No sympathy for Nadya, nada
Mariel wants us to leave Nadya alone. Fair enough. We skeptics are not planning on stalking her or locking her up. But just as she was free to do what she did, we're free to criticize a person with limited resources for hogging healthcare resources that are so precious that our new president considers it his top priority beyond the overall economy and national security.
I have many libertarian traits; my own blend could be described as a desire for a government that permits people to do anything and a culture that encourages people to do the right thing. Medical ethicists and talk-radio callers and all of us are correct to be discerning "what's right" here, even if it doesn't become a federal or state law.
Generally, I believe people should be left to their own devices so long as they don't infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. Well, this woman has crossed the line. It would be especially challenging for most anyone to adequately raise 14 children - Nadya Suleman is unmarried, jobless, nearly uneducated (I guess she went to Cal State Fullerton), and mostly devoid of skills, so she will likely need bailout money from us taxpayers to make do. Consequently, we have a right to protest.
In some respect, the outrage over Nadya Suleman is a product of the times - taxpayers, many of whom are worried about their own futures, are being required (not asked) to support failing banks and other financial institutions that made questionable business decisions. Now we'll have to support Nadya Suleman because she made a questionable personal decision. It's almost obscene to suggest, as one blogger on this site did, that we should refrain from criticizing her when she's probably scheming to collect our money.
True. Her doctors apparently advised her after her injury that she shouldn't ever again take a job that requires prolonged standing, walking, or EVEN sitting. That does not sound like a person who should be having one kid, much less 14....
Nadya Suleman went on workers compensation disability back in 1999 (at age 23) due to a work-related back injury (in which she filed 2 different workers compensation claims, one of which netted her $168,000). For the past 10 years though she’s been receiving disability payments and unable to work, she’s been able to undergo several IVF treatments and have 14 children. Since disability payments generally aren’t counted as income (or taxed), she’s also likely been able to receive welfare for each of her 6 children.
This woman has been living off the system for most of her adult life and will continue to do so at taxpayer’s expense.
Nadya Suleman went on workers compensation disability back in 1999 (at age 23) due to a work-related back injury (in which she filed 2 different workers compensation claims, one of which netted her $168,000). For the past 10 years though she’s been receiving disability payments and unable to work, she’s been able to undergo several IVF treatments and have 14 children. Since disability payments generally aren’t counted as income (or taxed), she’s also likely been able to receive welfare for each of her 6 children.
This woman has been living off the system for most of her adult life and will continue to do so at taxpayer’s expense.
Nadya Suleman went on workers compensation disability back in 1999 (at age 23) due to a work-related back injury (in which she filed 2 different workers compensation claims, one of which netted her $168,000). For the past 10 years though she’s been receiving disability payments and unable to work, she’s been able to undergo several IVF treatments and have 14 children. Since disability payments generally aren’t counted as income (or taxed), she’s also likely been able to receive welfare for each of her 6 children.
This woman has been living off the system for most of her adult life and will continue to do so at taxpayer’s expense.
I was checking out some pics of Nadya Suleman over the weekend - is this chick trying to be some poor woman's Angelina Jolie? The hair, the lips, and of course the kids. Get a search warrant for that three-bedroom dive in Whittier and I bet you'll find Lara Croft DVDs and a crumpled photo of Jon Voight.
To Mariel Garza: I find it almost admirable that you choose to defend Miss Suleman and her choice to conceive and give birth to eight babies. But shame on you for comparing her situation to your great-grandparents and their 22 children. I have a pretty good feeling they were all conceived the natural old-fashioned way with two parents. And did they sell their story in order to support them and create a website for donations and free stuff? You should think first before you speak (or write).
And as for you Miss Suleman: What ever will you do when those eight precious babies that you love so much become children like your first six who didn't stay babies long enough? -- oh, that's right, neglect them as well while you do more scamming and obsessing on how you could have another baby.