I think this woman is loney. The doc took advantage of her. Now she's making IVF look soooo easy. And that sucks.

We went through IVF when I was 35. It was not easy. I had 8 pre-embryos that were good for the transfer. My clinic would not allow more than 2, and we only wanted 2 transferred. Both took and we have 2 lovely little boys. Taking care of twins is hard. I cannot imagine 8 at once.

I am torn between the fact that the kids really need someone to focus on them individually (i.e. adopt them out) and with the mother who obviously WANTS them all. I couldn't imagine being forced to give up my child. I'm scared to see how it all ends up.

Too many lengthy comments for me to glean what the consensus is. I've not struggled with infertility, so I'm not part of the group you posed the question to. I do agree with everything you wrote. Well said.

From the interview I saw with her it made it sound as if she did this because she loves children and it makes her happy. Well that's great but those are 14 human beings - what is going to make them happy? Love certainly, and I don't doubt she can provide that - but also security. We all know children seek security - no child wants to feel like no one can take care of me. And that's what I foreshadow - this isn't over. This is going to come up again - what life do these 14 individuals have in store for them. We will see. But from all accounts now it just seems so irresponsible on her part - and now she's passing that irresponsibility on. Along with any other person that purposefully has children when they know they shouldn't - of course I'm speaking on the welfare issue in addition to the multiples. The message is do what you want and make someone else pay for it.

Thank you SO MUCH for having this conversation. I am a woman who has a family history of difficulties with conception, pregnancies, and premature births and am currently thinking about my options for having another child. A dinner with my in-laws in which Nadya Suleman was called "crazy" and the the idea of government controlled conception was exalted confirmed my worst fears and made me think twice about considering ivf. What am I going to tell my mother-in-law the next time she asks me when she's getting another grandchild?

It's about personal responsibility. I think it's amazing we have the technology today to help women and couples who have problems creating families, and that they have options, but it's all about moderation. It always is. Already having SIX children, who's needs are not met due to financial burdens, should not have to suffer due to their mother's irresponsibility. She should have seen clearly that even having one more child wast NOT in her family's best interest!

It is sad that the media has blown this up the way they have because now her irresponsibility is getting rewarded with TV deals and high dollar contracts. On the flip side, at least the children will be taken care of financially, although some could argue if the media circus environment is ideal for raising children.

I work part-time as a court-appointed lawyer in cases of children placed in foster care. I suspect that her situation, absent a lot of financial resources (which she may be able to raise through the Internet), is going to be deemed unsuitable for the octuplets, if not for the older 6 children, three of whom already have special needs. (Some or all of the octuplets will as well.) Obviously, we would all wish these children had a stable home with a healthy and competent parent (or two), but that doesn't seem to be an option here. So I find myself wishing for all 14 children to be in as wonderful a home as possible. If that's with Ms. Suleman, great. But I don't think she's been showing herself as all that good at making life choices, and it could be that the children need something better.

one more thing...

Can people please STOP using the term "IMPLANT" or "implant eggs" to refer to the "TRANSFER" of "embryos"? It's so clear that people have no freaking clue what they are talking about as they pass judgment on those who can't get pregnant by simply having sex.

IF a doctor could IMPLANT every embryo that is transferred from lab to womb, then EVERY IVF would be successful. 100% success rate sounds pretty good to infertiles, singles and gays who must gamble on this expensive technology just for the chance to become parents.

oh also - we DO all realize that this little 15 minutes of fame now matter how sane she is - is probably going to make her quite a bit of money right??? So then maybe she can afford a big house and a staff and all her monetary issues will be taken care of. Poof - thank you Media Genie

Honestly, I have conflicting feelings on this. I do not believe what she did was right. It was incredibly selfish, the doctor should be punished, and I am not sure if she should even be allowed to raise these children. I have four children and I am married but my husband is away with the military a great deal. It is challenging to manage 4 with him away for 15 months at a time. There is no way on earth I could give 14 children any individual attention even with a husband. I wish the media would stop talking about her because I think she is getting exactly what she wants, attention. Her mother is so opposed to it and I have to wonder why she doesn't just put her foot down and say no she is not going to help anymore. Ultimately, I think DCFS will remove these children. Either way our tax money is supporting them.

The topic of fertility in general is where my conflicted emotions arise. I have four children and have never had a problem concieving and only suffered a single miscarriage. So in a way I don't feel like I have a right to say much about this. I have seen couples (friends of friends..etc) who have gone through fertility treatments and ultimately delivered micropreemies who spent months in NICU, had multiple surgeries, and had serious delays. It makes me think that using medical science to force something that cannot naturally happen is not the best idea. Of course it could be argued that giving your child an antibiotic when it has a bacterial infection is doing the same thing.

Personally, I think fertility treatment is incredibly selfish and I absolutely do not believe in it under any circumstances. I also am a big enough girl to realize that I am making that judgement from the point of view of a content mommy.

On the topic of legislation to oversee fertility treatments, I wonder why it is not treated the same as adoption? To adopt you have to show you can provide for the child and are competent to be a parent. But any idiot with enough money can go through this incredibly unnatural process. If we are going to create life to grow in someone who was not meant to carry life, can we not at least make sure she is fit to raise this child? I don't think that is asking too much when the same is required of a parent who is adopting.

From a religous perspective (and I am not religous) I think this is playing God and if God meant for you to have a child you would be fertile. From a more logical point of view, modern medicine has forgotten the theory of natural selection.

My husband and I tried for years to become parents, with no success, we were open to adoption, but lived oversees at the time, which complicated the vetting process for the agencies. Fertility treatments were much more inexpensive where we lived, and since we had to pay for it, we went ahead with various courses of treatment. Many other countries regulate the fertility industry MUCH,MUCH better than the USA-where we lived, they were very leery of high order multiple births. This was important to us as we knew we'd never reduce a pregnancy, but did not believe in woman giving birth to litters. I remember telling my husband that I "don't want seven children like that couple in the mid-west, it's irresponsible." The doctor believed we had less than a 25% chance of having one baby. I ended up conceiving quintuplets. It was a rough pregnancy and I lost one of the babies at 20 weeks. I delivered the others at 26 weeks. They spent a lot of time in the hospital and two have ongoing special needs. I find it ironic that we tried to be responsible and careful and things still got away from us. I would not trade any of my kids and I love them all so very, very much-but high order multiple births are never optimal. My husband and I get judged sometimes (especially since the octuplet story broke)- it used to hurt, but now I couldn't care less. A long comment, I know, but I want others to know that though there are people out there who will take advantage of medical advances and do questionable things, not everyone is like that. In the end, even if you need the help of a doctor to conceive, God has his plans, and things happen that mess up the best laid plans. Don't judge-I judged that couple with seven, and God smote me!!!!

When I think about this woman IVF doesn't enter my mind at all. For me it is all about her living situation and all of that. She lives with mommy and daddy, is unemployed and gets food stamps. If she cannot build a life for herself on her own she really has no business attempting to do it for 14 other living things. Honestly though I would feel pretty much the same if she had 14 cats or 14 computers or 14 Fabergé eggs. She has no business asking someone else to shoulder that financial responsibility for her. She didn't NEED to have children, no one needs to.

I think it would be completely idiotic to question other sane people who go through fertility treatment because of people like this because to me the IVF is not nearly as much of a glaring problem here as the total lack of personal responsibility.

I want to have kids someday and being over 30ish, I don't rule out the fact that i might need help in the future. I hate hearing about the irresponsibility of this fertility doctor and this woman who clearly was not in her right state of mind, but don't let one bad case ruin it for the rest of us. Hopefully this woman gets the help mentally and physically to raise these kids.

The government- at least in the country I live in- has no business telling anyone how many kids they can have or how to parent.

My kids didn't have a choice to be born into my wacked out family either. They have a father BLARING Freakazoid right now, coercing them into thinking moving books to his new office on the other side of the house is FUN!

It's not our place to take away her kids, come up with all these ridiculous rules for infertility treatments, say women can only have X number of kids...or else we will be heading down a road that will forever change America.

After going through unsuccessful fertility treatments for seven years, I cannot help but be angered by her and her doctor's actions. I feel she has more than taken advantage of the fertility options that are available to the individuals who are not able to conceive naturally. The individuals who have planned and saved for years and are more than able to provide for a child.

Her actions are completely selfish. Women who go in for IVF treatments are fully aware of the dangers and risks involved in implanting multiple embryos. I was only allowed 1 embryo due to my age, weight and causes of infertility (unknown). As you get older, they do sometimes will recommend 2-3 embryos depending on the case. But even that many is risky.

Unfortunately, it is the 14 children who will feel the consequences of her actions.

All babies are a blessing, and my heart goes out to those who are unable to have children. Just because you ARE able to conceive does not mean your uterus should be used as a clown car.

As a teacher, I look at parents who neglect their children's education and think, "if you weren't prepared to come to parent-teacher conferences, you should have used a condom." Is Nadya prepared to take part in 28 teacher conferences a year?

Second, though I *definitely* don't want to risk anyone's basic reproductive rights, I would be ok with heavily taxing more than 3. You get a credit on the first 3, and pay a hefty penalty after that. Either that or just cap it at 3 for everyone. We do have an overpopulation problem, after all.

"an obviously questionable and renegade doctor who I think holds most of the blame if there is any in this situation"

Woah. I'm sorry. What?

Her body.

Her right.

Her choice.

Yes?

HER responsibility and "blame".

Having read some of the 300+ comments, I agree that laws regulating family size, etc. are a slippery slope into a dangerous area. However, and I'm thinking of the regulatory body that oversees organ transplants, why can't there be a similar set up to deal with the obvious ethical dilemmas that arise?

I don't care how people choose to have their families (with kids without kids, adoption, fertility treatments, what have you), but my first thought on hearing this story (not knowing anything about her) was that she did this for the money and attenton that is thrown at this type of story. I also think that having a multiple birth to this degree was dangerous and irresponsible. I think we as a society need to stop sensationalizing everything, looking for the next big story, the world is getting out of hand. Also, if she is on welfare, how did she afford IVF? Isn't it expensive? I mean we have people trying to win the Amazing Race just to pay for it!

I do judge Nadya Suleman; I judge the hell out of her.

Have as many babies as you like, but be able to support them. Don't purposefully get pregnant when you can't pay the rent and buy food. That's just total dumbassery.

"But I waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaant a baby!". Well, I want brand new red escalade. I'm not going to be able to get that until I can pay for it. Same principal applies. Having a baby is not a right; it is a want.

If you are pregnant or have children and something happens to hurt you financially--that's different. But, purposefully conceiving babies that you have no hope of supporting on your own is wrong. It's immoral.

I feel neither compassion or pity for Nadya Suleman. I feel both a deep and abiding anger and bitterness. I think she is a vain, mentally ill, and unbelieveably selfish woman who should not be rewarded in any way for her bad decisions and behaviors. She is a perfect example of why people entertain the thought of eugenics.

Being someone with infertility issues I have been following this a lot. I think the fact that the doctor actually did this is criminal. I think that the media would be thinking a lot differently about the mother had she been in different financial circumstances. I think, however, listening to all of the interviews that she has done that she is in serious need of Psychic Therapy. Her issues of being an only child wanting all those kids is just unhealthy. Never mind the fact of all the money she is costing the government. I believe in fertility freedom, but not if you're her finacial situation. One or two- or even four, but this is just pure craziness. Not because I'm racist or anything, I just feel bad for the welfare of those kids. What a life- or not.

This woman has been collecting disability from the state because she was injured on the job at a psych hospital years ago. Now, how in the world in addition to paying for in-vitro, did she also pay for plastic surgery? I have friends who have jobs and had to refinance to pay for in-vitro. This is just a no win situation and the people who will be paying and taking care of these children will be the taxpayers. Because undoubtedly she will be trying to get state funding in some way for the choice she made.

My daughter is the result of years of IVF. Thank God for the technique.

My husband and I underwent a fair amount of Clomid and IUI and TESTING (so much really...) to finally arrive at the realization that the only way sperm and egg were going to hook up was in a petri dish.

It took 4 years and two different reputable clinics to finally bring Kat into this world. There are some women that need more than two or three embryos to result in pregnancy. The odds of success are pretty low with each cycle.

The idea that a doctor puts a viable embryo into a uterus and out comes a baby--well, often that is not how it works. When you are a doctor sitting in an operating room with pictures of embryos up on a screen and a desperate woman who has been through the mill says "put back as many as you can.." -- it's not a crime. It's one human being trying to help another. People who can't get pregnant, who devote their lives to getting pregnant, know what that moment feels like.

Legislating that moment would be unfair to many.

There are so many problems with this argument in that there is no way to NOT paint yourself into a corner. We can blame the doctor all we want for not having the moral and ethical compass, but at the same time, there is no precedent for the doctors to follow, and furthermore, by refusing government participation in reproductive rights in any way, shape, or form, the doctors have no recourse if they DO follow their moral compass and the patient doesn't like it. We live in a society where a robber can break into your home, cut himself on glass from the window he broke to get into your home, and successfully sue the victim. As a healthcare professional (not in this particular profession, thank god), I have to constantly document and cover my rear in every instance because I could get sued in a heartbeat. By not having the government or medical boards (generally in conjunction with the government) not get involved, an individual can turn around and say "You aren't putting the number of embryos in me that I want - YOU ARE TRAMPLING ON MY REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS" and turn around and sue/otherwise litigate the doctor out of the profession, even if that doctor's judgment was in the best interests of mother and child(ren). There needs to be clear cut guidelines that doctors can fall back on and base their decisions on, and also for patients to understand that there are limits, that exist for safety and health, not just because society doesn't want to foot the bill. I know that the majority of people don't want to/can't produce a litter, but it only takes a person like Ms. Suleman to bring such an issue to the forefront and make it so that there needs to be such explicit guidelines. I also argue with the use of the word "family" in her case - there is no "family" - it's only her, and the children. There's no father, there's no loving aunts and uncles, and she's only just now living with her parents because she can no longer fund her lifestyle, welfare or no. From all reports, her parents are not thrilled grandparents that want to help take care of their grandchildren, as they are still working. So where is this "family"? A single unemployed parent with b**tard children is the same at 33 as one at 16.

I'm not one to read comments, so I apologize if I'm repeating someone else here.

This (http://www.slate.com/id/2211151/) is a great article arguing for in vitro to be MORE accessible to women. If it were covered by insurance and wasn't so incredibly expensive, maybe women wouldn't have to make the decision of implanting multiple embryos in one visit.

I can just only wholeheartedly agree with you, hba.

Once again, I love this, not the end of a conversation but the beginning. The beginning of one that there are so many sides of, there can be no end.

This whole story makes me upset not only for her children, but because it's increasing the (undeserved) stigma associated with fertility treatments. We struggled with unexplained infertility and two early miscarriages for a long time before we were finally able to get pregnant with our twins. We were also told that by transferring (NOT implanting, as the media likes to say) two embryos, if I did get pregnant (which was a big "if"), then there'd be a 70% chance of a singleton and only a 30% chance of twins. So we transferred two. But we would not have transferred more than two with our medical histories. Some women have issues (like poor egg quality) that might make transferring more than two a valid choice, but it doesn't sound like this octuplet woman was one of those women.

And another important policy issue here is that most people pay for IVF and other fertility treatments out of pocket. So when you only have a certain amount of money, and IVF is your only option, you want to be sure you do whatever you can to make it work. For most people that means transferring two embryos instead of just one. Most REs stick to the guidelines for the number of embryos to transfer, but apparently a few do not. But that doesn't mean they should ruin it for the rest of us.

And it really kills me when people say that infertile couples should "just adopt." One, adoption is often even more expensive than fertility treatments. Two, adoption is not guaranteed to work out with a happy ending. Three, people who are fertile are JUST AS ABLE to "just adopt" instead of having biological children if they wish. It's just funny how they usually don't wish, but are eager to tell everyone else what to do.

The problem I have with this issue is #1 -she is a single woman who has no means of monetary support for 14 children and #2 - there is absolutely no way she alone can attend to each child's individual needs! These children will suffer in more ways than one thanks to their mother's selfish actions!

First time posting, because I feel the same way.

This whole situation is troubling on MANY levels, but the one that bothers me the most is the hyperbolic rhetoric that, observed if you take a step back from this specific incident, seems to question women's reproductive rights in general.

Is this woman a bit nuts? Seems so. Was the doctor irresponsible? Yes.

However, women have the right to control their own bodies, and its reproductive potential. I'm sorry, they do. The fact that this one irresponsible woman suddenly throws that all into question for a lot of people really, REALLY upsets me.

I haven't heard any criticism about reproductive medicine since this all came out in the media. I've heard lots of complaints about the mom and the doctor, but no negativity on implanting embryos.

I was raised in a family that had six children, two parents. Dad went to work, mom stayed home with us. We were spaced 2 or 3 years apart. None of us had any physical or developmental disabilities. Do I think I would have been wanted to be raised in a family any larger than that? No. There is only so much two parents can provide physically and emotionally.

I think the bottom line is that people need to understand that HAVING a huge family is one thing but being able to AFFORD them financially and emotionally is another. Kids deserve to feel special as an individual. I have a really hard time believing an octuplet with 13 other siblings and one parent can have a great childhood.

Or look at it this way.. I love dogs! If I could I would rescue each and every dog I could. My whole house would be full of dogs!! I wouldn't be able to give them individual attention, regular bathing/haircuts/nail trimmings/vet visits or walks because of time and financial limitations. But hey, I really love dogs! Would it be fair of me and the dogs to have say, 14 of them? No, and I know that and am not so selfish to say "Hey! Too bad! I love dogs!!"

How could someone do this when they are CHILDREN?

I haven't read all of the comments but I agree with you. The doctor is a crack pot and should be ordered (by whom I don't know, the welfare system perhaps) to pay for the upbringing of these children. Make an example out of him. We need to stop berating her, it isn't going to help and may endanger the kids! The damage is done and we all need to figure out how to get these kids raised with what they need. The doctor must have a home and money that he can and should contribute. Just as we would garnish a mans wages for child support. He's to blame for indulging a person clearly not able to support that many more kids. Ethics!

I agree with one of the first comments. Nadya IS NOT, and NEVER WAS, infertile. She was perfectly fertile, and perfectly absurd.

There is nothing wrong with IVF, and there is certainly nothing wrong with families trying to have children. What is wrong is a doctor consenting to provide this women with 14 children. What happened to "First Do No Harm?" The harm may not have been to Nadya, but it certainly fell on her unsuspecting children.

Do I think she should be allowed to raise these children? No. I think she is out to exploit them for her own gain, and I don't think she has their best interest in mind. Not one of her choices leads to that inference. There will be a great deal of sorrow surrounding these children, and in their best interest, maybe they should be removed from her care.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm old-fashioned and too conservative for twenty-six, but I was taught to consider the consequences and PAY FOR THEM ON MY OWN if I did not. I feel like Nadya decided that others would be more than willing to pay for her choices and even shell out more the syndication rights when this circus lands in reruns. And it will - it appears the general populace just can't get enough of it.

You moms have too much time on your hands. It's disgusting how you all talk about Nadya like you are all some sort of experts. And how many times can the words "opinion" and "judge" be said in a few minutes? Humans judge nearly EVERYTHING---we are allowed to. Who cares? This topic will die down soon enough.

What may never cease is your boredom and need to express your thoughts like you're important. You bloggers are attention whores who do not have good camera presence. Sorry.

And I know Heather, this is *YOUR* site and I don't have to visit. Yes, really correct. One day, no one will come here.

And lastly...you never mentioned the Wii winners. Did they all go to your family and friends?

I agree with a lot of what you say here Heather. Reproductive rights are a legal question; how they are operationalized a medical one. But sometimes a case is so clearly on the side of bad...

I don't believe anyone has a "right" to parent, regardless of how they have a child. That doesn't mean automatically taking children away in a case like this, but by Jaysus the authorities in CA better monitor this woman. As they should anytime they encounter a family with many children and no source of income.

Having grown up with lots of neighbours from larger (10+ siblings) families, I can assure you most felt their mother a saint. That doesn't mean they were always fed, had clean clothes, and a clean house. Most of these folks turned out just fine.

But really we should be encouraging people to aim higher than "just fine."

This is the first "momversation" that I've watched and I found it interesting but the background music was very distracting.

Fourteen kids? Hey, that's not *my* thing, but it's not my life, either. It's hers. I actually feel bad for her, and I don't think she should be getting all kinds of bad press. Look at the other families out there with multiples, like Jon and Kate and that other family with 18 kids. Why is it they get all kinds of special treatment, free gifts of diapers and donations, TV shows, etc... and this poor woman is being judged by the media and the public so poorly? If anyone needs the special treatment, the diapers, a home with lots of bedrooms, monetary donations and people to help her out, it's Nadya, you know? She's not hurting me by having 14 kids, and as far as I can tell, she's not hurting anyone else. I think the world should keep out of her business.

I have an opinion but this interview with a woman who has a book out is much more interesting;
Everything Conceivable: How Assisted Reproduction is Changing Our World.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13

I would hope that most people do not associate this case with all couples who need IVF. However I'm aware that there are those people out there that will jump at ANY chance to take away women's rights to choose if we want to be mothers or not. I still like to think that the reasonable and logical thinkers win out.

Anytime a situation dealing with children is in the news, I can't help but think about my job. I work for an organization that provides community services to families and children in need, which also includes Treatment Foster Care. TFC is for children who have been neglected, abused, etc. and had to be removed from their parent(s)' home. And it all just makes me so very sad to be reminded that for some of us, our worst enemies are those that should be our greatest protectors. And I can't help but see that personality when I read about this woman.

I'm staunchly pro-choice. I truly am. But sometimes, because of what I see and know due to my job...I can't help but think "Courts take away the right to own a dog from animal abusers...but what about kids? Don't they deserve the same?"

I know. Goes against everything being pro-choice is. It's hard for me to reconcile myself.

When it comes down to it, I'm not so much in favor of taking away a woman's right to have children....but what can our communities, education system, etc. do before we become parents to instill a more thoughtful process before we do so? I'm in favor of that. Instilling the process to all people to stop and really think for a bit before they make this decision. People shop around and research before they buy a car. They try on different pairs of pants and shoes before they buy them. They talk to friends, families, online forums before they buy most anything! So, why not put that much thought into becoming a parent.

I believe if this woman had really sat down and put in that much thought in regards to her situation, she'd not have even had the 6 children she already had. But that's me being optimistic again...

I wonder how many people are paying attention to what this woman is actually saying and how many are paying attention to what the public is throwing out there?

In her interview on the Today show, with Ann Curry, she said she wanted only one more child. She said that she worked double shifts to afford one more procedure. She said that because of an (unspecified) medical condition, more eggs then the norm were implanted. Neither she, nor her doctor expected them all to live or divide based on her prior outcomes. She said the most that either of them expected, based on her medical history and prior outcomes was twins. She did not walk in off the street and ask the dr to implant 8 babies! But, what she did do is accept the consequences of her choices and respected the embryos as lives and chose against selective reduction. (Which is a whole OTHER topic to argue about).

I have yet to hear her say she has had plastic surgery. So far I have only heard that reported about her, and from the media circus surrounding this woman, i don't trust anything I don't hear from her own mouth.

I have been to her website. She does not ASK for donations. There is a paypal button with the standard "donate now". I see nothing wrong with this. She has many supporters worldwide, and I am sure many of them want to know what they can do to help. THis site was set up by her publicist not Ms. Sulemon. (That publicist has since dropped her as a client due to death threats.)

I think the way this woman has been crucified in the media is shameful. I cannot believe the way she has ridden out this firestorm in a haze of postpartum hormones and the stress of having her children in the NICU. I certainly wouldn't have been able to do as well. If that alone is any indication, I think this woman deserves a fighting chance to make her family situation work instead of being held up for target practice.

And if she can't emotionally parent 14 kids with the help of family and friends, then how can we expect teachers to teach/manage 30 schoolchildren, or daycares to care for multiple children, or orphanages/foster homes with multiple placements. Just because the daddy isn't there, doesn't mean she can't parent properly. There have been large families for centuries, and often only the mother raising the kids and running the household. My father in law is 1 of 12...he is a normal person, contributing to society.

I may not like the situation or the outcome, but it's not nearly the big deal everyone wants to make of it.

Has anyone heard of OVERPOPULATION? It is unconscionable to have more than 2 kids in this day and age (cue the uproar) and having 14 should land someone in the slammer. People should consider the good of the planet as a whole when planning their families. We can't just continue to watch the population double, and double, and double, while we dither about reproductive 'rights.' No one wants to say it, but there has to be a more aggressive stance towards population control or it's game over.

I think with everything else going on right now-- unstable economy, job losses, uncertain future-- that it's interesting so many people are fixated on this woman. I think she's a truly fascinating Rorshach Test.

That being said, what do I see when I look at Rorschach Mom?

I've always wanted kids. I'm 33 and have been in a wonderful, stable relationship for almost 10 years. We own a nice house, have supportive family nearby, but STILL are waiting to start a family. Why? Because we want more financial security than we have now-- more money in the bank, less debt, better jobs, etc. So I find it truly incomprehensible that anyone would choose to have so many kids without seeming to care at all about having any financial stability or security. Like a lot of women who want kids but don't have them yet I can't help but think, hey, you seem to have more than you can handle-- I'd love just one, thanks.

I do think that those people who are worried that this will provoke backlash against reproductive medicine and choices is misreading why a lot of people care about this story. The choices of Rorschach Mom seem so completely irrational and irresponsible by almost any societal measure-- not to mention imagining having that many kids. I also think she's a pretty convenient distraction at a time when we're all looking for something to think about.

I have to agree with the comments on our (society's) role in this. Can we really blame this woman for thinking she'd get a TV deal? Infertility is incredibly painful for so many, but for those who really beat the odds with large number multiple births, the rewards are also pretty incredible. We've all seen entire towns support a family with sextuplets, or new cars delivered to a family with quints. I'm sorry, but it was only a matter of time before someone decided to game the system.

I believe everyone should adopt, infertile or not. But I've seen several comments about how these babies should be taken away because so many loving parents want children; I've also seen postings about adoption being more expensive than IVF. These claims are FALSE. There are thousands of children (just in this country) desperately waiting for loving homes, NOT the other way around. And domestic adoption, particularly from foster care, is not expensive (especially when compared to IVF). Now, if you want a brand new Caucasian baby delivered straight from the hospital, with blonde hair and blue eyes whose biological parents' have a combined SAT score exceeding 2500, then, yes you will pay and you will wait. But there are plenty of WONDERFUL children waiting now, and they're at bargain-basement prices!

My husband and I have two children, 8 and 4, and for the past 15 months, we've been trying to have another. I had three miscarriages between the two births, so I long ago lost any illusions about popping out children as effortlessly as some people seem to be able to do it.

Just yesterday, I realized (with probably the 30th pregnancy test I've taken in those 15 months) that our first round of fertility drugs didn't do the trick. And as hard as it is--because it really does break my heart, even though I already have two children, to be unable to bring another little person into the world to love and nurture--I'm done. No more tests, no more waiting rooms, no more blood draws or hysterosalpingograms or drug-induced mood swings or sex on a schedule. I'm done, we're done, and I have to find a way to be OK with that.

I would adopt in a second, but it's an expensive (much more than a round of IVF) and arduous process--as it probably should be. Kids who are adopted deserve to get it right the second time around. Also, because we have two biological children, there are limits on who we might be eligible to adopt.

People need to know that they have options when facing reproductive difficulty, and there are probably a lot of good and thoughtful ways of dealing with these challenges. But it's not good or thoughtful to do what Nadya Suleman has done to these children. I think she and the doctor who treated her have done a lot of fragile people a major disservice.

I think bloggers should not be allowed to have children. They clearly have no sense of reality or what it is like to hold down a real job without getting fired for blogging about it.

I can't believe I am about to say this but I completely disagree with you. This might be a first...although that sounds weird and kind of stalker-y.

I held off judgement on this woman until I heard her speak for herself. And from the 1 primary interview and then the subsequent interviews with the people closest to her, I judge her mentally unsound. And this is not an indictment, not anymore of a recrimination than for me to judge anyone with a disability as being disabled.

She seems to be delusional, like a person with body dismorphia, seeing things that are just not there. She has no comprehension of what having 14 children under the age of 6 means. Your fellow Moms on the Momversation talked about well there are other mothers with large families who do it brilliantly...there is NOONE who has 14 kids under the age of 6 out there...and if there is they do not have zero means of providing for that child.

The doctor has culpability - absolutely. He is responsible for judging her mental state as well as following stated IVF guidelines. But from what this woman's own mother has said she is very compelling lady.

Her mother has said her daughter is not well. And yes I give this mother the right to judge since this girl made these decisions without even speaking to her parents about it. These parents have lost all their money paying for the six children already born, and have given over their home. They live in a 3 bedroom home, and these parents have no bed to sleep in, the rooms have been given to the children.

And yes I think there needs to be some accountability for this woman bringing more children into a situation where of her six children 3 have special needs already. And now many of these 8 will have major disabilities from their ever so fragile premature state.

My heart aches for these small lives...and I truly believe that she has little to no chance of raising these children without massive intervention. And I do believe that children's services needs to be involved to ensure their well being.

And yes, I am sorry. It frustrates me that in a state like California with the situation we have where our tax base is so stretched as it is that emergency rooms and schools are closing, and the basics of life like food, housing and medical services may need to be applied to the sales tax law...that this woman and the 'choice' she made will be taking millions and millions over the next few years.

I believe in choice, but I also believe in responsibility. If she is not mentally disabled then I hold her responsible, and if she is then her children should be protected from her. As horrible as that sounds...

As is the case with many "rights", they are accompanied by "responsibilities". I don't see that reproductive rights are any different and clearly, Nadya Suleman and her doctors acted without responsibilty in this case. I've been through both IUI and IVF, without success. Before the IVF treatment my husband and I were both interviewed by a counselor. Now we've been through the adoption process (still waiting) and I'm sure there's no one who knows as much about us as a couple as our social worker does. Yes, it's maddening that our lives are turned inside out and examined in order to have a child when people much less capable/prepared can have kids without so much as a thought of their own, never mind the evaluation of a psychiatrist. With the case of adoption, it's done for the protection of the child. I just wonder, who was/is protecting these 14 innocent children? Nadya Suleman has abused her reproductive rights, while most of us just exercise our reproductive rights.

it is not impossible to breastfeed 8 babies. It might be impossible to EXCLUSIVELY breastfeed 8 babies, but that's because of time not the limits of the body. Whatever breastmilk the mother can provide will only help them and her intent to do this should be commended. At least she has the good intent, which is more then I can say for a lot of women. Once again, someone saying she can't before even allowing her to try. Just because YOU can't, doesn't mean that no one can.

Just in case another touchy infertile hasn't already pointed it out yet, to #15 Anonymous, Jon and Kate used IUI, not IVF. They are two very, very different procedures. Kate's doctor did not "implant" (and, BTW, that is, at least in fertility medicine, considered the wrong term to use- most educated folks prefer "transfer" as implantation technically refers to what hopefully happens after the embryos are placed during an IVF procedure, which is that they burrow in and stick around for a good 9 months or so) any embryos. He placed cleaned sperm up inside her uterus where they could meet up with the eggs that had been stimulated to grow when Kate took Clomid. The doctor in that case had a slight miscount in the number of follicles with ready-to-go eggs in them, thus the sextuplets. The doctor did not take six oocytes (or whatever they are called at 5 days post petri-dish meetup) and transfer them to her uterus. In the case of Ms. Suleman, the doctor did exactly that.

Additionally, just ask anyone who has had a failed IVF- transfer does not equal pregnancy. So he could have transferred three and ended up with only one live baby. Or he could have transferred six and ended up with none. Or in this case, he transfers six and gets eight. So yeah, the doc was stupid to do that (and going against the recommendations all of the medical boards who deal with ART), but judging by his past success rates, I wouldn't have put it past him to up his odds by transferring more.

Finally, as of late, when I think about Ms. Suleman's case, I think that in large part, despite all of the other factors (her being a single mother with no job, etc.) the single biggest issue seems to be that she used assisted reproduction to achieve her family size. Had she been able to do things the old fashioned way, we might silently cluck our tongues at the choice to have so many kids, but in truth, we'd just chalk it up to a lifestyle choice (a la our favorites, the Duggars). I mean, do I have any right to judge people who choose not to have kids? They are doing NOTHING to better our future, they're not adding any future tax payers, so they're increasing the burden on MY future children. How DARE they not do their part and have 2.3 children! So, despite her bewelfared status, her family size is up to her, isn't it? I mean, we might decry the welfare mom who keeps having kids, but it's hardly newsworthy, or even remotely seen as something to be debated, but Nadya? She fooled with NATURE, so let us all cast stones at her for choosing to have a huge amount of kids...

I don't know. I go back and forth with my feelings about this. Yes, I am pissed that it draws into question the methods I will use to start my family (I am really not looking forward to that conversation with my mom, trying to explain how I won't end up with a "litter"- GOD, I hate applying that usage here...), but ultimately, it is her choice as to how many children she wants to have. It sucks that she's milking the CA taxpayers, etc., but why then aren't we making news of every single other deadbeat welfare mom with too many kids, who can't figure out how she keeps getting knocked up? I mean, at least Ms. Suleman planned it, wanted these kids, enough to pay fuckloads of money to get them all.

Dicey, really. I think and think about this, and all I can come up with is that there's no one right answer.

Saying that this is indicative of the usual reproductive measures most parents go thru is like saying that since buddy decided to drink a 12 pack, talk on his cell phone and ski down a mountain with no clothes on, it is indicative of how ALL skiers ski...and that just isn't so.. as we all know. (or do we?)
All stupid opinions aside...I would just like to know if she's going to breastfeed. ;)

and btw...sister in law has done it (invitro) many times and unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) she had to adopt in the end. A very cute headstrong little girl who we are proud to call our neice.

Thanks for a great post. Infertility sucks -- I can attest to this from personal experience.

Unlike others, I do think this story is relevant to the issue of infertility in general. Nadya Suleman used infertility-related medical techniques in order to have kids -- just like lots of single moms, lesbian couples, etc. who choose to use the same technology. I believe strongly that everyone should have access to the miracles of modern medicine whether or not they are "infertile couples" of the traditional sort.

We need to be cognizant of the fact that 'infertility' doesn't just relate to hetero couples with medical or age-related obstacles to having kids the old-fashioned way. Please.

That being said, it seems that this woman and her doctor have seriously questionable motivations.

I don't believe that every woman who gets help to get pregnant should be measured by this whack job as a standard. I DO believe that there should have been a medical ethicist involved before all those embryos were implanted.

There are ways to go about having eight children, and then there are ways to NOT go about having eight children. Having all of them at once is one of those ways which shouldn't be gone about.

Look at that one family that has the eighteen (or is it nineteen now?) children (the ones whose names all start with J). To my knowledge, they're very self sufficient. I'm sure the parents take handouts, but it's not like they're unemployed and live with their mother. Also, in spanning out the birth of their children over a course of years, they've created a means to take care of the younger children by having children already old enough to help out around the house.

All of Nadya Suleman's children are under seven. That's ridiculous. Who's going to take care of them, her mother? Or does she just plan to never get a job? And was her motivation for having eight children at the same time really justified? Multiple child pregnancies to this degree and premature births are not ideal at ALL. Who would risk putting their unborn children through distress and possibly death for the sake of a selfish whim? That's just unacceptable.

I myself am one child of six. My parents separated when I was a baby. My father has played a constant role in my life, but I'm sure it wasn't easy for them. Whichever parent me and my siblings were staying with (we'd spend the weekend at my Dad's house), that parent would have to deal with a small horde of children by themselves. I can't even begin to comprehend what our situation would have been like if it were only one unemployed parent and fourteen children instead of six.

I just listened Fresh Air on NPR and Terri Gross was interviewing Liza Mundy who writes for the Washington post on just this topic. It was a really informative show and I think you would enjoy listening to it. Mundy has just published a book, "Everything Conceivable: How Assisted Reproduction Is Changing Our World".

As a mom of IVF twins, I have had everyone I know ask me what I think about this story as if I am an authority because I struggled with infertility. It has reversed years of education we did with family and friends about the IVF process and I will shove the phone up the ass of the next person who says to us "you are lucky you had two and not eight." As an IVF patient, my doctor would not transfer that many embryos regardless of what the Wall Street Journal writes or quotes in an editorial. With any system there will be people who step outside reasonable boundaries and do what they want, afterall this is real life and we all have free will. As for the Octomom, I don't really think anything of her other than why are major news organizations running photos of her shopping at a drugstore? Is this newsworthy? I kind of think that is the answer as to what is wrong with the situation.My major thoughts are with the children, because after all they are children - whether she gets a "reality show" or not, the fact is we are talking about human life....

When this woman came to her doctor with this ill-conceived idea, she should have had a door slammed in her face, and instead had one opened to her that led to fourteen innocent children ending up in a really compromising situation. I feel such inexpressible pity for her children.

I hear a lot of people saying there should be restrictions on how many eggs go "in." Wouldn't this be the same argument if these children were individual births? If the true concern is the children, why are the 'doctors' to blame? They can't 'cap-off' the amount of times a patient can get pregnant.

After years of heartache, my precious daughter was conceived through IVF. I'm in the middle of another cycle right now, and I find out Wednesday if I'm pregnant. This is absolutely the most difficult, emotional, and expensive thing I've ever been through. But so worth it. Children really are miracles, however they are conceived.

I've heard so many things lately about regulating reproductive medicine. Although situations like this are very alarming, regulation is not the key. The choice of how many embryos are transferred is between a woman and her physician. I'm not in your bedroom when you conceive your children, so please butt out when I conceive mine! (And, for the record, we transferred two embryos this cycle.)

This woman and her doctor have obviously been irresponsible. But this is an isolated incident, and should be treated as such.

Thanks for opening up to this subject...

Obviously I couldn't read all the comments here, and most angles have been covered. I'm sorry if someone already addressed this type of thing. But I noticed that a lot of people who have had problems conceiving, and had to pay lots of money to try, are really bitter at people who don't have problems conceiving. It looks very clear that this is jealousy, and jealousy I understand. Most people want children, and not being able to have them would be very painful. I do not agree with this Nadya's choices, but I also noticed many people here very angry with people who have children and don't have enough money and therefore are on government assistance. I understand this, and I'm sensitive to it b/c my husband and I are on medicaid, and have been for a while. Because of it, we have been IMMEASURABLY helped and we are SO GRATEFUL. Without it I don't know what we would have done. I was able to have a healthy pregnancy and baby and I am so grateful for that help, and I hope to be able to one day make enough money to return the favor to others in need. I know it's a really complicated issue, but please don't think that anyone and everyone "on welfare" is lazy, ungrateful, irresponsible, unthinking. I feel guilty and bad every day for being on government assistance, but I am so grateful for it and we work hard to make whatever money we can make ourselves. If I could be off of govt' assistance, I would. Most people "on welfare," I think, would rather have the resources to take care of themselves. It's not like being on welfare provides a super high, comfortable, luxurious standard of living.

What is unclear to me in the momversation is that you state that there should be no limits set on a woman to have the family of her choosing. (i do realize you are saying its a tricky situation) and therefor it's not okay to limit nadya's choice. however, you then go on to say the doctor should've stopped her? i'm lost here.

As others have noted, I really wonder if what we are witnessing here is the product of a psychological disfunction? Could it be that this mother has become addicted to the "warm, nurturing" flood of hormones from the second trimester? Or could it that she is fixated on caring for a newborn and quickly becomes disinterested once the child reaches toddler? Or (and perhaps my vote) is this just an odd manifestation of Munchausen's syndrome where she has learned to gain the attention she craves by presenting herself as an overwhelmed & struggling mother?

Even more troubling than the above is: What is to be done now that the children have been born? While I understand the outrage (selfish, welfare burden, unethical doctor), I am even more fearful of that slippery slope when we begin enforcing who may or may not have a child. Once we cross that line, is limiting the number of children too far off? Or even regulating the sex of the child to be born?

I think it's both the doctors and Nadya’s fault.

I can't understand where Nadya (in her right mind) thinks she can handle that many children on her own! She can't even take care of the children she already has! I think she's being selfish.

I have a baby on the way and I'm already trying to figure out childcare for ONE kid, I can't imagine 14 kids!! Very VERY irresponsible!

My thoughts go out to the children, I hope they (some how) get the attention they need!

That was a fun group of momversaters and since I am a single dude I can't say much, but... I will anyway. If this woman can take care of her children, great, but if she can't, then the burden falls on the taxpayers and with all of my money going out of the door anyway, what's a few more bucks for some babies?

What is with this rhetoric of who is or isn't "crazy"?

That doesn't even mean anything. I don't think this woman is crazy, but i think it's extremely selfish and childish to have so many children because you are upset about your own dysfunctional childhood. Children can't be responsible for your happiness. I imagine that children often make their parents supremely happy, but they aren't responsible for the happiness of their parents. This is too much of a burden to place on kids. She should have at least tried to get some of her issues hashed out before embarking on such a large family while unemployed.

Am I the only person who is annoyed with people on welfare who get their nails done? I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but she always has a french manicure..um, huh?

I also don't think that this issue has anything to do with IVF as the public would be just as disgusted if these were "natural" births of an unemployed single mother living with her parents...

Yup, government regulation is a bad idea here. Nonetheless, there is a role for individual responsibility -- if you can't handle every part of parenthood, including the financial aspect, then it's irresponsible to have a child...or fourteen. In this case, it will be interesting to see what happens. Maybe she'll marry Daddy Warbucks and all of her children will do amazing things like cure cancer and win Nobel Peace Prizes or, even better, become really great school teachers. That's optimistic, but since I can't say how it's going to turn out, I can't judge her. I will judge my own actions and make sure I can provide for my children.

We need to get perspective on the reports from the media. EVERY time I have personal knowledge of a story I can't believe the reports I read/hear/see in the media. The facts are seldom correct. The POV is always one-sided and sensationalistic.

This case is exactly what the media craves. A story that promotes anger and fear thus keeping the public interested and responsive. The death threats against the woman and her publicist are symptoms of media caused hysteria. The media regularly "cries fire in a crowded theater" under the protection of the first amendment.

The public should let the police, courts, medical licensing board, and CPS do their jobs without the media induced pressure. This is a classic case of the media making a mountain out of a molehill.

This woman appears to have some serious psychological problems. The appropriate authorities need to evaluate the situation and protect her children and her. Worry about the taxpayer's burden and even punishing the doctor should not be the issue.

I think this is such a complex issue. Having dealt with infertility, there are so many aspects of this story that make me cringe. Nadya obvious has a poor grasp on reality, and the doctor was really irresponsible. HOWEVER, when people start talking about how she should have been denied treatments based on the number of kids she has, I do think it's concerning. At what point do we want reproductive assistance legislated based on the "merits" of the parents? Who will decide who is "good enough" for IVF? It would be a scary thing to be denied treatment because sensationalist stories like this put doctors in a role of family judge and jury.

On the other hand, it does seem like a very broken family (especially with grandma and grandpa smack-talking their live-in daughter to the press all this week). I worry for those kids.

I don't know much about the situation to make much comments but I do know the doctor who let her do this would be considered grossly negligent. Everyone knows its a huge risk to carry multiples not only to the children, but also for the mother. Now the children are born premature - hopefully that results in nothing, but how many people know of children who are born premature who have serious and general health issues.

While I have opinions on other things they are based on stuff I don't know a lot about, the above I do so thats all I will comment on.

I'm gonna go ahead and say . . . I so agree with you Heather. I think you said/wrote it well.

I've never been on the recipient side of infertility treatments (although my husband and I did struggle with infertility). However, I was an ovum donor for recipient couples twice, and I had to go through extensive physical exams as well as two psychological exams. I also had to fill out TONS of questionnaires, about my reasons for donating and how I felt about the ethics of it, etc. Clearly, some fertility hospitals get it right while others will do whatever people want as long as they are willing to pay top dollar.

I don't know what the solution is here, but I do know that people trying to receive infertility treatments hit enough road blocks without people like Nadya Suleman making the whole thing look like a three ring circus.

I really hope people don't think that this is at all representative of people with infertility issues seeking IVF. What bothers me most about her is that I consider having 8 kids at once child abuse (and my parents are both social workers for CPS). It is an absolute miracle those babies are as healthy as they are. The doctor and mother put those children in a very dangerous situation. I really don't care if she wants to have 14 kids (although, it is also less than stellar parenting to do so when you're clearly not capable of caring for them), but for God's sakes don't try to get them all at once.

I know everyone hates this woman, but I really think she's clearly got some sort of mental illness and that it isn't the fault of these children. I know lots of only children. Are any of them addicted to having babies? No. It's just really a sad situation to me.

i agree that giving birth/becoming a parent is a personal decision...but it doesn't remain personal very long when the public is expected to foot the bill.

I think the knee jerk reaction is to shout "NUTS!" and write her off as a freak show.

But I have to agree with you, reproductive rights should be limitless. I don't think any person is insane for having as many children as they want, no matter their financial status. I do, however, think it will be a very long and tough road for this woman and her children. I hope she makes the right choices in the end, because that's 14 lives she's now in control of.

All right, nobody's mentioned this, but I have to: I am infuriated by that Discovery Health channel show "17 and couting." I am all in favor of reproductive rights, I'm a leftist liberal (socialist, I'm sure, in McCain/Palin-speak), but let's exercise some common f*ing sense, please. Nobody needs 14 children, let alone 17. I understand Nadya Suleman didn't plan to have 14, necessarily, but undergoing IVF treatment when you may not have fertility issues and when you already have six children, three of whom have developmental disabilities is fundamentally irresponsible; the doctor who allowed her to use the treatment is worse. Let's put the issue of the taxpayers aside; it's irresponsible to the existing children. She has a responsibility to care for them first, and she has seriously compromised her ability to care for them by having an additional 8 children.

I must point out, however, that there is a TV show devoted to a family of 17 (and now I think 18) children, so our culture, for some stupid reason, celebrates this kind of reckless reproduction and holds out the temptation that this is an easy way to get publicity, attention, money, whatever. Maybe this was part of Suleman's motivation, maybe not. I don't know. What I do know is that we have a population crisis looming already, and having 17 children--regardless of whether you personally can afford them--is going to put a strain on the earth's resources in the very near future. I think it's selfish and I honestly can't, try as I might, see any reason to have a family of 18 children. It's not the 19th century. Ten of them aren't going to die before they reach the age of 3. There's no farm work to be done. WTF? At some point, you do have to reconcile your personal choices and freedoms with a greater responsibility to society and future generations to come.

My husband and I tried to get pregnant for 3+ years before going through 3 IVF cycles and finally giving birth to beautiful and healthy boy/girl twins. These are extremely painful and invasive procedures that may or may not result in a pregnancy. We were lucky enough to be referred to a highly respected and successful fertility clinic here in the Chicagoland area. Respected and successful because the doctors worked hard at trying to discover why a couple is unable to conceive and how to try to remedy the problem if possible. Their goal was the same as ours - a healthy pregnancy for both mom and baby. And if a pregnancy did not result in a baby that was brought home, they allowed you to use part of the money that went towards the cycle to help you adopt a child.

Before each cycle we sat down with our specialist and discussed the "issues" and our options. The specialist was always honest about our choices at every step (from how many eggs to fertilze to how many embryos to transfer), possible outcomes and their policies. Yes ... they had policies and guidelines, which were actually followed. Our original problem was discovered to be with my husband (low sperm count and funky swimmers); but with each pregnancy - and many tests - other issues were discovered with me (glucose levels and hypertension) which were addressed. After miscarriages with the first two cycles (one at 12 weeks with identical twins), and medication to correct my glucose levels and regulate my blood pressure, I became pregnant with my twins. The doctor only implanted two embryos, even though the guidelines allowed 3 in my situation. You see ... most people and doctors are responsible during the IVF cycle and exhibit sound choices at every step.

All the emotional and physical pain - more than anyone not having gone through this experience will ever know - was worth it!

And to all the people who commented about overpopulation and adopting. Aren't you glad that your parents didn't feel this way? You probably would not exist if they had subscribed to your beliefs.

And to the ignorant people who said that maybe God made you infertile because He doesn't want you to have children and just adopt - maybe you need to stop questioning God. Would tell anyone else with any other disease, like diabetes or hypertension or cancer, to not seek medical help because maybe God wants you to die sooner so don't even try? Your thought process is, quite frankly, ridiculous. It is not your place to question the mysterious ways in which God works. Did it ever occur to you that maybe as Christians my husband and I went through this very long and difficult journey so that we could help other people who are trying to conceive or who have twins? I can definitely answer yes to that question and say that we are more than grateful to have been able to do so.

As far as adoption is concerned - if we were to apply the "logic" that there are already so many children that need adopting, then why not say that everyone from this point on (until further notice) should just adopt and not have any children of their own? Sounds ridiculous when put this way - doesn't it? I would personally like to know - did you adopt first before having your own children? Or if you don't have children yet - are you going to adopt first before trying? Hmmmmm ... that's what I thought. Why is it the responsibility of the "infertile" couples and gay couples and single people wanting children to adopt all the kids, while fertile people get to have their own without adopting? Why aren't all people who have children questioned about this and then looked down upon if there was no adoption? I believe that adoption is wonderful, but not for everyone. Everyone should have a choice as to how they will have a family given the options. If we had not had twins, we probably would have adopted; however, we have not because we cannot afford to do so at this point in our lives. It is still an option if things change ...

Wow I am surprised this is open for comments and the comments have rung in. Let it be known I am a fertility patient and I have 7 month old triplets conceived by injections and 2 IUI's (first and only cycle). Speaking in regards to the laws being changed against these types of pregnancies I believe is completly missing the point. If drug addicts, illegal residents, or even dare I say just people on welfare in general who have 4,5,6 plus children continue to have them, why does the government continue to provide and not make laws against that? It is a fact they cannot afford those children seeing as how they go to the government for help. Be it by way of food stamps, prenatal care, medical care for the children, etc and who on their way to these facilities have no shame in driving up in their pimped out Escalades or BMW's. Why can't the government focus on regulating that instead of the fertility world that has been shined a dim light because of one nutcase.

For the most part, people seeking fertility treatment know this is a long, hard, lonely and expensive road. The fact that a woman who is seeking media attention opened a can of worms that can no longer be closed should be dealt with on an individual basis. Not to mention that the doctor should lose his license and face charges. And by charges, I mean the medical bill that those 8 babies are charging up in the NICU. And yes, it is known that IUI's and not IVF is what causes most multiple births. However, there is a limit as to how many eggs are allowed for a cycle to be valid. If there are 4 or more of the size needed, the cycle would be cancelled. And the chances of any fertilized eggs actually multiplying is very slim. Unless it is hereditary. It doesn't take much to know what the risks are involved in these treatments. And it is considered a success when you walk out with 1 baby in the fertility world. Be it known, that fertility docs will refer you to a specialist to discuss the options to reduce, because they know the dangers you face with multiple births.

All in all, we have a nut job who likes the attention and the hype created by the media. But there are still 14 children who did not choose to be born into that family. The doctor should be held accountable. Period. And if she is unable and deemed unfit as any other individual would to care for these children, then at that point the government should step in and place these children in an appropriate home. I pray to God that people think twice about donating money directly to this woman. The fact that she had the nerve to dish out what it costs to have IVF and still post a website to receive donations is just a slap in the face to any American who pays their taxes. I wouldn't give her a dime. The government will give her plenty.

I believe in a woman's right to choose and plan her family and the size it will be absolutely. But I have always had serious issues with medical professionals that do IVF the way it was clearly done here.

I really think the medical community needs to step back and decide amongst themselves some standards in fertility treatment. This is entirely my opinion but I don't believe they should be implanting people with embryos that would result in more than three or four babies at a time. Once you go past that the risks to the mother and babies just seem too high to me.

If someone wants to have a large family that is wonderful, more power to them, but it seems unethical to me to encourage or agree to let someone have that large family in one pregnancy.

Having said all that, I don't really get our societies fascination with multiple births. This weird glamorization of people having six, seven, or eight babies in one go has always been bizarre to me. It kind of makes people's outrage about this particular situation seem hypocritical when things like John and Kate plus 8 exist as a popular TV show.

Heather, without reading any of the other comments I'm here to say: brava. I never would have guessed (seein' as how I'm a very-devout Mormon and also lean politically conservative) that you would express my exact position on this issue. As I was telling my husband the other day, "Obviously she's not mentally well and obviously it's a terrible situation, but the public can't punish the mother without punishing those innocent children, who are now alive and in great need of all the help they can get." And also: "If taxpayer money can afford a HUGE stimulus bill including heaps and heaps of pork, we can afford to take care of 14 children in one VERY unusual situation." (Well maybe those statements aren't exactly what you would have said, but I did agree strongly with everything you did say.)

I forgot to watch the Momversation before posting my comment -- I guess I was just caught up in the excitement of the moment of completely agreeing with you.

SO SAD! I feel so bad for the kids. Even if Nadya turned out to be superwoman (which I too don't think is possible), those kids will never ever get to live a normal life that all kids deserve. Media will circle like vultures over this for years to come. I'm sure that in 40 years, they will still resurrect some crazy story concerning them. I've always felt bad for celebrity kids, but I think its much more manageable with only a couple kids and of course a lot of money like most celebs have. I guess I literally feel 8 time worse for these octuplets.

We did struggle with infertility. It took us three years to conceive our oldest. We went through test after test, medication, two rounds of IVF which both failed, and the bitterness and depression that came with the realization that we would probably never be able to have kids of our own like we'd always thought we would.

I tried really hard when this story came out NOT to judge this woman, just like I try not not to judge anyone about their reproductive choices. HEATHER, I AM 100% AGREED WITH YOU. I couldn't say it any better than you've already done.

“My right to swing my arm ends where my neighbor’s nose begins.”
– Oliver Wendell Holmes

I don't see how reproduction is any different. Your right to have a child (or children) should extend only as far as your ability to provide and nurture said offspring.

(I admit to not having read all 450+ comments above, so I apologize for any repetition of opinion.)

I have been trying to stay largely avoidant of the media craze surrounding this situation, but of course, I could not fully escape from overhearing some popular and loud opinions on this issue. I found this link - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29038814/?gt1=43001 - posted on the momversation site, however, very informative and I think it gives a good basis for forming an opinion.

Per this video, she seems to clarify some of the misconceptions/criticisms of the public: Is she on welfare? No. She seemed to have gotten some money from a prior lawsuit and probably comes from a well-to-do family (but I don't know), so us CA residents probably don't have to worry about our tax money. No job? She probably had to stay home to take care of her other 6 children; nothing crazy there, plenty of people do that. And clearly, she DID have one before. She lives with her mom/parents? As was said before, who can take care of 6 children alone, without a partner or siblings. I see nothing wrong with that particular situation either. Are she and the doctor a crazy baby-makin team? Sounds like she's done this 6 times before, so what reason did she have to believe this one was going to be different. I don't know about the practices of IVF (what number of embryos is customary, etc.), but they did mention things about "her particular fertility needs". Also, I'd guess that the procedure was kosher since it ran by many people many times before... but then again, it only takes once for a criminal to get caught, right? Could she be lying/fudging facts? Sure, but until we know for sure, I don't think there's ever reason to doubt her testimony.

There are also other things in reference to her faith (probably why she herself chose to give all fertilized eggs a chance at life) and the fact that apparently everyone gets plastic surgery in LA (according to a friend) that I could talk about, but I feel that it is time to step off this soapbox.

One last thing though on the original concern of your post, Heather. I don't know, but I haven't heard too much criticism of the use fertility treatments in general. It seems that people are hating on the particulars of her "crazy", and would probably be just fine with any other "sane" people doing their thing in whatever way fits their needs. So, I don't think you need to worry there. But that's just my two cents.

Isn't health care in the US incredibly expensive?? How did she afford the IVF in the first place? Here in Aust IVF is thousands of $$$$ per cycle

Nadya lives in California and this is shocking for Western people. If you lived in Middle East, this would be normal. By tradition they give birth to minimum 10 children, because some of them die young because of inproper medicine and banal viruses, but others are great help in garden or any other family business. We can't teach whole world with much older traditions, how to live. SO, here we are, these are our stereotypes driving us. But, yes, I agree, that women is responsible for every child she gives birth. But I reject any forced adoption. If she loves her children and tries to give them best, if government gives some social help-she is free to live with all her children! Remember, you and your husband need 2 children to keep demography on zero. This is why modern world is reducing and East is on expansion. Give birth!!!

I don't think I would call her crazy. I think there is something missing in her life. I've watched the interviews with her and it seems like she has been looking for someone to love. She loves her children and that's clear from what I've seen.

The reason behind her latest implantation of 6 embryos was a strange one. They were embryos from another IVF session. Instead of tossing them or donating them she decided to have them all implanted. Her belief is that an embryo is a human life and destroying it would be equal to having an abortion. In studies of IVF patients frozen embryos are shown to implant easier. In the past she had used fresh embryos that all resulted in 1 or 2 births each.

Clearly, this is the fault of the doctor. He should have counseled her to donate them to someone else who didn't have viable eggs to use. He should have been aware of the risks of using 6 frozen embryos so that she could have one more.

While she has stated multiple times that she used money she earned working double shifts at the mental hospital she also got $168,000 in disability which probably went directly towards packing her uterus with 8 babies. She no longer receives disability but she does receive money from the government for her 3 children that have special needs. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 1600 dollars a month for each child. She uses that 4800 a month to support her family.

I'm worried about the autistic child; she doesn't seem to understand what his needs really are or how his illness works. Without proper treatment it will get worse. With this addition of 8 more to the house there will be more problems. We don't know what their developmental issues will be, how she will handle taking care of them, and the effect it will have on the 6 she already has. Autistic children crave routine and having 8 more children enter his world could send him into a downward spiral he may never recover from.

I'm glad that she's being put under a magnifying glass. It will make her more accountable for what she does with this brood. Hopefully because of this it will keep other women from trying to do the same thing and keep other doctors from making the same choices hers did.

I am kind of glad this sensational edge-case with obvious psychological issues, because at least her over-the-top situation has people stirred up enough to talk about reproduction and over-population. I think you really need to see what it is like to live in over-populated countries with babies beating on your windows for food and understand how women sell their bodies as sim-moms, before you can make an informed judgment on the "right to have a child."

Reproduction isn't a right. It is a privilege.

It's too late to read through all of the above comments, so forgive me if I'm being repetitive.

I am currently 39 weeks pregnant with our first child, conceived through IVF. It took us 4 years to get pregnant (I have PCOS), and we went through many treatments (Clomid, IUI, injectables, and finally IVF) before we finally conceived. We consider ourselves EXTREMELY lucky to have had the financial means to pursue treatment (very little of which was covered by our insurance) and to have found success.

We have indeed gotten comments from others about how we should have adopted instead of "wasting" all of our time and money on infertility treatments. For me, it was about wanting to experience pregnancy, and having a biological connection to my child. I see my nephew walking alongside my brother and marvel at how they have the same walk and the same mannerisms, and I want to be able to see that in my husband and our son. If we couldn't have afforded IVF, or if it hadn't worked, we may well have adopted, but we wanted to try everything we could to have a biological child first. For those who judge that choice, I ask why didn't you adopt, even if you were able to conceive naturally? Most people aren't willing to make that choice, so why should I have to? I do have a lot of respect for those who choose adoption, because it certainly isn't an "easy" solution to infertility.

As for Nadya Suleman, I do place most of the blame on the doctor that performed her IVF procedures. I am of "advanced maternal age" (I'm 37), and our doctor would only implant 2 embryos--it is unconscionable that her doctor would transfer 6 embryos, regardless of how many children she had at home. I am thankful that those kids are doing as well as they are (even as a CA taxpayer--the horror!) but feel strongly that she should have received counseling before she was treated, to avoid this situation in the first place.

While Ms. Suleman is an extreme case, I do see why some women push their doctors to implant several embryos--it's all about the money. VERY few insurance plans cover IVF, and every cycle is 10K+ out of pocket, so couples want to get the most bang for their buck. If more insurance plans covered a certain number of IVF cycles per patient (say, 3-6), doctors and patients might be less willing to risk implanting multiple embryos, and the incidences of multiple births might decrease. Fewer multiple births would mean healthier babies--shouldn't THAT be the ultimate goal?

Additionally, if IVF was covered by insurance, it might decrease the number of multiple births caused by procedures such as treatment with injectables combined with IUI. We did a couple of these procedures on the road to IVF, mainly because they cost about one-fifth the amount of one IVF cycle. However, the risk of multiple births with this procedure is even higher than with IVF, since there is less control over how many eggs get fertilized with every cycle. My doctor was very conservative, and was quick to cancel cycles when she saw I was producing too many follicles--this was REALLY frustrating to me at the time, because I just wanted it to work RIGHT NOW. Imagine if I had convinced my doctor to proceed--I might be in Nadya Suleman's shoes right now.

When we did finally move on to IVF, we enrolled in a "shared-risk" program, where we paid one large sum (about the price of 2 IVF procedures), but were allowed to try 3 fresh and 3 frozen IVF cycles. If we didn't "take home a baby" (their wording, not mine), we would get 70% of our money back. In the end, it didn't make the most sense financially (we got pregnant with our first cycle, oops), but I know that it allowed us to be more conservative in how many embryos were transferred, and also allowed me to relax more as we went through it, knowing that if it didn't work, we could try again. This is the type of plan that I envision insurance companies providing--not necessarily giving couples endless options, but the chance to try IVF without bankrupting them and putting them under pressure to implant multiple embryos. Maybe the upside of the Suleman case is that some sort of change like this could be implemented as a result in the future.

When I was in junior high school, my parents and grandfather took me on an unforgettable vacation to China. We went sightseeing and all that, but the saddest thing about that trip was visiting a few distant relatives who were sent there during the war and decided to stay. They had very little grandchildren because of the one child rule.

My grandparents on both sides have about a dozen grandchildren and I felt so lucky to have sisters and lots of cousins. And to be free to have as many children as I wanted.

I kept asking questions like, "What if you had twins?" or "What if you broke the law and had another baby?"

They told me that twins were okay if you were lucky enough to have then, but to give birth to a second child would mean having your home taken away from you, no schooling for your children, and quite possibly, no future employment for the family.

I know that overpopulation is a concern, but the right to reproductive freedom is a human right, even for the infertile.

With that said, I do believe that a woman should be able to have as many children as she wants, but this Suleman woman seems to be more of a baby-hoarder than a mother. The desire doesn't seem to be in RAISING her children, more like birthing babies. Even her own mother has said that--and she needs help.

OK, I hate to post this just below the previous lady who clearly deserves to be a mother just as much as anyone else.

But. As a very happy adoptee, I just want to say that I have a hard time understanding how anyone can justify spending huge amounts of money and time conceiving, when there are tons of kids arond the country & world who need parents.

Asking people "why didn't you adopt" when they conceived naturally is not necessarily a logical continuation of posing that question to someone who chose IVF. Adopting is a much longer, more expensive and more complicated process than just having a quickie and putting your legs up. Some people who would have wanted to, probably couldn't afford to. While if you could afford IVF, you could probably also afford adoption.

Other people probably just never got around to considering adoption. They thought, "why not have a child", did their thang and poof, had a baby. End of story. But if you have considered adoption, and rejected it in favour of putting your relationship and body through hell and back with expensive and time consuming hormone treatments etc. etc., I personally find that a bit odd. Nobody can save the world, but everyone can give a better life to one child in need.

I think the argument about your children looking and acting like their relatives is also a bit bogus. My looks & mannerisms are also like those of my parents, first cousins and siblings.. because we grew up together!! When my dad was strolling my kid sister, both of them blonde, people were constantly commenting on how much they looked alike and she had his nose etc. etc. Because people see what they want to see. Being in a family of three adoptees, with other adoptees and long-term fostered children in the extended family, I have a slightly different perspective on the nature-nurture puzzle than you do, I guess. Shared love and experiences make family, not just shared genes.

I have started thinking about babies myself, and of course I have that natural instinct to personally procreate. But being a biological parent is not a right, it is a privilege. I also suffer from PCOS, although I am slim and otherwise healthy. If I can't conceive naturally, I will pay it forward and adopt. I have waited until I was 30 to start considering children, and I might have to accept that you can't have it all and be as fertile as if you were 22 when you want to have a career first. Not very feminist, but biologically, that's just how it is.

And about Suleman, clearly the fault is that of those who allowed her to implant that many zygotes at once. It's just completely irresponsible practice. Psychological screening, anyone??

OK, realise now this should have been a whole post on my own blog, but rant over, and by all means, good luck to you, Betsy, I'm sure you'll make a great mum :o)

I am not a mother, yet. I want to put that out there. I may have to deal with fertility issues in my future, that's a big certainty. I think my whole issue with Nadya Suleman and this whole ordeal really has nothing to do with IVF. If any media or person thinks that's the issue, I think they're missing the point. I will admit I was one of those people who mentioned (not offhandedly) that perhaps they should take the children away - not because she's crazy, but because of the situation for the KIDS, themselves. It IS her right to choose to make a family however she pleases and it IS her right to decide how many children are in that family. The PROBLEM I have with this whole situation is that she was ALREADY having problems supporting her first SIX kids. Now she has 8 more. Her family has spoken out saying they're already in dire straights from the first 6; there HAVE been reports that the conditions in which those first 6 children were living were not exactly adequate. I'm fine with a very large family IF they can afford it. See: The Duggars (http://www.duggarfamily.com). They found a way to do it, they made it work.

As for the doctor, I have my qualms about his ethical practices but from what has been told to us (mostly via Nadya), the treatments she went through for these octuplets were no different than previous treatments of IVF. If that's the case, then medically he wasn't doing anything wrong. Ethically, however, I think he really needed to take a moment and think about the ramifications of doing another IVF treatment (and a large one at that) to someone who already has 6 children. It is NOT his sole responsibility, granted, but there's a lot of questions in this whole situation.

The blame rests fully with the doctor, who, I believe, should be relieved of his medical license. The end.

@ no. 482:

I really hope your comment wasn't in reference to me.

My husband and I married in my mid-20's, and based on previous medical situations which I don't want to get into here, we suspected that I would have trouble conceiving "naturally". So, we started trying to conceive about one year into our marriage, and then one year later, pursued more "aggressive" treatment.

Just because we could "afford" one IVF treatment, doesn't mean that we could AFFORD TO ADOPT.

***ADOPTION IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES.***

That is an absolute fact.

My husband and I would definitely considering adoption if it didn't cost AT LEAST $80,000 to OVER $100,000 PER CHILD in the country we live in. Both domestic adoption and international adoption are insanely and prohibitively expensive!

A fresh IVF cycle is about $10,000. A thawed frozen embryo transfer (FET), is about $1500. IVF is a FRACTION of the cost of of adoption where I live.

And even as it is, we have only done ONE fresh IVF cycle and a couple of FET's.

And despite the fact that it IS a medical procedure, it is still NOWHERE NEAR as personally INVASIVE as the godawful prying that is involved in any form of adoption or foster-to-adopt program. I am just not willing to subject myself to that particular form of torture. I have already been through enough in my young life.

I am still young, and my peers are young -- why should my friends/relatives get to experience pregnancy and childbirth and raising a child from birth when I should be deprived of that? Why should I have to consider adoption when not a single one of my friends or relatives adopted? Why shouldn't I get to experience a pregnancy when I have a healthy uterus, and a healthy body and mind? If it is important to me or any other woman to experience pregnancy and childbirth and to raise a child from birth, then that is what we should be allowed to pursue, instead of being asked or told that we should "just adopt". (and I'm not saying you or anyone else here said "just adopt", but "just adopt" is a common refrain that many people hear as soon as someone hears they are pursuing fertility treatment. And it is VERY annoying.)

Just because we need A.R.T. to conceive a child doesn't mean we should have to go into $80,000+ debt to adopt a child!

I would adopt a baby in a minute if it wasn't so horrifically expensive, both financially and emotionally.

My husband and I had serious difficulties and ended up seeking the help of an infertility specialist because, well, sometimes nature isn't so natural, right? We're fortunate enough to live in a country that considers reproductive problems important and has social medecine, so there was none of the issues about money like we would have had in the States. Thank God.

However, the two specialists we saw left us both feeling like they thought themselves Dr. God. In a way they are. They think they do (and it is often the case) hold a couple's chance of reproduction in their hands. It's a huge role.

Here in France, there are certain laws excluding a part of the population from certain reporductive prodecures. While a couple doesn't have to be married, there does need to be some 'common' things and a certain length of time together. Single women can't go and get knocked up. On the one hand, it prevents the kind of circus going on in California, but it also excludes a large chunk of women who could be excellent mothers because there's no 'father figure' involved. The number of embryos that can be implanted is regulated as well.

As for us, everything turned out great. I got pregnant after a minor procedure and managed to carry to term the most amazing little monkey. He was followed in short order by two little sisters--and it all happened naturally (except for the delivery part, but oh well). While I am honestly glad to have been saved from any more Dr God visits, I still credit the whole process with making my family happen. And I truly wish everyone had that option, that insurance or lack of was no issue, that a family can happen no matter the economic or social situation of the parents. Or parent.

How anybody can hold the tax dollars spent the major concern in this case is way beyond me. Any child is worth the costs of raising him/her. Period.

OK. After watching your video all I have to say is, who in the world invited Karen Walrond to the party? Send her packing cause she brought no snacks to the party, whatsoever.

Wow. I think the fact that this woman who has been unemployed for a large majority of her adult life found a doctor with no scruples, no honor, no idea of who is going to take care of all those children is just mind-blowingly irresponsible.

It was/is entirely selfish of Nadya to do this to her parents. I do not see someone independent, I see a succubus, a leech on society on her immediate family and people are like, well let's not judge.

Are you kidding me?

I think she is a little disturbed and not living in the real world because if she were, she would have stopped at the first six children. Six children for a woman who isn't working is enough AND she wants to finish up her degree...

Yeah, let's not judge her. Just send her some money and volunteer to babysit for her when she needs to go get a mani-pedi and another invitro procedure because, her mother? Is bone, dead, tired.

Oh and by the way it was Nadya who sought out the media. She wanted this. She wanted to get endorsements like the other women who've had multiple births.

The thought of bringing more than one child into this world as an unemployed woman would shake me to my core yet this woman took it thirteen steps further.

Her selfishness will be her undoing.

I'm interested in the adoption comments more than anything else personally. Perhaps some people are not as comfortable with the idea but I was raised in a situation where I was aware of the concept of adoption from a fairly young age. My mother works for DCS and while neither myself nor my sister were adopted we are fairly knowledgeable about the process. I cannot understand how people can put themselves through expensive and life threatening procedures (to themselves and their children) when there are so many kids in the foster care system.

I do understand why this particular woman wouldn't adopt. No agency in their right mind would place a child in her care. Adoptions require home studies and court approval and numerous other checks to determine the abilities of the would be parents, but this woman can walk into a clinic and become impregnated with eight fetuses!

I am not trying to guilt people with infertility problems into adopting, I plan to have children of my own someday. But I am also waiting til I finish school and am in an emotional and financial position to take care of them. I'm 25 and if she has had 7 pregnancies over the past 7 years that puts her at just my age when she began having children. There was time to wait.

Personally my perspective is that there should be no "right" to having children, and that parenting should be a privelege.

For Catherine C.

Just who decides who has the "right" to have children? Do we have a battery of tests to take first? Is there a specific income level? Genetic factors? Social standards?

Come on! A right? If all parents had to meet the standards that most agencies set for adoption, there's be a serious population decline. And look at all the cases when children have been placed in foster care in families that have checked out fine -- families that had earned 'The Right' to children and have ended up worse off, or even dead.

No system is perfect. And while I personally think adoption is a fantastic idea, it's not one that works for everyone. Some people simply cannot adopt, are incapable of loving a child that's not of their own making like it's their own.

Well said. I went through infertility treatments for awhile and it's easy to see how people lose their way. The medicines and treatments are expensive and patients in those programs are sometimes at their last chance to give birth to a baby, it can be a volatile mix. A "set of standards that works for all infertility patients" ends up working for no one. Each case is unique. I agree with you that we shouldn't suddenly slap limits on people because of one practice who used questionable judgement.
Just when I think I can't be surprised by the news anymore, up comes another story of wierdness.

The truth is none of us knows what that woman has gone through, is going through, or will go through. So it sickens me every time one more pudgy pundit in a suit and tie steps onto the public stage to voice an opinion without meeting her, knowing her or having walked around in her shoes for a day. Do I think she has some issues? Probably. Would I do the same thing? Probably not. Does she have some serious challenges to confront in her near future? Absolutely. But it's not completely without precedent in the history of our world for a woman to have 14 (or *gasp* more) kids with little or no help from a man. Just because it's not the common thing to do these days doesn't mean it's worthy of her lynching. I wish the media would latch onto something else for awhile.

I am absolutely baffled by that woman. She obviously had all those children to get an obscene amount of welfare and I doubt loves them as much as she should.

I don't think this woman is unstable at all. She is a perfect product of our age. She knew that she could have her dream because a) there are unethical doctors who would do anything for money b) an entire media apparatus that will reward and deify her for her "tantalizing" story and c) government and/or misguided, misinformed public/charitable bodies would move in to help her in "her plea".

she's playing the system and the system is paying her back. she's a self-made celebrity, based on her dream to have a large family.

I don't know if it's common in the US, but in the UK, where I lived for quite a while, it's called benefits fraud - people living off the government, often publicly known, and making irresponsible choices knowing the world will support them. People living that lifestyle don't generally have a conception of responsibility or anything. All they care about is money from a world they truly believe owes them a living, no different from yours or mine, regardless of whether they worked for it or not. It's like the world's puritanical ethic at loggerheads with a new form of trash upperclass that feels it shouldn't work and just get the media to pay their bills and lavish lifestyles.

I don't know. I'm not surprised at all. Very sad and pained about the kids, but the mother - not surprised at all. It's becoming too common. Financial and emotional capitalism to the absolute logical extreme.

The "ill-conceived statements and judgments about women's reproductive rights" made me chuckle.
I do wonder why one has to meet so many moral and social criteria to adopt a child, but none to conceive a biological child. In many countries you have to get a license to own a pet, but nothing is required to become a parent. I puzzles me.

I am hopeful that the state social services system will keep a close eye on the health and welfare of the 14 kids. She is certainly not the first single parent to be facing overwhelming circumstances, it's the medical freakatude that has turned this into such a circus.
Now if i was the boss of everything, I would make the fertility doctor pay child support for this family through college, as well as her long term psychological counseling.

I agree that a woman's unusual choice to have a large family does not make her crazy or unstable, HOWEVER...her choice to bring child after child into a world where she cannot and does not provide for their physical needs is clearly irresponsible. I agree that the doctor should not have agreed to perform IVF in this situation. Her desire to have many children is trumped by her inability provide for her family.

Holy shit people. THIS.IS.NOT.ABOUT.INFERTILITY!

Really. If she'd had one baby every nine months and was approaching #14, we should be having the same conversations.

And we'll never have all the information. You form an opinion based on the info you have...and reevaluate that opinion it if new facts come to light.

And we actually have quite a bit of information about this situation.

Does this woman have the legal right to have as many children as she wants? Absolutely. But that does that mean the rest of us ought to be her ever-positive support group? I sure as hell hope not.

This behavior defies common sense. I don't want her in the stockade but so many of you feel like it's mean to criticize...MEAN? What are we, in middle school? You're adults. You make assessments on information, not on etiquette or some misplaced need to make nice with everyone.

I don't support viciousness but sane criticism of this act is how a civilized society defines it's ethics.

I agree that we cannot and should not judge a situation when we have limited facts. The children involved should be the primary concern. For those upset about state assistance (my tax dollars shouldn't pay for their upbringing opinions) I wonder what your stance was prior to this? Were you aware of how many millions went to help other children - perhaps only 1 or 2 per family - did you begrudge them? There are those who need assistance and there are those who abuse the system but I would not want the assistance to be negatively impacted due to the bad judgement of a few (and no, I do not receive any type of government assistance myself).
I believe the doctor should answer for his poor judgement. It seems he endangered many - not only the mother and the children, but everyone who struggles with infertility.
I pray that the children will be loved and cared for - irregardless of who foots the bill, they are here and deserve a chance.

What everyone seems to neglect to mention is the fact that state support is not enough to give these kids a good life. It is enough to make sure they don't starve to death. I feel for these poor, poor babies who didn't choose this life of struggle and scraping by. I am sad for the children, not the mother. If it is found that she cannot provide for these children they need to go to other homes, just like other families who have one, two, or three kids that they cannot provide for. No exception to her just because she decided to have a freakish number of children. This is why I think what the doctor did is unethical. If a poverty stricken family finds themselves suddenly pregnant with one more, at least the mother can provide breastmilk for a time, is she breastfeeding all eight to save money? I think probably not. Ugh, I need to stop now, I am getting all wound up.

I have not struggled with infertility and I have no children. That said, I think you're brilliant.

I think this is exactly what she wanted. The media attention. Any attention.
The media has put so much attention on some other families with copious amount of children. Those families are thriving financially with their 15 minutes of fame.
I think the Nadya wanted this too.

It's the same as any tough human situation: Until you've been there, you have no idea what it's like to be there, and those on the outside, try as they might to be sympathetic (or not) really simply do not get it.

The fertile public in general do not understand infertility, nor infertility treatments. The simple case of Brangelina's twins, and how the Media kept making allusions to the fact that they did IVF because they "didn't have time for sex", illustrates this point. IVF is an intensive process lasting for weeks that impacts every part of your life and in no way whatsoever can be considered easier than sex. But unless you've gone through it, you can't know that (and most people don't bother to find out).

So I see the hullaballoo over this in the same light. The media and the general public don't understand infertility nor fertility treatments, and those of us who have to go through it understand that. We either choose to be vocal about it or we choose to keep our mouths shut because we know there's a shitload of ignorance out there and we just don't have the energy to deal with yet another person who's got it wrong, because we're dealing with our own shit and that's quite enough, thank you very much.

I agree that this situation is not representative of infertile women/couples who seek in vitro. However, I think every person's first responsibility as a parent is to take care of their children, both emotionally AND financially. When you have six children, 3 of which are disabled, and no job, yet decide to spend money on more in vitro instead of perhaps securing your existing childrens survival and future, you are a profoundly irresponsible parent. I am sure she loves her children, but where is the sense of responsibility? And say all you want about "choice" and "profoundly personal decisions", but how personal is it really when you know you are going to keep taking more government assistance to support your "personal decisions.?" Come on.

The reason why I question whether these children even belong with her is because the whole situation reflects such incredibly poor judgement. We are not talking about someone with maybe 1 or 2 kids who wanted one more, then surprisingly all the implanted embryos took hold. We are talking about someone who already had six and was already struggling.

Well said Heather! - I tend to disagree with the lot of you in that I do not believe a woman seeking infertility treatment should be exposed to a mental health exam - We don't expose "fertile" women to any kind of testing to judge "worthiness" of parenthood. One bad apple should not spoil the bunch...I believe we are hearing about this case due to its especially horrible nature - meaning that it is not the norm therefore it is news.

Well, it's a tough subject to talk about and I come at it from a different perspective, a former social worker in the NICU who has seen countless heartaches from multiple premature births as a result of irresponsible reproductive medicine doctors. The bottom line is this: we, as a society and community have become obligated to care for this mother and her children. She does not have the means (financially) and questionable emotional stability to do it on her own. The unfortunate part is that we don't know what the future holds for these children. They undoubtedly will have developmental issues just by the fact that premature babies often do; some more serious than others. They may have physicial issues as a result of their prematurity such as Cerebral Palsey, vision problems, muscle and skeletal issues, feeding problems, ADD all things that can be linked back to prematurity. (the risk you take no matter how well you took care of yourself) Am I pro choice and support reproductive rights? You betcha. Am I ok with this mother and her doctors decision to implant all those eggs? Affirmatively not. He needs to be held accountable for his actions because I see this as an ethical issue and I hope he's around 10-15 years down the road to see the outcome of his work. Let's hope and pray for good outcomes for these babes.

I believe in reproductive rights, allowing IVF, making choices about planned multiple births, etc... But I don't think Nadya Suleman's case is about that. Not that I'm saying babies are like cats or dogs, but there are documented cases of hoarding like hers. Just watch Animal Cops on Animal Planet; there's almost a case a week of people hoarding cats or dogs. When that happens, the animal control people step in and are hopefully able to find the pets new homes; the mental health folks step in and get the person some help; the public talks about it...but no one decides that there should be tests about pet ownership or anything. We (the public) realize this is a case were the person has a mental health issue.

I believe that Ms. Suleman has a problem, and I'm hopeful that health officials will step in to evaluate the situation, for no other reason than the sake of her children.

P.S. Has she even said she's done having babies? What will we be saying if she goes back in for more?

What I struggle with in this situation is the factthat she did this knowing her financial picture and help in raising the children was not even close to ideal. I'm not saying people should always wait until everything is "in place" - hell if we did that lots of us would ahve never had kids. But, it is ridiculous to get pregnant at all when you cannot even support yourself, let alone the 6 children you have at home. I'm sure those kids know love from their mother, but being able to eat and having a roof over your head is important, too. Deliberately bringing more children into that situation is irresponsible - and she CHOSE to do it. She DID NOT have to get pregnant. She was stupid - however, I don't think everyone else looking at fertility help should be vilified for this woman's selfish actions.

This is starting to get ridiculous: where are all of you hearing that she "was not infertile"??? Reports say that she had scarring in her tubes. Sounds like infertility to me!

It's obvious that the woman is more than a touch disturbed. I would guess a personality disorder. Which, in the grand scheme of the DSM IV means that dealing with her issues is one hell of a long row to hoe and unlikely to bear fruit.

But, you cannot tell me this is the first time that a woman (or couple) have had children for their own selfish needs and then emotionally abandon them as the reality of child rearing becomes all to clear. The difference here is in the quantity.

Given that, I think it's simply a tragic situation all around. If she can care for them and meet their basic needs, then yay. If not, the state will step in.

Even the physician is caught in the middle of this. Physicians really aren't supposed to refuse care unless the health of the patient is at risk. And even then... There is only so much a doctor can do in a case such as this. If they feel their hands are tied when discussing touchy subjects as weight with their morbidly obese patients, then why would a male fertility doc openly tread on the reproductive choices of his patients? And even if he did, Suleman may have simply lied. Even people without mental disorders do that to get what they want.

Unless the government starts handing out birthing licenses to people (part of me rejoices in this and part of me says "no fucking way") you cannot prevent this from happening, you can only clean up the aftermath and hope that the children involved will not be harmed as a result of their mother's mightily self-absorbed actions.

As a person who has been through three very expensive fertility treatments, my question throughout all of this has been "If she doesn't have money now, where the heck did she come up with the money to have the treatments?"

I also blame the doctor for implanting 8 embryos in a woman who has been known to conceive easily with these treatments. The most my doctors would ever implant is 6 and that was with signed permission that I would look seriously into selective reduction if all six implanted.

This is just a mess - and hopefully a mess that she will be able to clean up with the help of family and friends.

Oh- and wanting to be pregnant without a father present is a sign that she probably has some mental issues.

I really don't think that we should be talking about banning the rights of people to explore reproductive options for those with infertility issues. That is so far out of scope because there are plenty of responsible parents out their using fertility methods in which to conceive and then holy shit actually care for those children

What I think we should be talking about is the future of the innocent 14 lives she has brought into the world that she can not provide adequate care for. Not having a job, a home or enough time in the day to adequately ensure each is provided for is simply unacceptable. And we should talk about the tax payers because they are the ones who will assume the responsibility of caring for these children. Heaven forbid Nadya Suleman have to take responsibility – she is too busy trying to make a deal with Oprah! There is one person responsible in this whole entire mess and that is Nadya Suleman. Is it better to leave all of these children with a mother who can not care for them??? She is irresponsible and because of her self-centered motives 14 children will now have to pay for her decision.

normally, i keep my opinions to myself on this kind of issue. that said, i pretty much agree with what heather said that this is an unfortunate case with a (probably) unethical doctor and needs to be treated as a one off.

the only reason i'm really saying anything is that, until a couple of years ago, i never thought i'd have to think about fertility treatments. then i fell in love with a woman and the traditional way of making babies was no longer an option. we have friends who are currently undergoing the earliest stages of trying (i.e. they're doing the "turkey baster" method at home). seeing the expense and emotional turmoil that they're dealing with every day is so hard. i just pray that we don't have a bunch of reactionary legislation come out of this that makes it even harder for my love and i to live our lives the way we choose. i can handle not having a marriage license. i don't think i can handle not having a child of my own.

Comment Number 219 says that the embryos were her property and she had the right to decide what to do with them. This may be so, but her doctor didn't have to fertilize all the eggs. I have heard of clinics that limit the number of retrieved eggs they will fertilize.

When I went through fertility treatments in Boston, MA six years ago, part of the program which was NOT optional was a session with a counselor. The session was not overly probing, however, I believe it was intended to assess my and my husband's mental health and make sure our expectations were in check. I do not know what their policy was if I had "failed" this part of the program. Would they have denied me treatment? What if I was unemployed?

This woman is bat-shit crazy. The doctor is a greedy bastard. The situation is a real mess. Poor kids.

But I do agree with what you said; this is an isolated incident. Although I do question the wisdom of some women having large numbers of babies at one time (I think it's dangerous for both mom and babies; premature babies are at risk for a lot of problems down the road), I realize that it's not a regular occurance and it's not up to me to make these decisions for anyone other than myself.

People need to put this in perspective.

P.S. Great response 121. I have PCOS as well and your message warmed my heart. I have no baby yet though. And you are VERY right in saying that we also need to manage these conditions aside from getting pregnant. PCOS and my other problem - Hashimoto's thyroiditis, have a lot more implications on our health than just not getting pg. If I hadn't gone through reproductive testing, I never would have known I had either one. I'm a much healthier human now at least, even without a child.

After trying to conceive for three years and undergoing many tests, it was discovered that my tubes do not work properly. Over the next two years, my husband and I saved $10,000 for IVF (not covered by insurance) and paid cash for the procedure. Today we have healthy, happy, 3-year-old twin boys.

I was 31 years old when we did IVF, and our ethical, responsible, caring doctor explained the biology behind everything that was involved with the procedure. He also explained that they would transfer no more than two fertilized eggs into the healthy uterus of a woman under 35. That was fine by us - we transferred two.

It just doesn't add up to me. Where did this woman get the money for these treatments? IVF can cost up to $15,000 a try (depending on your issues), and transferring a frozen embryo is around $4000. How did she pay for it? That is what we are wondering...

It is outrageous to me that this woman and her skeevy doctor have managed to demonize perfectly ethical doctors and their treatment of perfectly sane patients.

And as a side note - I am tired of complete strangers asking me "did you have them natural or did you do the fertility drugs." None of your damn business.

I have a bit of different perspective on the matter of reproductive rights. I work for an organization that helps incarcerated women and their children. While I am not a direct caseworker, I have seen some examples of the worst parenting imaginable from narcissistic women embroiled in their addictions. And they keep having kids; a group of pregnant inmates told one of our class instructors that they weren't interested in learning about birth control because when they're pregnant they don't get their periods. Seriously.

I do not claim that some of these women are beyond redemption; my agency would be out of business otherwise. Many, however, will never be able to parent, and while they slowly come to that conclusion, their kids are passed from home to home, enduring additional trauma and hardship that children should never have to face.

I say this not to rant, but to raise two points:
1. It's very easy to talk about reproductive rights from a priviledged middle/upper class perspective. Because most of us have never been exposed to situations like those I describe, and are able to make the assumption that people can be and want to be good parents.
2. I believe that the children are forgotten in many discussions about reproductive "rights." I believe that parenthood is more a responsibility and a priviledge than a right, and the impact on children should be considered along side those of the parents.

I don't claim to have the answers in this difficult discussion, just the certainty that this is a much more complex issue than many of us realize.

I agree with many who have mentioned the possibility of her doing this for financial gain....and question if that could have been the motive of the doctor. All she has to do is say the word and she has got a reality show deal (not that I am knocking those shows - I love Jon & Kate plus 8), mustless the money that will be paid for pics of those kids, TV appearances, etc....And the doc? I am sure he could get some $$ and infamy for the same - mustless the increase in business for all those struggling with IVF who will know of his "amazing" success.

Also as a medical professional, I agree with others that it was highly unethical of him to implant that many -no IVF doctor I know would even consider that in fact absolutely would not do that irregardless of past failures with IVF...

Yes, this woman got me up in arms myself as a single mom. I have two children, a full time job, a home of my own. I take care of it all as a single mom, BUT not without constant sacrifice and dedication can I make those claims. For someone to think that she NEEDS multiple children to feel all warm and fuzzy with family around her when she is so irresponsible she cannot manage the six she already had on her own and has no source of income other than the government, just makes me ill.

Where does the blame go? - it starts with the irresponsible mother and the doctor that gave in to her requests for doing the ungodly number of possible fetuses being implanted for her pregnancy (when she already had SIX children).

John and Kate Plus 8 instead of glorifying single parenthood to multiple births, simply show the world the hardship of trying to take care of 8 children with TWO parents and constant outside help! So no I don't think TBS is doing an injustice here that can be hammered for this one woman's ludicrous ideology.

I also hope couples who have a legitimate desire to have a child or children are not discouraged by one unique case. She is not the norm, nor should generic tactics on the part of helping infertile couples be based on such an outrageous choice by one woman.

From my perspective, three important points:

1. Obviously, if there are doctors out there crazy enough to do this, we either need to up the sanity requirements on becoming a doctor or regulate the process. That should in no way affect people trying to have one or two children. You are absolutely right that the status quo should not be born out of an obviously exceptional situation. My understanding is that it is fairly new that they no longer implant multiple embryos (partially because of all the quints and sextuplets that came out of that.) So, maybe the standard practice needs to become law to keep people from just seeing how many babies we can have a once.

2. She should get aid for those kids based on the same criteria as everyone else. And whether or not she gets to keep her kids should be on the same criteria as everyone else. It's not the kids' fault and they should be fed and clothed and receive medical care just like anyone else, but should diaper companies donate a lifetime supply to the crazy woman? Umm, no.

3. Yes, she is crazy. In the 1890's, a murderer who captured and ate children went on trial. The defense tried to prove that he was insane. Their argument: he killed and ate children, he is obviously crazy! It didn't work in the sense that he was still executed, but it brings forth a good point. Sometimes mental health is defined by behavior. It is crazy to purposefully have 14 small children at home. It is crazy to attempt to sustain a pregancy of eight babies. I say this, not to bash her. I have the utmost sympathy for her. But people need to stop debating about whether or not she has mental health issues and get her some help. Those kids are going to need a stable, sane mother.

FGS, I have NO PROBLEM with responsible people who have fertility problems. This (14 kids, no job, home in foreclosure, weird obsession with Angelina Jolie) is not responsible people. Ugh.

I have 6 beautiful nieces and nephews as a result of fertility treatments. They are not all the same age, but there are twins and triplets. I feel so lucky to have them in my life.

Having said that, I believe this woman has been totally irresposible and selfish. I don't know how she thinks as a single woman with no job, she is not only going to be able to financially support these children, but how about emotionally?

I am the youngest of 12 children (good Irish Catholic family) where my dad was able to financially support us, but that was it. There was not enough emotional support to go around. They weren't able to protect me, and it was left to my older siblings to watch out for me. Not only is that not fair to them, but they were also children, so how were they supposed to do that? I ended up feeling like I was completely on my own, and that I had to figure out how to do everything (learning to tie my shoes, prepare food for myself etc.) on my own. It was a very sad and hard childhood.

With Nadya I am so angry about what she has done to these children because of the choices she has made. I was against anyone providing her financial support, until I actually thought about how it was these innocent 14 children that are going to suffer. Now the whole situation just makes me very sad.

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for our own actions?? I notice everyone is blaming the doctor, and the doctor only. Good grief, didn't this woman make the conscious choice to receive the treatments? I liken this to the current housing 'crisis.' Just b/c folks were offered ridiculously good adjustable rates for mortgages, does that mean they HAD to take them?? Common sense has to come into play here somewhere. I would advocate, as so many others have on this blog, that the doctor's license is in SERIOUS question. The bottom line - for me, anyway - is why are we even speculating about who's fault it is? It is Nadya's fault. Obviously. Let's move on to what really matters - how CA will support these children, b/c their mother certainly can't. The babies - not to mention each of her older children - did not have a say in this isolated and completely wacky scenario. So sad...

I agree that the largest portion of blame, if not all, in this case should be on the doctor. He is an infertility doctor. This woman already had SIX children. I don't understand why he would give her more infertility treatments. She is probably not emotionally stable and has some mental health problems, but in spite of her mental state, she should have the freedom to make decisions about her family, and her children. But on her own, she would not have been able to have 14 kids in what, 8 years? He should lose his license, his practice, his credibility.

I think there's hardly anyone over 25 and under 60 that doesn't know someone who's struggled with infertility. Most of the people I know just want to smack the doctor for enabling her obvious baby fetish.

I mean, have you seen one single picture of her, hugging or playing with her older kids? Even a picture from six months or a year ago? She doesn't want children, she wants babies. And when these eight are able to walk and talk, she'll lose interest and want more.

Best thing I've heard about this was, "If God wanted us to have 6 or 8 kids he would of given us 8 boobs", but he didn't thank God. I'll leave having six kids to the dogs.

Other readers have posted positive experiences about responsible doctors who have performed responsible proceedures, w/o gaining the attention of the press. It's unfortunate that this one woman, (most likely with psychological issues), and this one doctor, (who seems to value money more than ethics) teamed up and the end result is that lives of 14 children are forever changed (for the better or for the worse, is not for me to decide).

While I do think that this woman is receiving TOO much media attention, especially negative attention, (Is this really going to make her situation better?!? Is the media acting responsibly and keeping the best interest of the children in mind?!?), I hope that this will serve as a cautionary tale for others. Somehow, though, I think we're in for more media attention focused on multiple births...

I may have missed this in previous comments and I apologize if I have, but to me Ms. Suleman is obviously unbalanced mentally and her doctor failed her when implanted that many embryos.

To further the discussion regarding reproductive freedom - I think she demonstrated further selfishness which she refused to reduce the pregnancy when it became apparent that she was carrying eight fetuses.

Not only does she not have the economic, physical, or emotional means to care for eight more children, she put the life of the mother of SIX children (three high needs) AT RISK; and now we have EIGHT more in the picture with who knows what kinds of medical needs.

I don't think the issue is infertility treatments. Most people understand the good that can come of such technology. I think it's more about responsiblity and quality of care. I work in the Juvenile Justice System, and while I am leery of too much government control, there are situations where I just WISH there was such a thing as forced sterilization. There are people out there who should not be parents: the mother who has had five children taken away by Children's Services for neglect and abuse, and yet is now pregnant again; the parents who are too stoned to care where their toddler is wondering, barefoot in the snow; the mother who continues to sneak her boyfriend into the house, even though he is court-ordered to stay away because he raped her daughter. There are so many atrocities committed against children by neglectful and uncaring parents. I just hope and pray that her children are given the love and care they need - even if it takes government assistance to do it.

Of course, my (childless)friend feels families should be taxed for having children, instead of getting tax breaks. He contends that a family with multiple children is draining the country's resources. It's an interesting point, even if I don't agree and love my tax breaks!

I am currently undergoing IF treatments and after the failure of my 4th medicated IUI am seriously considering IVF.

As a working person with health insurance (that does not cover IF treatments) with a working husband, we earn an ok living, not wealthy by any means but we can go on vacations and whatnot.

But we can not afford IVF, no way. Don't earn enough to be approved for adoption. Not without taking a second mortgage on the house (hahahahahahaha!)

How on earth did this woman afford IVF?!?!

And her doc should lose his license.

And I am sick of hearing people in my life condemn the usage of IVF to conceive because of octo-mom, so thanks for bringing it up Heather. If we max out the credit cards to pay for IVF, no one will ever know about it. There's always been a bit of a taboo with IF treatments for fertile people, and octomom has made it all the more worse.

While I do question the sanity and motive of Nadya Suleman, I don't agree with the statement that a single person can't take care of that many children. She may not be able to, but there are large families that have many children and one parent. Such as http://thebodiebunch.blogspot.com/ who has 39 kids and is a single parent (she only birthed one of them, adopted the rest). The whole ethics issue is tricky. The success rate of fertility treatments is so low that I can understand the desire to push the boundaries, but at the same time should a person with 6 kids already, some with serious medical issues, be allowed to aggressively pursue fertility treatments? I personally don't advocate people single handedly overpopulating the planet Duggar-style or Suleman-style, especially when they can't support themselves much less the brood they are creating.

To broadly judge the infertility industry based on the choices of Nadya is no different than to say that abortion is used strictly for birth control or to say that welfare is used strictly by lazy drug addicts.

Unfortunately, the poor choices of a few generate headlines for the news, perpetuating the masses to draw unfair conclusions.

i certainly haven't heard anyone condemning the process of ivf, i have heard condemnation for the 'end run' around the accepted standards and practices normally applied to a case involving a woman her age. from what i understand...the average number of embryos implanted is two....not 6. for me, this case boils down to responsibility. while i believe she has the right to pursue a family in whatever way she deems fit, she must take responsibility for her choices. she is not. she chose to pursue more and more and more children, without regard to how they would be supported. her choices don't just affect her, they affect the children, her parents, her friends, and the taxpayers who will indirectly shoulder the burden for her 'choices'. as a nation, we're taking a long hard look at 'responsibility', nadya suleman is an unfortunate example of what happens when you simply act without considering consequences.

I think that both Nadya and the doctor should be "blamed." I don't like to use the word blamed for her, I think she has some issues that she needs professional help for. However, I do not think that she is mentally incompetent, and I fully believe that she was aware of ANY scenario that could have happened when she had those embryos implanted. I do like the word blamed for the doctor though. He should have his medical license taken away. What he did surely went against the Hippocratic oath that he took when he first became a doctor. It was dangerous to the mom and children, and irresponsible, regardless of the statistical improbability of this happening. If I'm not mistaken, he knew of her first six children and her living status when he implanted her. He also knew it was not common practice to implant so many embryos at once.
As for regulation of reproductive medicine, I am ABSOLUTELY AGAINST IT. Infertility is something that so many have to deal with, and often has so much heartache attached to it. Not to mention the stigma that is, unfortunately, still connected to it. I was able to conceive my daughter the old fashioned way, but my best friend wasn't so lucky. After years of trying, she and her partner decided on IVF. It was such a lengthy process, and by all means not a quick and easy one. From what I understand of the process, reproductive doctors have learned pretty well what to do in almost any situation. Nadya Suleman's doctor was just looking for a slice of the fame pie.

I agree with you. Having eight tiny babies to care for is very very very difficult, more so when there are already six others vying for attention, and there is no support. But one crazy individual's choices don't reflect the pain and sadness of others dealing with infertility.

I am coming from the flip side of the infertility coin. I have no idea what it is like to have a "planned pregnancy" Even with proper use of contraceptives we still ended up pregnant 3 times. Of those 3 pregnancies I had two healthy girls and lost twins in between. My only question that I don't think has been answered is simply this: If she is on assistance-how in the world did she pay for this? I know several people close to us going thru this and insurance doesn't really cover much of the costs-they still have to put out a lot of cash.

I don't have an issue with the kids, I don't think they should be taken away, I just want to know why, the tax payers are paying for IVF treatments for a woman with children already.

In response to Miranda's comment on the first page:

Please be more considerate when using the word "disabled." People are not disabled--they have disabilities.

Comment 318:

From a religous perspective (and I am not religous) I think this is playing God and if God meant for you to have a child you would be fertile. From a more logical point of view, modern medicine has forgotten the theory of natural selection.

Commenter 318, I try to make it policy to not say anything in a comment section that I wouldn't say to someone's face, so you should know that the following response to your comment is done with foresight and a wish, nay, a LONGING to say it to your face.

Fuck. You.

The dr may be scandelous. But 100% of the blame falls on Nadya; she is the one who requested the treatments. She's now going to raise the kids with student loans? She is crazy selfish.

Why are people are losing focus and putting all blame on the Dr?

This is not about IVF or the Dr.

This is all about the WOMAN WHO CHOSE TO HAVE 14 KIDS SHE CAN NOT SUPPORT. She made several bad decisions that have now resulted in taxpayer money supporting her repercussions. It should say something that her parents think she is an unfit mother. DSS or child protective services should intervene and help those innocent children.