Skip to comments.
Another Octuplet Mom in LA?
MyFox National ^
| , 14 Feb 2009
| MIKE BRODY
Posted on 02/15/2009 5:04:01 AM PST by kellynla
Edited on 02/15/2009 5:31:31 AM PST by Admin Moderator.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
Dr. Michael Kamrava needs to be shut down!
1
posted on
02/15/2009 5:04:01 AM PST
by
kellynla
To: kellynla
I think Kamrava needs to be charged child support.
2
posted on
02/15/2009 5:11:54 AM PST
by
Belasarius
(Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward. Job 5:2-7)
To: kellynla
Thrice is not coincidence.
These women are being bred. Jihad, anyone?
3
posted on
02/15/2009 5:12:53 AM PST
by
Diogenesis
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: kellynla
The paper adds that the woman has no insurance...So who payed for the embryo transfer?
4
posted on
02/15/2009 5:13:23 AM PST
by
mewzilla
(In politics the middle way is none at all. John Adams)
To: kellynla
Disgusting. Even more proof that people on welfare are obviously incapable of controlling themselves and need to be sterilized!
5
posted on
02/15/2009 5:15:33 AM PST
by
pnh102
(Save America - Ban Ethanol Now!)
To: mewzilla
So who payed for the embryo transfer?You, me and everyone else in the USA who pays taxes.
6
posted on
02/15/2009 5:16:11 AM PST
by
pnh102
(Save America - Ban Ethanol Now!)
To: kellynla
This guy’s license should be lifted.
To: pnh102; Mrs. Don-o
They’re already sterile - that’s why they’re having IVF procedures. An interesting outcome, now that I think about it, for those who suggest that sterilizing poor people will save the taxpayers money. IVF and the resulting premature, large-multiple births are much more expensive than births that result from natural processes.
8
posted on
02/15/2009 5:34:17 AM PST
by
Tax-chick
("Global leadership means never having to say you're sorry." ~IBD)
To: Diogenesis
I bet this is the same story we saw posted a few times over the past few days. The late forties woman with 4, that is hospitalized on public funds because she has no insurance.
9
posted on
02/15/2009 5:36:00 AM PST
by
devane617
(Republicans first strategy should be taking over the MSM. Without it we are doomed.)
To: pnh102
You, me and everyone else in the USA who pays taxes. >I> So, at least it's not everybody; just the taxpayers. That's a relief. Although, I suppose you could say that other government dependents recieved less. We'll just need to print more money.
10
posted on
02/15/2009 5:42:22 AM PST
by
Bernard
(If you always tell the truth, you never have to remember exactly what you said.)
To: kellynla
This amazing phenomenon is giving new meaning to the James Bondian term “Octopussy”!
11
posted on
02/15/2009 6:02:06 AM PST
by
2harddrive
(...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
To: kellynla
Another Octuplet Mom eh?
"She has fifteen names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names."
We've seen this before. ;)
12
posted on
02/15/2009 6:07:16 AM PST
by
mkjessup
(It's PURE PORK BBQ SUNDAY at your local Mighty Mohammed's Restaurant, See ya there!)
To: Tax-chick; pnh102
Actually, not everybody who gets IVF is sterile, i.e. incapable of becoming pregnant via sexual intercourse. Some of them chose IVF because they want to sort through multiple embryonic children, choosing some and discarding the rest; some choose it because they are lesbians, or female-separatists, or otherwise committed to cutting men out of social relationship with, and moral obligation to, the children they sire.
In every case, I think IVF should be banned. It often exposes both child and mother to enhanced risk; it often deliberately excludes the natural father, thus depriving the child's right to identity and provision based on the paternal relation; and it always, inherently, demeans the child by begetting him/her as an experiment, a product, or a possession.
The additional issue of deliberately bringing children into existence to be dependents on Holy Mother the State is just another facet of an already-pervasive derangement.
13
posted on
02/15/2009 7:50:19 AM PST
by
Mrs. Don-o
("It is our choices, far more than our abilities, that show us what we truly are. " -- J.K.Rowling)
To: mewzilla
So who payed for the embryo transfer? You did!!
14
posted on
02/15/2009 7:57:46 AM PST
by
org.whodat
(Auto unions bad: Machinists union good=Hypocrisy)
To: Mrs. Don-o
I think IVF should be banned.Agreed, you need to dance with what god gave you!!
15
posted on
02/15/2009 7:59:56 AM PST
by
org.whodat
(Auto unions bad: Machinists union good=Hypocrisy)
To: Mrs. Don-o
not everybody who gets IVF is sterile, i.e. incapable of becoming pregnant via sexual intercourseGood point. I was not thinking about those other situations, many of which also produce children who will be supported by the taxpayer rather than by their parent(s).
Regarding the rest of your post, I agre.
16
posted on
02/15/2009 8:06:07 AM PST
by
Tax-chick
("Global leadership means never having to say you're sorry." ~IBD)
To: Tax-chick
No, they are not sterile as a whole. Many women who have IVF have gone on to have natural pregnancies. Sterile means no eggs and no sperm, in which case, pregnancy is impossible without the use of donor eggs or sperm, or embryo adoption.
17
posted on
02/15/2009 8:08:31 AM PST
by
rintense
(Go Israel!)
To: rintense; Mrs. Don-o
Sterile means no eggs and no sperm, By that definition, I was certainly in error. However, by that definition, most "sterilizations" are not, since tubal ligation, among other procedures, does not stop egg production.
On a related point, it's interesting that proposals to "sterilize" the poor are rarely directed at men, only at women. Fiscally impractical, one would think, since one man can father many more offspring than one woman can deliver. The procedure is also much cheaper.
18
posted on
02/15/2009 8:21:22 AM PST
by
Tax-chick
("Global leadership means never having to say you're sorry." ~IBD)
To: kellynla
This is just the start.
We haven't seen anything yet.
Once they realize this is their ticket to $$, Oprah etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
posted on
02/15/2009 8:25:12 AM PST
by
DeaconRed
(B.O. Stinks- His so called change stinks-Porklus will sink US ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !)
To: Tax-chick
Very true about procedures. I know friends who are done having kids and it was their husbands who got fixed, mainly because its an outpatient procedure with little pain and low recovery time.
As for other factors such as blocked tubes, etc., that's referred to as 'unexplained infertility with underlying condition'. Trust me on this. I have endometriosis and am all to familiar with this term. I am still fertile, but another condition is making the likelihood of a natural pregnancy very difficult, if not impossible. Men can also be classified as 'sterile' and yet become fathers through IVF.
I don't think IVF is an evil thing. It helps so many couples become parents. Its the whack jobs like this doctor and Octopussy mom that ruin it those who are sincere and want to have a family.
I have a friend who had to use IVF due to male factor infertility (basically no sperm). She had two girls via IVF and had a very unexpected natural pregnancy. They were so thrilled, especially when doctors told them it would never happen.
20
posted on
02/15/2009 8:32:05 AM PST
by
rintense
(Go Israel!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson