Is Octuplet Mom's Reality Show Deal a New Low in Celebrity Obsession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LowlyPion
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
111 replies · 13K views
Physics news on Phys.org

Discussion

That's appalling. It seems she may have bought the fertiltiy drugs illegally. No accredited clinic would do such a thing, supposedly. Perhaps she's mentally ill a la Angelina Jolie with her insane desire to keep popping out kids?
 
BTW, I think that makes 14. She may just be blessed by the God of fertility as well.
 
And Jolie has popped out 3 children (including twins) and adopted 3 from Cambodia, Ethiopia and Vietnam (all were living in orphanages). I don't see the similarity between the two cases, or the basis for a diagnosis of insanity.
 
Gokul43201 said:
The report does not say she took fertility drugs.

I'm fairly certain it was reported elsewhere. I believe in the interview with the doctors after delivery on MSNBC. Something to the effect that you don't have 8 without chemical assistance.
 
Evo said:
That's appalling. It seems she may have bought the fertiltiy drugs illegally. No accredited clinic would do such a thing, supposedly. Perhaps she's mentally ill a la Angelina Jolie with her insane desire to keep popping out kids?

Well Bradgelina do have the resources to care for about as many as they want to pop out or adopt. It wouldn't be my choice, but if that is how they want to fill their lives, ...

But in this case 14 kids in a 3 bedroom house?

That will definitely affect the resale value of the home.
 
I don't know about the U.S. but in Canada it would be questioned whether she should be allowed to keep them all as a single mom with only 1 income in a 3 bedroom house...
I can't imagine giving birth to one and ever wanting to do it again, let alone do it again 8 times in a row...
 
This goes right up there with the sick-o's in Arkansas or wherever that have 16 kids and keep going. This is a sickness. This is nature's way of the need to porpagate the species taken to an absurd level.
 
FredGarvin said:
This goes right up there with the sick-o's in Arkansas or wherever that have 16 kids and keep going. This is a sickness. This is nature's way of the need to porpagate the species taken to an absurd level.

Used to be in a more agrarian world that large families meant a ready made workforce. Increase the brood of kids like growing a herd of milk cows. With disease being treated haphazardly, getting all the kids to adulthood was undoubtedly a challenge.

For instance I look at my family tree and see family sizes of 5 to 9 kids through the 18th and 19th century and I don't think that was really all that uncommon. (And maybe 1 sometimes 2 pre-adult deaths per generation as I recall.) And they were for the most part farm owners. But the twentieth century saw my forbears have just 2 and 3 kids a generation. I think, without researching it, that experience likely mirrors, society generally as it developed and expanded with US manifest destiny.

The thing that I have to wonder about now though is the idea that there may be some procreation going on out there that may be motivated by the idea that births are a perverse source of revenue in the form of welfare. Like gee if I had more kids I could get more food stamps, and subsidies. Hence I don't know that it is necessarily sick so much as narcissistic and ill considered.
 
Gokul43201 said:
The report does not say she took fertility drugs.
Yes, it does.

The woman's mother, Angela Suleman, told the Los Angeles Times that her daughter had indeed undergone fertility treatments and that the embryos were implanted last year. According to Suleman, when the woman learned that she was carrying multiple babies, she opted not to reduce the number of embryos.
 
Family: Octuplets' mother has 6 other children
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_re_us/octuplets

WHITTIER, Calif. – The woman who gave birth to octuplets this week has six other children and never expected to have eight more when she took fertility treatment, her mother said.

Angela Suleman said her daughter expects a big challenge raising 14 children. The good news, she said, is all the babies appear healthy.
. . . .
Suleman's daughter gave birth to the octuplets Monday at a hospital in Bellflower but has requested that doctors keep her name confidential. Media knew little about the woman until a family acquaintance told CBS' "The Early Show" on Thursday that the mother is "fairly young" and lives with her parents and her six children.

. . . .
Hay caramba! So what about the father(s)?

If she's not married, why the heck is she taking fertility treatment?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Evo said:
Yes, it does.
You're right. I have no idea how I missed that paragraph. Thanks for pointing it out.
 
Astronuc said:
If she's not married, why the heck is she taking fertility treatment?

Is that a conservative opinion there? Are couples who are not tied, not allowed to have children? Marriage these days is seen by many as little more than a tax break I think. A lot of people get married simply because it's a social convention at least in the UK, it certainly isn't in the majority of cases religious. If you think about it in a detached manner, apart from the legal and financial incentives, what is the difference between living with someone forever and being married?
 
The Dagda said:
Is that a conservative opinion there? Are couples who are not tied, not allowed to have children? Marriage these days is seen by many as little more than a tax break I think. A lot of people get married simply because it's a social convention at least in the UK, it certainly isn't in the majority of cases religious. If you think about it in a detached manner, apart from the legal and financial incentives, what is the difference between living with someone forever and being married?
I suppose some might consider my opinion conservative. So be it.

Actually, it's simply a matter of responsibility.

I'm also just curious about the absence of the father(s). For me, if I get a woman pregnant, I'm committed to that woman and child (or children) until I stop breathing.

I certainly don't know all the details, but I have to wonder if she is expecting to be supported by the state. It's one thing to have 14 children and support them oneself (which I don't see a single adult doing), but it's quite another matter to have numerous children and expect others to support one's children. It seems it's selfish.

If I'm going to live with someone forever, I'm going to get married (which I did going on 27 years + 1 year of being engaged while living apart except for weekends and holidays). Beyond legal and financial matters, it's simply a matter of commitment.

I've seen many people who live together (as well as married), and then split up. It seems, based on what I've observed, that when a couple co-habits, one or both is not necessarily committed to a long-term, exclusive relationship (I've seen that in marriages too).
 
I see I agree with your concerns about a partner, but I suspect the treatment wouldn't have been tried if she didn't have a long term partner. Not sure though. If you think about it a lesbian couple would probably have the same issues, so it doesn't really matter about marriage.

As for your views about marriage I'm pretty sure you are not alone.

However it's possible to make a commitment without it being legally binding, it's possible to live have children and die without ever being married, the difference is more or less one of incentive and tradition and social conformity looked at impartially. In todays day and age looking at if someone is married as an indication of their fitness to raise children seems obsolete. A relationship will do.
 
I'm just curious about whether the father(s) are supporting the woman and children.


I knew a woman who was one of three sisters, each of whom had a different father. None of the women knew who the father was. The mom just got pregnant and had the girls. The mother finally married, but from what I learned, the girls had a pretty rough time, and the woman I knew ran away from home at 16 and lived on the streets (sleeping in the yards of friends or neighbors). She finally settled down at 18, got her GED, and settled for menial or clerical jobs.

I'm just puzzled why a woman needs to take fertility treatment after having 6 kids, and what happened to the father(s).
 
The fathers may have been a sperm bank.
 
The Dagda said:
... but I suspect the treatment wouldn't have been tried if she didn't have a long term partner.

This is where I think it gets murky as to who would reasonably have assisted in such "treatment"? With 6 already on the shop floor being processed toward adulthood, another round of fertility encouragement seems like an extraordinary lapse in professional judgment, ... if a professional was involved.

I'd think if a doctor knowingly engaged in such treatments that he would begin to assume liability for his poor judgment.

There has to be an adult somewhere in this process.
 
Evo said:
It seems she may have bought the fertiltiy drugs illegally.

I could see that. Apart from overseas pharmacies, Clomid and a few other fertility drugs are also abused by bodybuilders, which there is a huge black market for.
 
It would be interesting to know the fraction of people who think that she had too many kids who would also say they support reproductive freedom.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
It would be interesting to know the fraction of people who think that she had too many kids who would also say they support reproductive freedom.
Probably a similar fraction to those who agree with Voltaire's views on freedoms.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
It would be interesting to know the fraction of people who think that she had too many kids who would also say they support reproductive freedom.

That's a good point, though I think when you begin to factor gross irresponsibility into the equation, where someone is disproportionately burdening others with the human obligation of caring for lives of innocents, born through no fault of their own, there begins to be some blow back.
 
LowlyPion said:
That's a good point, though I think when you begin to factor gross irresponsibility into the equation, where someone is disproportionately burdening others with the human obligation of caring for lives of innocents, born through no fault of their own, there begins to be some blow back.

Saying that such "celebrity" families, usually make a bit in endorsements. And companies like to send them a lifetime supply of x and y. They may even come out of it with more money than they would otherwise. It's hard to say.
 
Oops! I was looking at the wrong side of the reproductive freedom coin, wasn't I?
 
The Dagda said:
Saying that such "celebrity" families, usually make a bit in endorsements. And companies like to send them a lifetime supply of x and y. They may even come out of it with more money than they would otherwise. It's hard to say.

Perhaps. But the public appetite is for novelty. And promotion dollars feeds off that appetite.

Start having hundreds of baby dynamos churning 'em out half dozen at a whack and I'd think the public would be less amused by the novelty offered by the fertility pharmacopoeia. And the Gerbers and Pampers of the world would in turn be less inclined to support these legions of excess.
 
LowlyPion said:
Perhaps. But the public appetite is for novelty. And promotion dollars feeds off that appetite.

Start having hundreds of baby dynamos churning 'em out half dozen at a whack and I'd think the public would be less amused by the novelty offered by the fertility pharmacopoeia. And the Gerbers and Pampers of the world would in turn be less inclined to support these legions of excess.

Well obviously but in this case I doubt they'll be having more children so it is a possibility that they may make out like bandits from this. The poor often fire out more babies than they can afford, it's ubiquitous. The poor don't generally go mental and start firing out as many as they can though not even Catholics. :wink:
 
I think its funny that she wants her name to be confidential, its going to be hard to hide all those babies.
 
fileen said:
I think its funny that she wants her name to be confidential, its going to be hard to hide all those babies.
The news reporters stuck to the letter of the law and did not disclose her name. But they did tell you her mother's name, and city of residence. Might as well have thrown in a telephone number as well. :rolleyes:
 
fileen said:
I think its funny that she wants her name to be confidential, its going to be hard to hide all those babies.
She's not going to hide them for long. 8 babies at once is a good-sized litter, and she's going to milk that for all it's worth. It won't be long before her agent, her publicist, and her lawyers start making some noise.