Monday, February 2, 2009
Babies, books and birdhouses.
That woman, who gave birth to 8 babies at once last week. Well, she's drawn some criticism in the comments section of this blog. From a woman who lamented that the mother -- who's unmarried and now has 14 children -- will probably end up on the welfare rolls. Personally, that doesn't bother me. Anyway, if I had my way, I'd take the $18 billion dished out as bonuses to Wall Street bankers in December, and channel every last penny of it into welfare. For distribution to the poorest of the poor. That might even include this woman at the moment. Although she's talking of selling her story. For millions of dollars presumably. If I question anything, it's the ethics of this woman. She already had 6 kids. And she was treated with fertility drugs. So she could have more. When is enough enough? The woman's mother says her daughter has an insatiable desire to have children. I suppose just like some people have an insatiable desire to have money or sex or booze -- or as in my case, books and birdhouses. --Jim Broede
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Jim---Those bonuses paid the banking executives rankle me also. There are certainly a lot better ways to spend taxpayer money.
I doubt if the children will be on public welfare in the immediate future. I suspect that the woman(and probably her mother) will reap a ton of money selling their stories and charging for 'photo ops'.
We'll see if she gets money, and if she uses it wisely on the children. They are the most important ones. This is truly a moral and ethical dilemma, and could possibly turn out to be a legal one also.
There are already hundreds of requests for books, interviews, movies, TV shows, etc.
Sounds to me like she's an educated woman. Working now on her master's degree. Employed. And she was supporting the 6 children before these. On her own. Without welfare. She's already hired a PR consultant to help her make decisions that will reap plenty of money. My guess is she'll take full advantage of this opportunity for celebrity and money. She'll be a self-sufficient millionaire. These kids are her big opportunity in the land of opportunity. She's a smart cookie. And a capitalist, too. --Jim
Sure, all on the backs of her little children. She has been living in her Parents' small house(3 bedroom), with 6 kids, now 14. The Grandmother has publicly stated that "I'm going to be gone.", when the Daughter brings the new babies home. The Family declared bankruptcy and abandoned a home a little over a yeas ago, under the strain of supporting the Daughter and 7 kids. The Grandfather may also have to return to work in Iraq, as a contractor, to help support these new additions.
I have not read that the Daughter was gainfully employed anywhere. Hopefully, her first purchases will be a larger home, and a nanny or 2.
I can imagine that the U.S. welfare system could give the Family enough resources to live quite nicely in Iraq. The kids are all U.S citizens, after all.
"Educated" people can be book smart, but common sense dumb.
"Nadya Suleman, ...describes herself as a “professional student” living off education grants and parental money..
"Her earning power, though, could be diminished by a growing ethical and medical controversy."
Like I said...we'll see. We are learning more, every day.
I have the impression that some women just want to be mothers. That's their major aim in life. Even above a loving relationship or marriage. Maybe that's the case here. I don't know. Might make an interesting psychological study. Nice that we have all kinds of people with all kinds of pursuits in this world. Often it's difficult to say which pursuits are right and which are wrong. Just depends. I have a feeling that Nadya will milk the capitalist system to the utmost of her ability. And wouldn't surprise me if there are more babies to come. If there's a way, she'll find a way. Maybe she can go for the world record. The most babies ever born to one woman. Does anyone know? What's the record? --Jim
Jim---This afternoon, I'm busy caregiving and taking care of business...Don't have the time to look up the answer to your question. Maybe... Maebee will be kind enough to furnish it.
The question that has been on my mind is: Did the doctor get paid prior to the birth of the latest flock?
I've just discovered that with 14 children, Nadya has a long way to go to set a record.
I went to google and found this:
The highest officially recorded number of children born to one mother is 69, to the first wife of Feodor Vassilyev (1707-1782) of Shuya, Russia. Between 1725 and 1765, in a total of 27 confinements, she gave birth to 16 pairs of twins, seven sets of triplets, and four sets of quadruplets. 67 of them survived infancy.
All I can say is wow, wow, wow. --Jim
I have to wonder about this guy Feodor. We're talking about his first wife. Apparently, he went on and married again. Maybe because his wife was unable to give birth to a 70th child. I'll try to find out how productive was his 2nd wife. And maybe a 3rd and a 4th. Seems to me Feodor had a lot of what it takes to make babies. In those days, there were no test tube babies. A man really had to go to it. Without medical assistance. Maybe there was an immaculate conception or two thrown into the mix. --Jim
122707ntOuch, cheri! I was TCBin' too.
Estimated delivery costs: over $1.3 billion-not to mention Mother hospitalized from 23rd week of pregnancy to delivery, neonatal care for at least 8 weeks, for each child.
Estimated cost for raising 14 kids through 17 years old:$1.3-2.7million-food and clothing-NOT including ANY extras.
As for Fathering children-no biggie for the man.
His contribution of 40,000,000-1.2billion cells per "try" equals only a small portion of his lifetime supply of approximately 525,000,000,000. The possible number of children is mind-boggling.
Consider, also, that men cannot give birth(no wear & tear on their bodies).
A Woman's lifetime supply, by comparison, is merely 400-500. AND, the wear and tear is considerable. How that Woman lived through 69 is beyond me, especially in those days.
Maebee---Much of the cryptic numerical alphabet soup at the beginning of your comment is incomprehensible to me. I do know that on 12/27/07 I was a freshly retired 24/7 caregiver...and...Not part of the business world. I’m still 24/7 and not working outside of my home. Organizing my tax information and purchasing items for resale at a later date was the business that I took care of this afternoon in my spare moments.
Were you trying to tell me that you had a job on 12/27/07 or that you worked on taxes and/or attempted to earn some money Wednesday?
While I would like to take credit for all the enjoyment you seemed to have had trying to figure it out, it was a simple typo. I really think I am much clearer, in expressing my thoughts.
Maebee---Unless you are writing for an audience...What good is your "clarity" if (even with the 'typo' explanation) the crux of your meaning is so garbled that it is incomprehensible to the person that you are addressing?
What, exactly, do you not understand? I can try to rewrite it for you.
Maebee---Are you suffering from a disconnect between your eyes and your brain? The words: "your meaning is so garbled that it is incomprehensible to the person that you are addressing" either did not register, or you were writing for someone else when you typed...
'122707ntOuch, cheri! I was TCBin' too'
Suit yourself on providing a English translation. It will likely be unread...I have better things to do...and...Have a limit to the time that I allot to meaningless nonsense.
Try this:
Ouch, cheri! I was TCBin' too.
You questioned the "cryptic numerical alphabet soup at the beginning of your comment", which is what I addressed, back to you. TYPO! There is no meaning to it, other than to myself.
The "Ouch" was in reference to your comment that YOU are busy, and insinuating that I am not. Seems we both had time to be here.
"cheri" =your "name"-sorry, skericheri
"I was TCBin' too"=TCB=Taking Care of Business, too.
Whether you read this or not, is no great concern. I allot no time to meaningless nonsense.
BTW, it is AN English...since you are so keen on my writings.
skericheri said..."I doubt if the children will be on public welfare in the immediate future."
"Taxpayers are already footing part of the bill for a situation he(Dr. Michael Kamrava) helped create. Suleman receives $490 a month in food stamps, and three of her first six children are disabled and receiving federal benefits. Moreover, Kaiser Permanente Hospital in suburban Bellflower has asked California’s health plan for the poor to cover the cost for the eight premature infants in its care,..." The Houston Chronicle~Feb. 10, 2009
Also, public repugnance over this whole thing, may make potential publicity $$$$ go poof! This dr. saw Nadya as a chance to boost the success rate of his clinic, which is extremely low. Boy, is that backfiring!
The more we learn, the more we know. Fascinating.
Post a Comment