventual funding of what works best. Conservatives, as usual, have anticipated some possible extreme futuristic consequence and are reacting to it as if it happened yesterday and getting plenty hysterical. "Testing for what is cost-effective" is being cast as "rationing health care" and of course withholding treatment. Gulags for the untreated elderly, etc. But: I can't imagine that any rational person looking at the Nadya Suleman case would say there is anything cost-effective about medically facilitating her having 14 kids under age 7 when she is pretty much without an income You'd think conservatives would be all over this. Interestingly, there's been little mention of Suleman on townhall. a) The anti-abortion people are strangely quiet and b) The anti-welfare people are even quieter. But if they don't want treatment withheld in bizarre situations, then they are OK-ing Suleman, which I bet they aren't. It makes for an interesting problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the adopties can't afford them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First, let me make it clear I am appalled by the notion of bringing ANY children into the United States. It embraced not just capitalism but all its implicitly fascist policies, including euthanasia of unprofitable humans by neglect and abandonment, and it has thus permanently empowered its ruling class at the ever-worsening expense of its people. To bring children into such wretchedness -- the industrial world's worst health care, its worst public schools, its lowest literacy rate and its worst public transport -- is tantamount to knowingly breeding babies for slavery if not abandonment. Indeed U.S. capitalism’s formal re-imposition of slavery is already anticipated by the Big Business Barons’ resurrection of the antebellum Southern, manorial European and Tsarist Russian concept of “human capital.”

But the matter of multiple births takes a far distant second place compared to the majority attitude this thread demonstrates: that money is everything, and that people without it are no more than trash.

Were this a definitively fascist site -- that is, a pro-capitalist site, (since fascism is implicit both in capitalism and the patriarchal theology from which it is derived) -- such attitudes would be predictable. But AlterNet presumes itself a leftist site -- and by that very presumption the content of this thread demonstrates to anyone who can comprehend English that the alleged “Left” of the U.S. differs from the Right only in the extent to which the respective factions are willing to acknowledge the extent to which this nation is an oligarchic despotism in all but name: the modern corporate equivalent of Tsarist Russia or pre-revolutionary France. (The one significant difference between those toppled realms and the U.S. today is that this time and in this once-promising nation, the oligarchy’s control of technology truly does make it omnipotent -- eternally so. Indeed by the time its technological superiority will have diminished, our species will be effectively extinct. As the Borg said on Star Trek: “resistance is futile.”) Meanwhile, the euthanasia of unprofitable humans continues apace, whether under the still-euphemistical Democrats (“reforms” that somehow always leave the working class worse off) or the ever-more-openly fascist Republicans (unapologetic euthanasia as in the abandonment of New Orleans to Katrina).

Ultimately what the attitudes expressed on this thread prove -- and I have read enough sociology and market analysis for enough years to recognize that what I am seeing here is indeed majority opinion -- is that beneath the superficial differences proclaimed by the labels Republican and Democrat, the U.S. truly is a one-party state: the unifying ideology is social Darwinism reductio ad absurdum: the economy as a network of shark wombs in which the most greedy -- the most amorally vicious -- are the only rightful “winners.” Thus too the phenomenon -- unique to the U.S. and so surprising to our (far more civilized) European kin -- of local, state and especially federal bureaucrats whose hatred and contempt for the public they presumably serve is indistinguishable from the hatred and contempt the ruling class expresses toward its workers and customers. Which should surprise no one: bureaucrats and executives go to the same schools, learn the difference between ubermenschen and untermenschen in the same classrooms and on the same bully-tyrannized playgrounds, and are thus from birth trained in the same capitalist -- ultimately fascist -- values. One result is this thread. Another, far more significant result is the methodical creation of a population so irremediably conditioned to capitalist savagery that even presumably humanitarian venues are hopelessly tainted. In other words, a population that so identifies with its oppressor, liberation is impossible -- whether from within or without.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think that falls within the bounds of "normal" and "responsible" - unless, of course, you think no one should have any children at all.

Adopting because they both want lots of children is THE WAY TO GO.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How is she any sicker than Jolie? Angelina Jolie a home wrecking 3 times divorced woman who collects knives and relishes talking about how she liked to cut herself and has known addiction in every sense amongst other bizarre comments she has made never mind her extreme anger toward her father and the fact that she "pretends for a living" as Howard Stern might say, pretends to be extremely violent and often sexually uncouth for that matter. Somehow this woman is “stable” while the other is not? HA! That’s a laugh! Apparently the definition of what is normal and stable loosens quiet a bit as your income goes up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It would be nice to put this question as to whether breeding is ok to:

Queen Elizabeth and Fam.

The House of Lords in London.

Most of our Oligarchs.

There is more to the word "stock" than in "stocks and bonds"!!

It's a pretty popular pastime in our advanced industrial-technological societies to consciously seek "improvements" in our over-inflated egos of ourselves. Impulses like puritanism have their material and physical dimensions after all! Eugenics and euthenics are never far off the radar. Our obsessions with DNA and related activities in micro-biology stand testament to that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You want more children? Your against birth control? Then adopt! There's plenty of children out there now who already exist and need a home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

retarded we want this woman who wants children not to have them and we want other women who are pregnant and don't want to be carry their children , if you go along wiht the anti - choice crowd

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PERSONALLY I CANNOT FATHOM THIS SUDDEN CRAZE FOR OVERBREEDING, WHETHER BY "CELEBRITIES" OR BY NUT-CASES LIKE SULEMAN. THE DOCTOR WHO IMPLANTED THOSE EMBRYOS IN A WOMAN WITH SIX CHILDREN, SEVERAL OF WHOM ARE HANDICAPPED BECAUSE OF BEING BORN FROM IMPLANTED EMBRYOS, SHOULD BE PROSECUTED. THE WOMAN IS OBVIOUSLY MENTALLU UNBALANCED AND SHOULD NOT BE ENTRUSTED WITH ANY CHILDREN AT ALL, LET ALONE WITH FOURTEEN-EIGHT OF WHOM ARE NEWBORN OCTUPLETS. THIS WOMAN ANTICIPATED THAT SHE WOULD BE FAMOUS AND ADMIRED AND SUPPORTED BY THE PUBLIC. THE PUBLIC IS NOT IN THE MOOD RIGHT NOW, SO SULEMAN IS OUT OF LUCK.

THERE SHOULD BE LAWS AGAINST THIS TYPE OF EXPLOITATION.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I applaud anyone's right to have the children they can care for and love.It costs about $20,000 to raise a child, and that's with only food and shelter. So 14 X $20,000 is $280,000 for the children only. Since the median income in this country is $44,000. That means they will need 6 adults working full time to support the children. The difference in incomes between the two families is remarkable so to read the mother of 14 will not rely on government assistance is a bit farfetched.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The big difference is responsibility. Even Jolie didn't try to get eight at one time. Also, Jolie has made sure she can handle the responsibility in a responsible manner. Suleman is doing it in an irresponsible manner.

Responsibility = Big Difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As you must have learned by now, you really don't get it do you...the anger stems from realizing these babies as well as her more than enough to handle brood of 6, will NEVER get the kind of love and attention they each deserve. AND they are more than likely to suffer serious mental and health issues due to all of their circumstances, including a very needy and unbalanced mother. What a terrible shame, not to mention the financial strain on a system that cannot afford this type of ludicrous inexcusable cost.

You really should spend a little more time thinking so you don't continue to write such shallow articles that entirely miss the point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the very near future, all births will be exotropic the extent that few if any men and women will any longer play a reproductive role per se, a form of Draconian eugenics being enforced to protect the environment and allow birth only to beautiful geniuses. At this time, non-reproductive persons (exclusively same-sex persons who by definition cannot or will not reproduce) will be seen in retrospect as saints.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How many offspring to the average Right To Life professional? Politician, preacher, scribbler...
Sarah Palin has five. Who else has more than one or two?
How do they do it? Not do it?
How do they not have lots of children?
Rhythm Method? Are they Catholics?
Can Not be Contraception.
Can Not be Abortion.
Abstinence?
Incompetence?
Impotence?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is so stupid. Who is this person who wrote it? My god, the article is full of holes, misrepresentations, an ill-conceived defense of sick, selfish, ego-centric woman. absolutely no thought is given to the why of the situation, and there is no, NONE, NADA, RIEN, NIENTE, thought of the children involved, the children don't seem to matter to this writer. That is enough for me to consider this article null. Such stupidity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...as is the mentally ill fool who thinks her vagina is a clown car.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nadya Suleman claims she isn't/won't use welfare to feed her 14 kids, but she lied and is taking public money to feed them. She also plans to borrow more money under the guise of student loans (in addition to the 50k debt she already has) - she's a liar, and cannot possibly properly parent 14 children, even with taxpayer money.

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt can AFFORD as many children as they want. No, money doesn't automatically mean good parent and NO money doesn't automatically mean bad parent. THE ABILITY TO CARE FOR THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN ONE HAS DOES have a lot to do with whether or not a parent is good or bad.

With 50k debt and talk of scamming lenders out of money for "school" to pay for her kids, and also not being able to give them HALF as much attention as a COUPLE like Jolie and Pitt - DOES INDEED MAKE MISS SULEMAN a bad parent.

If you can't feed them, don't breed them!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]