Nadya "clowncar" Suleman

rjs246 · February 18, 2009, 02:07:47 PM

Fine. Feel for the kids all you want. Respond to their mother's request for money. But it's no one's business what that freakshow does with her skid-marked womb and getting all high and mighty about the morality of her decision accomplishes less than nothing.

Cerevant · February 18, 2009, 02:31:48 PM

As I said, what she does in the privacy of her own home is her business. However, when she seeks the intervention of a health professional there's an ethical question now that a third party is involved. I suspect that adoption would not be approved for a family on public assistance, is it ethical for the doctor to help her get pregnant? (I think this question is relevant even if there were zero chance of having multiples.)

PhillyGirl · February 18, 2009, 02:37:53 PM

Quote from: Cerevant on February 18, 2009, 02:31:48 PM
As I said, what she does in the privacy of her own home is her business. However, when she seeks the intervention of a health professional there's an ethical question now that a third party is involved. I suspect that adoption would not be approved for a family on public assistance, is it ethical for the doctor to help her get pregnant? (I think this question is relevant even if there were zero chance of having multiples.)

No, its not ethical.

and rjs...when the taxpayers have to pay her way through this freak show, its downright wrong. So it IS others' business.

rjs246 · February 18, 2009, 02:45:13 PM

No, it isn't. Tax payers pay for people's health care to a certain degree. Does that make other people's medical problems our business? There's no way to regulate this kind of thing. Ethical, responsible or not. Give it up and stop being a media puppet.

ice grillin you · February 18, 2009, 02:50:45 PM

how about worrying more about the hundreds of thousands of kids who live in abject poverty every day in this country than some kids who will surely be taken care of because of their noteriety...like rjs said other than the media attention why would you ever care about any of her seedlings

PoopyfaceMcGee · February 18, 2009, 02:54:00 PM

For some reason, I have the theme from "Sanford and Son" in my head. It has to have something to do with this lady, so figure it out.

fansince61 · February 18, 2009, 03:12:08 PM

I don't believe health care organizations should be forced to pay for fertility treatments for some 47 year old bimbo who has been divorced three times.

Two words.. personel responcibility

General_Failure · February 18, 2009, 03:14:25 PM

The number of times someone's been divorced shouldn't be a factor when deciding if she's a responsible baby factory. We've all seen plenty of married couples that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children.

Diomedes · February 18, 2009, 03:50:22 PM

Quote from: fansince61 on February 18, 2009, 03:12:08 PMTwo words.. personel responcibility

dude

rjs246 · February 18, 2009, 03:58:20 PM

hahaha

reese125 · February 18, 2009, 04:05:01 PM

I cant wait for her reality show that takes place in her studio apartment

Diomedes · February 18, 2009, 04:18:12 PM

You mean her cavernous vadge? Gross.

Eagaholic · February 18, 2009, 06:44:44 PM

Quote from: rjs246 on February 18, 2009, 02:45:13 PM
No, it isn't. Tax payers pay for people's health care to a certain degree. Does that make other people's medical problems our business? There's no way to regulate this kind of thing. Ethical, responsible or not. Give it up and stop being a media puppet.

Individual's medical problems aren't public business but what is and isn't covered by tax payer money is a public issue and is regulated. Whether it is tax credit for children, Medicare reimbursement, or foster care child subsidy, the eligibility for funds is clearly defined. I don't know how much this lady and her kids will ultimately get, and of that what is falling through the cracks because non-wackos don't do this sort of thing, but there should be some kind of benefit cap.

This lady reminds me of those people you see in the news that have like 86 cats in a one bedroom apartment.

MadMarchHare · February 18, 2009, 07:20:54 PM

Quote from: Diomedes on February 18, 2009, 08:07:44 AM
Quote from: Cerevant on February 18, 2009, 04:48:29 AMBut when you start with fertility treatments and IVF...isn't there some responsibility for government/medical due diligence similar to qualifying for adoption?

Yes, I think so. But the questions about how to do it are tricky. I don't know the science of it, but I do gather that IVF is a shot in the dark. You put half a dozen eggs up in there, doesn't mean you get 6 babies. Where do you draw the line? No IVF after you've had one kid? Two? Three? Four? Does that number slide if you're wealthy? What kind of due diligence could we actually put into policy that doesn't mess with basic human rights?

No way this woman would have been allowed to adopt children under her current circumstances. So why should she be allowed to make them other than naturally?

rjs246 · February 18, 2009, 08:02:25 PM

You're all nuts. I suppose you can question the doctor, but as IGY said there's no way to tell whether one egg or eight will implant themselves. There's no way to regulate this and we shouldn't bother trying and who cares anyway?

It should not be the government's goal to make frivolous laws that are inspired by the world's lowest common denominators. 'Not allowing' certain people to reproduce, no matter what their lot in life is a damn slippery slope.