This Week's Woman We Love to Hate

Just in time for the Big Recession comes Nadya Suleman, the unemployed single mom with six kids under the age of seven plus a complete set of octuplets and no more sense than a goldfish. Must there always be an woman whose out-of-control female body gives us something to gawk at? Step aside, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Sarah Palin (remember all that ridiculous conspiracy theorizing about her baby really being Bristol's?), Jessica Simpson's weight and the endless procession of celebrity baby bumps. Photos of Suleman's naked grotesquely distended pregnant belly rule the internet, along with much speculation about her resemblance to Angelina Jolie (plastic surgery?), her finances (unclear), the father (mysterious) and the fertility doctor who violated professional guidelines by implanting so many embryos in her (time to regulate!).

Suleman, who says she's only trying to make up for her lonely childhood, seems completely insane to me. Indeed, she's been treated for a variety of psychiatric conditions. But she's obviously not too crazy to try to seize the day. She hired a pair of publicists who gave new meaning to the word "chutzpah." In response to a horrified editorial in USA Today,they wrote that she would raise her children in a "caring, Christian home" with the help of that child-raising village Hillary Clinton likes to talk about. They've even set up a website where said villagers can send good wishes, cash and presents. A caring, Christian home! Take that Phyllis Chesler, who, mistakenly identifying Suleman's father as Palestinian (he's Iraqi), wonders if she'll "become a poster child/mother for....free baby formula and diapers? Or for Jihad?" Here in the US, it's Christian fundamentalists like those in the Quiverfull movement who think God put women on earth to breed armies of the faithful.

I've received a number of e mails urging me to defend Suleman on feminist grounds. But really, there is nothing feminist about borrowing all this trouble. We're supposed to be reasonable creatures, remember? Talk about giving single mothers by choice a bad name! Suleman seems to have combined an extraordinary degree of planning for conception with no realistic planning for childraising. If the Suleman house was a daycare center it would be illegal. Even if all the octuplets are healthy, a big assumption, the fact that three of her six older kids are receiving disability payments from the state of California -- one is autistic, the others have undisclosed problems -- underscores how hard it will be to give all these kids the attention they need. Just helping an autistic child to thrive is a huge amount of work all by itself.

The vitriol heaped upon Suleman as her story dribbled out revolves around the money the octuplets will cost society, beginning with an estimated 1.3 million dollars for their premature birth and extended hospital stay. If she was a millionaire (or a married christian) people would call it a medical miracle,wish her well and move on. The vituperation on comment threads -- "spay the stupid bitch!" and "they need to cut out this woman's uterus" are typical -- shows that welfare reform did nothing to put a damper on the all-American resentment of "welfare queens." Her case, though, is not much like that of real mothers on TANF, who have only 2.3. children on average, and would probably have fewer if they had better access to sex education, birth control and abortion, and better prospects in life to begin with-- prospects like Suleman's, who comes from a middle-class family (school teacher mother, translator father) and has a college degree. Basically she's a one-off, a mentally disturbed individual with excellent manipulation skills. She's the maternal equivalent of a cat collector.

Well, America loves big families-- the Christian fundamentalist Duggars (18 kids and counting) are currently sharing the small screen with Jon and Kate Plus 8 ( a blended family that includes artificially conceived sextuplets). True, we prefer them married, with a traditional division of labor. But we love freak shows, too, and celebrity wannabes who combine blithe narcissism with a staggering lack of self-awareness, so maybe Suleman will reap big money for interviews, photos, a reality show ,a book deal and she won't be a burden on the taxpayer after all. Won't that be frustrating to the people who want to feed her freeloading self to the woodchipper now? Or maybe she'll be nudged aside by some other reproductive train wreck-- as I write, "13 year old Dad spends first Night at Home with Baby, Plays Playstation" has 213 comments on Huffpost.

The latest development is that the publicists have resigned, citing death threats, and have been replaced by an agent, Wes Yoder, whose Ambassador Agency claims to be the oldest Christian-based talent agency in the United States. His best known client? Rick Warren.

Octomom Told Doc: Don't kill my babies!

Christmas at Nadya's: It's All About the LOVE!

Jesus to the Rescue. And not a moment too soon.

Comments (106)

1. Only in America,

   Land of opportunity,

   Could a girl like her

   Meet a doctor like him

   And a p.r. team like them.

   Whew.

   Posted by sloper at 02/15/2009 @ 2:29pm

2. Nobody hates her..

   I hate the fact that she is allowed to do this to society, to the children, and the rest of us are now stuck with 14 kids who are most likely to end up on the same road she is on and will not get off...state parents from cradle to grave.

   She cannot exist withoput dependance on others efforts with no personal responsibility.

   The children should be taken away NOW and given to foster homes and parents who real want and love children that can not have them but have means to care for them.

   If this woman wants a large family, then have her join the army.

   And the bill given to the Dr at the clinic.

   Jesus must look at her....and weep.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 02/15/2009 @ 2:31pm

3. POLLITT: ".....Nadya Suleman,...with...no more sense than a goldfish......seems completely insane to me.....But she's obviously not too crazy to try to seize the day....seems to have combined an extraordinary degree of planning for conception with no realistic planning for childraising."

   Katha, you need to make up your mind as to Ms. Suleman!

   A person with the sense of a "goldfish" and "seems insane" isn't capable of intentionally plan and execute, over a period of almost 10 years, the fulfillment of a lifelong dream to have a large family. At a minimum, her college education prepared her well to exploit the "village"!

   Peggy Noonan just yesterday in the WSJ, penned "Is `Octomom' America's Future?", a far more thought-provoking op-ed that contrasted Sully (the 58-yrs old pilot who saved his entire planeload of passengers) with Suley (aka Octomom)....and here's her closing thoughts:

   "What we fear we're making more of these days is Nadya Suleman....she doubletalks with profound ease....she had needs and took proactive steps to meet them.....a great nation that fears, deep down, that it may be becoming more Suley than Sully-that nation will enter a true depression."

   Posted by Happy at 02/15/2009 @ 3:00pm

4. "A person with the sense of a "goldfish" and "seems insane" isn't capable of intentionally plan and execute, over a period of almost 10 years, the fulfillment of a lifelong dream to have a large family. "

   Why not? We just got over a president who had the same qualities.

   Posted by onthehelm at 02/15/2009 @ 3:55pm

5. "She's the maternal equivalent of a cat collector."

   I thought that was Mia Farrow.

   I think this blog is the first full story I've read about this mom. So, she's probably unbalanced? Atypical? Not someone to pile all our theories about procreation and childrearing and social welfare on? I guess that will stop the articles and commentary, then.

   Posted by RLawrence at 02/15/2009 @ 3:57pm

6. Regardless of the earlier jesus-babble comment, people do hate her.

   However, people might be better spewing their vitriol on all the medical staff involved in this. Why they implant this many embryos at once on anybody is beyond me. What kind of screening process did this entail?

   Regardless of how people feel about everyone's "right" to have babies (where in the constitution is that again?), a screening for income and sanity is necessary. While not all mental illness would rule out the possibility of being a good parent, someone who is batshit crazy and unwilling to keep themselves in check is capable of creating some truly scary people.

   I say bring back involuntary sterilization. This time use it properly.

   Posted by RawHonesty at 02/15/2009 @ 4:04pm

7. The woman is not playing with a full deck lets be honest...she's about as bright as a bulb that's just blown!!! Wanting a large family and being able to afford one is two totally different things. She has no problem with having these children but cares even less as to how she will be able to manage it now they are here. I think she is a disgrace to all other women who act responsibly when deciding to have children and not leave it to chance once they are here. The poor children of course are the innocents in all this and will have to be taken care of, but not by this woman I don't think as she has proven herself to be utterly irresponsible.

   Posted by Caj at 02/15/2009 @ 4:06pm

8. Her 14 children will become an additional 2.1 million people, on an already overcrowded planet, a thousand years from now, assuming normal natality.

   Posted by alaskana at 02/15/2009 @ 4:34pm

9. Wait until we get a sane version of Nadya doing the same thing under the argument of reproductive rights. The argument goes that decisions about reproduction are an absolute right of the individual. Period. The economic situation of the individual cannot be taken into account. Therefore, the thinking goes, an individual can create as many babies as they want, for as long as they want, and society must bear this cost, with no possible appeal, as any restriction on reproductive rights is not permitted. Look for pressure to increase funding for some number of IVF treatments for economically disadvanteged individuals. Look for pressure to not put a limit on the number of times an individual may avail themselves of these treatments, as any limitation is not permitted as a restriction on reproductive rights. The argument will be that rational people will not abuse the system, and that society must absorb the costs of the rare individual such as Nadya in order to protect the absolute right to reproductive choice.

   Posted by sntauri at 02/15/2009 @ 4:58pm

10. Not sure about Katha's real point here, because the writing is too incoherent; and I don't see the humor in making nasty fun of everybody and everything. While not defending Suleman, Christians, or anybody else, I have the impression Katha took this situation as an opportunity to trash, with a particular kind of relish, various stereotypes of 'Christian', with impunity. (Of course the Arab father doesn't hurt.) She doesn't mention in the same mocking frame the prevalence of large Orthodox families in Brooklyn, Israel, wherever, who have lots of children with the same kind of faith, and for the same purposes she mocks. And she can't let it alone, can't even leave Jesus out of it. She ends with more making fun: "Christmas at Nadya's: It's All About the LOVE! Jesus to the Rescue. And not a moment too soon." Is this supposed to be "Jewish humor"? Is this supposed to be funny? The situation deserves critique, and Katha could have done that seriously - which might have contributed something to all our thinking about it - or had just as much fun - as couldn't we all? - acting out or otherwise expressing her personal biases, without bringing religion - i.e. 'Christians'- into it. But no. The word is all over it. And because of the way that's done, the column strikes me more as bigotry than anything else.

    Posted by nsaarinen at 02/15/2009 @ 5:00pm

11. I agree. This woman's nuttier than a box of candied almonds. I'd feel sorry for her, were the damage she's bound to inflict on her kids and the cost to the planet not so profound.

    But let's go after the *real* villain here: that doctor. Here's someone who's fully aware of the dangers of pregnancy with multiple fetuses to both mother and infants, and who should be aware that not only has his patient already had six kids - and by definition does NOT have a problem getting pregnant with adequate medical assistance - but that she has the common sense of a magpie.

    I have no doubt this jerk traded his medical ethics for a ton of free publicity. This wasn't an honest mistake, or even a regrettable moment of carelessness: it was deliberate, criminal malpractice. Let's make sure that he pays enough to discourage anyone from ever trying it again.

    Posted by FloridaJudy at 02/15/2009 @ 5:20pm

12. .....the *real* villain here: that doctor.....

    Posted by FloridaJudy at 02/15/2009 @ 5:20pm

    Bullshit!

    I'm no fan of "that doctor" but no one has evidenced his `helping' Octomom as being illegal! He in fact, did the same procedure for her first 6 kids!

    Your accusation is typical of the Lib mindset, "It's always someone else' fault!"....like the bars/bartenders who are somehow, supposed to know both which customers will be driving home AND judge how capable their customers will be upon leaving. Or like the gun shop which sells a dozen assorted weapons to a non-Felon customer.

    What Octomom is, is the modern, educated, 21st Century version of the Welfare Queen! She took advantage of the system totally By the Book and in case you didn't read it, she doesn't even think she's receiving welfare!

    Go read up on Peggy Noonan's op-ed....and fear for where this great country maybe headed, aided even more now, by the Pork Bill which greatly undermines what Clinton achieved in 1996 (wrt Welfare Reform).

    Posted by Happy at 02/15/2009 @ 5:43pm

13. Why is anyone surprised now that "feminist entitlement" driven culture and science has perverted natural procreation processes that such abuse has occurred? You certainly do reap what you sow! Welcome to the brave new world where humans and animals alike both have litters!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/15/2009 @ 5:45pm

14. Men who have 14 children outnumber the women who do by what? A factor of a hundred? But no death threats, no calls for mutilation, until a woman usurps the male prerogative of negligent mass spawns.

    Yusuf Bey of Oakland had 46 kids, most (if not all) on welfare, and the man was treated like royalty until a whole line of brutal murders and child rapes were definitively laid at his door.

    Double standard? No, more like triple, or quadruple, or ....

    Posted by pandit at 02/15/2009 @ 6:18pm

15. Posted by pandit at 02/15/2009 @ 6:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Any honest reply will only generate tepid screams of racism, religious prejudice &etc. as usual from leftist!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/15/2009 @ 6:31pm

16. Posted by comancheamerican at 02/15/2009 @ 5:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Did have a good sow long ago that produce a litter of 14, 5 barrows and 8 gilts, but that is what you want raising pigs!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/15/2009 @ 6:35pm

17. I just love how it blows up DarinTT's theory (no doubt held by some anti-contraception Righties) that "People who have more children are less self-centered than people who have only one child"...

    and herrrrrrree's Nadya!!!!!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2009 @ 7:38pm

18. How about this....

    any twit who wants children while on welfare must sign a statement and forfeit the rights to welfare..

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/15/2009 @ 7:57pm

19. Quite an entertaining thread, especially the comments about what 'those on the left' would do or think about the topic.

    Whoever 'they' are, 'they' seem to be a frightening group.

    'They' must be the ones who started that nasty war.

    Maybe 'they' are the ones who caused the big financial meltdown.

    I'll bet that those darn 'leftist' creeps are the ones who tortured all those people in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

    Boy, 'they' just don't care about their country. What a bunch of idiots.

    Posted by ficheye at 02/15/2009 @ 8:14pm

20. I just love how it blows up DarinTT's theory (no doubt held by some anti-contraception Righties) that "People who have more children are less self-centered than people who have only one child"...

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2009 @ 7:38pm

    You're cheapening yourself....after Darin had tried, in his usual patient manner, on numerous subjects, that his various points apply generally....

    You know well he's an actuary!

    Your present waste of time, is akin to his other saying, heard several times here, that People who have higher IQ earns more than those w/lower IQ.....and ever more predicatably, MASK comes along and points to some dumbass who makes gazillion.

    What's the hell is wrong w/you? Being in power is that intoxicating? Hardly worth reading! You're on probation!

    Posted by Happy at 02/15/2009 @ 8:16pm

21. I really do not think people hate this woman.

    But they do bigtime hate the idea of having to pay for her children in the middle of the New Depression.

    Nadya Suleman is exactly to motherhood what John Thain is to banking.

    ONE day after her begging bowl Paypal donations site went up this caring mother of all litters was shown getting another French manicure and window shopping consumer electronics--not a kid in sight. And paid for with public donations.

    I just hope any of those Rightwing to lifers got to enjoy seeing how their money is being spent.

    The medical costs were not all in vitro fertilizations,either.

    What do you think a Southern California nose job costs?

    You don't just fish-lip yourself once. That has to be maintained.

    So that right there is about 12,000 in student loan loot that those kids were deemed less important than by their own mother.

    Then there is her announcement made to the foreign press that all this is possible due to a $500 weekly nanny.

    So if nannies and nose jobs have nothing to do with student loans how is the government going to cooperate with providing Nadya for her second act? Birth really was just the intro before the first commercial in this madwoman's mind.

    But no matter how eternally ready she is now for her closeup, it can only happen if we are all interested in being Mr. deMille. And we are not.

    Nadya broke the first rule of notoriety.

    Never Lie.

    Admit anything . Make excuses. Find God.

    But the minute you can be proven to have lied, your brass ring has just rolled irretrievably into the sewer.

    Funny how right after that article her "pro bono" publicists up and quit.

    The one thing no one in the rightwing to life movement seems to understand is that

    Posted by gala1 at 02/15/2009 @ 9:13pm

22. Part 2

    The one thing no one in the rightwing to life movement seems to understand is that it wasn't about hatch or destroy.

    It should have been donate or destroy. Suleman not only shorted 8 kids of a safe gestation in utero but has condemned them, along with the other 6 and her innocent parents, to a grim lifetime in furtherance of her own celebrity.

    That's pretty clear because you don't go through all that cosmetic surgery unless you have some plans on tap. It's not exactly part of the average baby shower.

    What exactly does looking like Angelina have to do with anything unless you intended to be seen?

    The reality show will come --but not as some Fameleech intended. It will be an international custody mess. That is whet Yoder has signed up for.

    Teh Old Woman who lives in a Shoe gone Bleak House.

    It's not whether you are good or bad when it comes to needing a publicist. it's how to get every second of your 15 minutes of facetime.

    Meanwhile 8 babies have been born into an imperfect hell. And another 6 will live blighted lives.

    The knowledge of that happening while we are all helpless sis what we really hate.

    -gala1

    Posted by gala1 at 02/15/2009 @ 9:15pm

23. You can't blame the woman for being insane or having bad judgment (or whatever). It's simply not possible to do what she did without advanced medical technology and a doctor's willingness to go along with a potentially very dangerous procedure -- implanting all those embryos at the same time.

    Posted by soc at 02/15/2009 @ 9:37pm

24. Posted by Happy at 02/15/2009 @ 8:16pm

    That would be "You well know..." he's an actuary. In your haste to be derisive you are forgetting how to construct a sentence.

    But Troll says such ignorant things. It doesn't matter if he can count or compile. It doesn't automatically make him smarter than anyone else. Or right.

    Do us all a favor and tell us what you don't like about the 'pork spending bill'. Besides that you just don't like it.

    I'm curious as to which parts you have a problem with. It's pretty well evidenced that the conservatives are not going to like the thing unless it's just comprised of tax cuts. It's not fair to 'those on the left' to be left in the dark about your important observations. We could learn something...

    Posted by ficheye at 02/15/2009 @ 10:11pm

25. Just go to Walmart, throw a rope out, and you'll pull in the same exact number of people dependent on the government in one form or another for their care and problems...

    Same average IQ too.

    Why the focus on this one "family", they are EVERYWHERE. Oh, but that's FREEDOM!!

    Posted by winyahn at 02/15/2009 @ 10:50pm

26. Pugs hate "sex ed" or community mental health and claim to love freedom and the free market... Well, this story is just 14 of gazillions of inappropriate pregnancies. Pugs made sure no "socialist" interventions slowed this breeder down... No family planning courses!! She probably spent more time studying for her driver's license that in any sort of valid course or counseling. There's data on this stuff. Some of it is pretty effective. Imperfect, complex, not reducible enough for neocons.

    Posted by winyahn at 02/15/2009 @ 11:03pm

27. Why is anyone surprised now that the "feminist entitlement" driven culture and science has perverted the natural procreation processes so that such abuse has occurred? You certainly do reap what you sow! Welcome to the brave new world where humans and animals alike both have litters!

    And no intelligent comebacks, just the usual ignorant leftist rhetoric so far, excellent!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/15/2009 @ 11:29pm

28. Under what possible ethical system do you live that espouses the right to one woman to have fourteen children? We live in a limited, material world. Let's just first look at the U.S. Let's just use a round number of 100 million women of child bearing age. Do all 100 million have the right to have fourteen children? If one were to challenge this assumed right, do you have the right to call it "hatred." Now, think globally, again with rough numbers. One American consumes about six times of the earth's resources as a Chinese, and eleven times that of a Kenyan. So, fourteen Americans now equals 84 Chinese and 154 Kenyans. Political ideology that ignores physical reality is bullshit.

    Posted by theo51 at 02/15/2009 @ 11:39pm

29. Posted by comancheamerican at 02/15/2009 @ 11:29pm

    Posted by theo51 at 02/15/2009 @ 11:39pm

    Oh the outrage... feminism, terrible ethical systems (what?). Anyway:

    With 20/20 hindsight for free, can either on you offer anything remotely resembling a realistic remedy? Arrrrgh

    Posted by winyahn at 02/16/2009 @ 12:19am

30. Close all fertility clinics! You have NO "right" given by God or guarrented by law to reproduce if you can't naturally! Hows that?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/16/2009 @ 12:25am

31. This episode was enabled by free medical care in California. When you take away the consequences, some people are going to behave irresponsibly. She got the money for the in-vitro by that great other liberal boondoggle and scandal, worker's comp fraud. It's a natural progression. The solution, of course, is for the State to forcibly intervene. And if they can intervene in Suleman's case, they can intervene in anyone's case. If Universal Health Care is enacted, the State will have the right to tell ALL of us how to live their lives, with no other principal other than the dominant political culture in Washington or the State capital to guide them. Our society is being corrupted by a 'no-fault' mentality under which, at the urging of 'progressives' (socialists), we are trading our liberty for security, and we will end up with neither.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/16/2009 @ 01:26am

32. I just love how it blows up DarinTT's theory (no doubt held by some anti-contraception Righties) that "People who have more children are less self-centered than people who have only one child"... and herrrrrrree's Nadya!!!!!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2009 @ 7:38pm

    HAH!

    Gods, I hate it when Mask hits one out of the park.

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/16/2009 @ 04:31am

33. And no intelligent comebacks, just the usual ignorant leftist rhetoric so far, excellent! Posted by comancheamerican at 02/15/2009 @ 11:29pm

    Rhetoric: Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on it's audience, but is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

    So, your point is...?

    It's unclear just what kind of comeback to make regarding your previous posts. You've said it all.

    I do happen to think that this woman is a moron of the highest sort, however. I think we can agree on that. And she looks like some kind of fish... one I would throw back if I caught it. Carp, maybe.

    Posted by ficheye at 02/16/2009 @ 04:35am

34. I say bring back involuntary sterilization. This time use it properly.

    Posted by RawHonesty at 02/15/2009 @ 4:04pm

    If we have learnt anything from the death penalty or the rest of our wonderful criminal justice system, it is not possible that involuntary sterilization will be used "properly," that is, free of racial and class bias, the arrogance of the medical profession and other experts, or too many other kinds of prejudice and hubrice. If there is one thing I can appreciate about the Catholic concern for life, in all its variety, it is that all living creatures have a right to dignity and the exercise of as much free will as is possible without harming others.

    Given that women of color, the poor and the developmentally disabled are not responsible for the sorry state of our economy, our legal system or our politics, I see no reason to resume a system of involuntary sterilization that would likely target them. Nor could I support it for the Rubins, Madoffs, Bushes, Cheneys, Clintons or Waltons, because though they and their ilk are primarily responsible for our sorry state, I would rather take away their power as a class than their individual ability to procreate (it's both a more effective fix and more humane).

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/16/2009 @ 04:49am

35. Oops.

    so much for her being a leftist scourge. Even though she hired Warrens agency and has joined up with an xtian group, which I have to assume agrees with "go forth an multiply", still the cons blame it all on "the leftist ideology"

    too rich.

    Where did Ponti go?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/16/2009 @ 09:49am

36. And yes, the doctor is to blame here, along with Suleman. It is a doctors repsonsibility to be a calm, logical part of the process. It is his responsibility to take in all the factors surrounding her situation and help he through any ethical/medical issues.

    What we appear to have here is a profit motivated christian ideology taken to an extreme. Selfishness rules. Why are the cons complaining again?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/16/2009 @ 09:52am

37. For all of the words and sayings people are heaping upon this woman, compassion sure isn't it.

    Nadia Suleman deserves your empathy, not your contempt. And, if any of you are truly concerned about her "state of mind" (Ms. Pollitt), then, by all means, please extend an open hand to her.

    Posted by ACook at 02/16/2009 @ 10:34am

38. "...I would rather take away their power as a class than their individual ability to procreate (it's both a more effective fix and more humane)." Posted by cka2nd at 02/16/2009 @ 04:49am

    That's an excellent point cka2nd. And as the world's human population soon will speed past 7,000,000,000 beings, the power of ruling class will be consolidated even more than it is now. They are on a path of gaining monopolistic control over our water, food, energy and land resources. That's why sex education, reproductive rights, and population control are Humanist issues, transcending any nationalist or religious ideology. And that's why you now see the fundamentalist Christians coming out in support of Suleman. It all reflects the "go forth and multiply" increase my tribe over your tribe mentality. Under no circumstances should any government have the right to force sterilizations and abortions on the one end, or forced pregnancies on the other. Neither should they be in the business of supporting anyone who chooses to have fourteen children.

    Posted by theo51 at 02/16/2009 @ 11:24am

39. I just love how it blows up DarinTT's theory (no doubt held by some anti-contraception Righties) that "People who have more children are less self-centered than people who have only one child"... and herrrrrrree's Nadya!!!!!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2009 @ 7:38pm

    HAH!

    Gods, I hate it when Mask hits one out of the park.

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/16/2009 @ 04:31am

    He didn't even make it out of his toilet bowl.

    If Nadya proves that people with more children are selfish...

    This is stupid one person doesn't prove shit about anything.

    Are you following the story of the 13-year old father in England. His baby's mother is 15 and her entire family has spent their entire lives on welfare. Does she prove all welfare recipients and their hildren should be forcibly sterilized?

    One person doesnt prove shit.

    The criminal who is let out of prison and kills again. Does he prove everybody convicted should be given a death sentence?

    I stand by it because it painfully obvious: on agverage people who have larger families are more selfless than people who have smaller families.

    The only thing that Nadya proves is that human parasites who are addicted to welfare feel naturally entited to ever increasing amounts welfare simply because they want it.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/16/2009 @ 11:28am

40. Nadya is not to be hated, but pitied.

    She is a product of the moral rot that is California. Values like thrift, sobriety, and selflessness have been cast aside for the values of celebrity, instant gratification, and self indugence that have been championed by the Liberals who write for publications such as The Nation.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/16/2009 @ 11:33am

41. The liberals who run The Nation feel the need to infantilize those who can't provide for themselves.

    You are not doing them any favors by revmoving all expectations of responsible behavior.

    Where the fuck does a single mother of six, who is completely supported by the state, get the ability to undergo invitro fertalization?

    Her actions are completely irresponsible, but apparently, nobody has ever told her they expect her to behave in a responsible fashion. She should be locked up for child abuse and her children placed in foster care.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/16/2009 @ 11:41am

42. "Where the fuck does a single mother of six, who is completely supported by the state, get the ability to undergo invitro fertalization?" Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/16/2009 @ 11:41am

    She says she saved the money for the procedure. I guess instead of saving for college educations or better treatment for her special needs children, she decided to bring eight additional children into the world. Go figure?

    Posted by k330k at 02/16/2009 @ 12:09pm

43. My bad. There should be a period instead of a question mark at the end of the last sentence.

    Posted by k330k at 02/16/2009 @ 12:12pm

44. She claims in interviews that her reliance on food stamps, student loans, disability (already has run out for her actually), and any type of public assistance is "temporary." She claims that once she finishes school and has her psychology degree that she will get a job that will allow her to pay for all of these children. Apparently the poor girl is so out of touch she doesn't know what kind of salary a psychology/counseling degree will get her these days, let alone understanding the current state of the job market and that an employer is unlikely to hire someone with 14 kids. Talk about sick and personal day use! This woman will leech off of the system for the rest of her life....CA sort of breeds this type of person. She is intelligent enough to work the system and it is unfortunate but this is where taxpayer money will be going.

    Posted by noisy25 at 02/16/2009 @ 1:49pm

45. Simply another "straw person" the media has chosen to give fifteen minutes to, so as to distract us, again. Built up and then vilified, now they will kick her a few times while she's down then forget her. An exception that will perhaps be tried to be played out like a rule.

    I hope all ends well for children, and her.

    Posted by V at 02/16/2009 @ 1:52pm

46. Simply another "straw person" the media has chosen to give fifteen minutes to, so as to distract us, again...

    I hope all ends well for children, and her.

    Posted by V at 02/16/2009 @ 1:52pm

    She's this year's Cindy Sheehan.

    I hope to be made King of All Humanity. I think I've got a better chance than her kids.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/16/2009 @ 2:01pm

47. "If we have learnt anything from the death penalty or the rest of our wonderful criminal justice system, it is not possible that involuntary sterilization will be used "properly,"" cka2nd

    There is no reason to believe that it is not possible. We have brought back many things that were used improperly: leaches, electroshock therapy, etc. It is in knowing how it was misused historically, that allows us to make policies to use it properly.

    The false notion that everyone has a right to breed has done too much damage to society, the environment and to children, not to consider it.

    Posted by RawHonesty at 02/16/2009 @ 3:27pm

48. Posted by ficheye at 02/15/2009 @ 10:11pm

    You know, you guys pretend like you understand the "science" behind global warming. The statistics involved are an order of magnitude more complicated than the statistics involved with deriving the correlation between income and IQ (high schoolers can do this).

    But that kind of science is a bunch of mumbo jumbo because you don't like the conclusion. But the science that can only begin to be grasped by people with an advanced degree in statistic is "obvious" because it leads to the conclusion that government should force other people to behave the way you think they should behave.

    What if Anthopomorphic global warming became so real that the only conclusion was people who couldn't afford to pay a $25,000 per year energy tax had to killed by the government? Would you be so enthusiastic to proclaim the science "obvious"?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/16/2009 @ 3:59pm

49. If science says that the government should force people to live by my values, that's the definition of obvious.

    If science says I'm talking out ass, well, that's clearly junk science.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/16/2009 @ 4:01pm

50. Now its time for all you right wing "Right to Life" Republicans, all the members of religious denominations of this country, and those of you that don't want national health care or welfare in general, to step up the help this woman and her 14 children will need for the next eighteen years. Lets don't forget those of you that still think Ron "The Gipper" Reagan was correct when he said "Government is the Problem", now its time for you to step up too. Put a little of your money and time where your mouth is so the government and tax payers aren't burdened with this. She will probably never be able to pay the anticipated 1.3 million dollar octuplet hospital bill, or even the hundreds of thousands of dollars it will take to raise these children by even poverty standards, not to mention the basic help she will need until they are out of diapers. So step right on up all you religious fanatics and right wing anti government fundamentalists everywhere, its time to pool your money and time for the help these needy children will require and the mental health care help this woman needs, because lord knows the government can't or shouldn't do it.

    Posted by GregH at 02/16/2009 @ 5:25pm

51. You want to talk moral right? Let's talk Idaho, where I live, not California, where I used to live and wish I lived again. Christian hypocrites.

    Posted by Kristev at 02/16/2009 @ 5:53pm

52. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/16/2009 @ 2:01pm

    Cindy Sheehan was not, a "Cindy Sheehan" ... which makes the comparison even more specious.

    And yes, for some, surviving a challenged childhood was obviously synonymous with an attempt to become "King of Humanity ..."

    Posted by V at 02/16/2009 @ 6:02pm

53. ....Put a little of your money and time where your mouth is so the government and tax payers aren't burdened with this....

    Posted by GregH at 02/16/2009 @ 5:25pm

    No need to....by anybody! The system she mastered and knew can be counted on, is already in place....in fact, you can say, her future will be even more secure after the Pork Bill is signed tomorrow!

    Posted by Happy at 02/16/2009 @ 6:38pm

54. Posted by V at 02/16/2009 @ 1:52pm

    Nicely written.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 02/16/2009 @ 8:31pm

55. We just got over a president who had the same qualities.

    Posted by onthehelm at 02/15/2009 @ 3:55pm

    hardly.

    we'll be "getting over" his goldfishiness for a loooooooooooooooong time.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/16/2009 @ 9:32pm

56. If Universal Health Care is enacted, the State will have the right to tell ALL of us how to live their lives, with no other principal other than the dominant political culture in Washington or the State capital to guide them.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/16/2009 @ 01:26am

    oh yeah, i'm at stephen harper's beck and call.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/16/2009 @ 9:35pm

57. I stand by it because it painfully obvious: on agverage people who have larger families are more selfless than people who have smaller families.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/16/2009 @ 11:28am

    wtf?!?!???!???!????!?

    having a bunch of kids is the most selfish thing you can do.

    each of us neo-europeans gobbles up the resources of village size populations in other parts of the world.

    air conditioning, clothes dryers, plastic, plastic, plastic.

    our planet isn't disposable.

    darin, PUT DOWN THAT BONG!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/16/2009 @ 9:40pm

58. She is a product of the moral rot that is California. Values like thrift, sobriety, and selflessness have been cast aside for the values of celebrity, instant gratification, and self indugence that have been championed by the Liberals who write for publications such as The Nation.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/16/2009 @ 11:33am

    HMMMM.......

    But, according to Add Health data, evangelical teen-agers are more sexually active than Mormons, mainline Protestants, and Jews. On average, white evangelical Protestants make their sexual début--to use the festive term of social-science researchers--shortly after turning sixteen.

    ••

    In 2004, the states with the highest divorce rates were Nevada, Arkansas, Wyoming, Idaho, and West Virginia (all red states in the 2004 election); those with the lowest were Illinois, Massachusetts, Iowa, Minnesota, and New Jersey.

    ••

    The highest teen-pregnancy rates were in Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas (all red); the lowest were in North Dakota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine (blue except for North Dakota).

    ••

    As the Reverend Rick Marks, a Southern Baptist minister, recently pointed out in a Florida newspaper, "Evangelicals are fighting gay marriage, saying it will break down traditional marriage, when divorce has already broken it down." Conservatives may need to start talking as much about saving marriages as they do about, say, saving oneself for marriage.

    http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/01/

    mississippi-vanguard-abstinence-sex-ed

    -now-boasts-highest-teen-pregnancy-rate-na

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/16/2009 @ 9:45pm

59. I hope all ends well for children, and her. Posted by V at 02/16/2009 @ 1:52pm

    yep.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/16/2009 @ 9:47pm

60. I hope to be made King of All Humanity. I think I've got a better chance than her kids. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/16/2009 @ 2:01pm

    well, with your karma.......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/16/2009 @ 9:48pm

61. bring back sarah palin.

    she's way more fun to hate.

    PALIN/PALIN

    President Moose, Vice President Dude!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/16/2009 @ 9:51pm

62. <i>Posted by GregH at 02/16/2009 @ 5:25pm </i>

    I actually completely agree with this. It doesn't matter what you think of the mother, the fact still remains that the children will need support of some kind in order to have anything approaching a decent childhood. Reaching out to help her and her children is just the right thing to do.

    And Kristev, it's often said that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. All of us are hypocrites so long as we believe in certain moral goods yet fail to completely carry them out. I'm not saying that excuses whatever you've experienced, but I am saying that hypocrisy is often an indictment of fallible and flawed human beings rather than of the principles they espouse.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/16/2009 @ 10:12pm

63. "having a bunch of kids is the most selfish thing you can do.

    air conditioning, clothes dryers, plastic, plastic, plastic.

    our planet isn't disposable".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/16/2009 @ 9:40pm

    Well, my parents would disagree with you. They had 12 children and raised 10 successfully. Back then, the front and back doors were condsidered the AC units, the clothes were hung out to dry and plastic wasn't plentiful. We all contribute to society and nobody is in jail.

    And the best thing about having a large family is - you will always be connected to someone. Oh, and we laugh more too!

    Posted by ACook at 02/16/2009 @ 10:26pm

64. oh, i know the joy of a big family, acook.

    after all, i'm "mexican".

    but until we're able to stabilize our consumption in pace with our planet's (that we are made from) (pace),

    we've got to think rationally as well emotionally.

    being frugal is one of the greatest gifts you can give.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/16/2009 @ 11:45pm

65. I would say that Nadya Suleman is the perfect poster child for the Democratic Party and it's 'progressive' ideals. No father, a baby-making machine paid for the the State of California to do nothing but sit home all day and produce another generation of welfare recipients. This dovetails nicely with the Porkulus Bill's repeal of welfare reform. Oh, and by the way, Nadya got the $100k for the in vitro treatments by filing a worker's comp case for one of the 'back injuries' in her old job (working for the State, of course). Like Nadya or not, she is the future that the 'progressives' are striving for.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2009 @ 12:32am

66. Lets don't forget those of you that still think Ron "The Gipper" Reagan was correct when he said "Government is the Problem", now its time for you to step up too.

    Posted by GregH at 02/16/2009 @ 5:25pm

    If it weren't for government welfare she couldn't have pulled this stunt. Hell the government failed when they didn't remove her original 6 kids.

    Yes in this particular instance Government was the problem.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/17/2009 @ 08:11am

67. knew we wouldn't have to wait long:

    SARAH PALIN'S DAUGHTER, BRISTOL PALIN, SAYS ABSTINENCE IS UNREALISTIC IN INTERVIEW ON FOX NEWS

    Tuesday, February 17th 2009, 2:36 AM

    Teen pregnancy? Not really a good idea.

    Stopping teen sex? Ain't gonna happen.

    So says Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, who told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren Monday night that the abstinence her mom preaches is "not realistic at all."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 08:51am

68. Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 08:51am

    Hey FROSTY, what ever happened to Bristol Palin? Is she on the State welfare list? Or did her parents insist on something else?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2009 @ 09:45am

69. Gold up another $27 today, stock market tanking another 300 points. Thanks Obama!

    Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2009 @ 09:55am

70. Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2009 @ 12:32am

    "Nadya got the $100k for the in vitro treatments by filing a worker's comp case for one of the 'back injuries' in her old job (working for the State, of course)."

    Oh, forgot to mention. She actually got $165k from the State, of which only $100k went to pay for the 8 babies. The other $65k presumably went to pay for Cheetos, beer, cigarettes, and lottery tickets. Worker's comp fraud, especially those hard-to-diagnose 'back injuries', are a growing cottage industry in many States, along with other things like PIP fraud. Hopey-changiness should help expand these programs greatly. Hey, people gotta eat!

    Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2009 @ 10:20am

71. <i>Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 08:51am</i>

    Is the argument that teaching abstinence doesn't solve, or that abstinence itself is unrealistic/unattainable. I mean, for any particular individual I think it's clearly attainable, even if on a large scale we'd predict that it's not going to be common. Last I saw, though, the percentages of teen sex are actually not incredibly high at all.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/17/2009 @ 11:27am

72. If it weren't for government welfare she couldn't have pulled this stunt. Hell the government failed when they didn't remove her original 6 kids. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/17/2009 @ 08:11am

    Oh please. That's bullshit. That woman is more than a little "touched". She would have had plenty o' babies regardless of government help. Besides, unless there's a report of abuse, noone's taking her children away.

    Posted by k330k at 02/17/2009 @ 11:33am

73. So says Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, who told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren Monday night that the abstinence her mom preaches is "not realistic at all."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 08:51am

    Well that became obvious during Palin's campaign. Of course I knew this already. I was once a teenager myself.

    Posted by k330k at 02/17/2009 @ 11:35am

74. Posted by k330k at 02/17/2009 @ 11:33am"

    She would have had plenty o' babies regardless of government help."

    Perhaps, but they (we?) sure made it easy by removing any consequences of her decision. Hope you like the results because reportedly there's more Octo-moms coming. Not to worry, as a 'progressive' State, Cali will be there to pay the bills - so long as they don't go bankrupt first.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2009 @ 11:40am

75. Cali can't be all that progressive. Voters did vote down gay marriage. There's always been "octomoms". Those wives that do in-vitro (it's just not natural) and end up with 6 or more at a time are octomoms. They chose, just like Nadya Suleman, to go through this process. Shit, just because there were two parents didn't make it okay with me. Personally, I believe that not all women are meant to procreate. It's just not in the cards for every woman. But hey, just like a woman can't be forced to have a child, she can't be forced to not have one either.

    Posted by k330k at 02/17/2009 @ 12:58pm

76. Okay, those that have six or seven are not "octomoms" but you know what I mean.

    Posted by k330k at 02/17/2009 @ 1:07pm

77. Gold up another $27 today, stock market tanking another 300 points. Thanks Obama! Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2009 @ 09:55am

    the man has been president for how long?!???!?

    here, you need to look at this:

    http://baselinescenario.com/2009/02/15/

    household-assets-debt-savings-federal-reserve-survey/

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 1:55pm

78. Hey, the Mamaluk-Nubian military slave system served well in 'ol Egypt. Equal opportunity, I might add.

    Could the Octomom's progeny be placed in some sort of Spartan nursery? And schooled for readiness sometime in the future?

    Now there's a return on your tax dollar.

    Posted by Sorelish at 02/17/2009 @ 2:32pm

79. Actually, k33ok, I think she paid for her reckless spree with money she got from some disability-related settlement, which if memory serves had something to do with litigation at her last job. And here, I ask a doctor at my HMO how much a vasectomy might cost and I get told not to waste my money, since 50-year-old me should confine myself to menopausal women (how dare this doctor, who was naturally a woman and probably a feminist to boot, assume I have no right to be involved with, say, a 40-year old!)

    Posted by DP in TC at 02/17/2009 @ 2:32pm

80. Posted by k330k at 02/17/2009 @ 12:58pm

    "But hey, just like a woman can't be forced to have a child, she can't be forced to not have one either."

    Yes but it's an axiom in economics that if you subsidize something you will get more of it. If you make it economically feasible to have 14 children without a father, then more women will make that choice, whether it's a good choice or not. If you lower taxes, people will work harder because they will get to keep more of what the earn, whereas the reverse is also true. These are fundamental economic facts, not theory.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2009 @ 2:33pm

81. so, your facts tell me that since eating road kill is economically feasible, ¿more and more people are doing it?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 3:32pm

82. "Nicely written."

    Posted by freiheit1 at 02/16/2009 @ 8:31pm

    Thank you.

    Posted by V at 02/17/2009 @ 3:59pm

83. Posted by Sorelish at 02/17/2009 @ 2:32pm

    "Could the Octomom's progeny be placed in some sort of Spartan nursery? And schooled for readiness sometime in the future?Now there's a return on your tax dollar."

    I believe the plan is that they will be raised to become multi-generational welfare recipients and vote Democratic. Wasn't that what stealth repeal of welfare reform was all about?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2009 @ 4:56pm

84. I believe the plan is that they will be raised to become multi-generational welfare recipients and vote Democratic. Wasn't that what stealth repeal of welfare reform was all about? Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2009 @ 4:56pm

    Excellent post. Snark factor 8.

    I believe that this is an example of those things that you say to try to annoy 'those on the left', who are increasingly indistinguishable from 'those on the right'.

    I think a good place to start, however, if we are to remain fact based in our analysis, is to ask her if she's a Republican or Democrat. Then we may know how her children might vote. Your research is usually so thorough.

    I think this woman is nuts, so we can agree on that (I think). But since both Republicans and Democrats are crazy, there's really no way to tell how her kids would vote.

    But in the long run, corporate welfare will probably cost this country more than all the welfare recipients combined. Party on Ponti.

    Posted by ficheye at 02/17/2009 @ 5:53pm

85. Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2009 @ 4:56pm

    I'm very annoyed at your veiled attack on the American labor pool. You appear to be unversed in the necessary elements of capitalism. You have no faith in the future.

    My best to microfich.

    Posted by Sorelish at 02/17/2009 @ 8:55pm

86. Posted by ficheye at 02/17/2009 @ 5:53pm

    "I think a good place to start, however, if we are to remain fact based in our analysis, is to ask her if she's a Republican or Democrat. Then we may know how her children might vote. Your research is usually so thorough."

    Oh, ok, well you go ahead and ask her. I'm pretty sure I already know the answer.

    "I think this woman is nuts, so we can agree on that (I think). But since both Republicans and Democrats are crazy, there's really no way to tell how her kids would vote."

    Oh, well let's see. If they are raised from birth to believe that wealth is generated through some dark, mysterious, and undoubtedly evil process by greedy rich people, from who it must be 'fairly redistributed' (stolen) in order to benefit the deserving poor, again, I'm pretty sure I know how they'll vote. One need only make occasional inquiries into the background of the typical leftist poster at The Nation website to come up with THAT profile.

    "But in the long run, corporate welfare will probably cost this country more than all the welfare recipients combined."

    If you call corporate tax cuts 'corporate welfare', I couldnt disagree more. If you call the bailouts obtained through the routine bribery pursued by companies like GM and Chrysler (as proxies for the UAW), ADM, etc., I agree. But then, you have to realize that corporate welfare will be an artifact of any State in which you invest so much power, and having realized this, the whole statist worldview starts to crumble. And here there be dragons.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2009 @ 10:09pm

87. Oh...guess what. Chrysler just said they need another $30 billion to stay afloat. GM needs $6 billion. That's for THIS month. Couldn't we just write a check straight to the UAW?

    Posted by pontificus at 02/17/2009 @ 10:14pm

88. ponti, your numbers are wrong.

    (oh, it's labours fault, huh?)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 10:25pm

89. (oh, it's labours fault, huh?)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 10:25pm

    Here's some `fresh' thinking....

    FACT is, the capital market's loss is approaching 30% after today's drubbing (since Magic's election on Nov. 4)...and we can certainly assume that the capitalists wouldn't do that to themselves...then, whose fault is it really?

    Hmmmmmmm....there are only two other possibilities!

    Other than a couple of unsettled political positions, like a tax-paying, scandal-free Sec. of Commerce, there hasn't been any surge in the LOSS of employment for politicians......let's say, HOPE AND CHANGE = Status Quo (ie, no diminished employment or pay for pols).

    Other than perhaps 2 milion jobs (aka "labour") lost, out of a pool of some 150 million pre-Nov. 4th, there hasn't been any appreciable loss of employment for "labour" (relatively speaking--before I get attacked as being heartless).

    So, neither of the two possible culprits have really suffered; but, if one must pick the `guilty'......let's take a vote!

    Posted by Happy at 02/17/2009 @ 11:39pm

90. aren't the bosses paid to do a certain boss type job like run a viable company?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2009 @ 12:28am

91. ponti, your numbers are wrong. Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 10:25pm

    We have to realize that ponti is right... all the time, and on every topic. Resistance is futile. It's like dealing with the Borg, for cripes sake. You will be assimilated! (Although being assimilated by Jeri Ryan had a certain appeal).

    The logic that he uses so closely parallels the thought processes of the much reviled Anne Coulter that it's not funny. Whatever you say is just W-R-O-N-G.

    It's still a lot of fun. Like playing a game that you know the outcome of. The game is called 'SNARK PATROL!'

    Posted by ficheye at 02/18/2009 @ 01:47am

92. I wrote on the 15th about what I see as the bigotry expressed in the column, and know there are those among us who agree. Now, I notice that at the Nation's front page link for the column, the pitch is "Can Jesus save the Octomom's public image?" I find all this surprisingly blatant and offensive, and I'm disappointed in the Nation for adding more of the same. Considering the bigotry inherent in, and used to justify the latest disproportionate assault on the people of Gaza, and then something as seemingly small, by comparison, as this, I wonder: Are we now the only people in the world who get to express our bigotry out in the open, and with impunity?

    Posted by nsaarinen at 02/18/2009 @ 2:47pm

93. just a year ago, state troopers righteously took 460+ kids into "protective custody" because they had too many fathers???!!! Moral outrage about unregulated and non-normative (alleged) sexual relation drove a frenzy that was in anything BUT the children's best interest, and presumptively called "foul."

    now we have the sanctity of the preservation of life, and the presumption of the blessed entitlement of motherhood shrouding the clear best interests of children again...but this time it's too many kids and not enough care givers...the arguments about funding, and about right to life and feminist empowerment are side shows.

    Posted by jac5353 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:12pm

94. Much of the attack on this woman is a thinly veiled attack not only on low income women with children, but also on women's reproductive rights. If we are to be pro-choice, we must believe that women have the right to control their bodies, even if we disagree with their decisions. The arguments made in this article and in many of the comments, if in the wrong hands, could lead to a reduction of reproductive rights.

    I am really disappointed in this blog and the response. I think there are some underlying sexist and racist issues that need to be adressed.

    Posted by anne_difabio at 02/19/2009 @ 1:43pm

95. New research on IVF is warning of increased risk of birth defects and childhood cancer.

    Fertility doctors say they warn their clients of risks associated with IVF but it does not deter their wish to have a child.

    We need to focus on the abuse of this procedure. We need more pre-natal care, more early childhood education and an enhanced 'Head Start" program.

    Bless all those babies under seven years old who were born to Nadia Suleman. She does not appear competent to raise one child so I do hope 'a village' does come forward. Americans are generous people, they will not let those kids down.

    Posted by Portia at 02/19/2009 @ 2:17pm

96. I confess I don't much care about what happens to her but I do care what happens to her children. She has no sense and no idea that she is responsible to and for those 14 lives. It's all about HER. Except that it isn't. I would hope that she is found unable to parent the kids and that they are taken by the child safety people and placed in good homes.

    Posted by misskaren at 02/19/2009 @ 3:53pm

97. Ponti, what do you have against us gold bugs? :)

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 02/19/2009 @ 5:25pm

98. Gosh, America has taken hate to a new level. How do folks who write mean and judgmental things feel about it after they hit "send". It is so infrequent to read anything nice written about this woman, who has miraculously given birth to eight live infants. She did not ask her doctor for eight live infants, but that is what happened and admit it----she deserves a lot of credit. She did not eliminate any of them as she could have. It seems that everyone would love to see her fail and be beaten. Send the infants to "foster homes". You have not a hair's width of intelligence. You have no idea what sentence that imposes on those infants. Nayda loves them. Foster homes overall are hell holes, and most foster parents are selfishly motivated. Many kids die in those homes, run away or disappear. Cannot believe the amount of cruelty this writer affected. She herself seems to love to get out the whip. Cannot believe this article came from The Nation. I will certainly review the quality of news and not pollute my brain with the "campaign of hate" against this woman. I am a registered nurse and would personally go help her, were I not in New Mexico. Describing her abdomen as something ugly is the height of meanness and stupidity. Would you rather look at a huge breast with a big nipple for your enjoyment Ms Pollitt. I donated money to help Nayda, and will again. She comes off to me as a very kind and loving woman. Certainly she is not the average person, but she has educational goals, has accomplished degree with children. Too bad her mother bad mouthed her at such a vulnerable time. She regret it now. Sorry, this is off the cuff and deserves more punch. Most writers should look at their own selves. Bet your lives are a mess, but just not on the front page.

    Posted by Introspection at 02/19/2009 @ 5:41pm

99. Those children should be taken by the local welfare office and given homes that will actually be able to care for them.

    We should work towards a national law that says that a maximum of three embryos can be implanted at one time--like Canada already does.

    Incensed

    Posted by amhcw at 02/19/2009 @ 7:55pm

100. Octomom needs a boob job. Three new pairs to be specific.

     Then her website would go viral!

     Posted by winyahn at 02/19/2009 @ 9:06pm

101. How many embryos would Octomom have to gestate to run up a hospital tab equal to the $700 billion bank bailout?

     There isn't enough vitriol in the world for Octomom, but what of the bankers?

     Posted by koroviev at 02/20/2009 @ 01:08am

102. "I am really disappointed in this blog and the response. I think there are some underlying sexist and racist issues that need to be adressed.

     Posted by anne_difabio at 02/19/2009 @ 1:43pm"

     Not so underlying, Anne. In the comments, as in the column, they're right out there in the open - which was the reason for my response on the 15th, and follow-up on the 18th. I find it hard to accept that a writer who's identified with The Nation can express clear bigotry - wherever it's directed - and draw so little serious comment about it. My question was, and remains whether we now accept expression of 'our' bigotry "out in the open and with impunity" A friend who saw my comments here emailed me that she thought Pollitt set the bar pretty low, which gave responders 'permission' to do the same. I suppose that might be true.

     Posted by nsaarinen at 02/20/2009 @ 5:22pm

103. Posted by nsaarinen at 02/20/2009 @ 5:22pm

     Since when did it become 'bigotry' to have a problem with irresponsibility, i.e., CHOOSING to have 8 children, artifically, they clearly cannot even afford to have the 6 they have already?

     I think it is bigotry to expect that you don't think people have a duty to act responsibly. Now THAT is setting the bar low, my friend.

     Posted by pontificus at 02/20/2009 @ 5:49pm

104. Those weren't the issues I addressed, my friend. Peace?

     Posted by nsaarinen at 02/20/2009 @ 5:59pm

105. Underlying sexist and racist issues? If Octomom were a white male, I'm sure no one would comment. Of course, there are. But I would submit whatever you're referring to is itself a by-product of something more core, and reflects the numbed out, dumbed down public faced with nothing but stories of this calibre 24/7. Another oppression deserving of your concern is that of mega corporate media giants, those camping in her driveway, waving camera and microphones in her face. There are so many interesting, compelling, informative, gritty stories that should be chosen by editors over that of Octomom, and she's pretty compelling herself. The BBC does so much better at the cultural commentary role of the 4th estate.

     Posted by winyahn at 02/20/2009 @ 10:09pm

106. I shudder to think of the "child support" the father is inevitably gonna have to koff up. Men always get screwed with that.

     Posted by indeterminate at 02/21/2009 @ 05:42am