« Let nominees bail us out | Main | Re-imagining a better KC »

February 07, 2009

California octuplets

Perhaps the “calamity” facing the mother of the California octuplets as reported today (2/4, A-2,” Few freebies for octuplets’ mom”) and the negative comments directed at her should be reconsidered in light of the concept of family planning.

Clearly, this woman has a right to choose, and many support this right. If she had chosen to have terminated any number of her pregnancies, she would have extensive support not only from the law but also from organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Perhaps those who support a woman’s right to choose should step up and be supportive of this woman in light of her family-planning situation.

Ed O’Dower
Overland Park



First of all - all of her children were conceived through invitro fertilization. Due to problems with miscarriages, none of them were "naturally" conceived.

Second - I agree - to a certain point - that a woman should have some choice. However, after already having 6 children - the ethical question arises as to why ANY doctor would continue with any invitro procedure. If she had no children or only one or two before this last pregnancy, I could understand - but 6 - and ages 2 - 7 yrs old!

Thirdly - This woman may not currently be collecting welfare but she is collecting disability and working to some degree. She had an accident in the late 90s that did some damage to her back. She had been collecting some disability (partially disabled) yet she was able to carry at least 6 children to full term (just doesn't make sense does it if she's really disabled).

Fourth - The woman may have some mental problems. She said (now) that she had an unhappy childhood and her physical disabilities made her even more depressed. She and her husband divorced last year because she wanted him to be happy - yet it's o.k. for her children to suffer with her depression - just not her husband.

Fifth - the woman says she can "afford" all 14 children - yeah right. Her husband is gone - some other man's sperm was used to fertilize the eggs - she's going back to get her Master's in psychology to be a therapist - AND she's going to have time to take care of 14 children - physically, emotionally, and financially. The woman is in lala land and apparently addicted to having babies.

Bottom line - after having 2 to 3 children or so, doctors have a moral obligation to the UNBORN future children and their welfare. Apparently, this doctor didn't care and the "mother" is addicted to having babies. I truly, truly feel sad for these children - One case social services will be watching very, very carefully and probably will eventually be moved to several different foster homes or adopted homes.

Some have discussed whether or not this doctor should continue to practice. Instead of taking away his license, I suggest - instead of welfare - that he financially support those children. They could take the child support worksheet - figure out how much he would have to pay if he were the father - and make him pay at least half of that. Definitely would make other doctors a bit more careful whenever someone already having several children - asking for more.

Pub 17

But she DIDN'T choose to terminate any of her pregnancies. Therefore those who recognize a woman's obligation to bear every fetus to term should step up and be supportive of this woman in light of her fourteen little responsibilities.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright