wonder if the same doctor that removed all the excess skin from the "John and Kate + 8" mom up front that she refered to as her second behind will offer to do the same here free of charge?

It's been my contention from the beginning of this story that she had the babies for spare parts. She currently has an inventory of 14 hearts, 14 livers, 28 corneas, 14 pancreases, 28 kidneys, etc. She will do pretty well on the black market for transplant organs, and she doesn't have to sell them off all at once...

I agree with this. Paying for this decision is not at all the same as forcing her not to have children.

One partial solution to preventing this from happening again is taking whatever course of action we can against this moronic doctor who performed the IV.

I am rarely against new laws, but changes in science and life in general sometimes warrants this, and some new laws (if none currently exist) regarding IV in situations such as this may be needed.

Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive here but I never said anything about forcing anyone to do (or not do)anything. I said let them pick up the tab instead of taxpapers.

My husband has always told our kids that 'you buy your ticket, you take your ride' meaning take responsibility for your actions. That's all I'm advocating here. Our current societal attitude of 'I have the right to do what I want' coupled with seemingly bottomless handouts will never lead to my husband's attitude becoming prevelant outside of our household tho, will it.

nope, Truff, it won't

Not to be particular, but that wasn't what you said when I originally questioned your post. Like I said, I agree that the welfare state leads to this kind of thing (however, you shouldn't selectively remove benefits from high-profile stupidity; we should change the law for everyone). But you originally disagreed with a poster who said we couldn't force women to have children and we couldn't prevent it. That's what prompted my question. FWIW.

I disagreed with this statement. Big Sis used the word 'force' not I. So technically, I guess you could stretch it that I allued to the fact that we could 'force' someone to do something. However, that was not my intent.

As I've stated often enough, I'm outraged at her selfish desire for a big family that she cannot support financially or emotionally. But I'm outraged at a lot of things in the world lately, from people walking away from their mortgages to cram downs to a stimulus bill that's going to saddle generations to come paying for aged pork that's being tagged on for the ride.

So I'll take my soapbox and retire from this discussion before my blood pressure goes through the roof.

Well it looks as if this mom is lookin to buy a 1.2 million dollar home after her mothers home is going into forclosure. I am sure she sold the rights to someone

Yeah, a 1.2 million dollar house with 4 bedrooms and an inground swimming pool with no fence.

Show me the money Dr Phil..............

When asked what she was going to do because her moms' house was behind 10 payments, she replied....I guess look for a new house. The reporter said she was not at all worried about her moms' house and or worried about it being foreclosed on.

14 kids + 1 adult in 4 bedrooms - that should be interesting.

I don't think she deserves assistance, I think those kids should be adopted.

I totally agree, TR. This is a totally despicable situation. The children will suffer because no matter how much love a mother says she has it simply will not be enough to spread around to 14 children. Especially when some of those children have special needs.

I, for one, have refused to follow this story in the press and have not watched any of the shows that she has appeared on. If the rest of the public would just become enraged by the situation and ignore her instead of making her a celebrity we wouldn't have to be faced with the additional publicity she is sure to garner. But unfortunately we have too many people who love shows like Jerry Springer and rags like the Star so she will continue to be in the public eye. That's just sad...

Actually Pooh, it can be done. My grandparents raised 14 kids in their three bedroom house (6 boys and 8 girls) with one bathroom. No heat in the upstair bedrooms (where the kids were). All my Aunts and Uncles are succesful, loving people.

My parents live in that house now and I can't imagine how they got all those kids in those rooms. They are not that big (10x20 each).

Now grant it, I am not saying this situation will turn out as good, I am just saying it is possible. And I hope for their sake it does.

Of course that can be done DD. It's all in if one wants it to work.

I know it can be done DD - my MIL was one of 12 in a tiny farm house. It only had three small bedrooms, no heat but a plate store and fireplaces; and no bathroom.

The difference is that was 80 years ago. Today in California - I see them as being very cramped, limited and not living up to today norm's. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I don't think they will have the same standard of living as their neighbors.

Listen it's the ladys' attitude toward all of this. She's too busy picking up money right and left with interviews and doesn't give a rats butt what is going on with the home she lives in. Doesn't she have a web site that asks for donations?

She goes and gives an interview at a 1.2 million dollar home supposedly with Dr Phil- the real estate agency says she's interested in the home- with what? Her good looks?

She's news now with the birth of those 8 babies and the six kids she has at home- so come clean and don't be pretending no deals are being made while she's out selling her babies.
Whatever!

Another difference between this case and most other big families, especially in the past - even if there are 14 of them, they are not all under the age of seven. They probably had as much as 20 years age difference, so some of them were becoming self-sufficient even as others were born.

This is true, California 2009 is different then Ohio 1942. And yes there was 20 years difference from oldest to youngest.

Exactly, eight babies all crying, wanting to be fed, changed, whatever at the same time. Even with just the three adults in the house that's only six hands to help out unless she is thinking that the six young'uns can take care of a baby.

The families who have large numbers of children historically have them of different ages as others have mentioned - not all 14 babies and babes at once.

Wow, you are old...

You're right DEL. My husband was the youngest of 7 but there is a 20 year span between him and his oldest brother. The three older boys were gone and in the service before he was old enough to remember them. I can't imagine trying to care for that many at one time and all of the same age. Its great right now because they are in the hospital and she has no responsibility to care for them or feed them. I am sure there are eight families somewhere in that area wanting to adopt a child and give it a good home as opposed to what she appears to be able to offer them.

This woman is totally off her rocker and I get more angry about this story everyday. She can't afford to feed her kids, but she's out buying make-up at the MAC counter. She lives in LaLa Land and isn't qualified to raise 1 child nevermind a baseball team.

Not only does she have 14 kids, 3 of her older kids already have physical or mental health issues and who knows what issues to new babies will have.