Pendragons Princess

I regret to say this state is full of stupid breeders. Read on:

http://news.aol.com/article/baby-in-dryer/362514

Dad Accused of Putting Baby in Dryer

February 27, 2008

MESA, Ariz.  - Police in Mesa say a father is jailed on child abuse charges after he intentionally turned on a clothes dryer while his 1-year-old son played inside.

Police spokesman Sgt. Steve Berry says a family was at home Wednesday evening when the child began playing in the dryer. Family members thought it was cute and the mother went to get a camera.

That’s when police say 19-year-old Jose Rocha turned on the dryer.

The mother told officers she heard the child screaming.

Police called to the resulting domestic dispute found the boy with bumps and bruises and took Rocha into custody.

…………………………………………………………………………..

I can see it all now:

“Put him on spin, Paw!” said Moomy.

“All righty, Maw!” said Duhddy. Duh clicks on “spin” while the rest of the family decides this is funnier than a television show. “Hey look at how the heater is melting off Ricky’s ear! Now it looks like a cauliflower!” The rest of the family peers closer to see as the kid screams bloody murder after having its head shoved into the heater.

“Look at ‘er go, Paw! Hey let me get my camera. I’ve never seen little Ricky with his mouth opened that wide before. That boy has a set of teeth does he!” Moomy is back in a flash taking pictures. The kid screams louder than before, enough to cause a neighbor to call the cops. Of course, the neighbors think the kid is being beated with a two-by-four given the sounds he’s making. Little does the neighbor know what is really going on in the house…the cops come banging on the door. They follow the noise to the back of the house and observe in horror two children-aged parents with their son in the dryer. The police rescue the boy and whisk away Duh in a pair of handcuffs.

“But Officer we were only playing Spin Monopoly with our son,” the moo tearfully explains.

“Save it for the court date, lady,” responds the officer.

Finis.

Stupid people breed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7911684.stm
Teen pregnancy rates go back up

The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe

The number of teenage pregnancies in England and Wales has risen slightly, figures show.
The Office for National Statistics data showed there were 41.9 conceptions per 1,000 15 to 17 year olds in 2007 - up from 40.9 the year before.

It is the first increase since 2002 and means the government will almost certainly miss its target to halve rates by 2010.

The news follows a series of high-profile teenage pregnancy cases.

In total, there were estimated to be just over 42,900 conceptions in under 18s.

The under 16 conception rates also increased from 7.8 per 1,000 to 8.3, meaning there were nearly 8,200 pregnancies.

The levels in Scotland are almost exactly the same as England and Wales, with the drive to reduce them also struggling.

Teenage girls in the North East were the most likely in England to become pregnant, with 52.9 pregnancies per thousand girls aged 15-17.

Hartlepool and Middlesbrough were the towns with the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the North East, with 66.8 per 1,000 and 66.7 per 1,000 respectively.

Of the 2,598 pregnancies in the North East, 42% led to an abortion - almost 10% lower than the national average.

Pregnancy rates were also high in Yorkshire and Humberside, the West Midlands and the North West, with all recording more than 47 pregnancies per 1,000 girls.

Failing a generation

Hilary Pannack, of the sex education charity Straight Talking, said: “We are failing a whole generation of young people.”

“Teenage parents statistically are much more likely to become parents of children who themselves become teenage parents.

“That means generations of child poverty, which we need desperately to tackle.”

Juliet Hillier, of Brook, a sexual health charity for young people, added: “It’s disappointing, but not surprising to see an increase.

“It is essential that funding finds its way to local areas where the need is greatest and this is simply not happening consistently.”

She also said sex education needed to be improved, adding it was too biological.

However, despite the rise last year, the overall rate has still fallen over the past 10 years.

Gill Frances, chairman of the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group, said teenage pregnancy was still a challenging issue.

But she added: “There is good news. We’ve still got an overall fall in teenage pregnancy.”

Beverly Hughes, the children’s minister for England, said the government had made cutting teenage pregnancy rates a priority, and rates had come down over the last decade.

But she accepted that progress had not been as swift as has had been hoped.

Ms Hughes said it was important to give parents help and advice about how to tackle the issue of sex in an open fashion with their children.

She said high quality sex education in schools was also vital, and new guidance to make that compulsory would be issued to schools in the autumn.

“This is not just about the mechanics of sex, it is about relationships, moral values and about making clear what is right and wrong and what you expect from young people, but it is doing that in a way that enables them to take part in the dialogue.”

……………………………………………………………………………….

“Sex education is too biological” - I will take that to mean they are getting hands-on experience in making a baby. It looks like the United Kingdom needs to teach these kids how to use birth control to discourage baby-making if these kids insist on having sex. Having relationships - what a joke. They’re not having any relationships except sexual relationships in order to see if they can make a baby or not.

This is no different from a parent telling a five-year old that if he or she sticks a hand in the oven while it is on, it will get burned. Of course, people must always find things out for themselves. The next thing they will be saying is the following: “I want to have a baby in order to see if I will be a good parent or not.” More than half the time they do not make good parents at all. Then they continue to make babies in order to receive that free welfare check in the mail. These kids really do need to learn how to use some form of birth control since it is obvious that self control does not work at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7884138.stm?lss

Is it selfish to have more than two children?

By Margaret Ryan

BBC News

Is having more than two children selfish? The future of the planet rarely plays a part when planning a family, but that’s got to change, say environmental campaigners.

Parents who have more than two children are “irresponsible” for placing an intolerable burden on resources and increasing damage to eco-systems, says a leading green campaigner.

Curbing population growth through contraception must play a role in fighting global warming, argues Jonathon Porritt.

This week, the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which Mr Porrit is a patron, launched its “Stop at Two” online pledge to encourage couples to limit their family’s size.

Mr Porritt said earlier this month: “I think we will work our way towards a position that says having more than two children is irresponsible.”

He is not advocating a compulsory limit but told the BBC that couples should “connect up their concerns with the natural environment with their decisions as prospective parents”.

“Every additional human being is increasing the burden on this planet which is becoming increasingly intolerable,” says Mr Porritt, who runs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission.

Each extra person in the UK emits around 11 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum, he argues, but he warns population is a subject even some environmentalists think too controversial to discuss.

The total fertility rate - the number of children a woman is expected to have in her lifetime - reached 1.90 in the UK in 2007, meaning 190 children were born for every 100 women, according to the Office for National Statistics. UK fertility rates have not been this high since 1980.

The UK population alone is expected to increase from 61 million to 77 million by 2051 but the OPT believes the UK’s long-term sustainable population level may be lower than 30 million.

“The more couples decide to have just one or two children, or even remain childless, the more they can relieve pressures on rapidly deteriorating ecosystems and alleviate demand for dwindling energy and food resources,” says policy director Rosamund McDougall.

If women in the UK stopped at two children, this would cut the UK’s forecast population by an estimated seven million by 2050, the OPT suggests.
But for mother-of-five Rosie Whitehouse, green issues did not play a part in her and her husband’s decision to have a large family.

“Life isn’t as simple as that,” says Mrs Whitehouse, a former journalist.
“For most women the environment doesn’t figure at all. I was making programmes about global warming when I became pregnant with my first son, who is now 20, and it didn’t enter my head,” she says, although she can understand why Mr Porritt feels justified in raising the issue.

“I didn’t think about money and what it was going to cost either. I just had this romantic idea,” she says.

Mrs Whitehouse, 47, who works full-time and lives in London, queries whether larger families necessarily place a greater burden on the environment.

“Money is important so you don’t buy ready-made meals. I cooked up cauldrons of soup.”

‘No more toys’

And just because you have five children “it does not mean you have five times the amount of plastic toys,” she says. “You just have to say ‘no more’.”

She has four children still living at home aged 18, 15 and twins aged 10 and says they are environmentally aware. But she does not believe green issues will be uppermost in her daughters’ minds when they come to think about having a family.

“Pregnancy is introspective. It is a selfish time, especially when you first find out, ” she says.

It’s a sentiment echoed by mother-of-three Siobhan Freegard who says environmental considerations aren’t even on the radar when couples think about how many children they want.

“If you polled mums and asked them for 10 reasons why they would not want more children the list would include money, sleepless nights and the strain on relationships,” says Ms Freegard, of the online parent network Netmums.

The bottom line would certainly seem to focus the minds of many parents, judging by recent research. The average cumulative cost of raising a child from birth to the age of 21 is about £193,000, according to a survey by the insurer Liverpool Victoria.

Ms Freegard says it is “crazy” to think the impact on the environment would even figure in the family planning process.

She has two sons, aged 12 and six, and a nine-year-old daughter. With the birth of her youngest, she felt they were a proper family, although managing three children hasn’t been easy: “It was messy and I lost control of things, but in a good way.”

And as one of five children herself, she extols the virtues of a large family, for example in having siblings to share caring for a parent.

“It’s about having some support and sharing the load. I wanted to recreate that for my own children.”

…………………………………………………………………………………

At this point I love to ask, “Why do you want more than two children”? You’d be amazed at how many people think they are somehow special if they have more than two children (No, bearing a special mark as such does not make one special or superior by any means; it just establishes one’s status as a microbe; as my husband likes to say, “You have a one of a kind last name in five million people. Now that is special.” Thank you my love! :)”)

There is nothing virtuous about having a large family at this point in time. Why teach sharing and caring just to siblings? Can’t extend it to thetrest of the human race? The fundamentalist evangelical Christians err greatly on this side. They think their flesh is more special than the rest of the human race (here we go again with that much forbidden word per the Bible - flesh - hey, we’re talking about people who run through the blankets like animals. When one is doing that, who has time for a spiritual life?)

Humans couldn’t regenerate the environment even if they tried. Try making new soil, for example. Sure, it can be done with chemicals in any science laboratory - chemicals are good for you - as soon as that is done I predict the good people of Boulder, Colorado will be there to protest it since they advocate an all natural way of life (I can’t say I blame them there. It’s worth noting that Boulderites do not breed like rabbits, either, it’s just their neighbors to the south in Colorado Springs who have such a lifestyle.)

At the rate the planet is going, a utopia created by humans is impossible. A dystopia might be possible, though - one where humans eat their own offspring because no more natural resources for growing food is available. There are animals that do eat their own and once the human race becomes lowered to that status, yes, perhaps it is a fitting dystopia altogether.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/opinion/110195.php

Our Opinion: Reproductive health choice in Arizona at risk

February 16, 2009

A woman in remote rural Arizona could have to travel far to fill a doctor’s prescription if state Rep. Nancy Barto has her way.

Under Barto’s HB 2564, Arizona pharmacists could cite a “moral objection” and refuse to fill emergency contraception prescriptions.

They could decline to provide such time-sensitive drugs - required within 72 hours - without any medical or professional justification; the pharmacist could just say “no.”

Such refusals pose serious problems for rural and low-income women, who can’t always get to another pharmacy quickly or easily.

“Certainly, people in rural areas are accustomed to traveling long distances for services,” Barto says cavalierly. “This isn’t going to keep women from receiving these prescriptions.”

But it may - in which case Arizona’s pro-life politicians would be limiting women’s pharmaceutical choices yet encouraging abortion, the next logical choice for many women blocked from procuring emergency contraceptives.

Also troublesome is the erosion of professional standards if pharmacists can pick and choose which prescriptions to fill.

It is the physician, not the pharmacist, who is trained to decide which medications are best for a particular patient in a certain situation.

That’s common sense, and 51 percent of Republicans and Independents polled nationally in October strongly favor legislation to ensure patients get contraception at their pharmacy of choice.

Only four states allow pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription: Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota.

Yet pharmacist refusals have been documented in 22 states, including Arizona, says Gretchen Borchelt, senior counsel for the National Women’s Law Project.

By contrast, 14 states have taken steps - through legislation, Pharmacy Board rules or other means - to ensure women can fill prescriptions at their drugstore of choice.

The bill by Barto, a Phoenix Republican who lists her occupation as homemaker, will find support in the conservative Republican Legislature and from Gov. Jan Brewer.

Yet its pharmacist provision is only one of many troubling features. It also would require adult women seeking abortion to first undergo 24 hours of “reflection,” be informed of alternatives to abortion, be briefed on available pre- and post-natal medical benefits and government assistance, and be told the probable gestational age and physiological features of the fetus.

In other words, patronizing state law would try to dissuade women from their own very personal choice.

This is bad legislation but likely will become law. If it does, only election of pro-choice candidates in 2010 will provide Arizona women with hope.

……………………………………………………………………………………

Yes, you read correct, Arizona State Representative Nancy Barto is a homemaker by profession. That figures. There is something definitely wrong with prohibiting prescription birth control on “moral grounds.” Pharmacists who do that maybe should not be in that profession - perhaps they should have become teachers instead. At any rate, given the latest on fertility clinics and Nadia Suleman, this obscene legislative motion should be thrown at the window. Hopefully Barto will not get her way so that poor women can easily have access to prescriptive contraceptions. In my opinion, she should move to east Africa or India where women live in squalor, and preach her pro-life plans there.

So nice of MSNBC to have this story. Proceed at your own risk:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29163803/

Some women driven to ‘baby addiction’

When moms always want a newborn, even at expense of other children

By Jacqueline Stenson
Friday Feb. 13, 2009

While it was once common for American families to have six, seven or even more children, today the sight of such a large brood makes many people stop and ask a seemingly simple question: Why?

Plenty have been asking that ever since the news broke that California mom Nadya Suleman gave birth to octuplets after already having six other young children. And celebrities such as Angelina Jolie and Mia Farrow who have large families have long been an endless source of public curiosity and speculation.

There’s not always a simple reason why people create uncommonly large families. Some parents cite religious or cultural reasons for having many children. Some say they just love kids and feel they can provide a big family with a stable, loving home. Some want to help a child in need so they add to their biological families through adoption.

But sometimes the desire to keep having children can be rooted in complex psychological issues dating as far back as one’s childhood. In certain cases, experts say, it can become a compulsion, an obsession or even a “baby addiction.”

While the current book of psychiatric diagnoses, the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,” has no entry on baby addiction, mental-health professionals say they see patients, mostly women, who desperately want to keep having newborns, even when they already have several children and aren’t managing their family situation well. That, they say, is a big red flag, no matter what term is used to describe it.

“It can be an addiction,” says Gayle Peterson, a family therapist in the San Francisco area and author of “Making Healthy Families.”

Overwhelmed, but wanting more

Peterson has seen several women in her practice who’ve been overwhelmed with four or five children, including those with special needs. Some of the women were suffering with depression or panic attacks and yet when their youngest child became a toddler, they wanted another baby. These women can be driven to have more children in an effort to make up for some sort of void or loss, usually from their own unhappy childhood, explains Peterson.

“If you’re just having babies to complete something in yourself that never got completed, you really are talking about an addiction,” she says.

Without personally treating Suleman, mental-health experts acknowledge they can’t say for sure what her motivations are but that there are similarities to these other women, as well as additional troubling signs. Suleman, who has a history of depression, told TODAY’s Ann Curry that she wanted a ‘huge family’ because she had a “dysfunctional” childhood as an only child and longed for personal connections.

Suleman, who is single and has no job, has one autistic child and two others who she says have some disability, raising concerns about how she’ll manage emotionally and financially with the additional octuplets who are likely to face some disabilities as well. She has already set up a Web site that accepts donations.

…………………………………………………………………………..

People need a license to sell liquor, drive a car, own a business - it is time we have a license to breed. Psychiatric evaluation should be a prerequisite for that license, too. Continue:

And while some have speculated that Suleman is an attention-seeker who is modeling her looks and her family after Angelina Jolie, she has denied a Jolie fixation or plastic surgery to look like her.

Babies — all new and cherubic and completely enthralled with their mothers — can bring profound joy. But when they enter toddlerhood and start developing independence and a mind of their own, some mothers miss the intenseness of the newborn period and want another baby even though that’s not in the best interests of the family, Peterson says.

……………………………………………………………………….

The phrase, “A woman’s lust for a child” has been around far too long to not mention it here. Read on:

“Therapy helps women come to grips with the fact that this only complicates their lives, does not heal them,” she says.
…………………………………………………………………………..

Proof that some women’s brains are in the lower parts. Continue:

“There are many rewards of having children,” says Dr. Sudeepta Varma, a psychiatrist at New York Medical Center and a spokesperson for the American Psychiatric Association. But “as health professionals, we become concerned with respect to behavior that provides initial pleasure but eventually is spinning out of control.”
………………………………………………………………………….

Hahahaha hey Dr. Varma, don’t you even bother suggesting that if the behavior (sexual intercourse) is pleasurable, that people should at least use some form of contraceptive? No, of course not. Continue:

No ‘ideal’ family size

To protect the health and well-being of mothers and babies, fertility doctors have set guidelines for how many embryos should be implanted during one round of in vitro fertilization — guidelines that were ignored in Suleman’s case.

But while the average American family has about two children, there’s no single “ideal” family size for everyone, says Varma. Each couple should think through how many children they want and can manage, afford and provide for emotionally.
Rob Shearer, a father of 11 children ranging in age from 10 to 28, says he and his wife didn’t plan on having a large family. But he says things were going well, so they kept expanding.

……………………………………………………………………………….

Um, what was going so well? The sex, obviously. Don’t people know any better? Not knowing how to use birth control makes you look ignorant with a capital I. Continue:

“We never sat down and said, ‘Let’s have 11 children!’ We had two and enjoyed them, so we had a third,” says Shearer, of Lebanon, Tenn. “We enjoyed three, so we had a fourth.” Two girls were adopted from China.

He says that, like any parent, he feels inadequate and overwhelmed at times, but adds that it’s all worth it.

…………………………………………………………………………..

Not sexually inadequate, obviously. But whatever. Read on:

Experts are quick to point out that there are plenty of big, happy families that are not the result of baby addiction. They also emphasize that children in small families can suffer emotional scars, too, from absentee or otherwise poor parents.

Kids need more than money

But having large numbers of children certainly can strain a family’s finances and emotional reserves, Varma says, and that can negatively impact the children. “Are neglect, abuse, emotional disturbances in children more likely in a situation like this? It’s definitely possible.”

……………………………………………………………….

And there is the reason childfree people call children, “resource gobblers.” Read on:

Kids in large families — particularly those involving a lot of youngsters close in age — who don’t get enough attention because their mother is depressed or overwhelmed, for instance, may become anxious or depressed themselves, says family psychologist Nadine Kaslow, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Emory University in Atlanta. On the other hand, they may act out to get attention.

“It’s really important when you have children to have resources,” Kaslow says. “Not just financial resources but emotional resources.”

……………………………………………………………….

No sh*t, Sherlock. Of course there’s such a thing as emotional resources. Hey, so one child gets loved but not the 5 plus others. Yes, someone does need psychiatric evaluation - the parents of these kids. Continue:

Peterson says some of the most “damaged” children are those in very poor homes and those in very rich ones. Young children, especially, don’t thrive when they are raised by an army of nannies — even fabulous nannies — at the expense of bonding time with their parents, she says. Nannies come and go, which can be devastating to children who spend the majority of their time with these caregivers.

“You can’t have a baby and be a ‘weekend parent’ and expect that your baby won’t have anxiety as they grow,” Peterson says. “It’s not enough.”

As a guiding rule, families need to create “connection over disconnection,” she says.
For couples who endlessly feel that their family isn’t complete, even when it’s getting awfully crowded at home, Kaslow notes that there are other ways to get a “baby fix” — such as baby-sitting or working in a daycare center or volunteering in a church nursery.

“I do think there are people who always want to have a baby around,” she says. “But it’s one thing to love babies and another to keep having babies.”

…………………………………………………………………………………..

I’ll close with the following:

‘These people should be forced to wear a tattoo across their foreheads saying:’

“Proving to the world that it works: One child at a time.”

People really don’t know what they are doing when they breed - their brain goes dead.

Use birth control if you want to run through the sheets.

The article states he looks like an 8 year old but he appears much younger than that:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_re_us/octuplets

Taxpayers may have to cover octuplet mom’s costs

By Shaya Tayefe Mohajer, Associated Press Writer

February 11, 2009

LOS ANGELES – A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman’s 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California’s taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red.

Even before the 33-year-old single, unemployed mother gave birth to octuplets last month, she had been caring for her six other children with the help of $490 a month in food stamps, plus Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters. The public aid will almost certainly be increased with the new additions to her family.

Also, the hospital where the octuplets are expected to spend seven to 12 weeks has requested reimbursement from Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, for care of the premature babies, according to the Los Angeles Times. The cost has not been disclosed.

Word of the public assistance has stoked the furor over Suleman’s decision to have so many children by having embryos implanted in her womb.

“It appears that, in the case of the Suleman family, raising 14 children takes not simply a village but the combined resources of the county, state and federal governments,” Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten wrote in Wednesday’s paper. He called Suleman’s story “grotesque.”

On the Internet, bloggers rained insults on Suleman, calling her an “idiot,” criticizing her decision to have more children when she couldn’t afford the ones she had and suggesting she be sterilized.

“It’s my opinion that a woman’s right to reproduce should be limited to a number which the parents can pay for,” Charles Murray wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Daily News. “Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?”

She was also berated on talk radio, where listeners accused her of manipulating the system and being an irresponsible mother.

“From the outside you can tell that this woman was playing the system,” host Bryan Suits said on the “Kennedy and Suits” show on KFI-AM. “You’re damn right the state should step in and seize the kids and adopt them out.”

Suleman’s spokesman, Mike Furtney, urged understanding.

“I would just ask people to consider her situation and she has been under a tremendous amount of pressure that no one could be prepared for,” Furtney said.

Furtney said he, Suleman and her family had received death threats and had been getting messages that were “disgusting things that would never be proper to put in any story.”

In her only media interviews, Suleman told NBC’s “Today” she doesn’t consider the public assistance she receives to be welfare and doesn’t intend to remain on it for long.

Also, a Nadya Suleman Family Web Site has been set up to collect donations for the children. It features pictures of the mother and each octuplet and has instructions for making donations by check or credit card.

Suleman, whose six older children range in age from 2 to 7, said three of them receive disability payments. She told NBC one is autistic, another has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, known as ADHD, and a third experienced a mild speech delay with “tiny characteristics of autism.” She refused to say how much they get in payments.

In California, a low-income family can receive Social Security payments of up to $793 a month for each disabled child. Three children would amount to $2,379.

The Suleman octuplets’ medical costs have not been disclosed, but in 2006, the average cost for a premature baby’s hospital stay in California was $164,273, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Eight times that equals $1.3 million.

For a single mother, the cost of raising 14 children through age 17 ranges from $1.3 million to $2.7 million, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is struggling to close a $42 billion budget gap by cutting services, declined through a spokesman to comment on the taxpayer costs associated with the octuplets’ delivery and care.

State Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, an oral surgeon who sits on the Health Committee, said that once a state Medical Board investigation is complete, lawmakers could review issues from government oversight to standards in fertility treatment.

Suleman received disability payments for an on-the-job back injury during a riot at a state mental hospital, collecting more than $165,000 over nearly a decade before the benefits were discontinued last year.

Some of the disability money was spent on in vitro fertilizations, which was used for all 14 of her children, Suleman said. She said she also worked double shifts at the mental hospital and saved up for the treatments. She estimated that all her treatments cost $100,000.

Fourteen states, including California, require insurance companies to offer or provide coverage for infertility treatment, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But California has a law specifically excluding in vitro coverage. It’s not clear what type of coverage Suleman has.

In the NBC interview, Suleman said she will go back to California State University, Fullerton in the fall to complete her master’s degree in counseling, and will use student loans to support her children. She already owes $50,000 in student loans, she told NBC. She said she will rely on the school’s daycare center and volunteers.

………………………………………………………………..

There is just no rhyme or reason for this woman to have made so many babies. None. Nadya Suleman is a self-centered whiny brat who could not suppress her baby rabies on any level. This is disgusting beyond belief. Miss Suleman has lost the respect of a lot of Americans. The only thing taxpayers should be willing to do is pay for her Essure procedures. That will put an end to a lot of nonsense.

***************************************************

http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/

So Nadya plans on raising her kids whithout any help or aid from others eh. What a phony! Nobody needs that many kids. Not to mention the fact those babies are so ugly. Nadya should return them and demand a refund. Sick, sick, sick. She is the poster child for EntitleMoos, she really is. It is not often that I feel ashamed of my own gender but this is one of those times and if I wasn’t married I’d see about getting a gender change operation. What is wrong with this woman? She thinks that just because so many Americans have turned our society into one of baby worship that they will be more than willing to help her out? Not a chance. California taxpayers are already in an uproar over this.

Tim Rutten is correct - the entire story is grotesque from start to finish. Nadya’s burning lust for children has already guaranteed her a place down below, her embarrassment to her parents, she destroyed the lives of her children, her parents, and ultimately, herself. She is to be ostracized from human society and all fourteen children confiscated from her and placed into homes where they will be given the proper resources and love by mature adults. Nadya’s cranking out of fourteen babies in nine years time has nothing to do with “loving children.” Not by a long shot. And she will need to be sterilized, eventually. No woman ever died from not making babies.

Like the saying goes:

“If you cannot feed them, do not breed them.”

This is a non-childfree social issue and one that is not just popular with celebrities but with regular Joes and Janes, depending upon where one lives. I am referring to the lack or personal boundaires that seems to have pervaded our culture. Jessica Simpson is the most recent example:

http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/61983463

Just when we thought we were in the clear, having managed to make it through this week almost entirely Jessica Simpson-free, she had to go have a mini breakdown during her opening set for Rascal Flatts in Grand Rapids, Mich.

According to the Grand Rapids Press, she kicked off the whole mess by lamenting how much she missed Tony Romo right after the opening song. “I’m so excited, I get to see my boyfriend tomorrow,” she informed the crowd. Tony came up again later when she dedicated “You’re My Sunday” to him, telling everyone, “I love him so, so much!”

Then it got bad…

Apparently, Jess lost her place in several songs including “Pray Out Loud,” which the band had to start over after several measures.  And then “Come On Over,” where she mouthed “sorry” to the monitors.

She explained tearfully, “My voice is weak tonight and I feel so vulnerable onstage.” And just before she closed the 38-minute set, she mentioned how sometimes, like this particular disastrous night, she wished she could just walk off the stage. She then thanked her band for not going all Christian Bale on her and appeared to wipe tears away as she exited the stage.

One of the local paper’s writers blames the episode on Tony not showing up, but that seems like a pretty weak explanation. 

The fans who attended the show and cheered her on with words of support have a slightly more astute take on the whole thing. “I felt bad for her tonight,” one told the paper. “Magazines are ripping her, being so harsh, and she’s gorgeous.” Now that we can understand.

………………………………………………………………………

So, what exactly is the point of Jessica telling the audience about her boyfriend and having this meltdown? The majority of Americans do not care about Jessica Simpson’s private life if they even know her name. This is a primary example of having a lack of personal boundaries. Next up is Christian Bale:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap_en_mo/people_christian_bale_1

LOS ANGELES – Christian Bale says he acted like a “punk” and that his profane tongue-lashing on the set of “Terminator Salvation” was inexcusable.

In Friday remarks on a Los Angeles morning radio show, Bale said he never intended to get physical with cinematographer Shane Hurlbut. He also said he was likely channeling too much of his character, John Conner.

Bale also told the “Kevin and Bean” show on KROQ 106.7 that he and Hurlbut reconciled and worked together for another month following the tirade.

The outburst, which occurred last year on the set in New Mexico, was posted this week on the celebrity gossip site TMZ. It has become an Internet sensation, inspiring a music remix, spoofs, and punch lines for the “Kevin and Bean” show.

…………………………………………………………………..

What is the matter with people nowadays? Do they really not have any self control when in public? Celebrities do not have to wear their personal lives on their sleeves. Neither do they have to advertise to the world if they are pregnant or not (again, nobody cares about that, especially the childfree community). Maybe some nosy people are interested but on the whole, the rest of us are more than willing to grant celebrities their own privacy, especially with certain aspects of their lives.
Speaking of nosy people, I should add that I myself have also been the target of highly personal questions, things most normal people do not discuss with others. Of course, I usually ask: “Why do you ask?” and if a response is given along the lines of “I’d just like to know” I follow with a polite “It’s something I do not discuss.” There is an excellent reason for having boundaries: telling people you do not know certain things about yourself can be used against you whether behind your back or in front of your face. Amazingly enough, most people will recognize when they have come up against that invisible line and politely back down. Back in the “good old days” there were three subjects never discussed in public: sex, politics, religion, although of course anyone can have additional subjects that are not open for discussion with strangers. That part boils down to personal choice. Too bad certain celebrities almost always make the bad choices when it comes to things like this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/opinion/05coontz.html?_r=1&em

Till Children Do Us Part

By Stephanie Coontz

Half a century ago, the conventional wisdom was that having a child was the surest way to build a happy marriage. Women’s magazines of that era promised that almost any marital problem could be resolved by embarking on parenthood. Once a child arrives, “we don’t worry about this couple any more,” an editor at Better Homes and Gardens enthused in 1944. “There are three in that family now. … Perhaps there is not much more needed in a recipe for happiness.”

Over the past two decades, however, many researchers have concluded that three’s a crowd when it comes to marital satisfaction. More than 25 separate studies have established that marital quality drops, often quite steeply, after the transition to parenthood. And forget the “empty nest” syndrome: when the children leave home, couples report an increase in marital happiness.

But does the arrival of children doom couples to a less satisfying marriage? Not necessarily. Two researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, Philip and Carolyn Cowan, report in a forthcoming briefing paper for the Council on Contemporary Families that most studies finding a large drop in marital quality after childbirth do not consider the very different routes that couples travel toward parenthood.

Some couples plan the conception and discuss how they want to conduct their relationship after the baby is born. Others disagree about whether or when to conceive, with one partner giving in for the sake of the relationship. And sometimes, both partners are ambivalent.

The Cowans found that the average drop in marital satisfaction was almost entirely accounted for by the couples who slid into being parents, disagreed over it or were ambivalent about it. Couples who planned or equally welcomed the conception were likely to maintain or even increase their marital satisfaction after the child was born.

Marital quality also tends to decline when parents backslide into more traditional gender roles. Once a child arrives, lack of paid parental leave often leads the wife to quit her job and the husband to work more. This produces discontent on both sides. The wife resents her husband’s lack of involvement in child care and housework. The husband resents his wife’s ingratitude for the long hours he works to support the family.

When the Cowans designed programs to help couples resolve these differences, they had fewer conflicts and higher marital quality. And the children did better socially and academically because their parents were happier.

But keeping a marriage vibrant is a never-ending job. Deciding together to have a child and sharing in child-rearing do not immunize a marriage. Indeed, collaborative couples can face other problems. They often embark on such an intense style of parenting that they end up paying less attention to each other.

Parents today spend much more time with their children than they did 40 years ago. The sociologists Suzanne Bianchi, John Robinson and Melissa Milkie report that married mothers in 2000 spent 20 percent more time with their children than in 1965. Married fathers spent more than twice as much time.

A study by John Sandberg and Sandra Hofferth at the University of Michigan showed that by 1997 children in two-parent families were getting six more hours a week with Mom and four more hours with Dad than in 1981. And these increases occurred even as more mothers entered the labor force.

Couples found some of these extra hours by cutting back on time spent in activities where children were not present — when they were alone as a couple, visiting with friends and kin, or involved in clubs. But in the long run, shortchanging such adult-oriented activities for the sake of the children is not good for a marriage. Indeed, the researcher Ellen Galinsky has found that most children don’t want to spend as much time with their parents as parents assume; they just want their parents to be more relaxed when they are together.

Couples need time alone to renew their relationship. They also need to sustain supportive networks of friends and family. Couples who don’t, investing too much in their children and not enough in their marriage, may find that when the demands of child-rearing cease to organize their lives, they cannot recover the relationship that made them want to have children together in the first place.

As the psychologist Joshua Coleman suggests, the airline warning to put on your own oxygen mask before you place one on your child also holds true for marriage.

……………………………………………………………………………………..

The one thing that struck me the most about this opinion piece is the following:

“Some couples plan the conception and discuss how they want to conduct their relationship after the baby is born.”

Once upon a time in America, married couples with children could not, well, to put it delicately, kiss each other in front of the child. In fact, anything remotely resembling touchy-feely had to be confined to the bedroom with the door locked shut so Junior could not enter and watch Mommy and Daddy run through the sheets. Of course, this sort of relationship, if it can be called that, had a much higher potential of crumbling overnight when one had to watch one’s actions at all times when a child was involved in the family. Back then in the good old days, children were clueless about sexual behavior between men and women and for an excellent reason: children did not need to know about such behavior. At any rate, the myth of “a child strengthens a relationship” has been exposed for what it really is: a social sham where nobody benefits from, especially not the parents. And of course, once a parent becomes child-centered, well, forget about the spouse - hey, he/she can get a life of his/her own, right? Wrong. Well, at least we know why the divorce rate is close to 50% in the United States. Every time a couple is served up an order of crotchfruit, the relationship goes downhill since the honeymoon. Or as my dead old dad would say, “Does that mean the honeymoon is over with?” Yep.

The most recent one first:

http://www.newser.com/story/49587/octuplets-grandma-threatens-to-walk-out-on-daughter.html

Octuplets’ Grandma Threatens to Walk Out on Daughter

Posted Feb 1, 09 (Newser) – The overwhelmed grandmother of octuplets born this week has threatened to walk out on her daughter and leave the divorced mom of 14 to fend for herself, reports the New York Daily News.

“I’m going to be gone,” she said she warned her daughter. “It can’t go on any longer. She’s already got six children and no husband.” The mother has lived in the home of her parents, who are also divorced, for the last eight years.

“It’s over now” because her daughter has no more frozen embryos, said the financially strapped grandmother. The octuplets’ grandfather is considering moving back to his native Iraq to earn money. The births have ignited a storm of controversy. The cost of raising octuplets “is huge,” said one expert. “There’s a high likelihood they’re going to have medical and psychological handicaps.” It’s possible the woman traveled abroad for fertility treatment, reports the Guardian.

……………………………………………………………………………………………

Amazine how Nadya thinks Grandma will pick up the tab for all fourteen children now. Oh wait, Daddy took off for Iraq - where he is originally from. Suleman is a Middle Eastern name, after all. Then we have the issue of whether Nadya is Muslim or not. Maybe that’s not so relevant in this case. I’m not into conspiracy theories all that much despite what is presently going on in Europe right now, Muslim immigrants having lots of children. Besides, if Nadya is a Muslim, she would have to be married. Muslims like to make families the old fashioned way. At any rate, I can’t say I blame Grandma for wanting to kick Nadya to the curb for her irresponsible behavior. Next:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5627531.ece

February 1, 2009

Octuplets’ mother wants Oprah to turn her into a $2m TV star

THE single mother of octuplets born in California last week is seeking $2m (£1.37m) from media interviews and commercial sponsorship to help pay the cost of raising the children.

Nadya Suleman, 33, plans a career as a television childcare expert after it emerged last week that she already had six children before giving birth on Monday. She now has 14 below the age of eight.

Although still confined to an LA hospital bed, she intends to talk to two influential television hosts this week — media mogul Oprah Winfrey, and Diane Sawyer, who presents Good Morning America.

Her family has told agents she needs cash from deals such as nappy sponsorship — she will get through 250 a week in the next few months — and the agents will gauge public reaction to her story.

Her earning power, though, could be diminished by a growing ethical and medical controversy. Experts believe that the unnamed fertility specialists who gave her in vitro fertilisation (IVF) should not have implanted so many embryos, and in choosing to carry all eight to term, Suleman ignored guidelines, risking both their health and her own.

US public reaction has been mixed: many have asked how an unemployed single mother can raise 14 children, as her first six have already strained the family budget. Angela and Ed Suleman, Nadya’s parents,bought her a two-bedroom bungalow in the suburb of Whittier in March 2007, but soon after got into debt and had to leave their own home.

They filed for bankruptcy and moved in with their daughter and grandchildren. Last week her father said he would return to his native Iraq to work as a translator and driver.

Angela Suleman, who is caring for the first six children — one of whom is autistic — while her daughter is in hospital, said yesterday that she had consulted a psychologist over Nadya’s “obsession with children”.

Nadya Suleman, who describes herself as a “professional student” living off education grants and parental money, broke up with her boyfriend before the birth of her first child seven years ago.

The identity of the octuplets’ father remains unknown, but local reports suggest they were conceived with frozen sperm donated by a friend she met while working at a fertility clinic. He is the father of her twins, born two years ago.

Michael Tucker of the Georgia Reproductive Clinic, Atlanta, said Suleman’s story stunned him. “We are policed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, which frowns upon implanting more than two or three embryos at a time. It is remarkable that any practitioner would undertake such a practice.”

The babies, born nine weeks prematurely by C-section, were attended to by 46 medical staff, who expected seven babies. When the eighth — a boy — appeared, doctors were “confounded”.

Angela Suleman said her daughter was advised to terminate some of the embryos in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy for the sake of her health, but she refused because she did not know how to make such a life-or-death decision.

“She doesn’t have any more, so it’s over now. It has to be,” said the grandmother.

………………………………………………………………….

Nothing like premeditated multiple births, is there. I guess not. Now that the entire world knows about Nadya Suleman and her plans to be implanted with eight embryos so she could go on Oprah Winfrey, collect two million dollars, get her own show on The Freak Channel, I mean, The Learning Channel, Nadya has to expect to be treated for what she is: a grade A fraud. She is an imposter. What is sickening is the fact that 14 children have to pay for her mental sickness, her selfishness. No, Nadya Suleman deserves no children and she needs to be told that. Actually, I think her mother just did tell her that in the first item in this post.