In today’s economy, giving birth to eight babies at one time is ludicrous.  The mother, apparently, saw an opening to further advance her financial prospects – either that or she has some fairly substantial mental issues.  Nadya Suleman already has six children ranging in age from two years to seven years of age.

In the past, many corporations heaped on the goodies in response to multiple births, savoring the knowledge that they would have their name recognition touted far and wide for being such wonderful benefactors.  But this birth has the big companies shying away from showering the new mom and her eight babies with gifts.

Many multiple births are the result of fertility treatments,  but even the fertility docs are appalled at the situation and have come out strongly against the propriety of implanting eight embryos into a uterus which has already been home to six other little ones.

The mother already has a spokesman who says that Suleman has received offers for TV and other media deals but that it is too early to discuss how much money she might receive; however, the figure of $2 million has been bandied about by the mother.  Let’s hope that she manages the fame and money better than she managed her uterus.  The infants deserve care and love; they will also need an awful lot of material items as they grow into adulthood.

Home of Suleman, her parents, and her six other children

Photo credit:  Associated Press (The Juggle)


About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Iceironman says:

    So are we to take away her choice? What she and her doctors do is a womans choice. If we think it is negative for her to have 14 children, Is it then commendable for a woman to have 14 abortions?
    I dont agree with a single mother having children, but that would make me an evil hatemonger.

    Dont worry, after Pelosi spoke of birth control as an economic stimulus, Im sure we will be like China soon on this issue.

  2. Norma says:

    I suspect the doctor is the sperm donor, however, in the time it takes the media to cover this story, probably hundreds of anchor babies were dropped in the same neighborhood and they too will require a lot of social and medical services.

  3. Andy says:

    Charlotte –

    Dumb, irresponsible, insane, you name it. I have encountered very, very few people who are in agreement with this woman having so many children. One can talk about freedom all he or she wants, but the economic and environmental impact this many children will have on society, our country and our planet is overwhelming. In a day an age when our planet is facing an exploding human population and continuous reduction of the limited natural resources we have, to have so many children defies logic.

    In Steven Hawking’s book, “The Universe in a Nutshell”, Mr. Hawking states:

    “In the last 200 years the population of our planet has grown exponentially, at a rate of 1.9% per year. If it continued at this rate, with the population doubling every 40 years, by 2600 we would all be standing literally shoulder to shoulder.”

    He goes on to state our ever increasing need to consume more and more natural resources just to sustain our human population, will require several Earth sized planets besides our own.

    In regards to overpopulation, I found some pretty powerful and pertinent quotes:

    Dalai Lama:

    “One of the great challenges today is the population explosion. Unless we area able to tackle this issue effectively we will be confronted with the problem of the natural resources being inadequate for all the human beings on this earth.”

    B.F. Skinner:

    “If the world is to save any part of its resources for the future, it must reduce not only consumption but the number of consumers.”

    Kenneth Boulding:

    “Anyone who believes you can have infinite exponential growth on a finite planet is either a madman or an economist.”

    And even a quote by Richard Nixon:

    “One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today. If we now begin our work in an appropriate manner, and if we continue to devote a considerable amount of attention and energy to this problem, then mankind will be able to surmount this challenge as it has surmounted so many during the long march of civilization.”

  4. Iceironman says:

    So Andy
    How many children can I have? Im just saying, since you are so darn smart in your quotes. I hope you have no children or grand children——as that would make you a hipacrite and environmentaly challenging the earth. Your environmental impact is killing the earth also. Your economic impact is taking away from me. Wow– how far down your nose can you see. Could you and everyone please re-read your last post. Children are now an econmic and enviromental threat. Seriously, please respond on how many children I can have before I infringe on the economy or environment. Thanks, all knowing ANDY. I dont know if you will read this as you appearently live in Communist China.

  5. Iceironman says:

    What if it was a MAN and a woman—then ok with Andy? Andy please dont open up reproductive rights, we dont need another Hitler.

  6. Iceironman says:

    PS. Andy if you take the numbers out based on your Hawkings book, we will not be standing shoulder to shoulder “literaly”. Based on our pop being at 5 billion now. But dont let facts stand in your way. Just like Pelosi said “we will be losing 500 million jobs a month” Yeah, one major problem, the US only has about 300 million people. But again, dont let facts get in the way of a good story. Of course, if DDT was allowed in Africa, the population probably would have been at Hawkings levels, sorry, again, dont let facts get in the way. Silent Springs anyone? You should definatley support abortion and ddt banning. Pretty scary out here.

  7. Iceironman:

    The world population is now at over 6.6 billion – not 5 billion. We have a finite planet, and we cannot go on as if the earth is without its limit of resources. That doesn’t mean one has to become a China, but it does mean at some point in the future, parents may very well have to consider the impact of family size on the environment. This doesn’t mean children are a threat to the environment – it simply means we adjust to a new way of viewing families and consumption.

    The reason for large families in many countries – and even in the U.S. for decades – was to have children to help work in the fields and in the factories and to take care of their elders as the elders grew older and were unable to care for themselves. There was also a level of support and assistance when large families lived in the same households or within close proximity to each other.

    That is no longer the reality of today’s mobile society. Families are spread all over the country – parents move – children relocate, etc. The rationale for large families no longer exists. In addition, child labor laws protect children from being exploited in factories and other businesses – excluding farm work, of course.

    And, as to the Hitler reference, the United States practiced eugenics until the mid-1970s. Indiana was one of the leading states in legalizing sterilization of mentally retarded individuals. http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=1829

    This infamous practice was upheld by our own United States Supreme Court in the 1927 case of Buck v. Bell. Justice Holmes made his famous statement that “three generations of imbeciles are enough” and approved the sterilization of Carrie Buck against her will.

    In 1942 The United States Supreme Court overruled that line of reasoning in the Skinner v. Oklahoma case where Oklahoma had a policy of sterilizing criminals who had been convicted three times of crimes of “moral turpitude.” One of the primary reasons behind its change in course was the fact that Hitler was doing the very same thing in Europe – getting rid of Jews, Gypsies, and the physically and mentally unfit, and the “dregs” of society. God forbid, we would look like Nazi Germany even though the magnitude of Germany’s actions dwarfed the eugenics movement in the United States.

    Indiana’s last gasp on the issue of forced sterilization occurred in the early -1970s – yes that late. DeKalb County Judge Harold Stump in a 1971 ex parte hearing approved the sterilization of a 15-year-old teenager based on nothing more than her mother’s allegations that the daughter was mildly, mentally retarded and that she was promiscuous.

  8. Iceironman:

    To your other point – I wanted to separate the privacy issue from the population issue.

    The right to privacy includes the right to procreate or not to procreate and to marry the person of your choice with the current exception of same-sex marriage.

    I don’t have an issue with medically-assisted pregnancies. But human beings are not dogs, cats, pigs, etc. Those animals have numerous offspring at one time. The female human body is meant to carry one child at a time. In some cases two and in even fewer instances three, four, and five.

    To argue that the mother has a right to carry eight babies at one time thus jeopardizing the lives of all eight babies as well as herself (was she thinking of her other six children from 2 – 7 years old) is ludicrous. These are assisted pregnancies and the doctor needs to be the one to control the issue.

    When you compare it to abortion, the argument fails unless you are willing to acknowledge the need for restrictions in assisted pregnancies. The right of privacy gives the woman the right to choose based on consultation with her doctor. But look at all the restrictions that have been put on the right to choose an abortion. If abortions are subject to restriction even though the right to privacy allows that choice, then what is the issue with restricting the right to privacy as to the number of implanted embryos?

    Both areas are and should be subject to restrictions. Why would it be plausible to restrict access to abortions and not plausible to restrict the implantation of embryos? Both go to the health and safety of the mother and the fetus.

    I will say it again, human beings are not dogs and cats. The “choice” without restriction – or without following protocol – to have eight embryos implanted was irresponsible and dangerous.

  9. Andy:

    Good points, and I like your quotes. As I replied to Iceironman, we don’t need to be a China where the government regulates the number of children. Here is an interesting website showing fertility rates around the world:


    According to this site, the U.S. is holding stable, but what we tend to label as the third- and fourth-world countries are still subject to rapidly growing populations. These are the poorest countries in the world where the reasons for large families are still very much ingrained based on old, societal norms and traditions.

    Many of the “industrialized” nations of the world have already, apparently, recognized the necessity of controlling their own populations. These are also the countries where consumerism is highest. Perhaps these countries have now recognized that increased consumerism and consumption can only be feasible with a self-controlled population effort.

  10. Andy says:

    Iceironman –

    By the looks of your emails, it appears I hit a nerve. Keep in mind, this is not just my opinion on overpopulation, there are plenty of folks who are a lot smarter than me sounding this same alarm. Please note, I’m not against the right to have children, I just think we need to be mindful and conscious of how many human beings already currently occupy this planet. And as you’ve probably guessed, I’m not a big fan of the Jim Bob Duggar family’s quest to continue to add more children to their already 18 strong clan.

    If I put myself in your shoes, I do see somewhat where you are coming from. Overpopulation is an emotional and ambiguous problem to tackle. Even though myself and a good number of people feel having 14 children is unacceptable considering our planet and natural resources are limited and finite, the issue of personal freedom will indeed by brought up – and should be. I am not in favor of an Orwellian state, but I do acknowledge if left unchecked, human beings all too often are their own worst enemies. But, being able to acknowledge the threat of overpopulation by looking at the facts and using some common sense is not something we should be afraid of.

    With the advancements made in agriculture, medicine and technology in general, our planet is able to sustain more humans than previously thought. Who knows what the future holds.

    Or for another scenario, and I hope this is not the case, maybe some kind of man-made or natural disaster will occur (avian bird flu pandemic) and reduce human population significantly. If this happens, the majority of humans would probably be in favor of repopulating the planet as quickly as possible.

    I do feel having serious talks about human beings’ impact on our environment, on the planet, needs to continue to happen. Based on the current data, research, population trends and predictions, overpopulation by humans is a real and grave concern for not only our own species, but for the majority of all plant and animal species on Earth as well.

  11. Iceironman says:

    Its weird to see liberals concerned about the well being of the babies. And talking about how the female body does in its “natural” state. The female body is meant to give birth not have a baby ripped out. You have to admit this is turning the tables and can be an iteresting conversation.

    As for overpopulation. Let the people who need to worry about it worry about it. Right now we have no trouble and Im more worried about public schools, my missing social security, and my family.

    If we would quit telling people not to smoke and what and when they can eat, maybe we would have less of a population.

    Seriously, Rachel Carlson has really helped your efforts to curb the population, she should get a nobel prize for the millions of deaths she has caused.

  12. Iceironman:

    Nature also plays a hand in abortions. Women miscarry frequently – these miscarriages are termed abortions by the medical profession. Which brings us back to the privacy issue. If women’s bodies are not in the natural state subject to the “embryo” being ripped out, then likewise, in the natural state, they are not subject to artificial implantation of embryos.

    The right of privacy allows both of these actions to occur. Both are subject to regulations and restrictions. No right in our Constitution is absolute.

Comments are closed.