From the Did you Know Department?

Posted by Kendall Harmon

WHITTIER, CALIF.The Southern California woman who gave birth to octuplets this week has six other children and never expected to have eight more when she took fertility treatment, her mother said Thursday

Filed under: * Culture-WatchChildren

17 Comments
Posted January 30, 2009 at 6:22 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Katherine wrote:

I suppose the story will come out at some point.  Why was a woman (couple?) with six children using fertility drugs?  These are powerful hormones and side effects are not unheard of.  Perhaps there’s something here that doesn’t meet the eye which makes this reasonable.

January 30, 9:55 am | [comment link]
2. ElaineF. wrote:

# 1, I am wondering the same thing…I also do not know whether the 6 children were biological or adopted…

January 30, 10:56 am | [comment link]
3. Alli B wrote:

I just read that she did in vitro.  They evidently implanted at least eight embryos in her, which I fully believe is medical malpractice.  Having gone through this process myself numerous times, I know quite a bit about it.  She and her doctor were very irresponsible.  She’s lucky that none of the babies died, much less all of them.  And someone young who does in vitro when they already have six children tells you there’s poor judgment being exercised as well.

January 30, 1:29 pm | [comment link]
4. Byzantine wrote:

“... the mother is ‘fairly young’ and lives with her parents on a cul-de-sac with six children, including twins.”

So now we’re up to 14 total, and “dad” is apparently just a sperm donor.

The US is slouching towards a very dystopic matriarchy.

January 30, 1:35 pm | [comment link]
5. libraryjim wrote:

They’re doing her best to counter the declining natural birth rate in the US. They are going to turn it around all by themselves.

By the way, who’s business is it how many children they have except their? What is the feminist slogan: “Keep your laws out of my womb”?

January 30, 2:15 pm | [comment link]
6. Byzantine wrote:

By the way, who’s business is it how many children they have except their?

Well here’s the thing about risk-spreading mechanisms such as public assistance and also private insurance:  if either of these mechanisms is being utilized, then it becomes a lot of people’s business.  It also appears all 14 children will be growing up without a biological father.  We have been reaping the whirlwind from that particular Great Society innovation for a long time now.

January 30, 2:35 pm | [comment link]
7. Katherine wrote:

Byzantine, do you have a link for the story about there being no father in the picture?

January 30, 2:38 pm | [comment link]
8. Byzantine wrote:

I’m quoting the story, which says she lives with her parents.  Nor is there any mention of her first six children’s father.

I suppose they could have just not mentioned him, but that’s a pretty glaring omission.

January 30, 2:46 pm | [comment link]
9. Katherine wrote:

I agree with Alli B, by the way.  In vitro and all infertility treatments carry risks for both mothers and children.  I am stunned that a woman who is already the mother of six would do this, and that her physician would agree to it.  I suppose if she were newly married to a man who had no children, and her fertility problem had recently developed, that might be a plausible scenario.  I await details.

January 30, 2:47 pm | [comment link]
10. Already left wrote:

I understand it is not unusual for women to slip over the bordr into Mexico to have this done and then come here where we tax payers will pay for everything.

January 30, 4:18 pm | [comment link]
11. w.w. wrote:

The woman already was on welfare, single with six children, and some doctor implanted eight =embryos= in her. That doc will have some tall explaining to do, as does she, if she’s mentally competent. If the state doesn’t strip the med license, the authorities at least ought to sue to recover the monthly welfare checks the government will have to pony up for each of those babies.

w.w.

January 31, 1:43 am | [comment link]
12. Katherine wrote:

Here it is.  The mother appears to have no husband.  She filed for bankruptcy two years ago and moved in with her parents, with the six children.  I’d say “What was she thinking?” except that thinking doesn’t seem to have been done.

Doctors used to ask about the family circumstances of women for whom they provided fertility services, either in vitro or inseminations.  They would insist on having a signed release from the husband/father, which meant they were also sure that there WAS a father for the children.  These days, they can be sued for asking these questions.  I believe deliberately creating children who will not have fathers is immoral.  The law may not permit that judgment to be made.

January 31, 3:43 am | [comment link]
13. Rev. Patti Hale wrote:

What was the mother of 6 thinking?.... I want what I want.
What was the doctor thinking?.... She wants what she wants, I have no ethics beyond that.

Sadly, what is not mentioned in this article is the common practice of “selective reduction”.  With multiple births as great as these the fertility Dr. will advise a “selective reduction” of the number of ‘viable’ fetuses to give some of them (the largest) the best chance to survive and reduce the chances that mother will bleed to death or otherwise die in the process. 

The whole thing stinks, folks.  We should be praying for those little ones growing up in such madness and for the conversion of those look on this situation and see nothing wrong with the picture.

January 31, 8:31 am | [comment link]
14. Katherine wrote:

#13, that’s one positive thing we can say about this mother.  The doctor did advise selective reduction.  She refused.

January 31, 9:51 am | [comment link]
15. Bill Matz wrote:

Here is another link that answersome of the above questions:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28943010/

Based on this article, I believe the doctor could reaonably and legally refused to do the in vitro on the basis that the woman was apparently not mentally competent to make the decision.

January 31, 12:00 pm | [comment link]
16. Katherine wrote:

Good Lord.  ALL FOURTEEN, including the older six, are the products of in vitro, according to that report; the father or fathers not identified.  Do doctors have to do this repeatedly for fear of being sued?  Can some physician with experience in the field comment?

January 31, 12:55 pm | [comment link]
17. Katherine wrote:

Plus, in vitro costs big money.  Who’s been paying for this?  I hope it’s not MediCal.

January 31, 12:59 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): Mississippi most religious, Vermont least, survey says

Previous entry (below): RNS: Anglicans Set to Consider Rival North American Church

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)