Should octuplet mom continue to receive welfare?

I don’t believe in welfare for anyone, period.

She willfully conceived an additional eight kids after having six? Her irresponsibility isn’t the government’s problem. She’ll definitely keep getting welfare though. There are scads of people with lesser needs who have no trouble getting it.

@JoeyDesignsStuff, there is evidence that points to the doctor purposely implanting eight embryos where he should have only implanted two. So the issue of willfulness here is not concrete.

Ah. Still, having six children – on welfare – and intentionally having any more is irresponsible.

NO

@dynamicduo: For everyone? Why is that?

there are conflicting reports as to where she had the procedure done…

Some say Cambodia, others say Mexico. She was already 3 months pregnant before appearing for the first time at Kaiser hospital. She checked in to the hospital at 23 weeks along. It appears Kaiser is eating the costs.

“So the issue of willfulness here is not concrete.”

I beg to differ. Kaiser doctors advised her against carrying so many children as it would most likely endanger her health as well as the other babies. She was advised to selectively abort and she refused.

She is not a “single mom”. It is her husband, the 14 babies’ father, who is going back to Iraq, not the mother’s father.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7860041.stm

CBS News has learned that the family of the octuplets born this week outside Los Angeles filed for bankruptcy and abandoned a home a little over a year-and-a-half ago.

Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kauffman says the mother is in her mid-thirties and lives with her parents.

There’s been no mention of the octuplets’ father, Kauffman observes.

The grandfather, she adds, is apparently going to head back to his native Iraq to earn money for the growing family. He told CBS News he’s a former Iraqi military man.

http://www.knx1070.com/Octuplet-Family-Filed-For-Bankruptcy-Last-Year/3750118

So,have we now established that this person is not worthy.
The Lords children,tut tut,i smell double standards here.

even the link provided by MrItty refers to the woman’s husband returning to Iraq, and makes no mention of the babies father. Woman = the woman conducting the interview, the mother of the mother…:>

ABC and all of MSM reports she is a single mom on welfare.

my bad. I misread.

@bristol,So Kaiser are eating the costs,tell me how much of publicity money will she get?

”,tell me how much of publicity money will she get?”

I imagine she’ll get all kinds of free gifts, etc., and pictures alone will probably pay good $$. If she gets enough $, perhaps she won’t be entitled to welfare anymore?

@asmonet, it’s a long explanation, but I’ll try to summarize it here.

Charity in general exists because some people have a desire to help others. Think of all those church groups, or rescue groups after natural disasters, or food banks, etc. These don’t exist because of legislation, they exist because people have the desire to help others, and the people who need help have the desire to seek that help out. America is, after all, the biggest contributes to private charity, coming close to $300 billion in 2006.

Welfare, on the other hand, exists because of laws. It takes our tax money unwillingly and distributes it to other people, and we have no control over where this money goes. The current setup of welfare does not encourage anyone to get off of welfare. As well, the system is ripe for abuse, and as with pretty much any government agency, there are a lot of people who have figured out a way to scam the system.

Let’s say welfare ended tomorrow. Yes, it would be hard for the people on welfare, but they would start making efforts to remedy their situation, such as going to a food bank, going to church support groups, or finding a job. Those that chose to not remedy their situation would likely die. This is the survival of the fittest, which in my mind is the best approach vector for creating a strong and resilient community. I mean, why exactly should society support someone who isn’t willing to give back to society? On the other side of things, people now have an extra few hundred dollars or more because it’s not being removed by taxes. Some people would choose to donate money to the churches and other organizations, and would receive a tax deduction for doing so. In fact, people might be more likely to donate to a local community support group, as they can see and interact with the people they are helping, and it may resound a bit more deeply in their heart. Sure, some people would choose to save that money and spend it on themselves, but that is their prerogative as they earned that money and thus are free to do whatever they want with it.

Some, but not all, of people on welfare are able-bodied people who choose to not find a job. Why, then, should I, a person who has worked hard and found a job, be forced to subsidize the lifestyle of a person who chooses not to? And like I’ve said above, people who are forced into poverty and welfare are generally aided by local organizations, provided the person is willing to seek out that help. But as it stands now, there is no motivation to do this, because that welfare check will come in each month like clockwork.

This is a pretty strong Libertarian viewpoint, so if you’re interested in more reading about the subject, you’ll find more information and elaboration on libertarian websites. Here is one link from the Libertarian Party of the US that goes into more detail about this issue. Here is another article that delves into the issue.

Give this woman (and every woman) what she needs to raise her children in love and security. Whatever the cost would not be remotely comparable to the fortune wasted by Wall Street greed, or Defense misuse of money (and note I am saying misuse).

The children are are hope and future. Let’s make sure that each one gets everything she needs to be able to be a strong and functioning participant in our democracy.

My understanding is there are time limits as to how long you can collect welfare. With the exception of NY, after five years on the dole, you’re off. Enforcement of the law, however, varies state to state.

“Give this woman (and every woman) what she needs to raise her children in love and security”

would you have the same opinion if she decided to have more embryos implanted a couple of months from now?

@bristolbaby,my point is,you give a negative regarding Kaiser absorbing the costs of the birth,do you think they do it for fun!
Secondly,this lady is probably of low education and would never have had any of the trappings of a solid income family,so therefore it is a great buisness move on her part,furthermore if she turns out to be the best mother ever and has given birth to the child who performs brain surgery on a relative of yours and inturn saves a life.Judge ye not unless…....

Help the Lady and do some good.

“my point is,you give a negative regarding Kaiser absorbing the costs of the birth,do you think they do it for fun!”

I’m sure they did it to avoid litigation down the road. Everything else you posted is pure assumption. If she was born in the US, she would be entitled to the same education as everyone else and it appears her parents are wealthy.

skfinkel, That’s a lovely sentiment. I presume that you will be following it up with a check for the full amount of your life savings written out to this family? Afterall, the 14 kids’ future is more important than yours, right? They’re the future, not you.

Her parents are wealthy,And?

“Her parents are wealthy,And?”

you claimed she would not have the benefit of a solid income family. I was pointing out that assumption was incorrect.

I’m not sold on her receiving welfare – particularly if she gets 15 minutes of fame and goodies because of this.

But 14 children, really? Where is the logic in that?

And I really don’t want to hear about her following her heart – emotion without logic = trouble (and vice versa). Where’s the balance?

If I knew her personally, I’d be appalled at the selfishness of this act (assuming, of course she knew the number of embryos being implanted).

@oasis “Help the Lady and do some good.” – How about she help society and adopt some of the thousands of kids already without homes and families? Sorry, it’s just an irresponsible way to live in this society today.

@skfinkel And what of the thousands of children currently in orphanages and foster care? Are they not the future? Or are they simply the unfortunate byproduct of selfish people like this lady who can’t think beyond their own primal needs?

Thanks,solid family income to me means Immediate family not extended family.

you mean a husband? Apparently, she’s never had one. Immediate family would include her parents.

Extended family = cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.

Irrespective,all my assumptions are based on good,yours are based on ill feeling.
Judge ye not…...

oasis, “help the lady and do some good.” I’ll ask you the same question I asked sk. Will you be writing her a check? If not, why are you telling us to? Telling the federal government to support this woman via welfare is 100% identical to telling all of us American taxpayers to write her a check.

How did she afford fertility treatments and implants when she was already on welfare?

@MrItty,no i will not be writing a cheque,however i would have no problem in contributing via taxation,lets hope you keep your job in these unsteady times.
You would not ask for welfare,would you?

According to BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7860041.stm) the woman’s husband is a contractor who works in Iraq. So, not sure about the welfare piece of this story.
I agree with @nocountry2 about how someone on welfare could have afforded fertility treatment. My guess is that the husband makes descent money working as a contractor and if the money is earned outside the US it’s usually tax free.
It’s good that her parents/family can help with 14 kids—especially 8 newborns!
It’s not my place to judge, but it does make me wonder why, if you have 6 children already, you would pursue fertility treatments in order to conceive again. Shrug-shrug.

Barrack Hussain Obama,was born of a goat herder,who could barely feed himself,oh yes,how damned irresponsible for this bloodline to ultimately breed the most powerfull man in the world,who’d have thought it?A low class scum freeloding shepherd.

There is no reason, in this day and age, to have 14 children. That said, if she wants to have 14 children, it’s her right. Do I think she should get welfare payments to help support them? Fuck no.

Should her children suffer for her irresponsibility? Of course not. Do I have the answer? No. But the whole situation is infuriating.

@bristolbaby,and if the father is going back to Iraq to do contract work,then it is probably contract work to repair the damage to the countries infrastructure destroyed by bombings.

@oasis

1) No one is suggesting she not have any children biologically.
2) Her biological children have just as much chance as being “great” as they of being “average”. It’s a 50/50 shot with anybody and therefore irrelevant to your argument.

My point, again, is that IMHO, it is irresponsible to have that many children in light of the thousands of children without homes. And then be looking for welfare to help you out.

If she and her family can afford to pay for ALL expenses for ALL 14 children without ANY public assistance – then it is absolutely none of my business what she does with her body.

If, however, she will be receiving public assistance without even considering adoption as an option prior to having 14 kids – I very much care and think she is irresponsible and selfish.

The poster of the question sites Welfare as her biggest gripe.
So am i to think alls well if you pay your way?

@oasis I wouldn’t say “all is well”.

I’m still disturbed by the choice to have 14 biological children over the idea of adopting at least one – but if she and her family are “pay(ing) (their) own way, it is none of my business and I will keep my trap shut.

oasis, explain to me the difference in your mind, between writing a check directly to her and having the money you’ve already paid in taxes going to her. Why is the second more acceptable to you than the first.

No, I wouldn’t choose welfare for myself. I would also not choose to have 6 children and then go on fertility treatments to have more, when I’ve already filed for bankruptcy and am already on welfare.

there is no husband in the picture…her FATHER is going back to Iraq. He is an Iraqi.

IF she were able to support herself and all of her children, I would not have a gripe. However, she was already leeching off the state for her prior 6 children.

IMO, she should not be allowed to keep the children because she can not support them and they will be totally supported by welfare. It is in the best interests of the children to be adopted by parents that can care for them.

Her FATHER also paid for the fertility treatments that took place in a foreign country. I’m not sure why he did this….

It was also revealed that the woman’s FATHER – a contractor – may be forced to return to work in Iraq to help support his 14 grandchildren.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2174890/posts

@MrItty,the difference is i am non judgemental,if i have to contribute to society then i do so willingly.@bristol,do you think she had them to an Iraqi terrorist so they can be turned into suicide bombers in 20years.

Dorkgirl, this link you posted…(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7860041.stm)

is referring to the grandfather – the husband of shulman….as already pointed out in previous posts.

I’m not saying the grandfather is an Iraqi terrorist, just that he’s an Iraqi citizen.

oasis, that’s a ridiculous claim you’re making and you’re bringing the discussion down many levels by introducing that claim. Honestly. What are you trying to get at with that comment?

And congrats for breaking my ironic-o-meter with your claim of being non-judgemental, then going ahead and making a ridiculous claim about Iraqis and terrorists. That’s the second time this month it’s been broken. Jeez.

Now lets hang it out,what we have here is a lazy moneygrabbing woman who irresponsibly had 14 kids most of them born to a potential terrorist and they are all going to live in the good old USA for free and the biggest recession in history is being played out before our very eyes.
@duo,i did not bring the Nationality of the Father into this,however the fact that he is Iraqi somehow makes her entitlement to welfare less warranted.

I’m no longer bothering to interact with you, oasis.

what the…. oasis, do you realize how absurd what you just said is? Here, let me repeat it for you: “if i have to contribute to society then i do so willingly”

When you HAVE TO do something, that’s the opposite of willingly!

MSM is reporting that she currently receives over $1,600.00/month in welfare. These new young ‘uns will add just under $1,000.00 to that.

she’s a one woman stimulus package…lol

I have no problem with contributing to a society with rules.
Ok for you Itty my old Fruit

@bristolbaby @oasis @MrItty
I would never advocate for a person to have more than a dozen children under five year old.
The point here is that somehow they are here. Not to give these children what they need makes no sense.

It also makes no sense not to support all those orphans and foster children our country seems to have in copious numbers. But here’s a news flash—80% of children in foster care are there in large measure due to poverty. Single mothers (read abandoned) in low wage jobs who can’t do it all. We would be spending a lot less in prison costs in the future if we put a fraction of that money towards supporting families under enormous financial pressures. When I write out my tax check, I am hoping all that money goes to support families in need.

I think that there’s a lot of echoing of the idea that people on welfare stay on it for life, and unworthy of it, and don’t want to work a job. It’s not the case.

Republicans crafted this false notion, and it is premised on racist attitudes and misperceptions.

Also, let me take this opportunity to state that it’s an absurd contradiction to expect that…
1) A woman should never have an abortion, no matter what, and
2) The government should in no way help women with children that they can’t afford

Hope my cheque arrives,got me some drinkin to do! Hic

“Overall, from birth through high school, taxpayers will spend a projected $171,926 per child, for a total of $1,375,408

that’s what we’re on the hook for. Of course that doesn’t take into account that some of these preemies weigh less than 2 pounds and is not taking into consideration the extra medical expenses that taxpayers will have to pay for. We don’t know yet, what future problems these children may have. i.e., cerebral palsy, etc.

To further support @tonedef‘s comment about welfare, there is no difference between the number of children people have while on welfare or not. No statistical difference—it’s two plus a fraction. So, a woman with fourteen children is very rare and is balanced by the many with only one child, struggling to make it. And how long is the average stay on welfare? One third have this need for less than a year. One third up to two years. The last third are frequently people with severe long term problems, and for that group we need to come up with a better long term solution.

@oasis I get the feeling, by your latest comments, that the “drinkin” has already begun.

@tonedef and @skfinkel I don’t disagree with any of your points, but don’t you think that by choosing this path, this woman created “severe long term problems” for herself that may result in “long term” reliance on welfare.

(at this point, I’m discussing this hypothetically as it seems, in reality, her and her family have the money to support themselves)

if she has the money to support herself, then she should pay back the welfare she’s been collecting.

Unfortunately i have been placed in a position of being unable to answer as i would like,so for me, being me, is no longer an option and for the record i guess my views were wrong all along.
If you have a different view to the norm you are ostracized.
This could be the first brain conditioning web site,where without knowing it you are all conditioned into happy clappers who all agree and smile at the daisies that blow on yonder hill.

How come her parents aren’t taking care of the expenses? Why should taxpayers have to pay for the insane whim of this woman to have more children? Six were already too many, given the extreme over-population of humans on this planet.

Fertility treatments are basically a get-rich-quick scheme for clinics and some irresponsible doctors. They should never be paid for by the government. It is as sick as government programs that pay for men to have viagra.

The media are craven cowards not to criticize this selfish woman and her family. Why should we have to pay for all this enormous expense?

It is all insanity and waste and anti-nature. Not to mention cruel to the children.

I totally agree,blimey it’s fudamentally an affront to society itself.

Hey @oasis! You dropped this: ~

sadly, we waited to have a second child to be sure we absolutely could afford it.

In some ways, I guess I am jealous that she has 14 children and taxpayers are expected to take care of them for the next 18 years.

Responsibility is difficult, and situations such as Octopussy is in, shouldn’t be rewarded. For that is what is happening. She is being rewarded with gifts, $$ and a claim to fame for being irresponsible.

Consider that in the past 7 years, she has been constantly pregnant and encouraged by her father to be so. That puts her on par with being a brood mare. I don’t know how the prior children were conceived, but if they were also done through the fertility process, then something stinks to high heaven.

@cprevite,i do not understand although i must say i agree.

@dynamicduo: I understand frustration with a system you don’t agree with. However, as someone who receives government benefits, and knows many others who do as well I think you have a very flawed understanding of the people receiving help. We have an apartment through HUD, my mother was diagnosed with cancer and it has spread since last August, without government assistance and other charities we quite literally would not have food to eat. We get some groceries (enough for about two or three days) delivered every Thursday and our landlord felt so bad for us she just bought us some more this week and paid for my mothers car repairs. My mother has not been physically able to work in two years, I was just fired and started school and through incredible amounts of stress have developed severe anemia. I am generally considered ‘able-bodied’ but work just isn’t out there for a student who needs flexible hours. I’m behind on every payment, and in two months have almost doubled my debt in late fees, I can’t pay for my iron supplements and I’m overdrawn almost $500 in my checking account. Oh, and we got evicted in December from our townhouse and now live in a tiny apartment.

I’m not saying this for pity or anything, merely to explain where I come from in this debate.

I’ve personally met tons of people on welfare, disabilities and unemployment. Not one of them matches your description in any way. Every single one of them has lost their home, possessions, jobs, etc.

You said:
“Some, but not all, of people on welfare are able-bodied people who choose to not find a job. Why, then, should I, a person who has worked hard and found a job, be forced to subsidize the lifestyle of a person who chooses not to?”

I feel like that’s the most telling argument you made. A lot of people erroneously use that argument not to donate to private charities. I know you said ‘some’ but not everyone makes that distinction. We all know people in large groups tend to be dumb. And in times when the economy is troubled private organizations suffer – greatly. Donations drop sharply, and there is less to go around and more who need it desperately. Without a stable form of help more people would suffer. Food banks in my metro area barely have any food, The Washington Post was doing a ton of articles on it the last few months. People are not contributing to social causes.

Where does that leave my family?

And as for libertarianism, I lived with a woman who worked for bureaucrash, I learned more about it than I ever wanted to know. In my opinion it’s a ‘rich’ man’s ideology. One that kicks anyone who dares have an unlucky streak out into the cold.

I am writing this and I’m about to pass out, please forgive any rambling. If I came off as hostile…not sure if I have, I apologize in advance it wan’t my intention but I’m too tired to reread this. :)

I am a single mother of two. If my situation got so bad that I needed welfare, then I damn well wouldn’t be selfish enough to bring another child into the world at that point in time. She didn’t even accidently get pregnant, but she went out of her way to make sure she got pregnant! She cant even properly take care of the kids she has! It makes me sick. I believe welfare is a good thing for people who truely need it, and I have no problem contributing to people who deserve it. I do however have a problem with people who knowingly take advantage of the program. There are way too many people getting handouts who don’t deserve it. They are taking away from people who honestly need help to survive. I believe while people are on welfare that they have to go to school to learn a trade (unless they are too sick to attend). What’s the saying? A helping hand up, not a handout.

There are unproven statements galore in this thread.

Is she on welfare? I have not heard nor read anything proving that.

Her husband? unmentioned, is she even married?

Her mother declared bankruptcy according to the news, not her.

Her father is going to Iraq, not her husband. According to the news

Let’s research our statements or make the question/answer hypothetical.

When the all knowing government quits basing welfare payments on how many children you have, maybe that will make a difference.

News article

This is a good read, still no verification about welfare, but reading the article, I’m leaning way heavily that way. If so, you knew the system was broken, but this is wrecked.

Why do we as taxpayers promote less desirable (productivity wise) individuals to procreate. We have no need for millions of laborers (if they were even willing to work), we have need for intelligent, productive types that will not further drain the system.

I can already hear the outrage….. but, how long can the productive Americans continue to give lazy non productive type individuals a free ride? I’m tired of it. Neuter them or cut em off.

here we go

@pekenoe: It didn’t work so well before and those kind of statements are just offensive.

Get off your perfect high horse, are you a rocket scientist? No? Well then screw you, I don’t want you breeding.

In fact, your bio seems to make you a perfect candidate to have your genitalia altered:
“uneducated, lazy bumpkin from the sticks that has no real world experience, hence has a lot of questions for educated insensitive ambitious real world dwellers.”

As for this:
“Why do we as taxpayers promote less desirable (productivity wise) individuals to procreate?”
You know, I don’t know. But I’ll be sure to pass on the message at he next rally, Fuhrer.

@asmonet: so, your solution would be ?????????? Other than denuttin me…

Oh, That’s right… you have no answers, do you?

C’mon, let’s hear em. All talk and no solutions, indignant protestation without answers.

What does your tirade above have to do with welfare mothers having more babies for more money? Nothing

And…. at least my bio is honest, I worked my ass off my whole life doing whatever it took to survive. You’re having a hard luck streak, I get that.

My solution is to allow freedom for all individuals regardless of what others might think.
Help for those who need it.

A few bad apples in a whole system of people who honestly need help is no reason to throw out the system. I like it fine just the way it is. I didn’t say I wanted to ‘denut’ you, I was making a point that you don’t exactly fall under the ‘desirable’ heading and that as soon as a system of sterilization goes into place, people abuse it with their own rationale. You seem to be ignoring my point.

The woman is obviously nuts, but like all systems of accountability, it sometimes helps/protects those who abuse the system. Let’s try to think about those folks who really need and are receiving welfare who do not abuse it before we start thinking it’s a horrible system to fund. All things can be improved upon.

People make mistakes, people are crazy, people deserve our compassion.

@asmonet

Lest you forget, you are the one who made this personal…..

Name calling is immature, childish behavior utilized by attention seeking individuals who have no real answers to anything.

freedom to do what you want to is fine, freedom to do what you want to do when you don’t want to pay for it and expect me to, NO. You want me to pay, live by my rules.

People that actual need help, I have no problem with. People that abuse the system I have no use for.

How many people that need help need it because of their ignorance? Could you or your mother have done something to better prepare yourself for a “rainy” day but didn’t because “that don’t happen to me” I’ll help for a while, but in return for the help I expect you to pick yourself up,dust off, and do whatever it takes to get off public assistance and stop being a burden on society.

Do you volunteer anywhere seeings as how you do not work? Volunteers can set their hours and give back to the society that is helping them, maybe even learn something while you’re there.

Maybe volunteer instead of sitting on your butt in front of the computer following fluther all day?

Haha, thanks for the laugh. :)

I know there are many people on the “dole” right now because of these economic times, but that’s not the point here. IF she knowingly had 8 more children, then no, she should no longer receive benefits. Rewarding her for stupidity is the reason our country is in the shape it’s in. Great, she didn’t abort them because (to me) that’d be wrong. However, she should have never been implanted to begin with. I stopped at 2 children because the world is insane and we simply don’t have the money to care for anymore. That is called responsibility and it’s a new term for a lot of welfare recipients. As for most of the welfare recipients being on it short term, not the ones I know. I am on the board of a local food pantry. Many people need the food, others people are on their CELL PHONES while waiting in line. There are those who need and those who take advantage of the system.

Not only no, but hell no.
I do not think the tax payer should have to pay for this woman’s own greed of wanting more babies.
If you live in CA, don’t be surprised if your health insurance goes up next year. The cost of the everything being covered by Kaiser will affect their budgets and abilities to cover certain services, which will lead to higher co-pays and premiums on your health insurance, as well as the possibility of certain services not being covered.

That’s ridiculous.