If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SIngle mom of quads
Did anyone see Oprah today? She had a single mother of quads on her show. It
was pretty hard to watch this woman, who apparently had family who disapproved of her choice to be a SMBC in the first place, and then to have all 4 babies. Her father wanted her to give them up for adoption, her mother looked like she was ready to kill her daughter, and her sister was amazingly selfish and could only think about how this woman's choice affected her life (I didn't sign up for this, she said). The woman obviously can't work as a florist, her former profession, because of the babies. And she must be on some sort of state assistance, but didn't say what it was. This was hard to watch, even as a single mother of twins, because she didn't seem to have a plan in place. But the hardest was trying to imagine how she is, all by herself, taking care of 4 infants. Right now they're 6 months old. I mean, think about it. Wonder if she's practicing Dr Sears and attachment parenting. ROTFL. Marjorie |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"animzmirot" wrote in message ... Did anyone see Oprah today? She had a single mother of quads on her show. It was pretty hard to watch this woman, who apparently had family who disapproved of her choice to be a SMBC in the first place, and then to have all 4 babies. Her father wanted her to give them up for adoption, her mother looked like she was ready to kill her daughter, and her sister was amazingly selfish and could only think about how this woman's choice affected her life (I didn't sign up for this, she said). The woman obviously can't work as a florist, her former profession, because of the babies. And she must be on some sort of state assistance, but didn't say what it was. This was hard to watch, even as a single mother of twins, because she didn't seem to have a plan in place. But the hardest was trying to imagine how she is, all by herself, taking care of 4 infants. Right now they're 6 months old. I mean, think about it. Wonder if she's practicing Dr Sears and attachment parenting. ROTFL. Whether I feel for her or not would depend on how she got herself in that position in the first place. I mean, was she on fertility treatments as a single woman in an unstable relationship? Was she on welfare to begin with? What happened? If she was married or something and the stress of quads broke it up, then I feel for her. If she planned to get pg and she wasn't stable financially or otherwise, then I don't feel sorry for her. Of course quads makes things so much worse, but planning to get pg when not stable is not a good idea. I do feel for the kids. Doesn't sound like a good situation to be brought up in. If her sister didn't sign up for it, then she is getting help, if only reluctantly. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
toypup wrote:
Whether I feel for her or not would depend on how she got herself in that position in the first place. I mean, was she on fertility treatments as a single woman in an unstable relationship? Was she on welfare to begin with? What happened? If she was married or something and the stress of quads broke it up, then I feel for her. If she planned to get pg and she wasn't stable financially or otherwise, then I don't feel sorry for her. Of course quads makes things so much worse, but planning to get pg when not stable is not a good idea. I do feel for the kids. Doesn't sound like a good situation to be brought up in. If her sister didn't sign up for it, then she is getting help, if only reluctantly. You know, I'll agree that it's worse to be in a bad situation through one's own choices than through forces beyond one's control; however, it seems amazingly judgemental to me to say that if her own decisions got her there, screw her and her kids too. There's not a one of us who hasn't made a poor decision on occasion. If this woman had struggled with infertility, gotten pregnant through fertility treatments with quads, refused selective abortion, and then had her husband leave her, everyone would be calling her a saint. The woman who struggled with infertility while married (which probably had an impact on her marriage), chose single motherhood because of her deep desire to have a baby, and refused selective abortion on principle isn't *that* different a woman. The only difference is not denying herself the opportunity to become a mother-- obviously a big difference and an important one, but one most of the women here haven't had to confront. I just wonder how many people would like to have their benefits contingent on their decisions. How about no insurance reimbursement if you have health problems related to lifestyle choices? How about no public education if you don't get good enough grades? How about no vacation days at work if your productivity isn't high enough? I guess I'm just not all that interested in living in a world where we all get to sit in judgement of everyone else to determine who is sufficiently deserving of our assistance, particularly when it's innocent children who bear the cost. I rather doubt there is a huge rash of women looking to have quads without any help, so I don't see a need to Make an Example of someone in order to have a deterrent effect (not that it would probably work even if one did). Best wishes, Ericka |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I refuse to snip one word of this GREAT response. All I can say is CLAP, CLAP, CLAP Nan On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:25:16 -0400, Ericka Kammerer scribbled: You know, I'll agree that it's worse to be in a bad situation through one's own choices than through forces beyond one's control; however, it seems amazingly judgemental to me to say that if her own decisions got her there, screw her and her kids too. There's not a one of us who hasn't made a poor decision on occasion. If this woman had struggled with infertility, gotten pregnant through fertility treatments with quads, refused selective abortion, and then had her husband leave her, everyone would be calling her a saint. The woman who struggled with infertility while married (which probably had an impact on her marriage), chose single motherhood because of her deep desire to have a baby, and refused selective abortion on principle isn't *that* different a woman. The only difference is not denying herself the opportunity to become a mother-- obviously a big difference and an important one, but one most of the women here haven't had to confront. I just wonder how many people would like to have their benefits contingent on their decisions. How about no insurance reimbursement if you have health problems related to lifestyle choices? How about no public education if you don't get good enough grades? How about no vacation days at work if your productivity isn't high enough? I guess I'm just not all that interested in living in a world where we all get to sit in judgement of everyone else to determine who is sufficiently deserving of our assistance, particularly when it's innocent children who bear the cost. I rather doubt there is a huge rash of women looking to have quads without any help, so I don't see a need to Make an Example of someone in order to have a deterrent effect (not that it would probably work even if one did). Best wishes, Ericka |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ericka Kammerer says...
toypup wrote: Whether I feel for her or not would depend on how she got herself in that position in the first place. I mean, was she on fertility treatments as a single woman in an unstable relationship? Was she on welfare to begin with? What happened? If she was married or something and the stress of quads broke it up, then I feel for her. If she planned to get pg and she wasn't stable financially or otherwise, then I don't feel sorry for her. Of course quads makes things so much worse, but planning to get pg when not stable is not a good idea. I do feel for the kids. Doesn't sound like a good situation to be brought up in. If her sister didn't sign up for it, then she is getting help, if only reluctantly. You know, I'll agree that it's worse to be in a bad situation through one's own choices than through forces beyond one's control; however, it seems amazingly judgemental to me to say that if her own decisions got her there, screw her and her kids too. There's not a one of us who hasn't made a poor decision on occasion. If this woman had struggled with infertility, gotten pregnant through fertility treatments with quads, refused selective abortion, and then had her husband leave her, everyone would be calling her a saint. The woman who struggled with infertility while married (which probably had an impact on her marriage), chose single motherhood because of her deep desire to have a baby, and refused selective abortion on principle isn't *that* different a woman. Absolutely. *I'm* a single mother by choice. Meaning, if I could have Ordered Up a Life from the Powers That Be, I would have married and had three or more. But being single at 35, I embarked on having and raising a child on my own. The main difference between myself and this woman being that, for ethical reasons, I would not have pursued in vitro, and would have turned to adoption if I had encountered fertility problems. But, if I became pregnant with quadruplets, for ethical reasons I would have refused selective abortion, also. Clearly, the plan was to have only one child. Three embryos is actually a rather conservative number to introduce for IVF, and the outcome was an extremely unlikely one. Pregnant with four, she went forward the most integral way she could. Banty |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote: I just wonder how many people would like to have their benefits contingent on their decisions. How about no insurance reimbursement if you have health problems related to lifestyle choices? snip How about no vacation days at work if your productivity isn't high enough? Well these seem pretty fair to me. Of course, they're both subjective and hard to judge, but I do often resent my insurance premiums being spent on care for patients whose problems are "their own fault" (while care for my own children's congenital issues is "not covered"), my tax dollars being spent on welfare recipients whose problems are of their own making/choice, etc... I think that to some extent people *should* be held responsible for their own choices and mistakes. Certainly not to the extent that innocent children suffer, of course. And of course, all of this is impossible to fairly implement, which is part of why it doesn't happen. Why do you think it is so unreasonable to even consider holding individuals personally responsible for the negative effects of their own poor choices? --Robyn |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Robyn Kozierok says...
In article , Ericka Kammerer wrote: I just wonder how many people would like to have their benefits contingent on their decisions. How about no insurance reimbursement if you have health problems related to lifestyle choices? snip How about no vacation days at work if your productivity isn't high enough? Well these seem pretty fair to me. Of course, they're both subjective and hard to judge, but I do often resent my insurance premiums being spent on care for patients whose problems are "their own fault" (while care for my own children's congenital issues is "not covered"), my tax dollars being spent on welfare recipients whose problems are of their own making/choice, etc... I think that to some extent people *should* be held responsible for their own choices and mistakes. Certainly not to the extent that innocent children suffer, of course. And of course, all of this is impossible to fairly implement, which is part of why it doesn't happen. Why do you think it is so unreasonable to even consider holding individuals personally responsible for the negative effects of their own poor choices? Exactly how would you apply this to the specific situation. Which of her choices should be 'allowed'? Banty (and then I'll have more questions...) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Robyn Kozierok wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer wrote: I just wonder how many people would like to have their benefits contingent on their decisions. How about no insurance reimbursement if you have health problems related to lifestyle choices? snip How about no vacation days at work if your productivity isn't high enough? Well these seem pretty fair to me. Of course, they're both subjective and hard to judge, but I do often resent my insurance premiums being spent on care for patients whose problems are "their own fault" (while care for my own children's congenital issues is "not covered"), my tax dollars being spent on welfare recipients whose problems are of their own making/choice, etc... I think that to some extent people *should* be held responsible for their own choices and mistakes. Certainly not to the extent that innocent children suffer, of course. And of course, all of this is impossible to fairly implement, which is part of why it doesn't happen. Why do you think it is so unreasonable to even consider holding individuals personally responsible for the negative effects of their own poor choices? First, because I don't think it's my job to sit as judge and jury on others. Second, by and large I think that those who make poor choices have plenty of negative fallout to deal with without my having to do anything about it. The wheel of karma turns whether or not I get out and push. I believe that to think otherwise is somewhat arrogant. Third, *everyone* has a story and the vast majority of the time, I find that when I sit down and listen instead of making snap judgements about others, their choices don't seem as heinous as they might at first blush. I might not always agree with others' choices, but other people generally aren't as stupid as they appear to those who are willing to judge on limited evidence. I'm not willing to tar everyone with one brush because a limited number of people are truly reckless. Policy based on sensationalized exceptions is rarely good policy. Fourth, there but for the grace of God go I. People who are willing to have others sit in judgement of them are rarely examining their own choices all that clearly. None of us are perfect, and those who haven't experienced a major problem often have avoided it by merest happenstance or because they were given a leg up by others. I like to think I tend to make good choices, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that someone out there thinks I've made some real stinkers and would be happy to penalize me (or my children) for it. I think that leads to ugliness, pure and simple. I would rather be compassionate toward those who are struggling and occasionally help someone who "didn't deserve it" than turn my back on someone who needed help. I think the issue of coverage for your child's medical issues versus coverage for those who have complications due to lifestyle choices is a false dichotomy. Your child should be covered regardless of whether lifestyle diseases are covered. The one should not be at the expense of the other. Others are welcome to disagree, but personally, I can't stomach the alternative. Best wishes, Ericka |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Banty wrote:
Banty (and then I'll have more questions...) No, you? Have more questions?! Whoda thunk it... ;-) Best wishes, Ericka |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Robyn Kozierok wrote:
Why do you think it is so unreasonable to even consider holding individuals personally responsible for the negative effects of their own poor choices? I guess I missed the part where the quads made bad choices so they shouldn't have enough support to eat healthy food and live in a safe, secure place with a parent who isn't probably almost suicidal from stress. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FAQ July 2004 | Daniel | Single Parents | 0 | July 6th 04 02:25 AM |
Feb. FAQ | turtledove | Single Parents | 0 | February 2nd 04 12:53 PM |
FAQ try #2 | turtledove | Single Parents | 2 | January 4th 04 05:17 PM |
FAQ | turtledove | Single Parents | 0 | January 2nd 04 03:04 PM |
December's FAQ | turtledove | Single Parents | 1 | December 7th 03 07:37 PM |