T Nation

We Are Her Babies' Daddies

[quote]Christine wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Follow up. Was she worried about the lives of the taxpayers who were already supporting her (when the state is the red, by the way), and who will now very likely be forced to support her even more?

Why should she? You don’t give a shit about her children once they leave the womb.[/quote]

Let me see if I understand your question correctly. Why should she care that she’s already living off a government struggling to stay out the red, with six previous children, and then this procedure?

All the while knowing that she wasn’t even able to afford her lifestyle without tax payer money, and knowing that taxpayers would end up footing the bill for this too? I’m suspecting that you’re just having a little bit of fun in this thread, and that this can’t be a serious question. Can it?

[quote]abcd1234 wrote:

If she had the money to raise 14 children, it would not be an issue to me. The fact that she continues to pop out children with no financial means to support them other than welfare, is what is the problem. [/quote]

I agree.

But, since they are now here, what does society do?

What do we do to prevent this from happening again? How do we stop mentally unstable people from doing things that are obviously not good for them or us?

[quote]Christine wrote:
Sloth wrote:

But, you don’t actually support other women being allowed to do something like this at society’s expense, right?

As wonderfully biblical as it sounds, I do not support punishing the children for the perceived sins of the mother.

She is obviously unstable. Her children are not going to have an easy time as it is. She cannot support them. Would you prefer orphanages and workhouses?

[/quote]

Actually, you’ve made a great case for the state taking these children and placing them into adoption. She is, as you say, obviously unstable. However, I was looking more for discussion on why this procedure was even started.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Christine wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Follow up. Was she worried about the lives of the taxpayers who were already supporting her (when the state is the red, by the way), and who will now very likely be forced to support her even more?

Why should she? You don’t give a shit about her children once they leave the womb.

Let me see if I understand your question correctly. Why should she care that she’s already living off a government struggling to stay out the red, with six previous children, and then this procedure? All the while knowing that she wasn’t even able to afford her lifestyle without tax payer money, and knowing that taxpayers would end up footing the bill for this too? I’m suspecting that you’re just having a little bit of fun in this thread, and that this can’t be a serious question. Can it?[/quote]

It was a serious answer to your question. You think that she should care about the tax payers. Why? As a tax payer, do you care about her?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Christine wrote:
Sloth wrote:

But, you don’t actually support other women being allowed to do something like this at society’s expense, right?

As wonderfully biblical as it sounds, I do not support punishing the children for the perceived sins of the mother.

She is obviously unstable. Her children are not going to have an easy time as it is. She cannot support them. Would you prefer orphanages and workhouses?

Actually, you’ve a great case for the state taking these children and placing them into adoption. She is, as you say, unstable. However, I was looking more for discussion on why this procedure was even started. [/quote]

I agree. The children should be taken away. But the tax payers will still be paying for them.

[quote]Christine wrote:

It was a serious answer to your question. You think that she should care about the tax payers. Why? As a tax payer, do you care about her?[/quote]

Well, for one I haven’t fathered multiple children, knowing she would have to share the burden of my no longer personal decision. Mighty thoughtful of me, no?

[quote]Christine wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Christine wrote:
Sloth wrote:

But, you don’t actually support other women being allowed to do something like this at society’s expense, right?

As wonderfully biblical as it sounds, I do not support punishing the children for the perceived sins of the mother.

She is obviously unstable. Her children are not going to have an easy time as it is. She cannot support them. Would you prefer orphanages and workhouses?

Actually, you’ve a great case for the state taking these children and placing them into adoption. She is, as you say, unstable. However, I was looking more for discussion on why this procedure was even started.

I agree. The children should be taken away. But the tax payers will still be paying for them.
[/quote]

Oh, I know. Don’t get me wrong, those children must be protected. I agree there. And I think we’re both agreeing she probably isn’t capable of that. So we have that going for us.

I’m out for now. You all will have to carry on the forum throwdown without me for the time being.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I’m out for now. You all will have to carry on the forum throwdown without me for the time being.[/quote]

And just when it’s getting fun.

Well, the only way to prevent this in the future is for more government intervention into our lives.

I really don’t want the government to protect us from ourselves. I’d rather deal with each problem individually as it comes along. Really, while there probably are a few more crazy people in this world that would want to have multiple children all at once, I highly doubt that it is going to become trendy.

As far as I can tell, trying to prevent things from happening only creates unintended consequences and then we spend all our time trying to understand why we overreacted to one or two random happenings while completely missing the bigger picture.

I’m more pissed about the salmonella in the peanut butter. If the government has to focus on something, I’d rather it be a safe food supply.

[quote]Christine wrote:
abcd1234 wrote:

If she had the money to raise 14 children, it would not be an issue to me. The fact that she continues to pop out children with no financial means to support them other than welfare, is what is the problem.

I agree.

But, since they are now here, what does society do?

What do we do to prevent this from happening again? How do we stop mentally unstable people from doing things that are obviously not good for them or us? [/quote]

I think you are missing part of the story.
These embryos did not just happen. This deluded woman took money (from a workers’ compensation settlement) and traveled 80 miles to find a IVF clinic and a doctor, who, we are told, has a terrible rate of pregnancy success, were it not for her. We do not know, for example, how many responsible doctors turned her down. Notice, too, that her pregnancy was managed at a Kaiser Hospital (at taxpayer expense), a hospital which did not apparently provide her with infertility treatment or implantation.

So: an emotionally inadequate woman, a doctor of questionable judgement (at the very least), and money lubricating them both.

Reproduction is not a personal issue for some; it has been politicized. Doctors have also been sued for declining to provide IVF to women and directing them to other IVF clinics. So the answer to the question, “What does society do?” is, demand that doctors are sensible (and yank their licenses if they are not), demand counseling for the disturbed, and take tort and sexual politics out of the whole process.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Christine wrote:
abcd1234 wrote:

If she had the money to raise 14 children, it would not be an issue to me. The fact that she continues to pop out children with no financial means to support them other than welfare, is what is the problem.

I agree.

But, since they are now here, what does society do?

What do we do to prevent this from happening again? How do we stop mentally unstable people from doing things that are obviously not good for them or us?

I think you are missing part of the story.
These embryos did not just happen. This deluded woman took money (from a workers’ compensation settlement) and traveled 80 miles to find a IVF clinic and a doctor, who, we are told, has a terrible rate of pregnancy success, were it not for her. We do not know, for example, how many responsible doctors turned her down. Notice, too, that her pregnancy was managed at a Kaiser Hospital (at taxpayer expense), a hospital which did not apparently provide her with infertility treatment or implantation.

So: an emotionally inadequate woman, a doctor of questionable judgement (at the very least), and money lubricating them both.

Reproduction is not a personal issue for some; it has been politicized. Doctors have also been sued for declining to provide IVF to women and directing them to other IVF clinics. So the answer to the question, “What does society do?” is, demand that doctors are sensible (and yank their licenses if they are not), demand counseling for the disturbed, and take tort and sexual politics out of the whole process.

[/quote]

I understand that the embryos did not just happen, but they were created. Anyway, I don’t think overreacting to one instance is going to do any good.

Deluded people always find other deluded people. We can’t legislate everyone’s actions.

On another note, she says that it is the same father for all of them. I wonder how many times he had to produce his samples for this. One time? Where is he?

[quote]Christine wrote:

Well, the only way to prevent this in the future is for more government intervention into our lives.
[/quote]

and

Now I am confused.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Christine wrote:

Well, the only way to prevent this in the future is for more government intervention into our lives.

and

Deluded people always find other deluded people. We can’t legislate everyone’s actions.

Now I am confused.

[/quote]

I should have written the only way for us to think we can prevent this in the future is for more government intervention into our lives.

[quote]Christine wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Christine wrote:

Well, the only way to prevent this in the future is for more government intervention into our lives.

and

Deluded people always find other deluded people. We can’t legislate everyone’s actions.

Now I am confused.

I should have written the only way for us to think we can prevent this in the future is for more government intervention into our lives.

[/quote]

Or, IVF can be regulated to the same degree that adoption is.
If a single derelict cannot adopt, why should a single derelict have IVF, paid for publicly or privately? Why is this a “reproductive right,” by case law?

…‘one child policy’ ftw!!

ooooh the moral dilemma between abortion and wanting the governement to steal her children from her.

sounds like some of you just hate freedom.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Christine wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Christine wrote:

Well, the only way to prevent this in the future is for more government intervention into our lives.

and

Deluded people always find other deluded people. We can’t legislate everyone’s actions.

Now I am confused.

I should have written the only way for us to think we can prevent this in the future is for more government intervention into our lives.

Or, IVF can be regulated to the same degree that adoption is.
If a single derelict cannot adopt, why should a single derelict have IVF, paid for publicly or privately? Why is this a “reproductive right,” by case law?[/quote]

Yeah. It’s really ridiculous that a physician was willing to perform this procedure on a single, near-indigent mother who already had 6 kids. But, still what does that ultimately mean? How do you stop it if the physician is willing to perform the procedure? Pass laws imposing criteria for those who would seek IVF? I don’t think that this the answer.

This is still the exception and not the norm. Most people in her situation wouldn’t do what she did and most physicians wouldn’t perform it.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Christine wrote:
Sloth wrote:

But, you don’t actually support other women being allowed to do something like this at society’s expense, right?

As wonderfully biblical as it sounds, I do not support punishing the children for the perceived sins of the mother.

She is obviously unstable. Her children are not going to have an easy time as it is. She cannot support them. Would you prefer orphanages and workhouses?

Actually, you’ve made a great case for the state taking these children and placing them into adoption. She is, as you say, obviously unstable. However, I was looking more for discussion on why this procedure was even started. [/quote]

Because a wacko wanted it and an idiot physician was willing to perform it. Government intervention is not the answer. I don’t want the government to be the one setting standards over who can undergo this procedure. Where is that going to lead?

“Mrs. X, you and your husband only make $30K. You cannot have IVF. You won’t be able to properly support a kid.” “Mrs. Y, you and your husband make $60K. You can have the procedure, but if more than two embryos are viable, you are ordered to selectively reduce. You can’t take care of more than two.” “Mrs. Z, you make $400K, but you are single. We think kids absolutely must have a father. None for you.”

This is getting a lot of press. And rightly so. Because it was an atrocious decision by the woman and the physician. But it doesn’t mean there should be a massive overhaul of a private system. Most physicians would NEVER perform this for a woman in here situation. And most couldn’t finance it. She only could because she had money from a back injury.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m out for now.[/quote]

You’re always out. Party pooper.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Because a wacko wanted it and an idiot physician was willing to perform it. Government intervention is not the answer. I don’t want the government to be the one setting standards over who can undergo this procedure. Where is that going to lead?

[/quote]

Where’s it going to lead? A background check before doing a procedure implanting some woman with embryos created with the help of some sperm donor. Regulations, etc. Do folks just walk in and adopt a child? At least, this needs to be as tightly regulated as adoption. I’m not sure that it isn’t. It very well might be. Perhaps all that needs to happen is that this one doctor is stripped of his credentials.

By the way, why isn’t the sperm donor and possibly the doctor, paying for her children? Shouldn’t they be liable for child support? Just because they didn’t do it the old fashioned way doesn’t mean they don’t share the responsibility of getting this woman pregnant. If I was the state of California, that’s exactly what I’d do.

In fact, that’s my answer to this. These parties share no less responsibility than some baby’s daddy who was merely a one night stand, yet finds himself paying child support 9 months later.

I see no logical arguement against this. Any counter arguement would depend solely on the abscence of penetration by penis. That is the only difference here.

In fact, these aren’t parties who just wanted to get off, not intending a pregnancy. These are parties who knew they would be creating a pregnancy. Makes them even more liable for child support in my opinion.