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

"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.

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

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

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

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

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...)

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

Banty wrote:


Banty (and then I'll have more questions...)

No, you? Have more questions?! Whoda
thunk it... ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

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.