Re: This 33-year-old woman...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
It opens a whole can of worms in the debate IMO.
There's no way to "debate" this situation...it's a fucking freakshow, suitable for an hour on Jerry Springer (and naturally, a rant by Bill O 'Reilly) but of the same interest to a normal person as driving by a roadside accident.
There is nothing normal about this woman, her situation or the doctors who enabled it.
Attempting to "debate" this with the intention of arriving at a consensus applicable to regular people is akin to using Joseph Merrick in a discussion of human evolution- yes, he existed but was so far out of spec as to be nothing but a statistical anomaly.
Nadya Suleman is the nexus of a perfect storm of debatable topics but her case is so exaggerated in every aspect that no reasonable conclusions could be reached concerning her situation as a whole.
Hell, this situation is so weird that the usual suspects- think Pampers and Gerber- are avoiding it like the plague.
As shall I.
Re: This 33-year-old woman...
The debate is about personal responsibility.
There's a lot of finger wagging going on. I'm going with the mentally disturbed angle myself.
But if there's going to be finger wagging one has to look at one's own morals, decide what order they go in and not just pull them out when it suits.
Yes IMO she is the cuckoo. If she is not cuckoo she is not being responsible if she is unable to care for the children. But then the consensus among a lot of those wagging the finger at this unmarried woman is that abortion is wrong even for unmarried women or for families that find themselves expecting while they are unable to support themselves. Is abortion only wrong for the first six, seven or eight children? What is the magic number? Is abortion now only wrong for rich people?
You can make all the arguments you want about if she should have had the eggs fertilized in the first place and I would agree, but the fact is that eight viable embryos were going to be destroyed.
So excuse me if I don't condemn this nut case, she saved eight lives.
Re: This 33-year-old woman...
There are other ways to "save 8 lives"... not that I am implying in any way that a fertilised egg is Human. That is a different debate (and I think we've had that one before too)
A great many Ladies that wish to have Children can't produce eggs... as an example.
Re: This 33-year-old woman...
Re: This 33-year-old woman...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skizo
Well I know where she's coming from....slightly.
I'm an only child and my family isn't big in my generation. I only have 2 first cousins (well I just found out about another fairly recently). However, I was perfectly happy as an only child and never missed not having a brother or sister.
I plan on having at least 3 kids but that's only cuz I can afford them. If I was a billionaire, I'd probably want more. I always thought my financial situation was to be used as a pseudo-guide for how many kids to have.
What she's doing is irresponsible and sickening and I don't like her.
I don't even think she's mentally ill. I think she's an attention whore and an opportunist.
Re: This 33-year-old woman...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skizo
Well I know where she's coming from....slightly.
I'm an only child and my family isn't big in my generation. I only have 2 first cousins (well I just found out about another fairly recently). However, I was perfectly happy as an only child and
never missed not having a brother or sister.
I plan on having at least 3 kids but that's only cuz I can afford them. If I was a billionaire, I'd probably want more. I always thought my financial situation was to be used as a pseudo-guide for how many kids to have.
What she's doing is irresponsible and sickening and I don't like her.
I don't even think she's mentally ill. I think she's an attention whore and an opportunist.
Hmmm.
Your spelling and syntax have improved radically.
Your logic is coming along as well.
Have you turned forty or something else.
Re: This 33-year-old woman...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman
Well I know where she's coming from....slightly.
I'm an only child and my family isn't big in my generation. I only have 2 first cousins (well I just found out about another fairly recently). However, I was perfectly happy as an only child and never missed not having a brother or sister.
I plan on having at least 3 kids but that's only cuz I can afford them. If I was a billionaire, I'd probably want more. I always thought my financial situation was to be used as a pseudo-guide for how many kids to have.
What she's doing is irresponsible and sickening and I don't like her.
I don't even think she's mentally ill. I think she's an attention whore and an opportunist.
Hmmm.
Your spelling and syntax have improved radically.
Your logic is coming along as well.
Have you turned forty or something else.
I told you. Most of the time I'm on here, I'm doing other things.
If I were writing a paper for school or speaking in front of fellow table members my grammar would be impeccable.
I mean, it's just you guys.
You ain't special.:happy: Not to worry though....you'll see more fukc upz.
Re: This 33-year-old woman...
Quote:
Nadya Suleman holds a 2006 degree in child and adolescent development from California State University, Fullerton, and as late as last spring she was studying for a master's degree in counseling, college spokeswoman Paula Selleck told the Press-Telegram.
She must really want to use that degree for someting.
Re: This 33-year-old woman...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snee
She must really want to use that degree for someting.
Yeah, because everyone knows the best way to fasttrack your academic career is to have fourteen young kids at home.
Re: This 33-year-old woman...
I was thinking more of the first degree. Counseling is what the kids'll need when they grow up in a 14-child single mental parent family, though.
That's just good planning :sly:
