Friday, January 8, 2010

Nadya Suleman (aka Octomom) Update

The California State Medical Board reportedly suspended Michael Kamrava’s medical license  due to gross negligence. He faces loss of medical license.

Kamrava began treating Suleman in 1997 and implanted her with all 14 of her children. The Board is claiming that Nadya should have been referred for a mental health evaluation. Suleman's actions put her current and future children at risk, and the Board suggests that Kamrava should have sent Suleman to therapy instead of obliging her extreme maternal cravings.

Additionally, the 13-page accusation filed in December says that over 11 years Suleman returned to Dr. Michael Kamrava's office repeatedly. The number of embryos Kamrava transferred in July 2008 was so abnormal they "should not be transferred into any woman, regardless of age" and the transfers went "beyond the reasonable judgment of any treating physician."

Kamrava is reportedly "devastated" and it is reported that Suleman agrees stating: “He did nothing wrong. Absolutely nothing wrong.”

Despite the spate of "concern" over her ability to care for her babies - especially after she kicked out the "helper" spying nannies sent by Gloria Allred - there has not been a single allegation of abuse or neglect of the children of this most vilified mother....which is not to be misconstrued as either I - or Nadya herself - recommending anyone follow in her footsteps.

What a disappointment she must be - so far - to all those who are just waiting to pounce and say "I told you so!"

From the start, I maintained that Suleman - unlike the Gosselins or the Duggers - was being criticized not for the number of kids she had, but because she did so as a single mother, and not a wealthy one (which also would have been a "get out of trouble" card).

Now, she and divorced Kate Gosselin are on almost equl footing though Suleman was highly criticized for her marital status. In fact, Kate - with all the money and big home she and John acquired by exploiting her family on reality TV - was caught on camera yelling at and spanking her children on more than one occasion. Some have criticized her for Type A style of parenting but she remains one of America's sweethearts who may wind up with her own show.

The question at hand is whether infertility doctors have an obligation to assess a clients' mental state and refuse them treatment - especially in a case such as this where fertilized embryos already existed?

What do you think?


Anonymous said...

spell check would be nice. Well, that and a fact check.

Anonymous said...

Before you compare a married couple to a single crazy welfare mom, you should probably at least read the complaint.

She didn't use frozen embryos for the tups, despite her line about having to use them to keep them from being destroyed. She had a fresh embryo transfer done despite the existence of a large stockpile of frozen embryos readily available. She used that line to try and hook in pro-life suckers for donations.

The doctor had the absolute moral imperative to have a patient who came back for over 10 procedure in an 8 year period evaluated. Most of her egg retrievals occured within 3 months post partum. She had already been turned down by one fertility doctor as an unsuitable candidate.

As for allegations of abuse or neglect, are you forgetting the CPS visit because her disabled child was sent to school with a black eye and bite marks? How about CPS showing up when her 2 year old son was taken to the hospital for drinking a substance that was potentially toxic because he wasn't being supervised? Add in multiple visits from CPS prior to the birth of the octuplets.

1 woman can NEVER adequately clothe/feed/supervise or raise 14 children. She relies on pimping out the kids pics to the highest bidder. The fact that you would hold this horrible person up as someone to admire as a symbol of motherhood is just disgusting.

Anonymous said...

Nadya Suleman hasn't worked or earned a single penny in more ten years. She indulged herself in plastic surgery and IVF while sitting on her butt on the taxpayer's dime and she did it in order to obtain money and "fame". That's a significant difference between her and the Gosslins or the Duggars. People are entitled to as many children as THEY can afford. Not as many children as they can manage to scam and steal from others to support. To call Suleman "America's Sweetheart" shows how incredibly out of touch you are or how willfully ignorant you're choosing to be where she is concerned. America smelled a rat the first time she hit the radar and the proof of her lies and scamming is now being exposed. She belongs in jail and hopefully, that's where she'll end up. Along with all of the other common welfare cheats she so closely resembles.

AdoptAuthor said...

I called Kate America's sweetheart, not Nadya.

Scam and steal??? I am unaware of any such allegations against Nadya - please enlighten me with links to such charges. If she qualifies for food stamps or other support, then she qualifies. That's not scamming or stealing. being poor is not a crime. Nor is it a crime for poor people to have kids. Not a choice I would make, as I said, nor one in hindsight she would chose. But it is done, as she has said over and over.

What is she supposed to do now - give away her kids because some people object to the less than one percent of the fed budget that goes to welfare and are less worried about that than corporate welfare??

You may not like her choices, but it does not make her a thief or an unfit mother.

Child welfare may have been called, but apparently nothing warranted any removal of any of her children. People also literally threw stones at her or her car, so their being calls is no big surprise, nor is a kid having a black eye. Sibs fight!

The issue this post started and ended with is the doctor being charged.

Anonymous said...

You state in your FAQ that a sociopathic or severely mentally ill mother should not be able to raise her children. If you learn more about this woman, you will find that she is a textbook case for these problems.
If you want to promote family preservation, I suggest you find another poster child.

Anonymous said...

Are you Schitzo?
Do you suffer from Mental Delusions?
I can see why you agree with the Neglectful bitch know as Nadya.

Anonymous said...

As a former social worker, I can tell you that based on the interviews I have personally seen, there is absolutely NO WAY Naday Suleman legitimately qualified for food stamp assistance while she lived with her mother.
Her disability income was more than enough to provide food for her children, considering her own mother has publicly said (more than once) that Nadya never paid a single dime for rent or food.

The only way she could have qualfied, PER STATE GUIDELINES, was if she had rent, utilities and other eligible expenses as deductions. As it was, however, she was paying ZERO rent and ZERO utilities (check the Radar online and other media interviews. You can see for yourself). This lack of eligible deducations would have INSTANTLY put her over income limitations for food stamps.

But the simple fact is that she committed welfare FRAUD by lying about paying rent/utilities/etc in order to illegally obstain food stamp benefits. Of course, food stamp fraud is just the least of her crimes.

Also, there have been multiple allegations of abuse and neglect in that home. The public cannot "hear" about it because child welfare records remain sealed to protect the children.

It really would benefit you do some additional research before you defend the indefensable. Unless Nadya Suleman can adequately supervise, nurture, and support all 14 of her children, without exploiting them for tabloids and the media, then they should be removed from her care. Those children were born with a job - to make their mother famous. But the problem is that no amount of chubby cheeks or adorable grins is going to make anyone believe Nadya Suleman is a fit parent.

And yes, she IS an unfit mother, and I have years of social work, particularly CHILD WELFARE experience to back up my opinion. I've seen children removed for far less. In my state, these children would have been removed from her custody before leaving the hospital.

Anonymous said...

If you think Nadya Suleman is a good mother, I bet you think Josef Fritzl is a good father.

Anonymous said...

All right, I'll get you started with this:

Ms. Suleman collected $165,000.00 from the State of Calfiornia from 1999-2008 for a fraudulent "back injury". I say "fraudulent" because she claimed that she was too injured to work, yet managed back-to-back pregancies over the same period. But, assuming that's not compelling enough circumstantial evidence for you, here is a link to an interview that she gave to Dr. Phil McGraw where she confims that she could have worked during that time and chose not to:

Please see page 22 for her admission.

She also received in excess of $100,000.00 in State paid psychiatric benefits for her claim that that she had "depression" that was entirely related to her work injury. She received those benefits based on her explicit denial of any pre-existing condition which might have resulted in depression. In fact, she described to the workers compensation psychiatrist a nearly idyylic childhood free of stress or abuse of any kind and described her marital situation at the time as happy and supportive. However, in her recnet interview with Anita Tedaldi, she paints a far different picture -- claiming a cold and unloving relationship with a distant mother and accusing her father of substance abusee.

Finally, any woman who has the funds for both plastic surgery and IVF procedures would not qualify for any form of public assistance (such as food stamps) in the state of Calfioria. Since she had both and did receive the aid, how do you suggest she might have managed that?

I understand your perspective in terms of supporting keeping families intact. I only suggest that you might want to find a more worthy poster child for your efforts.

If you'd like to obtain a copy of Ms. Suleman's workers' compensation records which include claims related to her level of "disability", you may do so by contacting the public records officer and making a California Public Records Act request for them.

Lying to obtain state payments is fraud. Fraud is theft.

maryanne said...

I find the Duggars, Octomom, Kate G and husband all equally disgusting. They are ALL pimping out their too many children and living on the publicity, not earning an honest living in private. I feel very sorry for the children of all of them.

That you defend Octomom, a really questionable character, solely because she is a single mother does not speak very well of your judgement.

I have nothing against welfare mothers, but I hate publicity whores, especially those who drag their children into "reality" TV.

Anonymous said...

One more thing: Your conflation of the issue of theft of social services benefits with the percentage of the federal resources allocated to those benfits programs vs. corporate welfare is irrational. It's the theft of those monies through deceipt that is at issue with Ms. Suleman, not the federal budgetary ratios for social services programs or corporate tax benefits.

AdoptAuthor said...

Mary Anne,

I totally agree! I think they are all equally NUTS! I wouldn't chose to have double digit kids or put myself and my children through the high risk pregnancies that these women chose to and that Mrs. D. continues to do to herself....but it's their choice!

I do not "defend" Nadya any more than I called her America's sweetheart!

However, I also do not take the same pleasure that many of those who have commented here, which are just sampling of - of those who VILIFY her! If she has committed fraud that's not my business to investigate. If it can be proved, she will charged and punished according to the law, I am sure. If she is mentally ill, again, not for me to decide.

I can only say that the viciousness shown this woman is unheard of and clearly illustrated by all those who must have google alerts set up to find any blog post that mentions her name so they come on and tell the world how evil she is. They are HELL BENT on verbally abusing this woman.

I do not applaud her, do not admire her, but also do not think she deserves what she has received and I do think the only reason it is all aimed at her and not at others who do the same is clearly her marital and financial status. Again - I think they are all EQUALLY NUTS, but they clearly are not received the same by the American public.

AND...let it known that I have deleted and not posted the worst, most vile comments! trust me, they exist! X-rated language I chose not to put on my blog! Such hate. Such anger. Why? what has she done to any of these people?

Their anger, and need to vilify her, is to me at least as "sick" as anything Nadya has done, until she is proven to be unfit.

AdoptAuthor said...

And Kate Gosselin and the Dugger are just s much "publicity whores ... who drag their children into "reality" TV." That's my point! No one has the same hatred for them. They are loved and admired! So clearly, there is another line of demarcation that sets Nadya apart from the rest of the baby addict crowd also called baby hoarders.

maryanne said...

On the contrary, msny people have the same hatred for all those unsavory "parents" and other "Reality TV "stars". Read some commentators on the Left about the Duggars and their right-wing religious nuttery, and the gossip mags at the supermarket are full of scandalous stuff on Kate and Jon. None of these people are universally loved as you seem to think, except by morons who believe in reality TV. There is plenty or vulgarity and disdain, well-deserved, directed at all these characters, not just Octomom.

These are unsavory people, period. What Ocotmom did was even more outrageous than the others, so she comes in for more criticism, but it has little to do with her being single, a lot to do with her being greedy, selfish, manipulative and clearly crazy. You see what you want to see because you want to see her as persecuted single mom. None of these people are worth thinking about, writing about, or paying any attention to.

Octomom put herself in the public eye, just like the others, and she is fair game for whatever people say about her. Why do you care?

Anonymous said...

nadya DELIBERATELY put herself into the position of having FAR more children than she could provide for, nurture, or support. THAT's the difference. The only part of this story that relates to her being single is the fact that a SINGLE woman cannot possibly care ofr FOURTEEN children under the age of 8. No human could. Where are the children's rights in all of this? Why don't you care about the children's rights? What about their right to stability? Love? Nurture? Well being? What about their right to be kids? And not be expected to perform for the camera from bith? Nadya didn't need children. She needed trainable monkeys.

AdoptAuthor said...

Perhaps so. I really don't read much tabloid trash but I get a sense that the other two have supporters and fans - even if they also have few detractor. After all, their shows have been picked up season after season...not until Jon Gosselin pulled the plug did that one go off the air. Who are fans of Nadya? No one!

And again, I actually wrote here primarily about the doctor being charged. THAT is what i care about in this situation. Should babies be created like this for her or anyone? Should doctors screen recipients for mental illness? That is what I care about. I could equally ask you: Why you care enough to comment?

I save the level of anger expressed toward her - and NOT that I have seen toward either of the others - for mothers who actually abuse their kids...physically...even kill them!

Let's be fair here: only she has people demanding her kids be taken from her. In the end, they may turn out to have been right. But has anyone suggested that of the Duggers or the Gosselins? If they did, then I will admit that I am off base to say she is far more vilified than the others.

Anonymous said...

It is clear that you have not seen the video that was shown in the UK. The rage Nayda Suleman's young son displayed,( along with many others)is such a cry for help. Suleman's children curse and their mother laughs and requests the video.Suleman laughs at locking her mother in the trunk of her car and pretends to have accidents to slam on the brakes and thinks it is funny to hear her mother rolling around.Back injuries and workers comp money, yet she can jump on a trampoline holding 2 children, horsey rides,the evidence goes on and on.
Suleman does not tend to her children, she shops,gets her nails done, her toes done, 14 kids and she has time for this. Designer clothing purchased with donation money or money "earned" by pimping her children out. Fake photo ops, lying about not having a tummy tuck, Two million dollars of unpaid hospital bills, who is going to pay for that..the same people she scammed to recieve food stamps and SSI checks, SSi checks and student loan money she openly admits to using for IVF treatments while living with her mother and paying nothing. Suleman dumped her children on her mother and a small teachers retirement check. House purchased in her rathers name, car in her mothers name leaving no assets...why?
These children are in danger but we must wait for something horrible to happen before anuone steps in.
Gosselin and the Duggers do not recieve the same pubicity because they are not scammers, thiefs and liars. They don't prance around showing off their breasts or walking to the trash wearing Victoria Secret PJ's hanging a baby bottle out of their mouths trying to be sexy, while holding their own babies like a sack of flour.
People who write articles or post for the world to see should do more investigating. Do you reaslly what a teenage girl to read this and think what a "cool" way to get rich and famous. All I have to do is lie and tell people She has cancer, as Nayda did, and have 14,15, 16 babies and lie to the world and money will float in.
Suleman deserves jail time and to have her children removed and any parent that respects and loves their children would agree.

AdoptAuthor said...

The public has spoken. I rest my case. She is FAR worse than any of the others! She's a criminal etc., etc.

Google "world's' most vilified mother"

"...before she even checked out of the hospital, Nadya Suleman was the most vilified mother in America. In a flash everyone, it seemed, knew all about her. Nadya was unmarried, unemployed, and already had six other children." msnbc reporting on Ann Curry's interview

Palin actually came in second. Saw nothing about the Duggers or Gosselins.

Meanwhile it is being reported that Kate Gosselin is dating and her hairdresser says: “Kate was an absolute sweetheart, I loved her.”

Dare you find anyone who says that about Nadya!

Anonymous said...

Do you honestly believe that she is being *wrongfully* vilified? Do you believe that she is innocent?

There are most definitely those who call for the Duggars and Gosselins to lose their children. Check out that Duggarswithoutpity or Gosselinswithoutpity websites. They are out there.

But sadly, nadya Suleman had her children for one purpose - to exploit them. She had been trying for a high order multiple since 2002. She knew a multiples birth would be her ticket to fame.

I'm most certainly pro-family. And I would only advocate removing children for the most serious of situations. But the Suleman home IS the most serious of situations. Those children are actively being exploited. They are angry, frightened, acting out and screaming for help.

My only wish is that people would advocate more FOR THOSE CHILDREN, instead of worrying about whether or not their mother is being unjustly vilified.

Advocate 100% for the children, and you can't go wrong.

Anonymous said...

Nobody villifies Kate like they do the octoskank? That's your argument? Please tell me you don't have kids!!!!

Should have done a little research before making that statement:

Anonymous said...

I agree that women should chose adoption as a last resort. And even being poor and unwed is NOT a good enough reason for somebody to take your baby from you.

However, Nayda is in a different category. For all the known stunts she has pulled and more come to light every day. (Others have mentioned some of them.)

Simply put, we HOPE she is punished if she used any welfare programs (and workers comp) illegally. IF her kids are abused or neglected, we want it to stop, one way or another.

If the authorities allow some things and/or don't prosecute, well so be it.

HOWEVER, we, the general public do NOT have to like her and we are free to voice our opinions.

There must be a reason most sites have 98% NEGATIVE comments whenever she is featured!

****Peanut S.

AdoptAuthor said...

I agree. *"IF"* she - or anyone else - is found to be guilty, they should be punished according the law. IF. So far that has not occurred. Do I think she's innocent? Not my call. I'm not on a jury nor am I part of the persecutors office or the police dept.

I also agree that 98% of comments anywhere her name is mentioned are negative. And yes, there are Duggar haters and some who dislike Kate Goselin (I personally can't stand either of them). But I don't spend my time looking for b,ogs about them to spew hatred. I don't hate them or wish any of them evil. I don't care for them and don't watch their shows. Period.

And note, too that even though the names Gosselin and Duggar have been included in this post and comments and tags - no Duggar or Gosselin "haters" are here spewing their hatred! They just don;t care that much. They are not as FANATICALLY hateful! The intensity of the hatred for Nadya has outweighed all other from the minute it was revealed that she was single. For a day or so it was just another - "Oh, my, so many babies!"

And now the anon who posits they are all equally disliked only calls one a SKANK! perfect!

Anonymous said...

I am politely reading your blog. You have some strong opinions and make them known.

I agree with much of it.

The same goes for Nadya....some people have strong opinions and make them known.

As for reading blogs, people like me tend to read a lot of them when we have time...whether we agree or not. It is nice to get differing points of view.

And I know some people will find something wrong with your views just like you find fault with those who dislike Nadya (or the other BIG family parents).

Remember, I am reading YOUR blog. Just like I read other blogs.

****Peanut S.

Anonymous said...

Adoptauthor...Yes, by all means ...preserve the family at the expense of the child. Absolutely.....consider the rights of the dysfunctional the expense of the child....Really...why would one consider the rights of a child in the first place.?? Who really cares if each are spawned .. the fulfilment of an irresponsible horney female's sexual satiation ...or the planned multiple ATM machines of a single woman without means of support..., whose backup is the social system of a bankrupt state......... By all means.....preserve that all cost.....the children of that family are not in a position to speak for themselves.....but they will be some point in time....... ah yes...advocate for preserving the family...protecting parental right without regard to the child's quality of life....and future potential.........You know full well that Suleman is not being criticized because she is single......... pull the other leg...this one has bell's on it........Joan

Anonymous said...

Hello Adopt author..does it take long to censor the public view..Shouldn't do really.....I mean you are sure enough of your stance..that you you don't have to stave off those who question.??

Anonymous said...

approval........equals censorship..equals fear.are you afraid of my comment.tut tut..

maryanne said...

Could it be Octomom is more villified than the other mega-moms because she has done worse things, as recounted by several posters here? She is a freak and apparently a criminal scammer with no apparent sense of honesty or responsibility. Yes, the word "skank" fits!

She went out of her way to create 14 children solely for publicity for herself, with no means of supporting them at all. She did not find herself in a hard situation, she created it then expected the media to bail her out and make her a star.

No,that fertility doctor should not have aided her in having more children than anyone could sanely care for, and he should be held accountable, but so should she. Her being unmarried is a very small piece of what makes her disgusting. Do you really think people would love her if she did all the things she has done, but had some sort of inffectual unemployed spouse going along for the ride with her??

Her bizarre story has nothing to do with normal unmarried mothers in general, except in your mind, and the connection you have made is not making the cause of adoption reform or family preservation look very good. It is a crazy knee-jerk reaction to "unmarried mother" without looking at the rest of the sordid picture.

Since you worry that Nadya is so unloved, perhaps you could start her first fan club.

AdoptAuthor said...

Mary Anne,

I have made it abundantly clear that I am no "fan" of Ms. Suleman. I do not applaud, admire or glorify her or anything that she has done as I have repeatedly said. I believe - as she has admitted herself - she has some skewed priorities and that she has made some very poor choices and decisions, some of which she regrets. None of those poor decisions, however, fit the classification of a "skank."

But I also agree with her firmly that what was done was done and she cannot undo it so there is no reason for anyone to continue to vilify her for it. Does making her into the world's most hated mother help her children? Does calling her names improve THEIR self-image or their life? Or does it just make those who throw stones feel a moment of superiority over someone who made worse mistakes in her life than they did?

One of the big complaints against her is her hospital bills. Would her giving her kids up for adoption resolve that debt?

As for the term "skank", it refers to "One who is disgustingly foul or filthy and often considered sexually promiscuous. Used especially of a woman or girl." That's in a regular dictionary. Urban dictionaries tell us that it is synonymous with "ho":

Skank: Derogatory term for a (usually younger) female, implying trashiness or tackiness, lower-class status, poor hygiene, flakiness, and a scrawny, pockmarked sort of ugliness. May also imply promiscuity, but not necessarily. Can apply to any race, but most commonly used to describe white trash.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the, as yet unproven, POSSIBILITY that anyone has allegedly committed fraud or any other criminal act, of which there is not proof in this case. I still maintain that she and she alone - of others who have chosen to have as many children - is labeled with these derogatory terms for one reason and one reason only, her martial status, and that she is a "welfare mother" - the most hated classification of human being in America!

While I am not fond of your snarky, sarcastic and totally untrue (as anyone who reads what I've written here and previously about this woman can see) accusations, MaryAnne, I respect your right to come here and express your opinion, s well as mine to disagree.

As one person here mentioned, the most important people here are her children. As far as their rights as human beings, Ms. Suleman may possibly be guilty of one offense that no one here - nor have I seen anywhere else - been accused of. She has maintained the anonymity of the children's father. That she keeps it private and does not reveal his name publicly is perfectly fine. However, if she also keeps that information from her children, that is wrong.

As you, MaryAnne, are well aware, many married women who cheat, are guilty of the same offense, as are those very respectable among us who adopt.

These children have already possible lost the identity of their father. Taking them from a mother who while a bit flakey has not physically harmed or neglected any of them and who loves them would help them how??? By saving the tax payers a couple of bucks?

What's done is done! People need to let it go and find a new scape goat de jur.

Anonymous said...

I assume you mean, "as are many of those very respectable among us who adopt".

"A bit flakey" is understating the case. Whatever else she is or isn't, Nadya Suleman IS a grotesque narcissist as well as a manipulative and seriously disturbed woman.
I'm sorry for her children and her poor benighted parents too.

If I were Queen of Everything, I'd get Kamrava to contribute to the upkeep of the children he played such a crucial part in creating.

Little Snowdrop

maryanne said...

No, you have not made it at all clear you are not a fan of Octomom. You have repeatedly stuck up for her, made excuses for her, gotten very angry at other people for being disgusted with her. You brought her back here to your blog as a subject, not the people who came and commented.

She did a whole lot more than "make some unwise choices". Everytime you refer to her you make her sound like a flakey but loveable kook who should be forgiven her little eccentricities. And if she were an adoptive mom with that many kids and trying to get a TV show to support her, I am sure you would be right up there with the worst possible opinion of her. Those kids are very unfortunate to have been born to her, and will probably eventually end up raised by someone else. Hopefully.

You keep asking "what do you think"? then get furious when people do not think the same things you do and agree with you 100%. Do you ever wonder why most of your entries get no comments, and many that do are anonymous? Other blogs are not like that, even very contentious ones. Think about it.

AdoptAuthor said...

I invite all to visit:

Other Mother said...

this is america. if the capitalist nation wants to sell fertility and make profit, they cannot and should not discriminate who can and cant do it. if nadya shouldnt have done it, then kate shouldnt either. you cant blame the doctor for doing his job.

AdoptAuthor said...

Well I guess you haven't been reading the comments. That "distinction" (we dare not call THIS discrimination, we re opposed to discrimination, especially for those who can adopt!) is allowable, but not because Nadya is a skanky welfare ho who is defrauding us all of money, as so many have more than eagerly pointed out. No. Because she is mentally unstable and a danger (or is it potential danger, I'm not quite sure) to her children according to the degreed bloggers of the world who are all licensed social workers who have investigated her, psychiatrists who have interviewed her, and judges.

Actually, Nadya has claimed that there were a total of six embryos transferred to her uterus during **each** of her pregnancies. During her second time, it resulted in eight babies “because two embryos split into two pairs of identical twins.” This is apparently a violation 0f ASRM guidelines which state:

“For patients under the age of 35 who have a more favorable prognosis, consideration should be given to transferring only a single embryo. All others in this age group should have no more that 2 embryos (cleavage-stage or blastocyst) transferred in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.”

For this and other deliberate practice errors, Dr. Kamrava is being expelled from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the main infertility professional organization.

Nadya is 34 now. She and Kate G. were both born in 1975 and her implants took place longer ago making her well under 35 at the time, yet no one has ever even questioned the ethics of HER doctor and her procedure.

So...this is most interesting. Obviously, age is being used a smoke screen here since they cannot hold accountable for having been a shrink. And let us also be clear: these are GUIDELINES! No laws limit this lucrative industry, and more than doctors who perform endless plastic surgeries on patients obviously addicted to that can be held responsible. It's free trade. If one doctor says no, for any procedure - an abortion or breasts implants on a 12 year old - you find another who will! But we expect bartenders and servers - who presumably have fare less education and training than doctors - to judge who has had enough to drink!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

AdoptAuthor...This is a democracy...Feel free to spend as much time as you wish... rationalizing your point of view.....The overwhelming majority..... has spoken..It does not reflect your thought process..... "E" for effort , though...

AdoptAuthor said...

Thank you! I am proud to be an independent thinker and not a herd follower.

“Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.” Bertrand Russell

"The key to success is to risk thinking unconventional thoughts. Convention is the enemy of progress. If you go down just one corridor of thought you never get to see what’s in the rooms leading off it."— Trevor B

If I followed the "norm" or the majority, I would be pro-adoption...I would see no harm in taking every child from every mother on welfare and giving it to those who could give that child "better advantages."


1. Since you think Nadya's kids are better off without her, I assume you think it's ok to split up siblings, and that doing so won't harm them in any way? Or do you think there are others more qualified to handle all 14 of them?

2. Do you think the Duggars are equally as crazy (albeit in very different ways) and should also have their kids taken away (some people do)?

3. Do you think the doctor who implanted Kate G. is equally guilty and should also have his license suspended or whatever?

4. If Nadya is such an awful person and mom and so insane, why do you suppose the authorities have not taken her kids away?

5. If Nadya is guilty of fraud, why hasn't she been charged, much less convicted by those she allegedly defrauded?

6. Where have I ever stated or implied that I beleive she is the most stable person, has no problems, that I admire her, that I think she should be voted mother of the year?

7. Can you understand that there could be a mid-ground between not picking up a stone and joining the mob mentality and being a "fan" of someone? Or do your minds only work in black and white? For or agin'?

8. Have you not made mistakes in your lives? Done things you regret terribly?

9. Do any of you think there are worse people than Nadya that you could spend your time on? Bigger issues in the world? Ways your time could be spent to make positive change?

10. What good result do you hope to obtain by name-calling her and trying to convince me that she is a horrible person and should have her kids taken away? Please enlighten me cause I don't get it!

11. Have any of you who feel so strongly about it contacted social services in her locale? I'm sure many have been filed - anonymously, of course - and investigated.

12. What pleasure do you get - what's the bonus/reward for you in putting this woman down relentlessly?

I've written two blog posts about her since the story first broke nearly a year ago. I've written hundreds of other posts about lots of other issues. this is not even pimple on my radar. Yet some of you devote entire blogs just to putting down people and TV shows! Wassup with that? Others only comment to disagree or pick a fight of some kind, or so it seems.

maryanne said...

Why should you ask me specifically to comment since I am sure you include me among those who only comment "to pick a fight"? It takes two to fight and you always seem up for it when anybody disagrees with you.

To try to answer a couple of your questions, although you have loaded them so there is only one "correct" answer in your world:

I think it unfortunate to have to split up siblings, but when there are 14 of them, I imagine if they went into care that would have to be done. I feel it would be preferable to living with a crazy woman, and I would hope that they would be able to keep in touch with each other even though in separate homes. I feel very sorry for those children, all of them. I hope someone intervenes so they have some chance at a better life than their irresponsible, narcissistic mother is giving them. Just look at that picture of her under a heap of babies. It is disgusting.

I would love to see the Duggar's kids and Kate and Jon's kids removed by the state and given to people who would never give any publicity at all. It is not up to me, or you, but you asked what I thought.

I personally find most assisted reproduction repulsive, and prefer adoption for people who can't have kids biologically. I think what Octomom did is horrible and wrong. I don't think she gives a shit about those kids as human beings, which is why I think they will go into care eventually when she tires of them and they are no longer a meal ticket or means of publicity for her.

I think the Duggars are loony religious fanatics, and that mess will only end when the mother finally dies in childbirth. She is headed that way.

I feel no responsibility to like, care about, or not say "mean" things about any of those media freaks. It goes with the territory they have chosen. What I don't get is why you defend Octomom. Because she is a "Real Mother"??? That's like defending the guy who killed his parents and then asks mercy because he is a poor orphan!

AdoptAuthor said...

DEMOCRACY -- yes, that gives all of us the right to freedom of speech. You as well as me. I encourage your thoughts, yes, but I have no obligation to agree with them. And as you might note at the very top of this is dedicated to family preservation and preventing adoption separation (unless deemed necessary after a mother is found to be unfit or if she voluntarily gives up her rights -- neither of which is the case here).

In a democratic society, the other great thing is justice, by which people are INNOCENT until PRIVEN GUILTY. And, that means in a court of law, not the court of public opinion, though again, you are surely welcome to your opinions and I have printed nearly all - all that were within the realms of common decency and not full of profanities. And mind you, this is MY blog, and censorship is at my discretion. Some blogs allow no comments and many censor out any opinions that disagree with the tone and intent of the blog. Try posting a criticism or a different opinion on a religious blog!

AdoptAuthor said...


I thought my questions would get to the heart of issues we have been beating bushes around for days and they did!

I do often wonder if you or others are just being contrary or if you really are pro-adoption and push it as a preferable solution. Now I know.

I wonder how you your "hope" that siblings, once adopted, could remain in touch could be enforced - or do you think they'd be better of in foster care than with this woman you have deemed "disgusting" and "crazy" - very legal and moral reasons for removal of one's children! I dare say if we took every child from women others thought disgusting and or crazy very few children would remain with their original parents!

Again - to be clear - I am not saying that Nadya or the Duggars provides the best of preferred home environment. But there are FAR, far worse!

BTW, "et all" means I was asking more than just the only commenter who has been named here.

Anonymous said...

Sheesh, these comments make my head spin. I hope the kids all stay with ONE family and if that is the natural family, so be it. Kids should not be separated IMO. This Dr. was a madman from the beginning.
I am not a fan of these fake ways to have babies, but then I was never infertile and maybe I would feel different if so.

AdoptAuthor said...

The last poster and I are in total agreement. Don't know if I'd go as far s to say the dr was a "madman". I think he is what another poster suggested - an entrepreneur. He is far less culpable IMO than, say the doctor who gave two children to Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nussbaum, and THAT man only got a slap on the wrist. I believe he is still practicing! Steinberg and Nussbaum were OBVIOUSLY over the edge and heavily on drugs at at least the time of the second placement by all accounts. The doctor knew them well and handed over someone else's child to them.

Those are the SKANY WHORES of the world! The baby sellers: those who profit from creating and babies with not regard for their well-being. And those who do REAL HARM to children like Steinberg did deserve and and all vilification.

maryanne said...

In some cases, I think adoption is the preferable alternative and lesser evil. Does that make me "pro-adoption"? If so, ok. I certainly am not anti-adoption across the board as you are. It is very clear that you are anti-adoption, in almost any circumstance. Evidently you believe in family preservation no matter how bad or unfit the family. ANYTHING, even Octomom, is preferable to adoption. Yes, I think those kids would be better off in foater care. But as I said, that is my opinion, it is not up to you or me.

But I do not PROMOTE adoption, if that is what you are implying. I do not think any mother should surrender a child she wants to keep just because she is young, single, and in need of some temporary help, as we were. But that is not every situation that leads to surrender, and in some cases, it is better for the child to be surrendered than raised by the mother. I think Ocotmom is one of those cases. That you do not shows how far you would go to be anti-adoption and pro family preservation in any circumstance.

I am neither "for" adoption nor "for" family preservation as absolutes to be followed and preferred in every situation. I think each case needs to be considered on its own merits.

I am against adoption that is not necessary, but that is not ALL adoption. I think adoptions should be open wherver possible, and records all be open to adopted adults. I know you differ on several of these points.

By the way, I have never sent you anything "full of profanity" but it amuses me that you are so offended. As I remember, the "F" word was one of your favorites in speaking:-)

AdoptAuthor said...

Last things first. MaryAnne, you take way too much personally. I received many vicious, vicious comments about Nadya with vile language that I censored. If I did not reject any of yours why would even think I meant that applied to you?

Secondly, no I have always been perfectly clear in everything I write that I do not support EVERY mother maintaining custody. I believe in protecting children. However, I also believe in innocent until proven guilty and that children have a right to remain with their families and not be separated unless there is DUE CAUSE and then, they still deserve the right to know their family. These rights are not protected in American adoption practices.

I believe that Nadya - and the others - are under enough scrutiny that if their children were in any real danger they'd have been or will be removed.

I fully contend the fascination and witch hunt against some mothers in the public arena is very odd in and of itself simply a means of making others feel superior and serves no other earthly purpose except harming children who will no doubt eventually learn of such viciousness.

Anonymous said...

That whole Gloria Aldred fiasco was rotten in my opinion. At that time, she seemed to want to be "right" and superior to Nadiya at any cost. She wanted to rule her and the cost for not allowing that was to lose her children.

AdoptAuthor said...

Alred felt, like many posting here, that Nadya's children needed to be taken away from her and sent in her spies to find cause.

and Nadya knew it!

and then the public used it as another thing against Nadya when she kicked them out of her house.

AdoptAuthor said...

"I do not PROMOTE adoption, if that is what you are implying. I do not think any mother should surrender a child she wants to keep just because she is young, single, and in need of some temporary help, as we were. But that is not every situation that leads to surrender, and in some cases, it is better for the child to be surrendered than raised by the mother."

You do not commercially promote adoption for your profit. But you are encouraging the destruction of three families based on your personal opinion and judgments.

Anonymous said... "E" for effort.......It would be "F" for fail.due to your lack of comprehensionn skills. Feel free to prattle on with the rationalization of your point of finitum.the Public has spoken. They disagree with you. You may be proud to be an ' independent thinker' ..bully for as independent as you doesn't follow that you are right. ... You are implying that the vast majority of the Public compromise a herd following....incapable of independent thought.. Pompous.... ! Each member of the herd has expressed an independent opinion . You just don't accept it...because it goes against your dogma... I detect your own bias in your comments ..You are not as independent in thought as you believe......and you are definitely patronizing....I would suppose that you do very well in your own small herd of pseudo intellectuals.........

AdoptAuthor said...

Opinions are neither inherently right or wrong. They are opinions. Take for example pro-choice and pro-life. Each thinks their opinions are "right." And then there are laws, which we can also chose to agree with or disagree with, but they are the law.

The law has not found any of these families "unfit" to parent, nor have any charges (i.e. fraud or whatever) been placed against any of the parties. That's not a "rationalization" for my opinion, it's a statement of fact.

Anonymous said...

Ummmm....I don't mean to nitpick here, but perhaps YOU should do some fact checking before posing your lame questions.

For example: You talk about Kate Gosselin's "implants" being equal to Nadya's their difference in age at the time being a "smokescreen", etc....
APPARENTLY you are not aware that the Gosselins did NOT employ IVF, they used ovulation stimulating drugs which caused her to have so many eggs released that THEY WERE ADVISED (AND THEY TOLD THE PUBLIC THIS THEMSELVES) TO SKIP THAT CYCLE AND ABSTAIN FROM SEX WHEN ULTRASOUND SHOWED THAT TOO MANY EGGS HAD BEEN RIPENED AND RELEASED.


That is how the 6 kids got made.

BIG difference in conceptions.

NO difference in irresponsibility and STUPIDITY.

I can NOT believe that you are SO oblivious to how many people think the Gosselins are JUST as vile as Ms. Suleman.

Bunch of parasitic kid pimps.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK before you generalize and condescend to your readers, please.

NO "E" for effort for you.

AdoptAuthor said...

Thank you. So, OK, that explains why Kate's doctor is not facing negligence charges. Thanks for clarifying that.

This is ALL a very, very MINOR issue for me and this blog. Two blogs out of HUNDREDS about Nadya! This is not a blog about any of these people or about reality TV which I have zero interest in. I couldn't tell you who won American Idol; don't watch The Bachelor or Jersey Shore or Dancing with the Stars. Because I DON'T CARE about any of it! I have NEVER watched Jon & kate Plus 8! never! Not once. No interest whatsoever! Saw a couple of tiny snippets of the Duggars.

My advocacy and interest is for the rights of mothers and families, and the method of conception is pretty much a non-issue for me - except in regard to the anonymity aspect or if any "donors" were exploited (that's why I am opposed to surrogacy). That is why this blog is entitled Family Preservation!

So, as far as I am concerned, the fact remains that despite how these people and their doctors created these kids, they are there now. And that's where they should remain until they are at any real risk of harm in the view of professionals, not public opinion But, there is at least one poster here who believes that all of these families, including the Duggars who had their kids totally naturally, the old fashioned way, one (or 2?) at a time...should all have their kids taken away from them based on THEIR judgments.

maryanne said...

Wow, I did not know I had the power to "destroy families"! Does that make me a Supervillain?:-)

Nope, all I have is some opinions of the actions of celebrities, just like you, only your scorn is reserved only for celebrity adoptive parents, who also have not yet been charged with anything nor had their kids removed. Does that make them "innocent until proven guilty" too? No, of course not, because they are "guilty" of adopting.

I'm afraid your slogan is "adoptive parents have to be perfect, biological parents do not even have to be adequate or sane." Have you EVER seen or heard of a biological family that was not worth "preserving" at all costs? I think not, given the bad examples of biological parenting you adamantly support and defend.

Taking it to the extremes you have makes the whole idea of "family preservation" look bad,

AdoptAuthor said...


I would never claim you had any power whatsoever. !! That would be absurd! I stated the fact that - as you did - that you advocate for these 3 families: Duggars, Gosselins and Suleman, to be torn apart and their children scattered via adoption. You stated that even separating the siblings is preferable to their current status.

We disagree. I agree with and advocate for the principles of the UN and the Hague as stated on the masthead of this blog and in the right hand column, that it is the basic right of children and their best interest of children to remain with their family of origins unless there is some serious risk to a child's safety. Oh, yes, and also with the laws of every state in the U.S. States often act too quickly to remove children and likewise act too quickly to have them adopted because of bonuses for doing so, yet no state has moved to remove any of these children you believe they should.

You agree with those who have nothing better to do in life that create blogs devoted to discussing their dislike of characters on "reality" tv shows, that anyone you personally deem as "disgusting" or “skanky” should have their kids taken away...even separating siblings.

We disagree, MaryAnne. And because you disagree you are attempting to make my very sane and internationally accepted views sound like the wrong or foolish or extreme ones of the two. I understand your need to do that. You oversimplify and exaggerate to make stronger points you have already made very clearly.

I have no 'scorn' for adopters. I have it for any and all who actually abuse their children, celebs or not, adoptive or not and really have no idea what you are insinuating.

My issue is with the baby brokering industry, as you well know. As you are also well aware, I am opposed to adoption as it is currently practiced - as you know - because it eradicates children's pasts in violation of their rights as set by the UNCRC.

Re you concern that my "extremism" makes family preservation look bad...I find that extremely humorous coming from you...who in the not very distant past said many times here and elsewhere, that family preservation was euphemistic 'code' for anti-adoption! So why would you even pretend to care!?

Anonymous said...

AdoptAuthor.....The "E" for effort was was my post...hence my comment regarding your lack of comprehension skills...but then perhaps your vanity superceded...and clouded your interpretation of my post....well actually...apparently... it did. I will maintain the " F" for fail...
Children's past...........what does that signify if they have no future........The U.N....has come under fire and lost respect in recent years..You are lost in Bureaucracy.......not humanity...Spare me your "international view "......children are at issue...present and future........get off your artsy fartsy bureacratic far removed from the actual needs of a child......I do not think that you have any conception of what a child needs........such twitter -twatter

maryanne said...

"Family Preservation" is NOT code for anti-adoption?? Could have fooled me! At least the way you and some other people use the term, it certainly is. If you are "opposed to adoption as it is currently practiced" that makes you anti-adoption, I'd say. If the shoe fits......

Why would I care? Because I care that some aspects of the child welfare system are not just, because some, not all, children are removed from parents who do not deserve it, and are put in worse foster homes. I care for some of the same reasons you do, but I do not see family preservation as the best outcome in every situation. I do not see adoption as the worst outcome in every case either. Sometimes what is best for kids in a bad situation is not what the adults on either side want. There is no one perfect right way to resolve bad family situations, there are just lesser evils to be weighed in each individual case.

Anonymous said...

AdoptAuthor..Seriously.....Nadya accepted a is her modus operandi...the greedy mare accepted the offer of... 'free childcare'..[in her mind]... leaving her free to ..well.....'be free'....but she ...not having foresight.. soon realized that she had put herself in a tenuous position........others would actually be witness to the real person....and would hold her got rid of them to protect herself.........

AdoptAuthor said...

I have two more comments sent to approve and then, that's it. I have said all I have to say.

I will allow MaryAnne to have the last word.

maryanne said...

The last word? How about the nasty crap you are posting about me on Facebook where I am not a member? I thought "mean peaople suck" was one of your thousand and one mottos. Ironic.

Joan M Wheeler said...

Sorry so late in this discussion…Removal of children is not a solution. Suleman’s children may be acting out, but so are Kate’s. One TV psychoanalyst said we are allowing a whole generation of kids to be self-centered because we have this garbage called Reality TV. That said, more harm than good is done when children are removed from their homes and their parents.

I agree with AdoptAuthor that the doctor who implanted all those embryos should be investigated and charged. Someone made the suggestion that he should help pay for their kids’ upkeep. Yes.There's a fine line for screening for mental illness of recipients of donated gametes. Biased screening process, and a sick one, to be sure the surrogate will give up the baby. It is a set-up for breeder mentality. I don’t like surrogacy, but I defended Mary Beth Whitehead, the infamous surrogate mother. Why? Because I understood her, and her child.

I’m not sure I understand Nadya. But I defend her rights as the mother of her kids. People who say her kids should be taken away from her are cruel. Why are people so hell bent on crucifying mothers? Punish them by taking their kids away and create further problems? No.

Targeting Nadya for a sick society is a witchhunt. People descended on Mary Beth Whitehead in 1987. Even my own minister jumped on the hate bandwagon to speak at church of the “sick mind” of a surrogate mother!

I have a real problem with creating children out of donated sperm, eggs, embryos. This is a very selfish way to have children. But once those kids are created, they are here. Removing them and placing them up for adoption just adds to the stress the kids must cope with.

Why not go after the men who jack-off to porn and get paid to do so, 4 times a week, for decades, fathering hundreds of children that they aren’t financially responsible for?

How about the college women who go through 3 months of fertility treatments so they can donate their eggs, get paid $10,000 to pay for college and “help” the infertile? Well, that’s okay because financially better off husbands and wives are getting those eggs and sperm. No.

But those parents LIE on the kids birth certificates and to their kids. They pawn themselves off as the genetic parents of children when they know that one or both of them is not the genetic parent! That is truly disgusting! Let’s go after the thousands of parents who do THAT to their children!

How about going after the Snowflake Adoption Agency that specializes in finding “adoptive” homes for “abandoned” embryos? This agency willingly splits up siblings groups (granted they are in embryo form)but the children so created will have to live with the bad decisions made by all of their parents! And there is no adoption because you can’t legally adopt embryos.

In a perfect world, I'd abolish adoption, gamete donation and embryo donation. Period. Shame on stupid people who prostitute themselves and give away their gametes for they are not held responsible for creating children they do not want to pay for, or be involved in their lives. Shame on the recipient parents who only want the experience of pregnancy for the sake of creating a family-at the expense of the children.

Kids don’t like being pawns for their parents. Attacking Nadya Suleman is not the solution. She’ll have to face their questions someday. Kids being punished for the sins of their parents. Enough is enough. Nadya Suleman has had those kids and she should raise them because she is their mother. We only know about her because she is in the news. There are plenty more we don’t know about because they don’t seek public attention.

“One of the big complaints against her is her hospital bills. Would her giving her kids up for adoption resolve that debt?” - How about making the sperm donor father and fertility clinic pay?

In the end, society loves scapegoats. If it ain’t Suleman, or Kate Goslin, it was Mary Beth Whitehead 23 years ago. Stop attacking the women and start going after the men who control the baby making business.

Joan said...

A big giant step back needs to take place.

I first heard about Guardianship as an alternative to permanent, closed and sealed adoption in 1989 from Annette Baran. Guardianship provides a legal guardian (a single person or a couple) who provide a safe, loving, and permanent home for children who need a home. If they cannot be raised by their natural parents, this is a far better alternative than total and complete adoption.

Even “open” adoption is not a safe alternative due to the sealing of the child’s birth certificate and a replacement, “new” birth certificate in the child’s new adoptive name and adoptive parents named as parents by birth.

Adoptive parents cop an attitude of ownership over the child and see the parents of birth as inferior.

With Guardianship, a child’s legal birth name, legal birth certificate, and status as the child of one and only one set of parents is protected. The legal guardian is under legal obligation to act legally and lovingly for the child as a parent would, as foster parents do, and as adoptive parents do, but they do not have the “advantage” of the law sealing the child’s birth certificate, replacing it with a new one with the guardians’ names on it and changing the child’s name and identity for all eternity.

In situations where the safety of the child is concerned, better to remove a child from the danger, but retain the child’s identity and relationships with that parent or parents.

In extreme cases, one that is up close and personal for me, the children may be forever in the custody of the other parent (or Guardian) but have knowledge of the missing parent. This is necessary for human growth and development. The case I’m referring to is, unfortunately, one that is close to me. The young mother of two children, pregnant with the 3rd, ran away with the kids. The father, who is the son of my close friend, lived with her for two years. His pregnant girlfriend stabbed another woman to death. Her two children were removed from her care, given immediately into state custody, and she gave birth in jail as she awaits her trial and sentencing for murder. The 3 children were handed over in full custody of the father. Meanwhile, the children miss their mother, know her as “mommy” and receive letters and phone calls from her.

Adoption is not an option here. Guardianship would be in order if the father was somehow unable to care for his kids. Their birth certificate is intact. Their identities are intact. Their mother did a bad thing and they will eventually visit her in prison.
Removing the children into adoption would further complicate their lives.

Adoption erases the existing problem as to why removal of children seems necessary, but, the adoptee faces lifelong harm from adoption and must face those issues later in life.

Yes, I am completely anti adoption. No adoption under any circumstances. Not even to save the Hatian children from starving to death after the earthquake. Good grief I hear that refrain already…Family Preservation at all costs, even if their parents are dead, there are other relatives who would be lost to them in adoption.

Anonymous said...

I whole heartedly agree with all the responses to your ridiculous article and say shame on you for even suggesting that this crazy woman should be the poster child for single mothers by choice. I can tell you that as a "choice mom" to be, the effects of Ms Suleman's irresponsible and insane behaviour have been felt way beyond her sphere as it casts aspersions on those of us who are choosing to be responsible in how we become parents. Oh, and for the record...most reproductive endocrinologists REQUIRE a psych eval before you are allowed to do any infertility treatments. As someone who has been struggling with infertility I can tell you that REPUTABLE doctors screen their patients to make sure that they can not only manage the stresses of the procedures, but also that they are not suffering from any mental illnesses. I'm glad they're revoking that quack's license and I hope DFS does the right thing by all those children.

Anonymous said...

Wow, just reading half of these comments makes me sick.. People need to stop being so bloody judgmental and negative!!! If people could only start seeing a positive out of a negative situation, then our whole world would be a better place. I mean the fact here is this:
Nadya has the babies in which was probably not the best of choices, but the fact still remains, they are here on this planet, all well, breathing and with their mother and siblings.
Exploiting children via media is a far cry from either of the families faults. Think how hard it would be for YOU (yes YOU personally) if you had Octuplets, Sextuplets etc. and YOU tried to keep the media out of your business? Very very unlikely, in fact, I would like to know of ANY families who have had 5 or 6 babies at one time that DIDN'T get any media attention? It's not the parents who exploit these kids... it's people like YOU who complain and rant and make a huge fuss!
So what IF this whole thing was a grab for attention, it's not like she doesn't love her children any less though? Who has the right to say those were her full intentions anyway? That is just bogus! It never came from Nadya's mouth that her soul purpose in having multiple babies living on welfare as a single mother was her plan JUST so she could make money from media and attention. Anyone who makes these claims are only making them from a personal perspective! There is NO proof, only people's thoughts and opinions.
My opinion here is, stop crying about all the tax payers money, who gives a crap, you people have NO idea where your tax dollars really go. Why not bark up the governments tree and tell them to stop spending billions of $ on war and crime, and maybe give HALF of that money to real citizens, to real families who need the money. Gosh if Nadya even got 1 fraction of my tax $'s I'd rather it go to HER and her CHILDREN then go to war or some other political government conspiracy CRAP!
You people need to stop complaining about what other people do wrong in their lives. And PLEASE, give it a rest already about the "welfare tax $'s that we are all paying for HER to raise her kids". Your tax $'s aren't paying for Nadya, your tax $'s are paying for your government to be living in multi-million dollar homes paying for millions of people to fight in useless wars brought on by your own government, and so on and so forth. The point is, your taxes aren't going UP because of Nadya, so stop crying about it!!!
Also, YOU aren't Nadya, nor are you personally involved in Nadya's life, so STOP worrying about it.
Live your own little lives and become better people by taking a negative situation and making it a positive. If these children are going to be in the media, then why contribute to the already existing negative attention and why not be a more compassionate understanding person knowing their lives are already going to be crazy with negative people.
I hope the best for these children, and I really hope the public gives them as much respect and privacy as possible. Regardless what people think, these people have a life to live too and by negative people butting their nose in their business with hurtful things to say, it can only mean more stress and problems for the children and mom. Please people, just be respectful and don't judge others until you walk a day in their shoes personally. I'm sure if you knew Nadya on a personal level, you'd speak differently about her situation because you'd know her situation from the inside, not on the outside like each and everyone of us!

AdoptAuthor said...

It is human nature for people to find scape goats to put down to make themselves feel better about themselves. We gloat when people are fatter than us, or act in ways we deem stupider than anything we would ever do.

The media exploits this ugly side of human nature. On top of that cyber space gives us an anonymous opportunity for everyone with an opinion to rant and rave and the scape goats and one another! It's road rage - drive by faming and extreme exaggerations such as the poster before you who said: "shame on you for even suggesting that this crazy woman should be the poster child for single mothers by choice" when I said no such thing. Or accusing me of being a "fan" of Nadya. Just trash talk.

I pity people who have nothing better to do. I truly do.

AdoptAuthor said...

The Duggars 19th baby is fighting for her life and they are still considering having ore. They are NOW getting more criticism than ever. However, in reading about this situation I discovered that the Duggars have a Facebook fan page with MNORE THAN 25,000 fans!

Anonymous said...

Some of you are a little overly interested in what a woman does with her own uterus. Ever think of taking up a hobby? Painting, horseback riding, knitting....etc.

Mirah Riben said...

With all due respect, Anonymous Johnny-come-lately, commenting six months after the fact...if you read the title and about this blog you'd know that we are concerned about the children produced in that uterus!

I for one see that they are FINE! Doing better, I think than the eight kids put through an ugly divorce and exploited on TV. But thatr's just me.

I think it is very sad for any women to think it is her right to do as she pleases with her uterus to the disregard of the well-being of living children she produces, If she decides not to abort, they are her responsibility, not a right of her uterus once they are out of her uterus!

Anonymous said...

There is a huge difference between the Duggars and Nadya. Aside from there being two parents to handle brood, the Duggars had their kids sequentially. That means that the older kids could help with the housework and babysitting of the younger ones by the time there were even 8 kids in the house. This is the way it was done historically.... Nadya on the other hand, had 8 kids all at once when the oldest of her born children was 8 years old and autistic and not capable of helping out. This is *NOT* the way it's been done historically, and intuitively, we all know that. Add to that the clear unwillingness of her parents to be involved in babysitting 14 kids (again not the way you'd raise 14 kids historically), and we all realize that people's lives--not just the kids--are being irreparably harmed by her actions.

Folks, what this woman has done--14 kids, with the eldest one only 8 years old wouldn't be legal in any childcare facility, yet when the money runs out, that's the position the house may be in--14 young kids, one caretaker. No offense, but even Mother Teresa would have sought for help with such a brood, but when she got that help, she wouldn't go for photo-ops or to get her nails done or go for surgery, she'd have spent more quality time with the kids. And that's really the point isn't it? We all sense that Nadya doesn't express any genuine love for her children. Everything is about her and for her, nothing is genuinely for the children's benefits. If she truly spent the time she should with her children she'd be completely and utterly frazzled, without makeup, and wearing her unkemp hair in a ponytail. She's not.

I think most people worry and hope the best for large families--I have absolutely no animosity for the Duggars--but the Suleman family is one of those "obvious" cases where we all look on, knowing that there's no way for her to do this all herself, that her mother and father are maxed out, resentful, and unhappy, and that there's a 99.9% chance that almost all of these kids will grow up neglected and emotionally harmed. No one is going to say "I told you so" when it happens, because everyone knows that everyone else knows that it's going to happen when the money and attention run out. And so we're not only upset at her callousness to pretend like she did nothing wrong, but at the state's lack of intervention. The other large families simply don't come across this way.

You're right that if she were a celebrity millionaire, we'd let it slide. We all know that the kids would grow up knowing their nanny, not their mother. But we also know that money helps, and the autistic child would get the help he needs and the other kids would get the help they need even if they didn't get the mother and father they need. This too would be a tragedy, and yes, we give celebrities a pass because they pay their own way in this respect and do what they want, but we also know that they can afford the helpstaff that they need to provide for the kid's basic needs. Maybe it's not fair, but it is the way it is.

Mirah Riben said...


#1. I wonder what YOUR problem is that you are still obsessing over this when it is no longer a news item

#2. The major comparison was made to Nadya and Kate - who had a similar multiple birth and who is now alone

#3. Some of your points are correct. We, as a nation, do treat people with money very differently than people without it - even in terms of whether they 'deserve' children or not. And, that. My dear was the entire point of this pot: that Nadya is being vilified, not for how many children she has, or how she got them. But for doing so without MONEY...the great fear that she will be a burden on society...instead of worrying about corporate welfare and politicians who rob us blind and the enormous over-inflated interminable military budget that helps out young men get killed while killing others and leaves this country to poor to feed all its moist vulnerable let alone provide health care!

#4. You judge her sincerity to love her kids. How dare you? How sincerely do the Duggars love THEIR kids who they are exploiting on TV and risking their lives and their mothers life to continue doing what they are doing?

And when she yet another sickly preemie - who winds up paying all the hospital bills - we All do! And if she dies in childbirth (which she very nearly did last time) she leaves all those kids with no mother - you consider that sensible and loving?? I don't. I don't think they are making loving choices that are in the best interest of their brood. I think they are a small CULT and all under the spell of Jim Bob who puts his wife through this and is himself afraid of a needle! Her preemie still needs her and she is pregnant yet again with number TWENTY!! I think they are not sane.

But ya' know what? It's not my choice or your to make. It is The Duggars choice and what Nadya did was her choice.

And how sincerely does Kate love the kids we see her yelling at? Mothers loose their cool sometimes! especially mothers chasing after 8 toddlers!!

#5. Here is is more than a year after these babies were born. Is Nadya on welfare? Has she done them any harm or neglect that warranted having them taken from her...even with everyone watching her and just waiting for one mistake? Have any of the dire fears of the public come to fruition? NO! NOT ONE! Leave the woman alone and get a life, PLEASE!

Mirah Riben said...

In is that very unfairness of our social mores that this blog post is about. Parenthood should not be judged by how full our pockets are! Too many children are removed from perfectly good families simply due to finances or lack there of. The rich take and the poor lose. Unacceptable.

The bottom line these kids are already here. Do you propose removing them from their mother? And then what...adopting them out to 14 different families? So they are severed from their mother and siblings? Or do you suggest finding someone wealthy enough to get nannies for all 14?

See Reverse Robinhoodism:

RussiaToday Apr 29, 2010 on Russian Adoption Freeze

Russi Today: America television Interview 4/16/10 Regarding the Return of Artyem, 7, to Russia alone

RT: Russia-America TV Interview 3/10

Korean Birthmothers Protest to End Adoption

Motherhood, Adoption, Surrender, & Loss

Who Am I?

Bitter Winds

Adoption and Truth Video

Adoption Truth

Birthparents Never Forget