Octuplets' Mom Seeks Donations Online

Plus, Taxpayers May Have to Help Cover Her Costs

By SHAYA TAYEFE MOHAJER, AP
NEW YORK (Feb. 11) – A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman's 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California's taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red.
Meanwhile, a Nadya Suleman Family Web Site has been set up to collect donations for the children.
 
 
Soooo many things bother me about this story.  Let's just start with the infertility aspect of it…

I do think insurance companies should be required to cover part, if not all, of some infertility treatments.  Like adoption, children should not be a "privilege" only for the rich.  It would take DH and I more than a decade to save for a single in vitro process, but we could easily provide for a child.  I mean, we provide for 3…  So that, I don't necessarily have an issue with.  I do have an issue with the extreme.  If Suleman was receving benefits from the State, that's all the more reason this doctor should never have agreed to implant 8 embryos.  I understand the "not wanting to kill them" but if that was truly your motivation, why not donate?  You would still be giving the embryos a potential for life, without it being at the cost of the state and the other children you already have…
 
While I see an outraged grandmother, where was her outrage after the third? fourth? fifth child was born?  At some point, the assistance she was offering was more than love or regret over not having given her daughter a sibling, but enabling.  She's leaving her daughter to her own devices now, and again, I understand not wanting the children to suffer, but then why not take the kids and leave mom on her own?  The kids are innocent, but that doesn't mean you have to keep providing for the grown woman who is your daughter, and it doesn't mean you have to continue to tell her through your actions or inactions that her decisions to continue to bear children are acceptable. 
 
I love babies.  If I could have a permanent 6-8 month old, I probably would.  I get that "addiction."  What I don't get is allowing that addiction to control you so completely that you don't think about the long-term.  If you're truly planning to get on your own two feet and pay your own way, wouldn't that be a lot easier when you're not having to tote 14 kids around and pay for them while you're in school?  There are states where a mother who receives benefits must pay them back, one way or another.  A very good friend of mine's husband is having to pay a ridiculous amount of child support to pay the state back for benefits the baby's mother received before he even knew the child existed…  So will Suleman have to repay the state of California for the medical and social assistance she received while she willingly implanted embryo after embryo in her unemployed womb?  As much as DH and I love children, we know 3 will be our limit, barring some act of The Force.  DH is getting a vasectomy and there will be NO physical affection until we know it's on lock down in that department!  We get pregnant far too easily to take chances!  We already loathe the WIC we use to make things more comfortable.  We're pinching every penny so that we can buy every little thing Kili needs, and maybe even a few niceties.  We're not depending on our baby shower.  We're not calling relatives asking for specific items, or setting up websites for donations.  We're shopping around for pre-schools for Mega this coming fall that are not only affordable, but other programs we're confident in.  We're not expecting someone else to swoop in and save us from our financial mess.  We chose to have children, and we're choosing not to have more because it would decrease the availability of funds to the entire family for everything, and that's just not where we want to be.
 
I'm bothered, a lot, quite honestly, but the fact that she chose to have these children alone.  Before you jump down my throat, I know quite a few single parents who are INCREDIBLE parents, and had they stayed with their children's other biological component, no one would have been happy.  But of them all, no one has more than 2 on their own.  I think Nature kinda' had a good idea with that one…  If at all possible, why wouldn't you want another set of hands to help clean faces and bandage wounds?  Why wouldn't you want another pair of eyes to watch your kids' school play or first t-ball game?  Why not have another heart to love them unconditionally?  And for all basic, physical reasons…  Why not have another person there to get up in the middle of the night?  Bring in more money or stay home with them?  Make lunches for school and do dishes after dinner?  With that many children…  Really…  Deliberately doing it alone?  I think that's incredibly selfish…
 
*sigh*  I hope that somehow, those children grow into well-adjusted adults…  
 
*Day  44: I am grateful for my fertility… 
 
 
 
Advertisements