|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 29, 2009 23:05:43 GMT -5
Well the Duggars are married, have a large home (yeah, yeah, it was built by TLC) they're good Christians, with bright eyed cheerful children that were conceived naturally and do seem to be able to pay for themselves.
Octomom was on welfare (even I'm against women on welfare getting pregnant, if you can't afford to take care of yourself, what the hell are you doing getting pregnant). Single, living with her parents, her father has gone back into the military to assist paying for these kids. Also, it's not like it was an accidental pregnancy, she paid big bucks to get this done. People are going to ask where the hell the money came from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on Mar 29, 2009 23:46:37 GMT -5
Well the Duggars are married, have a large home (yeah, yeah, it was built by TLC) they're good Christians, with bright eyed cheerful children that were conceived naturally and do seem to be able to pay for themselves. Octomom was on welfare (even I'm against women on welfare getting pregnant, if you can't afford to take care of yourself, what the hell are you doing getting pregnant). Single, living with her parents, her father has gone back into the military to assist paying for these kids. Also, it's not like it was an accidental pregnancy, she paid big bucks to get this done. People are going to ask where the hell the money came from. Income shouldn’t be the prime determiner of whether parents who deliberately bear many children can be subject to public censure. Certainly it’s better when parents have the money to care for the kids properly without needing to take anything from the common purse, but drawing welfare is hardly the worst sin a parent – and even a parent who keeps popping out kids on purpose – can commit. The Duggars bore so many children with the hope their descendents will literally take over the world one day. Suleman did it to fill some psychological need she can’t even begin to articulate. From an ethical standpoint, the Duggars’ reasons are actually far more odious: They’re hoping to “outbreed” us to such a degree that their offspring can elect a Dominionist government that would deny women and gays equal rights. They have all those kids not necessarily because they like children, but because they feel duty-bound to this theocratic agenda. And because no two people could possibly care for over a dozen kids under ten, the oldest daughters are swamped with work – thousands of hours of unpaid labor to care for kids not their own. So Suleman’s kids will be costing the system in terms of nannies and medical help. The Duggar kids cost the system nothing. They merely cost their older sisters any hope of a life – and, perhaps they’ll eventually go on to cost millions of people their freedom. I’d sooner deal with Suleman than with the deluded spawn of Quiverfull Dominionists. |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 30, 2009 9:56:32 GMT -5
Nutcase, it sounds to me like you're wanting to blame everyone here but Nadya Suleman. Why is that? You are claiming she is mentally incapable of really processing her decisions--but there is no proof of that. You are making a judgement (just like everyone else) about her situation and reading into it what you want to see.
How can you say with such certainty that she simply isn't an incredibly selfish person, rather than mentally irresponsible?
After all, it's the doctor's fault for being ethically irresponsible (not her fault for coming in and asking for the implants and then going to a different doctor when she didn't get the response she wanted from the first one). It's the nanny service's fault for just wanting to drag the mom through the media mud (not Nadya's fault for assuming she would get the media to PAY for her irresponsible decisions by giving her a TV show and sponsorships for things like diapers). Media attention cuts both ways. It's society's fault for "judging" a single mom who chooses to have eight kids at once, after she already has six at home, two of which are special needs--but we're supposed to open our wallets and pay for them without making a peep.
At what point does Nadya's poor decision making get blamed in all this? There is nothing to suggest she is mentally incapable of anything. She has been to college. She has held employment. She can demonstrate planning. She may be delusional, but that doesn't mean she gets off the hook for her choices and it's somehow everybody else's fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 30, 2009 10:10:43 GMT -5
Income shouldn't be. Preparedness should be the determining facotr, both publicly and privately. She kind of welcomed the attention before it was discovered she had 6 other kids, and she got smacked for it. I mean, maybe this goes into the "crazy pile" or whatever, demonstrating her poor judgment, but people who have big secrets probably shouldn't be in front of the camera, since they WILL get rooted out.
But money is part of preparedness. After spending a lot of money on a doctor she found that would perform a procedure in a way most doctors would consider unethical, she's on government assistance to take care of them, and she was already on it. This is poor allotment of resources, to say the least. She was threatened after the fact? You know, that's probably bad, but she knowingly put herself in such a position. I doubt she only wanted one more child, or she would have gone to one of the other clinics she had spoken to.
The children deserve better. She whored them out to the cameras. She whored herself out, and then got smacked when it turned out this wasn't the miracle she was pretending it was. She knew she had done wrong, and she lied. There's a lot wrong with this case, and a lot of the blame goes to Nadya.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Mar 30, 2009 10:24:44 GMT -5
Exalt +1 for Schizophonic and DV. You both said it wonderfully. Nobody is condoning an outright attack and hostility on Nadya, but she knowingly put herself in a position where this could happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 30, 2009 10:57:15 GMT -5
Woohoo! Re-earned 11!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on Mar 30, 2009 12:44:46 GMT -5
Nutcase, it sounds to me like you're wanting to blame everyone here but Nadya Suleman. Why is that? Because, of all the (adult) actors in that drama, Suleman seems to be least capable of making wise decisions. She’s now situated among shrewd media personalities, and as vulnerable to them as chum in a shark tank. Whatever affects Suleman negatively will invariably affect her kids negatively as well – including this whole AIW fiasco, which was practically destined to fail from the start. I can’t produce a report from a trained and licensed analyst that confirms my suspicions, no; but Suleman’s choices, and her explanations for them, are so out in left field it’s impossible for me to believe she’s in her right mind. It makes me nervous whenever there’s almost unanimous agreement among the public on any subject, because it’s usually a consensus on whom to hate. It strikes me as a really weird way to be selfish, going through costly and uncomfortable fertility treatments, carrying the products of each for nine months, birthing them. Her choice on how to care for all those kids was thoughtless, short-sighted and, yes, selfish, but the original inclination to have them – the driving force behind her decision to undergo multiple fertility treatments and pregnancies – seems less selfish than merely self-deceived. There’s something “off” about a woman who has a complete inability to foresee the likeliest consequences of her actions – whether she be a cat-hoarder or a child-hoarder. I wasn’t aware she’d had more than one doctor. Even so, however, yes, it most certainly was ethically irresponsible for the doctor to ignore Suleman’s history and the existing medical guidelines. Whether Suleman is ill or merely selfish doesn’t matter on this point: the doctor was still just as wrong either way. AIW is a specialized medical service organization – and yes, its founder absolutely does share in some of the blame here. She, her lawyer, and Phil McGraw all claimed to have the best interests of the children in mind, without regard for why Suleman had made her choices, and yet West-Conforti and Allred approached the situation in such a way as to suggest that taking care of the children was actually less important than “proving” to the public that they had a proper level of disdain for the mother – hence this whole kerfuffle over non-disclosure agreements. I’m not trying to indicate that Suleman is blameless in all this: she comes across as both stubborn and clueless – a bad combination. But it’s already been established that Suleman is a poor decision-maker. That isn’t true of Allred and the others, however; they all have a strong capacity to foresee the consequences of their actions – for example, that antagonizing Suleman and backing her into a corner would result in a breakdown of whatever professional childcare relationship they ever hoped to have with her kids. (I'm not trying to indicate here that either Allred or West-Conforti had deliberately torpedoed their working relationship with Suleman, but simply that both of them should have known better. If they had set aside their own emotions for even a moment, they might have avoided the breakdown.) Oh no, I think society has every right to judge someone who makes poor decisions, then comes looking for a bailout. I just think, in this case, that there’s a whole lot of blame to spread around, and that too many people are satisfied to lay this entire thing only at Suleman’s feet These things don’t mean she’s not mentally ill. Her choices aren’t everyone else’s fault, but these other people are certainly to blame for their own choices: - The doctor chose to ignore existing guidelines, and Suleman’s own history, and perform several IVF treatments with more than the safe number of embryos
- West-Conforti and Allred chose, despite their claims to care solely about the welfare of the children, to force Suleman into an antagonistic relationship with AIW through threats and media appearances
- Phil McGraw chose to insinuate himself into this relationship, trying to boost his own reputation in the eyes of the public by “solving” the Octomom problem – and when that fell apart, he chose to do a final two shows on the subject before publicly washing his hands of the matter
- The paparazzi camped out on Suleman’s lawn chose to hang off a moving vehicle, pounding on the windows and doors, scaring the hell out of the medically fragile preemies they knew were inside, simply because they hoped to get a shot of Suleman and the babies
Income shouldn't be. Preparedness should be the determining factor, both publicly and privately. She kind of welcomed the attention before it was discovered she had 6 other kids, and she got smacked for it. She bore the first surviving set of octuplets ever. Considering the doctor only implanted six embryos, there’s no way she could have foreseen octuplets, let alone that all eight would survive. Whether she wanted media attention at the outset or not, there was no way she could have avoided it. Yeah, but there was absolutely no way, ever, that she could have avoided the cameras in that situation – even if she’d wanted to. True. And Suleman’s own mother begged him to stop for precisely that reason. Absolutely. No argument here. That's not merely probably bad; it's definitely bad, considering what Allred stated the AIW’s aim was in this situation. I don’t think any reputable clinic would have carried out additional IVF treatments on Suleman ever, at all, no matter what kind of money she produced. Yeah, the children to deserve better – but pretty much all the people who said they were in this for the kids were also whoring themselves out to the cameras. |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 30, 2009 13:28:01 GMT -5
No one is saying that the people helping to generate media attention are not at fault here. But the core of the problem goes back to Nadya Suleman. By your own words she is "stubborn," "short sighted," and "selfish." None of those things are mental health issues--and it's an insult to people with real mental problems to say they are. Some women have babies for all kinds of warped reasons--to keep a man, to get attention, because they think it will save a relationship, because they think they're "supposed to" as adults, and so on. Most of the time it's because they're selfish and not thinking about the baby. A common teenage reason for getting pregnant (apart from ignorance about birth control) is that the girl "wants someone to love". That was essentially Nadya's reason for getting pregnant, and it's certainly not confined to teenagers. This is the same person who was expecting endorsements for the care of her babies and who stated she thought she would get a TV show out of it. She wanted to be famous, she used these children as the vehicle to get into the media spotlight, and then we're supposed to feel sympathy for her when the media follows her around to see what she's doing, like the paparazzi always does? I'm sorry, but your arguments about the situation would be a whole lot stronger if the "poor little Nadya" crap were cut out of it. I don't think anyone is pro-talk show host or pro-paparazzi in this thread. But their bad behavior does not excuse Nadya's original bad behavior. She chose to put her children in that situation. She chose to find a doctor that would do what she wanted--who knows whether or not she even told him the truth about her home situation? She chose to have 14 kids. She could've reduced the fetuses at any time, in fact, she was encouraged to, and she chose not to. She was in control of these decisions every step of the way. Her decision making is not the fault of everyone else. She's not stupid. She's not mentally disabled. She might have delusions of grandeur. But that's not a mental disorder--and more importantly, it's not an excuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on Mar 30, 2009 13:45:26 GMT -5
No one is saying that the people helping to generate media attention are not at fault here. But the core of the problem goes back to Nadya Suleman. By your own words she is "stubborn," "short sighted," and "selfish." None of those things are mental health issues--and it's an insult to people with real mental problems to say they are. I never said those particular traits were evidence of mental illness. I said her inability to foresee consequences and her complete lack of self-awareness are evidences that she has some kind of mental health problem. That doesn’t mean everyone with a mental illness shows these characteristics, and I defy you to produce even a single instance where I said otherwise. I’ll concede it: that’s true. Where did I say their current bad behavior excused her earlier behavior? Her own mother told the fertility doctor about Nadya Suleman’s home situation, while begging him to stop with the treatments. He knew about her other children, about her finances, and about the fact that implanting six embryos at once went against all existing guidelines. She claims to be pro-life and said from the outset that reduction was not a viable option. Grandiosity is a symptom of disordered thinking. People with bi-polar disorder sometimes exhibit it. People with Narcissistic Personality Disorder definitely do. Mental illness is as individual as the person, but there's underlying commonality - at least according to the NIH: "A health condition that changes a person’s thinking, feelings, or behavior (or all three) and that causes the person distress and difficulty in functioning." |
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 30, 2009 15:40:33 GMT -5
Because, of all the (adult) actors in that drama, Suleman seems to be least capable of making wise decisions. She’s now situated among shrewd media personalities, and as vulnerable to them as chum in a shark tank. A major difference being, she jumped into the water of her own free will, something chum doesn't get to do in a shark tank. Considering they likely have health issues and were already exposed by media attention by her, not to mention being raised in a litter of eight amidst fourteen kids on Government aid. Yeah, it just seems like AIW is too little, too late. I love armchair psychology as much as the next girl (Or at least, freakishly cerebral one), but that kind of belief seems to be self-determined and off the cuff. It should, but is that the issue here? If she wanted babies, what's so odd about that? I fundamentally disagree with that notion. Which is nice, but not really anything of substance. The doctor was unethical; so was she. Which means she is, after all, fair game. So where's the problem again? That's sort of a reverse occam's razor, isn't it? There's really nothing to demonstrate that she is mentally ill, either. Just anecdotal evidence on both sides. And since the defense against this media intrusion and judgment relies heavily on the notion that she is, it would seem the burden should go to demonstrating she is, not a lack of evidence that she isn't. She evidently chose to go to a crooked doctor after previous doctors turned her down. I mean, the doctor's to blame, but let's just remember that. # West-Conforti and Allred chose, despite their claims to care solely about the welfare of the children, to force Suleman into an antagonistic relationship with AIW through threats and media appearances
# Phil McGraw chose to insinuate himself into this relationship, trying to boost his own reputation in the eyes of the public by “solving” the Octomom problem – and when that fell apart, he chose to do a final two shows on the subject before publicly washing his hands of the matter
# The paparazzi camped out on Suleman’s lawn chose to hang off a moving vehicle, pounding on the windows and doors, scaring the hell out of the medically fragile preemies they knew were inside, simply because they hoped to get a shot of Suleman and the babiesCourse, nobody's specifically saying they're either good or blameless. Doesn't change the fact that she openly welcomed it. But she had her mind made up. Now, her Mom thinks she's addicted to children and insane, but then, that doesn't mean she's mentally deficient, either. Missing the point to argue minutia. She'd already run herself ass-deep into this. Again, missing the point. Let's not forget she was lying to the clinics in the first place. Garbage in, Garbage out. Honestly, I think the kids should be taken away. It's the only chance they have at a real life, ever. Even then, I wouldn't count on it. But their mommy is toxic. Their mommy used these kids on multiple levels, and their mommy welcomed the likes of Phil and AIW. She may not have wanted to be threatened or bullied, but she was looking for people like this in the first place. She brought most of this down on herself. That doesn't mean I don't feel bad for her kids, but we can't pretend she wasn't the instigator in almost all of this. And even then, AIW only really got involved after the media whoring began. I expect a snake to bite me, which is why I don't poke them with sticks. But whether you're stupid, short sighted, or mentally challenged, when you do, you're risking a backlash. That being said, I'd still help her as long as she had kids, because there's no reason they should suffer because Mommy's a media whore. And it's not that there aren't other villains, but they enter the story because of Nadya Suleman. |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 30, 2009 16:38:25 GMT -5
I never said those particular traits were evidence of mental illness. I said her inability to foresee consequences and her complete lack of self-awareness are evidences that she has some kind of mental health problem. That doesn’t mean everyone with a mental illness shows these characteristics, and I defy you to produce even a single instance where I said otherwise. No, you didn't say it outright. You implied as much. By putting all those traits together with suggesting things like bi-polar disorder (which she displays no signs of) or Narcissistic Personality Disorder (which doesn't mean you aren't cognizant of your own thought processes) you are implying as much. There is nothing to suggest a diagnosis like you have--which is a bigger stretch than simply conceding the fact this woman was incredibly selfish (not a mental disorder). I'm not sure why you seem to have a crusade to exonerate that part of the story. The part where you said she seemed "least capable of making wise decisions". You've been implying or stating outright all along that her decisions are excusable because she has either a mental disorder or because she is the victim of media conspiracy. Dr. Phil somehow comes out with more fault in this situation than Nadya Suleman does. It's in the tone of your posts. None of which excuses Nadya Suleman from going through with the procedure, does it? You can challenge the ethics of the doctor, and I think that's a good thing to do. BUT that does not excuse the fact that he did not foist this on poor little Nadya; she came to him after she was rejected by another doctor. Yes, I saw the interview where she claimed that. That is a choice. It is also an ethical choice made by people who understand the consequences. The fact that she can claim such ethical stances would indicate that a mental disorder did not affect her decisions, but that she continued to make choices in this process. Grandiosity does not mean you have a mental disorder. People without those illnesses (which doesn't mean that you're off the hook for your decisions, by the way) also can display grandiosity. She is simply displaying symptoms of being selfish. How many people have illusions of being famous on TV? All those people are now exempt from their actions because they have delusions of grandeur? I don't think so. What is the "health condition" Nadya has that would lead to this diagnosis by you? So far it seems that only so as long as it somehow relates back to Nadya not having to take responsibility for her actions, it qualifies. I'll reiterate. None of us are pro-Dr. Phil, pro-doctor-who-implanted-her, pro-media, etc. We're also not pro-poor-little-Nadya. Why you're refusing to give her at the very least equal blame in a choice she set up and saw through from the very beginning is mystifying to me. Do you have some agenda with this? Because you seem really invested in it. |
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on Mar 31, 2009 0:38:00 GMT -5
I love armchair psychology as much as the next girl (Or at least, freakishly cerebral one), but that kind of belief seems to be self-determined and off the cuff. …. That's sort of a reverse occam's razor, isn't it? There's really nothing to demonstrate that she is mentally ill, either. Just anecdotal evidence on both sides. And since the defense against this media intrusion and judgment relies heavily on the notion that she is, it would seem the burden should go to demonstrating she is, not a lack of evidence that she isn't. I saw some of the interviews she did, and she seemed just completely out of touch with the situation. A person who’s merely selfish would still correctly discern the point of a question such as, “Why did you chose to bear more children when you can’t support the six you already have?” Instead of her coming up with the closest thing to a sensible answer she could muster, she merely kept repeating some variation of, “Well, you have to understand; I merely wanted one more child, not eight.” It’s true – some people expect to be supported by the government from cradle to grave, without facing censure for having kids while on social assistance. Those folks have a plan. It’s a bad plan, but it’s a plan: they are going to feed their kids with government cheese while continuing to garner ‘adult plus dependent(s)’ support for themselves. They’ll send their kids to daycare until they’re old enough for school. But Suleman, a woman who was working on a graduate degree in psychology when she did this to herself, didn’t even have that much of a plan. She’d known for months that she carried octuplets, but couldn’t even bullshit her way through a rough draft of what she’d planned to do with those babies once they came home. She was just flat-out disconnected from the reality of her situation. These are the reasons I suggested some kind of mental illness – a source for her disordered thinking: her answers are seriously out of sync with the questions she’s asked, and she seems to have no grasp of consequences. I mean, we’re not talking about the mere failure to make detailed plans. We’re talking about some of the grossest incompetence I’ve ever seen – on television, or anywhere else. In my view, it is. Let’s assume for now that I’m completely out to lunch – absolutely wrong concerning Nadya Suleman’s mental state. She’s merely really selfish, and an attention-whore to boot. There’s no underlying cause; she’s just an asshole. That still shouldn’t a) affect how professionals treat her (which means she was correct to toss AIW), and b) provide an excuse for members of the public to justify an absolutely outrageous feeding frenzy merely because ‘she’s a bitch who’s wasting our tax dollars and so she deserves whatever punishment and scorn we, the public, can legally – and sometimes illegally – heap on her.’ And, of course, because she’s hated in practically every quarter, with few if any defenders, it’s politically safe to attack and vilify and demonize her to the point where someone sitting in the media’s echo chamber might actually feel justified enough in his hatred to harm her. “The benefit of the doubt” isn’t necessary when someone already has a good defense for her actions. It’s necessary when someone can’t adequately defend herself or what she did. Good point. I guess I’ve been conflating selfishness with immediate (and relatively pain-free) gratification. There’s a difference between society judging her as selfish and not worth supporting, and society meting out a punishment that doesn’t fit the crime. True. I actually agree with you, that Suleman is toxic to those children and that she likely can’t take care of them properly. I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if she loses all eight, and for valid reasons. BUT – and this goes back to my original point – she was still right to punt AIW. It’s one of the few choices she’s made in the last few years that makes any sense. Because she’s been so vilified already, however, a lot of people simply failed to see that AIW’s behavior in this situation was inexcusable. Instead, there was this almost palpable sense of horror that Suleman had “fired free help.” I simply wonder if Suleman ever had enough self-awareness to realize that poking a snake would result in a bite. If she didn’t, then the blame assigned to her should be tempered by the understanding that she acted not out of malice but rather from a warped understanding of right and wrong. And this is part of the reason why I’m so quick to blame the fertility doctor and Gloria Allred and Phil McGraw and Linda West-Conforti for the roles they’ve played in this cluster-fuck. If someone as messed up as Nadya Suleman should have known better, then those other folks definitely should have known better. They weren’t out of touch with the situation: they knew precisely what they were doing, and why. They also knew that it was a really safe bet to fuck with Suleman for ratings: if their “help” had worked out, they’d have been hailed as heroes. Since their help didn’t work out, well, at least those caring, compassionate individuals tried to do something positive. It was pretty much a straight win for all of them, with the possible exception of West-Conforti (who may or may not have ended up out of pocket even after the Dr. Phil-sponsored donation drive for AIW.) No, you didn't say it outright. You implied as much. By putting all those traits together with suggesting things like bi-polar disorder (which she displays no signs of) or Narcissistic Personality Disorder (which doesn't mean you aren't cognizant of your own thought processes) you are implying as much. There is nothing to suggest a diagnosis like you have--which is a bigger stretch than simply conceding the fact this woman was incredibly selfish (not a mental disorder). I'm not sure why you seem to have a crusade to exonerate that part of the story. As far as I’m concerned, I didn’t even imply it – but if I inadvertently insulted people with mental illnesses, that wasn’t my intent. As to the reason for my “crusade,” it’s because I seriously think there’s something psychologically wrong with Nadya Suleman. I’ll say this: she would be selfish regardless of whether she had a mental illness, but she would have chosen a less bizarre way of filling her own needs than to put her own body through multiple hells. A garden-variety selfish narcissist wouldn’t have put herself on the rack like that, or expected that people would take kindly to her exploits. Since the very beginning of this thread, I have by turns described Suleman as selfish, a poor decision-maker, and an extraordinarily bad planner. In fact, I don’t recall having said anything good about the woman herself – except maybe that she had the sense to send AIW packing. If my assumption about her disordered thought process is true, however, then Dr. Phil is more blameworthy than her, because unlike her, he actually knew better. And…media conspiracy? There’s nothing conspiratorial or secretive about it. Their asshattery is out in the open for all to see. I never said she wasn’t responsible for what she did. I did say, however, that the blame should be spread around a bit more evenly as opposed to all being put on Suleman. And considering the uncomplimentary things I said about the woman in the very first post, I don’t think there’s a “poor little Nadya” vibe coming from me at all. How does her pro-life stance in any way indicate that she understood the consequences of carrying eight fetuses to term? She didn’t seem to grasp even the basic fact that she’d need space for all those kids. Fair enough. Two things: One – Two – My “agenda” – oh, and nice use of a loaded term, BTW – is to demonstrate that Suleman was a) right to fire AIW, and b) not the only (or even the most) blameworthy person in this situation. I’ve softened somewhat on the latter point, because of some issues raised in this thread, but I still hold fast to the former point. And yeah, actually I do feel a certain amount of investment in this: there’s something deeply unsettling about a situation where someone – even if she’s completely to blame – is being subjected to the mob mentality at its worst. It’s safe to hate Nadya Suleman – to loathe her in a way that’s completely out of proportion for what she actually did. It’s…grotesque. |
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 31, 2009 2:50:48 GMT -5
This woman obviously has problems, mentally, financially etc. The people around her enabled her, but as a legally “normal” woman her decisions are/were her own. She had enough resources to get herself pregnant with 8 kids, and now everyone else is suffering for her bad decisions because now she can’t afford it. I think the Duggar’s are as repulsive in their cavalier attitude about the welfare of the children they have brought into the world as well, and though they may be better situation financially, that itself is; not an indication of a good home, not an indication that the money will continue uninterrupted, and not a guarantee of psychological support. Those parents and from what I understand, the father specifically, are the sole support of a giant reverse pyramid and I find them to be in the same ballpark as Octomom.
The fact that people see them as near opposites is what bothers me. Personal or religious or moral issues aside, there isn’t a whole lot of difference on many facets such as individual care of children and the fact that children are being born to feed a scorecard and not because they genuinely want a child to care for.
I think many folks are aware that this type of thing happens all the time and the reason that this one in particular has caused such a furor (aside from the obvious causes of 1/bullshit “journalism” which finds this to be newsworthy and 2/a celebrity/trash/gossip-obsessed culture which eats this shit up like flies on a freshly steaming road-apple) is because it brings a face to a well-known problem. There are specific issues instead of vague ideas and topics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 31, 2009 2:55:20 GMT -5
nutcase said:
I can’t produce a report from a trained and licensed analyst that confirms my suspicions, no; but Suleman’s choices, and her explanations for them, are so out in left field it’s impossible for me to believe she’s in her right mind.
Replace her name with OJ Simpson, or Tom Cruise or Roseanne Barr or Bill O’Reilly or…
You seem upset as to how the media/public have been casting judgment but you are judging her mind to be unfit and her actions not her fault when there isn’t an indication she is legally impaired. Those types of people are generally held accountable for their own actions, just as you are holding the doctors and people like Allred accountable for theirs. I understand you believe that others are at fault for what is happening and I agree, but that also doesn’t absolve Suleman from all responsibility for her actions.
It’s not illegal to charge “too much” for goods or services, it is up to the buyer to known what a product or service is worth. It is immoral or unethical to charge, say a thousand dollars, for fixing the doggy door on someone’s house, but it is not illegal (so far as I know) so long as the price is agreed to up front and services are rendered. It is up to the client or potential client to say, “That’s more than I’m willing to pay.”
Suleman has lost a game of Three Card Monty and while that doesn’t make her the worst person in the world nor does it exonerate the ones who duped her, it was ultimately her decision made of her own free will to participate.
It makes me nervous whenever there’s almost unanimous agreement among the public on any subject, because it’s usually a consensus on whom to hate.
I think you are reading into this based on the loudest voices. This IS a case that people have put a face on and it is not typical, but it is not entirely atypical either as there are many elements of this case that are echoed through less prominent cases. In fact, there are so many facets to this case that I think you will be hard-pressed to find a single opinion that everyone agrees on.
Also, consider your sources. If you are talking to people here and listening to call-ins on talk radio you are going to get wildly differeing opinions. Some people enjoy shouting about this case because they enjoy hearing their own voices, not because they have anything insightful to offer. Many people do outright condemn this woman as the virtual anti-christ, and that is their decision, but please don’t think that whatever the witches on The View or GMA have decided is in any way the “right” answer or the only one. But ultimately this case is about the mother and the children; the other aspects are merely supporting actors in this play.
It strikes me as a really weird way to be selfish, going through costly and uncomfortable fertility treatments, carrying the products of each for nine months, birthing them.
Her choice on how to care for all those kids was thoughtless, short-sighted and, yes, selfish, but the original inclination to have them – the driving force behind her decision to undergo multiple fertility treatments and pregnancies – seems less selfish than merely self-deceived.
There’s something “off” about a woman who has a complete inability to foresee the likeliest consequences of her actions – whether she be a cat-hoarder or a child-hoarder.
I agree, but that doesn’t mean she is incompetent or even mentally ill at all. I personally think a lot of folks who are considered normal are fucked up, but that isn’t up to me to decide what is sane (lucky for the rest of you anyway). I think gw bush was/is mentally unfit, and way more so than this woman.
But many folks have this “I want children of my own” attitude and it is most usually a very selfish thing. There are plenty of kids that could be adopted, so it isn’t for lack of a child, it is specifically to have a child of their (biological) own. That IS selfish if one isn’t in a stable environment and/or doesn’t have the financial means to take care of even the potential outcome. I am not a woman. I have therefore never been pregnant. I KNOW that there is a giant chance of multiple eggs being fertilized in treatments as Suleman underwent. She was most definitely very, very irresponsible and as with most irresponsible people, she didn’t take others into consideration in her quest for a personal goal.
And as for ‘Self-deceived Vs. Selfish’ I would say that people often deceive themselves in order to selfishly gain something. After all, that’s a fundie’s raison d’ etre.
I wasn’t aware she’d had more than one doctor. Even so, however, yes, it most certainly was ethically irresponsible for the doctor to ignore Suleman’s history and the existing medical guidelines. Whether Suleman is ill or merely selfish doesn’t matter on this point: the doctor was still just as wrong either way.
I think it absolutely matters.
Was the doctor wrong? Yes.
Does that make her LESS wrong? No way.
The mistakes of the doctor compounded things, but it’s not like someone tracked her down and forced her to go to a shady doctor. She had alread been selfish and had begun the process long before the doctor unethically made money off of her.
She must’ve also known her own history, it seems like she went with what she wanted to hear.
The phrase “I want a second opinion” has existed since long before she was ever born. Surely she knows full well that she doesn’t have to eat at only one restaurant, she is free to shop around and patronize whom she wishes to.
Oh no, I think society has every right to judge someone who makes poor decisions, then comes looking for a bailout. I just think, in this case, that there’s a whole lot of blame to spread around, and that too many people are satisfied to lay this entire thing only at Suleman’s feet
As the babies come from her body and are legally her responsibility, yes. That is where the bulk of the blame belongs.
These things don’t mean she’s not mentally ill.
Nor do they absolve her.
If a financial group mishandles your money, they do share some of the blame, especially if it was involving anything illegal or unethical.
But ultimately, it is YOUR money and YOU will lose it.
Unfortunatly, in this case she is not the one that is bearing the responsibility for her own actions. Everyone else is.
Her choices aren’t everyone else’s fault, but these other people are certainly to blame for their own choices:
· The doctor chose to ignore existing guidelines, and Suleman’s own history, and perform several IVF treatments with more than the safe number of embryos
· West-Conforti and Allred chose, despite their claims to care solely about the welfare of the children, to force Suleman into an antagonistic relationship with AIW through threats and media appearances
· Phil McGraw chose to insinuate himself into this relationship, trying to boost his own reputation in the eyes of the public by “solving” the Octomom problem – and when that fell apart, he chose to do a final two shows on the subject before publicly washing his hands of the matter
· The paparazzi camped out on Suleman’s lawn chose to hang off a moving vehicle, pounding on the windows and doors, scaring the hell out of the medically fragile preemies they knew were inside, simply because they hoped to get a shot of Suleman and the babies
I agree. They all are to blame for their parts in the debacle that she began and kept going.
She bore the first surviving set of octuplets ever. Considering the doctor only implanted six embryos, there’s no way she could have foreseen octuplets, let alone that all eight would survive.
This was all part of the possible consequences that even someone like myself knows about. I’m not looking to get pregnant, and I know more than she? She was the one who sought the treatment and met with doctors. The research was easy and it was on her and she is surprised? This is how the game is played. If the docs implant 1, there will be one fetus at MOST. If they implant 8, there could be up to 8. It’s quite simple and to imply she wasn’t aware of this basic fact is to really sell her short. I don’t think she is mentally stable exactly, but that is about as simple as it gets!
Whether she wanted media attention at the outset or not, there was no way she could have avoided it.
IF, she didn’t glom on to the attention I might agree with you. nobody kidnapped her and made her do multiple interviews and go on television for weeks on end. The media is like stink on shit, but she didn’t appear to be trying to avoid the limelight.
She knew the embryo’s all were viable the first time she had in-vitro fertilization, she then went with double the number that was recommended for a woman her age, and when the six turned to eight she opted not to use selective reduction, all of which were parts of this ever-changing puzzle that she most certainly knew of before hand.
Yeah, but there was absolutely no way, ever, that she could have avoided the cameras in that situation – even if she’d wanted to.
To a degree, yes. But again, she had to have know about the other cases of multiple births and the media attention they received. This was always a possibility, especially if she was opting against selective reduction. She had to KNOW (especially with a six for six the first time, with the same eggs which were fertilized at the same time as the others and with the same sperm) that six was a distinct possibility. This was not or should not have been a surprise until the twins split, and though that wasn’t common, neither was the circumstances that SHE chose to put herself in.
True. And Suleman’s own mother begged him to stop for precisely that reason.
And her mother presumably couldn’t do anything about it, nor could anyone else. This is because as a legal adult, who has not been deemed mentally unfit, she is responsible for her own actions and those of her unborn.
Quote:
I doubt she only wanted one more child, or she would have gone to one of the other clinics she had spoken to.
I don’t think any reputable clinic would have carried out additional IVF treatments on Suleman ever, at all, no matter what kind of money she produced.
Then it sounds like she went out of her way to have this happen, despite having six kids. Six kids who needed the money that she selfishly spent on in vitro and plastic surgery.
She went out of her way to create this situation.
Quote:
The children deserve better. She whored them out to the cameras. She whored herself out, and then got smacked when it turned out this wasn't the miracle she was pretending it was. She knew she had done wrong, and she lied. There's a lot wrong with this case, and a lot of the blame goes to Nadya.
Yeah, the children to deserve better – but pretty much all the people who said they were in this for the kids were also whoring themselves out to the cameras.
Fuck those people. Don’t listen to them. It isn’t a black or white issue. There are no winners, only levels of ‘loser’.
Suleman is not solely responsible for ALL the stuff that has happened and that she has put into motion, but she is responsible for all the stuff that paved way for the other stuff.
No Gloria Allred, no Dr. Phil and no unethical doctors would’ve played a hand in this at all if she hadn’t brought the money she should’ve spent on her existing six children, to have more.
She began this, she went out of her way to make sure things went as she wanted, despite what doctors and her mother among others had suggested or pleaded. She circumvented doctors who wouldn’t do the procedure to find one that would. That scumbag already existed but she purposefully sought him out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 31, 2009 3:16:52 GMT -5
No one is saying that the people helping to generate media attention are not at fault here. But the core of the problem goes back to Nadya Suleman. By your own words she is "stubborn," "short sighted," and "selfish." None of those things are mental health issues--and it's an insult to people with real mental problems to say they are. I never said those particular traits were evidence of mental illness. I said her inability to foresee consequences and her complete lack of self-awareness are evidences that she has some kind of mental health problem. That doesn’t mean everyone with a mental illness shows these characteristics, and I defy you to produce even a single instance where I said otherwise. You are very much dismissing her actions and bringing up reasons such as that you think it is obvious that she has issues etc. and that others are also to blame. In short, you are implying she was at least partially a victim here instead of seeing that she went out of her way for things to happen as they ultimately did.
If her mental health was not a factor in your eyes, you wouldn't have brought it up. You felt her actions indicated someone with problems, appearing to me that you were/are relieving her of a lot of responsibility for what transpired. Where did I say their current bad behavior excused her earlier behavior? It is the tone of your posts.
Aside from pointing out what everyone else has done, you have appeared to excuse her based on what you think her mental state is/was, and are ignoring the fact that she sought out a dr that would do this for her instead of listening to dr's and family. She MADE this happen and you are blaming everyone else who was only involved long after she had made up her mind to do it.
IF she was pro-choice, then you don't implant 6 embryo's unless you are prepared for at LEAST 1-6 children. She knew or should've known this. You are stating she is pro-choice as if that excuses her conscious decision to put herself in that situation. If she is a strict vegetarian, she should not go eat at a steakhouse. Only a vegetarian idiot would go to a steakhouse and complain there was nothing they wanted to eat. Responsibility. Her own mother told the fertility doctor about Nadya Suleman’s home situation, while begging him to stop with the treatments. He knew about her other children, about her finances, and about the fact that implanting six embryos at once went against all existing guidelines. Again, you blame the dr while stating that everyone else around suleman was asking or begging her NOT to do it. But it's not suleman for ignoring her dr., her mother and for going to a guy who she knew would get her the results she wanted, it's the doctor!
Again, if some soccer moms are barking about shit, that's them. But most of us here have our own opinions and I haven't seen anybody argue the doc wasn't wrong in this case. She claims to be pro-life and said from the outset that reduction was not a viable option. Then she pretty much cemented the situation with that choice, and left the possibility open to a litter of kids on top of the litter she already had, with the same batch of embryos. HER decision, against the wishes or suggestions of nearly everyone around her. Suggestions that were made for the benefit of her unborn as well as for her. She chose to ignore those people. Grandiosity is a symptom of disordered thinking. People with bi-polar disorder sometimes exhibit it. People with Narcissistic Personality Disorder definitely do. Mental illness is as individual as the person, but there's underlying commonality - at least according to the NIH: "A health condition that changes a person’s thinking, feelings, or behavior (or all three) and that causes the person distress and difficulty in functioning."
You think Rush Limbaugh is sane?
You say you are not making excuses for her or citing her mental health but here you definitely are doing that. She made her decisions and you are laying some underlying, undiagnosed mental issues as her side of the blame while pointing a finger at everyone who came along after the fact, AFTER she had made up her mind to do exactly what she did. She did exactly what she did because it was what SHE wanted to do, not for the benefit of the children she had, not for the benefit of the children to be, not for the benefit of the taxpayers who are footing her welfare, but for HER benefit. |
|
