http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/01/29/state/n182758S26.DTLGrandma: Octuplets mom obsessed with having kids

(01-31) 07:30 PST LOS ANGELES (AP) --

The woman who gave birth to octuplets this week conceived all 14 of her children through in vitro fertilization, is not married and has been obsessed with having children since she was a teenager, her mother said.

Angela Suleman told The Associated Press she was not supportive when her daughter, Nadya Suleman, decided to have more embryos implanted last year.

"It can't go on any longer," she said in a phone interview Friday. "She's got six children and no husband. I was brought up the traditional way. I firmly believe in marriage. But she didn't want to get married."

Nadya Suleman, 33, gave birth Monday in nearby Bellflower. She was expected to remain in the hospital for at least a few more days, and her newborns for at least a month.

A spokeswoman at Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Medical Center said the babies were doing well and seven were breathing unassisted.

While her daughter recovers, Angela Suleman is taking care of the other six children, ages 2 through 7, at the family home in Whittier, about 15 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

She said she warned her daughter that when she gets home from the hospital, "I'm going to be gone."

Angela Suleman said her daughter always had trouble conceiving and underwent in vitro fertilization treatments because her fallopian tubes are "plugged up."

There were frozen embryos left over after her previous pregnancies and her daughter didn't want them destroyed, so she decided to have more children.

Her mother and doctors have said the woman was told she had the option to abort some of the embryos and, later, the fetuses. She refused.

Her mother said she does not believe her daughter will have any more children.

"She doesn't have any more (frozen embryos), so it's over now," she said. "It has to be."

Nadya Suleman wanted to have children since she was a teenager, "but luckily she couldn't," her mother said.

"Instead of becoming a kindergarten teacher or something, she started having them, but not the normal way," he mother said.

Her daughter's obsession with children caused Angela Suleman considerable stress, so she sought help from a psychologist, who told her to order her daughter out of the house.

"Maybe she wouldn't have had so many kids then, but she is a grown woman," Angela Suleman said. "I feel responsible and I didn't want to throw her out."

Yolanda Garcia, 49, of Whittier, said she helped care for Nadya Suleman's autistic son three years ago.

"From what I could tell back then, she was pretty happy with herself, saying she liked having kids and she wanted 12 kids in all," Garcia told the Long Beach Press-Telegram.

"She told me that all of her kids were through in vitro, and I said 'Gosh, how can you afford that and go to school at the same time?"' she added. "And she said it's because she got paid for it."

Garcia said she did not ask for details.

Nadya Suleman holds a 2006 degree in child and adolescent development from California State University, Fullerton, and as late as last spring she was studying for a master's degree in counseling, college spokeswoman Paula Selleck told the Press-Telegram.

Her fertility doctor has not been identified. Her mother told the Los Angeles Times all the children came from the same sperm donor but she declined to identify him.

Birth certificates reviewed by The Associated Press identify a David Solomon as the father for the four oldest children. Certificates for the other children were not immediately available.

The news that the octuplets' mother already had six children sparked an ethical debate. Some medical experts were disturbed to hear that she was offered fertility treatment, and troubled by the possibility that she was implanted with so many embryos.

Others worried that she would be overwhelmed trying to raise so many children and would end up relying on public support.

The eight babies — six boys and two girls — were delivered by Cesarean section weighing between 1 pound, 8 ounces and 3 pounds, 4 ounces. Forty-six physicians and staff assisted in the deliveries.It took 46 physicians and staff just to deliver the babies, who of course were severely underweight, and will require ICU treatment. The taxpayer's tab was probably $1 million on that day alone.

And they will probably have developmental problems and require a lifetime of treatment. Tens, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars down the toilet, all because some crazy woman who lives with her parents insists on breeding irresponsibly.

Oh and coincidentally, I got a notice from my health insurance company today, that rates are going up 40% this year. Probably the tenth double-digit percentage increase I've seen in as many years.

When are we going to wake up and start realizing that unrestricted breeding is NOT a good thing? If you stole $100 million from the state treasury, you'd be in prison. So should this woman be.

This guy (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0901/30/acd.01.html) would be a top choice for my Breeding License Screening Committee:COOPER: The octuplets born Monday in California are tiny. The biggest was just over three pounds at birth, the smallest a pound and a half. But the debate they set off is enormous. We now know the babies were conceived with the help of some type of fertility treatment, and many in the medical community say that suggests the mother's doctors broke with accepted practice.

Let's dig deeper with bioethicist Arthur Caplan, director of the Department of Medical Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

Good to have you on. Thanks for being with us. You say -- you say there are really four major ethical concerns raised with the birth of these octuplets. What are the four?

ARTHUR CAPLAN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ETHICS, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Well, the first one is, how did this mom, who's a single mom living with her parents, has six children in the house -- I think they may be hers; they may be foster kids. We don't know. How did she get to a position where she got the infertility services in the first place? What kind of screening was done? I think most clinics would some minimal psychological screening, a little bit of financial screening, a little bit of social investigation, make sure you got a house, make sure you got money. Fourteen kids all at once back to a two-bedroom bungalow, not a good situation for the kids.

Second big issue: if you look at what's going on with the multiple birth, how did we get to a point where they either put in eight embryos, which to be blunt, Anderson, if you transfer eight embryos in a fertility treatment to anybody, I think it's malpractice. I mean, you're begging for a megamultiple birth. That's trouble.

Or didn't they monitor her to see how many eggs she had, if they gave her drugs, advise her not to have any sexual relations, that it's too risky in terms of making too many babies? What was the informed consent, what was going on here?

Third, cost. These babies are going to cost a bundle of money, they're all in neonatal ICUs, and they're going to cost money. There's never been an eight-baby birth without a lot of disability. Who's going to pay that? You and I are, because it's either going to be in insurance premiums or it's going to be in some sort of government program to cover these costs. I don't think she's going to be doing what is going to amount to tens of millions of dollars of cost.

Last big issue: if you look at what's going on in the whole infertility industry, no regulations, no oversight, no accountability. Each clinic handles things -- it gives a funny meaning to the notion of "cash and carry." If you show up with the money, apparently you can get treatment no matter what your story is.

COOPER: So really, there's not much oversight at all? No oversight, you're saying?

CAPLAN: There's really no oversight at all. Nothing -- nothing at all. There's a little bit of guidelines that have come out from a couple of the associations, but no enforcement, no accountability. No one is saying, "Here's the minimal thing you have to do to get informed consent from a patient. You better warn them in advance they could encounter multiple pregnancies. Maybe they want to think about selectively reducing or aborting some of those in advance. You'd need to have some sort of psychological screening, what should it be? Nothing. They don't have anything in place.

COOPER: You know, when this first -- when this story first broke, we had no details about this. And a lot of people, I think, probably ourselves included, you know, reported this eight births, it's this, you know, amazing story. Do you think the media, though, plays -- has, you know, a part of the blame in this?

CAPLAN: I do. There's a little bit, whenever we see these megamultiple stories -- they're not that common. But when they pop up, it's kind of a "Brady Bunch" moment. Everybody's, you know, "Wow, instant family. This will be great." We get a little bit of this reporting when celebrities are out adopting many, many kids. We even see a little bit on some of the shows that are tracking families that have large numbers of children through multiple births all at once. It all looks good.

You don't see that the people that we're really talking about have a lot of money, a lot of help, probably two or three maids, assistants. They're in there -- they've got a ton of help with these kids.

A single mom trying to deal with eight births all at once, much less six kids already there, it's almost unimaginable the work and the effort that that's going to require, even if she gets the -- her own parents to help out. And I don't think the media gets that story across.

Other problem: we don't really convey the fact that these babies are all at risk of severe disability. That's what multiple birth means. It's not simply, you know, launched all at once; let's see how they all turn out. They're going to encounter some problems.It's a start. If we can only get more people to reject their wrong opinion that breeding is an absolute good, we'll make headway.

How did she get to a position where she got the infertility services in the first place? What kind of screening was done?
That's the question I'd like answered. It's completely reckless to be helping her to get pregnant when she has already proven that she has more kids than she can care for. She lives in a 1500 sq ft home with 6 kids and her mom (who filed for bankruptcy last year).

I think the clinic should be held fiscally accountable for the children in the same way the father would have been if the kids were conceived naturally.

She might have gotten hold of the meds without a doctor. I'm interested to hear.

The Sunday Times: Octuplets’ mother wants Oprah to turn her into a $2m TV star (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5627531.ece)

February 1, 2009
John Harlow, Los Angeles

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.

[More... (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5627531.ece)]

Perhaps she's smarter than I originally believed. That's a nifty scheme, if it works.

Come on, this is America here, we once made a guy a couple millions dollars because of his exuberance shouting the words, YEAH! WHAT!.... OK!

That was in the back of my mind. She's not obsessed over children, she figured her womb was her only path to fame and fortune.

I think Oprah and Diane should slap her, and any else that interviews her.

She might have gotten hold of the meds without a doctor. I'm interested to hear.

Ya, she had a really cold freezer and a turkey baster.

She says that IVF stands for, "In fru vagina."

Octuplets Mom Got $168G In Disability (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/06/earlyshow/health/main4779589.shtml?source=mostpop_story)
Hattie Kauffman: Had Her First Six Kids While Collecting The Payments; Was Also Diagnosed With "Depressive Disorder"

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 6, 2009

(CBS/AP) The mother of newborn octuplets and six other children collected almost $168,000 in state disability payments for an on-the-job back injury that she and a doctor said was worsened by pregnancy, according to state documents released Thursday.

Nadya Suleman, 33, became pregnant with all 14 of her children after a 1999 injury during a riot at a state mental hospital where she worked, state Division of Workers' Compensation documents show.

She stopped working, but had the six older children during that time, notes Early Show correspondent Hattie Kauffman.

"There has to be some question," says CBS News Legal Analyst Trent Copeland, "about whether or not a woman who's disabled and collecting over $150,000 worth of disability payments is really authorized to receive those payments if she's too disabled to work, but not too disabled to have at least a half-dozen children."

[More... (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/06/earlyshow/health/main4779589.shtml?source=mostpop_story)]

I saw that, but wonder what relevance it has to the topic. Except to show how much this woman is costing the taxpayers, and only at 33. Just imagine the bill when/if she's 70.

Or if her 14 children pick up her habits. :(

I saw that, but wonder what relevance it has to the topic.
What topic? Breeding licenses? Good luck. We're a long way from people in this country being willing to turn over control of their reproduction to the government.

On the other hand, situations like Suleman's might provide the impetus for legislators to regulate fertility clinics and create penalties for ones that act recklessly.

It's her own stimulus package. She's going to keep a lot of people employed through government dollars.

Did you hear her Mom? Her Mom is pissed. I guess the Grandmother is doing most of the raising of these kids and she's having another 8 dropped on her.

What topic? Breeding licenses? Good luck. We're a long way from people in this country being willing to turn over control of their reproduction to the government.

They are very willing to turn over the consequences of their reproduction to the government.

If you can't feed them don't breed them.

Has anyone figured out where this SOW got implanted yet.

If you or I, caused to a child the irreparable harm, that she has deliberately caused to most of these children, we would be thrown in jail for the rest of our lives. She gets a paid interview on Oprah.

When you support this type of behavior just because you support abortion, you have no absolution. You are an unethical and evil person at that point.

Wow, some Libertarian you are. Can you elaborate on your vision of how breeding licenses would be enforced?

When you support this type of behavior just because you support abortion, you have no absolution.
Who's supporting it? As I mentioned earlier, I think the fertility clinic should be held legally to be the father of the children. They impregnated her. The fact that they did it with a turkey baster rather than a d1ck is irrelevant.

If you establish legal culpability for the clinics you provide a *very* strong disincentive for them to act recklessly.

This does not pass the hand/nose test.

Your freedom ends right before your fist hits my nose.

In this case her actions cause harm to be, by way of social distribution. And she has violated the basic social contract with you and me.

All those millions of dollars in healthcare will be passed on to all of us.
All of the millions in taxpayer dollars will be passed on to all of us.

If she were to be responsible and pay for all of the healthcare and upkeep on these 14 kids, then you would have a point. She can't. You don't.

If a person can not be a responsible breeder, then he or she should be treated like the mere animal that he or she is. What do we do with dogs who breed without consequence? The children should be taken away, put up for adoption or placed in foster care. And it should be assured that this breeding animal does not breed again.

Who's supporting it? As I mentioned earlier, I think the fertility clinic should be held legally to be the father of the children. They impregnated her. The fact that they did it with a turkey baster rather than a d1ck is irrelevant.That doesn't solve the underlying problem of irresponsible breeding. Breeding which you and I have to pay for.

You are wrong, people are extremely willing to allow the government to control reproduction. We do it all the time.

The real barrier here is a faulty and widespread opinion, that all breeding is necessarily good. I don't know anyone (other than myself) who doesn't automatically respond to the news of a woman being pregnant or having given birth with congratulations.

This faulty opinion not an innate human instinct; it is learned. That means it's possible to unlearn it, too. Once we unlearn it, all the things we need, such as breeding licenses, will come in short order, because it is practical, logical, and beneficial to the society as a whole.

The real barrier here is a faulty and widespread opinion, that all breeding is necessarily good. I don't know anyone (other than myself) who doesn't automatically respond to the news of a woman being pregnant or having given birth with congratulations.
Only because to do otherwise is to risk being ostracized by friends and family.

I'd love to say to the family of five pregnant with their 6th, "Are you out of your minds? Your doing a **** job of raising what you have, why are you having another?" but it doesn't work out well socially. Although I actually don't know of anyone that should have that said to them, fortunately.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/11/national/a152036S19.DTL&tsp=1Taxpayers may have to cover octuplet mom's costs

(02-11) 16:42 PST LOS ANGELES (AP) --

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.

A call to Suleman's publicist Mike Furtney was not immediately returned.

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 said one is autistic, but she has not disclosed the other youngsters' disabilities, and 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. The average cost for just one cesarean birth in 2006 was $22,762 in California. 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.

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. Suleman 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 said she will rely on the school's daycare center and volunteers.It's starting. People are waking up and realizing the truth. When major media outlets start to add up the numbers and people see how much money is coming out of their pocket to support irresponsible breeding, they will see the light.

Only because to do otherwise is to risk being ostracized by friends and family.You'll never make a change with that attitude. I suppose you tell people that you believe in "god", too, because you're afraid to admit you're an atheist.

You'll never make a change with that attitude. I suppose you tell people that you believe in "god", too, because you're afraid to admit you're an atheist.
Nope.

Your freedom ends right before your fist hits my nose.
Given our positions, I should be the one saying that.

In this case her actions cause harm to be, by way of social distribution. And she has violated the basic social contract with you and me.
The only reason they cause harm to you and me is that those who are truly responsible are not being held accountable. Most, if not all, of her children are the result of IVF -- if, as I suggest, the clinics were forced to take responsibility for the kids they helped create, then they'd be paying the costs instead of the taxpayers.

If a person can not be a responsible breeder, then he or she should be treated like the mere animal that he or she is.
I think that should apply to folks who do IVF. Don't you?

That doesn't solve the underlying problem of irresponsible breeding. Breeding which you and I have to pay for.
No, but it provides a realistic way to prevent the costs from being foisted upon taxpayers.

You are wrong, people are extremely willing to allow the government to control reproduction. We do it all the time.
At most, the government influences reproduction. They don't control it in any way that approximates the absolute control they'd have if they were given sole responsibility for determining who can and cannot have a child. I'm all for getting rid of any incentives the government provides to encourage breeding. I wouldn't mind if there were penalties for parents having more than two kids either.

No, but it provides a realistic way to prevent the costs from being foisted upon taxpayers.How? Virtually all irresponsible breeding is done via good old fashioned screwing without the aid of a third party. People who go to fertility clinics tend to be middle aged rich white women dying to fulfill their societal role as breeders at the last moment, and they don't tend to breed a lot or to be irresponsible about it.

The woman in this thread is just a freak case.At most, the government influences reproduction. They don't control it in any way that approximates the absolute control they'd have if they were given sole responsibility for determining who can and cannot have a child.Wrong. It's just so natural for you to allow the government to control breeding that you don't even realize it.

Granted, we control it less now than we did in the past, but we still do it, and will always do it.

How? Virtually all irresponsible breeding is done via good old fashioned screwing without the aid of a third party.
It's a specific solution to a specific problem. More importantly, it's also a solution that would have a lot less resistance than breeding licenses.

Wrong. It's just so natural for you to allow the government to control breeding that you don't even realize it.
Examples?

It's a specific solution to a specific problem. More importantly, it's also a solution that would have a lot less resistance than breeding licenses.It's also one that's useless, and gives the false impression of making progress, while we waste money implementing it.Examples?Are you allowed to breed with a 14-year-old female?

It's also one that's useless, and gives the false impression of making progress, while we waste money implementing it.
It wouldn't cost much to implement. It merely requires expanding the notion of a "father" to include a company. Your solution has no chance of getting implemented -- at least not in the foreseeable future.

How do you envision breeding licenses being doled out and what sort of enforcement would there be?

Are you allowed to breed with a 14-year-old female?
AFAIK, there is no law that prohibits a 14-year-old female from bearing children.

In any case, the law gets strange in a multitude of ways when it comes to minors. I don't accept your notion that, because we allow certain laws for minors, we'd therefore allow them for everyone.

It wouldn't cost much to implement.Yes it would. Legislators will have to set up a committee. The committee will have to hire experts to evaluate the situation. If/when the law gets passed, each party will sue the other party.

Millions of our taxpayer dollars will be wasted for nothing. And the cost to the fertility clinics of the lawyers will be passed on to the customers.

Everyone loses, except lawyers and politicians. And we still have the same irresponsible breeding problem we started out with.How do you envision breeding licenses being doled out and what sort of enforcement would there be?Since you're moving on to the question of how to implement the licenses, I take it you agree with the principle of having licenses in the first place. Good, that's at least half the battle.

Once we agree on the need, we can easily implement the plan, just as we implement any other license. Basically, you show proof that we won't have to pay to raise your kid. This is not too difficult.AFAIK, there is no law that prohibits a 14-year-old female from bearing children.

In any case, the law gets strange in a multitude of ways when it comes to minors. I don't accept your notion that, because we allow certain laws for minors, we'd therefore allow them for everyone.You asked me for an example of how we restrict breeding. I gave you one.

Not letting you have sex with certain groups of fertile females, and putting you in a cage (where you often can't breed at all) if you do, is a breeding restriction. It a restriction on YOU (the male), not the female. If you can't see that, I don't know how to make it plainer to you.

And the people accept this, and other restrictions, without hesitation. People are quite willing to let their government direct the breeding of the people. That is not a barrier at all; the faulty opinion I mentioned is the real barrier.

Millions of our taxpayer dollars will be wasted for nothing.
Wrong. Forcing clinics to take responsibility for their actions would result in fewer overall children, children with a better chance at a productive life, and fewer costs to the taxpayer. It wouldn't take long to recoup the costs associated with implementing it. By your own estimate, Suleman's case alone is going to cost millions.

Since you're moving on to the question of how to implement the licenses, I take it you agree with the principle of having licenses in the first place.
I'm not sure why you'd make that assumption. I think it's pretty reasonable to ask what you mean, specifically, by "breeding license" in a debate about, well, "breeding licenses."

Once we agree on the need, we can easily implement the plan, just as we implement any other license. Basically, you show proof that we won't have to pay to raise your kid. This is not too difficult.
No, it's not difficult at all when you completely omit how you'd enforce the licenses. Why bother getting one? Come on, it's your idea, spell out the specifics.

You asked me for an example of how we restrict breeding. I gave you one.
You gave me an example that involves a special class of our society. I stated that you can't take laws that govern that class and extrapolate them out on society in general. What part of that don't you get?

They seem to do pretty well in China enforcing breeding rules. When you can only have one or two children, they're utterly treasured.

I don't know that it would work here though. We're too used to having unlimited freedom. We haven't lived under repressive regimes (unless you count the Bush administration) and been used to having every facet of our lives controlled.

I think having parenting education as part of the curriculum in High School might be worthwhile. Plus tossing out the anti-abortion, anti-birth control sentiments... but yeah, that's highly unlikely. Even a massive public service campaign, "Don't have more kids than you can take care of".

Yeah, the government in China can be quicker and more draconian than our government when dealing with issues like population control. The price they pay for this is that, if the government decides be draconian with their citizens, there isn't much recourse.

I think having parenting education as part of the curriculum in High School might be worthwhile. Plus tossing out the anti-abortion, anti-birth control sentiments...
http://i39.tinypic.com/minibk.jpg

:)

Given our positions, I should be the one saying that.
Why don't you?


The only reason they cause harm to you and me is that those who are truly responsible are not being held accountable.
Of course not, there is no accountability with breeding. Virtually anyone can do it, and pass the cost of it to you.

Most, if not all, of her children are the result of IVF -- if, as I suggest, the clinics were forced to take responsibility for the kids they helped create, then they'd be paying the costs instead of the taxpayers.
We don't know where the clinic is, or where they are. They could be in Mexico or Cuba for all we know.


I think that should apply to folks who do IVF. Don't you?
Of course not.

If I run you over with my car. Is the manufacturer liable? Is the gas and oil company, the company that makes the motor oil for the car. The air filter. The filling station where I filled my tires and radiator? The people who built the road I used to run you down?

If I use a product or service to harm you, it is still I who is harming you with it.

They seem to do pretty well in China enforcing breeding rules. When you can only have one or two children, they're utterly treasured.

They essentially enforce a tax on additional births, iirc.

I don't know that it would work here though. We're too used to having unlimited freedom. We haven't lived under repressive regimes (unless you count the Bush administration) and been used to having every facet of our lives controlled.
Getting close every day.

I think having parenting education as part of the curriculum in High School might be worthwhile. Plus tossing out the anti-abortion, anti-birth control sentiments... but yeah, that's highly unlikely. Even a massive public service campaign, "Don't have more kids than you can take care of".
Pay women to get free tubal ligations.
Hell of a lot cheaper than paying welfare for kids for 18 years.

It would pay itself back in a few months.
That would be the logical start.

Get their 1500 tubal.
Pay them 500 or 1000 bucks to do it.

I would bet you would have lines.

Wrong. Forcing clinics to take responsibility for their actions would result in fewer overall children, children with a better chance at a productive life, and fewer costs to the taxpayer. It wouldn't take long to recoup the costs associated with implementing it. By your own estimate, Suleman's case alone is going to cost millions.It would cost millions if she were just screwing the old fashioned way, too. (And it DOES cost millions, for each of those children.)

How many recklessly bred IVF children do you know of? Eight? There are millions done the old fashioned way. Most IVF children are just the opposite, bred carefully by devoted parents who are unable to breed the old fashioned way.

It is the wrong industry to regulate, and only a sleazy politician trying to seize an opportunity from a media fad would suggest it.I'm not sure why you'd make that assumption. I think it's pretty reasonable to ask what you mean, specifically, by "breeding license" in a debate about, well, "breeding licenses."Well, if you are asking how we will implement/enforce the licenses, your argument assumes that the licenses exist in the first place.

Otherwise you would be arguing against the licenses themselves, not debating how to implement them.

All of which is good, and proves my point, that people are quite willing to accept breeding restrictions.No, it's not difficult at all when you completely omit how you'd enforce the licenses. Why bother getting one? Come on, it's your idea, spell out the specifics.You get one for the same reason you get any other license. Because if you don't, we'll throw you in a cage and/or take away your stuff.

Now if someone could just invent a simple, low risk, permanent (but temporarily reversible) female contraceptive, we could implant it at age 12 (along with the HPV vaccination and so on). Then everyone could screw each other as much as they want, but breeding would always be intentional.You gave me an example that involves a special class of our society. I stated that you can't take laws that govern that class and extrapolate them out on society in general. What part of that don't you get?Nice circular reasoning.

They are a "special class of society" because we say they are. And we say they are because we want to control breeding.

There is NO natural reason why an older male should not breed with a 14-year-old fertile female. On the contrary, countless generations of our ancestors considered this the optimal setup.

Why don't you?
Your freedom ends right before your fist hits my nose.

You want the government to assume control over the rights of individuals to decide what they want to do with their bodies. Your position is at odds with Libertarian principles.

We don't know where the clinic is, or where they are. They could be in Mexico or Cuba for all we know.
People will be able to leave the country to circumvent breeding licenses too. At least with companies you can go after their assets within the US.

If I run you over with my car. Is the manufacturer liable?
I don't care for your analogy but... If the manufacturer has his hand on the wheel while you both ran me over, yes, absolutely.

A better analogy: If a gun dealer were to sell a gun to a known, violent felon you can bet that the dealer would share culpability for any murders committed by the felon with that gun.

If I use a product or service to harm you, it is still I who is harming you with it.
There are many products which require a background check before they can be sold to someone. If one of these products were sold without the check and the product were used to harm someone, the seller would share culpability.

It would cost millions if she were just screwing the old fashioned way, too. (And it DOES cost millions, for each of those children.)
No, it wouldn't. First, the more kids she had the less likely she'd find someone to have unprotected sex with her. Second, clown car pregnancies are much more expensive than regular pregnancies due to the fact that the individual babies require far more time in the hospital.

How many recklessly bred IVF children do you know of? Eight?
I'd say that any that resulted in more than triplets (or twins, depending on the age of the mother) were reckless. Even if these pregnancies don't cost us as taxpayers they cost us in raised insurance rates.

Well, if you are asking how we will implement/enforce the licenses, your argument assumes that the licenses exist in the first place.

Otherwise you would be arguing against the licenses themselves, not debating how to implement them.
What the hell kind of logic is that? I can think of a whole spectrum of ways to implement a breeding license system. You might be suggesting that it would it be purely voluntary and driven by tax breaks. On the other hand, you might be suggesting that it include forced sterilization and abortions.

You get one for the same reason you get any other license. Because if you don't, we'll throw you in a cage and/or take away your stuff.
Good luck. If you think people will willingly abdicate their current breeding rights, you're in for a rude awakening.

Nice circular reasoning.

They are a "special class of society" because we say they are. And we say they are because we want to control breeding.
We are willing to treat minors differently for a variety of reasons, some good, some bad, some traditional. If you think that adults would put up with restrictions just 'cause we do it with kids, you're wrong (but impressively self-deluded).

Hey, lets adapt the truancy laws to make sure people go to work.


Look, I don't disagree with your goal, I just think your proposed method has no chance of being adopted. I think a system that was voluntary and used incentives to coax people into getting sterilized or forgoing having children would have a far better chance.

Klath, they're indulging in fantasy. If anyone looks at the history of this country, the way we allow ourselves to be governed, anyone even slightly grounded in reality would realize that the people here would never allow their reproductive rights to be eliminated or curtailed. It always sounds good for someone else, but few would volunteer to give it up for themselves.

Why bother to enter someone's fantasy and argue that pink-spotted, flying t-rexs are not aerodynamic.
Look, I don't disagree with your goal, I just think your proposed method has no chance of being adopted. I think a system that was voluntary and used incentives to coax people into getting sterilized or forgoing having children would have a far better chance.
Of course. This would be the way we do it here. The Republicans would offer tax incentives, which wouldn't make sense at all since the people who you really need to stop having kids probably don't pay taxes. The Democrats would (want) to offer free birth control and abortions but would be hamstrung by the Religious Right (and Left). So we'd probably end up with public service announcements, like they do with cigarette smoking. Which actually, I think work at least a little when they're well-done and pervasive.

Why bother to enter someone's fantasy and argue that pink-spotted, flying t-rexs are not aerodynamic.
Two reasons. :) The first, I'm curious about the extent to which they're willing to deny reality (or the political principles they claim to espouse). The second, and perhaps the more important reason; my alternative is unpacking all my stuff after a move. Bleh.

The Republicans would offer tax incentives, which wouldn't make sense at all since the people who you really need to stop having kids probably don't pay taxes. The Democrats would (want) to offer free birth control and abortions but would be hamstrung by the Religious Right (and Left). So we'd probably end up with public service announcements, like they do with cigarette smoking. Which actually, I think work at least a little when they're well-done and pervasive.
Exactly.

Second, clown car pregnancies are much more expensive than regular pregnancies due to the fact that the individual babies require far more time in the hospital.So are pregnancies were the mother used drugs. And those are thousands of times more common. You just don't hear it from the media, for the same reason you don't hear about the countless traffic accidents every day (which are the leading cause of death in the United States from age 1 to 44).What the hell kind of logic is that?I say we need breeding licenses.

You respond by saying, "well how will you practically do that?"

Implicit in that question is that you concede the preceding portion of the argument, i.e., that we should do it at all.

Otherwise your response would be, "no, breeding licenses are a bad idea."

That part, that you just conceded, is really the hurdle.Good luck. If you think people will willingly abdicate their current breeding rights, you're in for a rude awakening.They do it all the time. They've done it in the past, and they're doing it right now.

More examples?

In the 1930s America was the leader in eugenics, an idea that died prematurely when the Nazis adopted (and abused) it. But before that, the public accepted those breeding restrictions gladly.

Up to the 1960s the public gladly accepted interracial breeding restrictions.

Today, the public continues to accept breeding restrictions based on age, relationship, and criminal record.

The nature of the restriction may change over time, as society's attitudes change, but the fact of restriction is constant.We are willing to treat minors differently for a variety of reasons, some good, some bad, some traditional. If you think that adults would put up with restrictions just 'cause we do it with kids, you're wrong (but impressively self-deluded).See, you're so willing to accept breeding restrictions, and they seem so natural to you, that you can't even fathom the notion that the very term "minor" (or "kid", or any other term you might use to describe certain sexually mature females) is an artificial social label meant to disguise a breeding restriction.

It just goes to prove my point. We love breeding restrictions. That's not a hurdle at all. We just need the right restrictions.I think a system that was voluntary and used incentives to coax people into getting sterilized or forgoing having children would have a far better chance.Of course it would, but it too will require shedding the faulty opinion I mentioned earlier. And once we shed it, we won't need to beat around the bush; we can get right to the heart of the matter.

If anyone looks at the history of this country, the way we allow ourselves to be governed, anyone even slightly grounded in reality would realize that the people here would never allow their reproductive rights to be eliminated or curtailed.By "this country" you must not be referring to the United States of America. Because American history is all about restricting breeding rights. It always sounds good for someone else, but few would volunteer to give it up for themselves.But we already do, for the same reason we give up our money to pay taxes, even though we don't want to. We do it for the greater good.So we'd probably end up with public service announcements, like they do with cigarette smoking. Which actually, I think work at least a little when they're well-done and pervasive.Cheesy public service announcements versus the most powerful instinct in all of nature. I wonder which will win. :rolleyes:

So More examples?

In the 1930s America was the leader in eugenics, an idea that died prematurely when the Nazis adopted (and abused) it. But before that, the public accepted those breeding restrictions gladly.

Up to the 1960s the public gladly accepted interracial breeding restrictions.

Your examples illustrate how, as time progresses, people eliminate restrictions, not create new ones.

Yeah, and the Eugenics movement here in the US was horrible. If it did anything it just proved that one should NEVER give up ones breeding right. The laws that were adopted were just to make sure that "those people different/poorer/less educated than us" should never be allowed to breed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#United_States

Now argue all you want about how it makes sense to go back to that, it just isn't going to happen.

Cheesy public service announcements versus the most powerful instinct in all of nature. I wonder which will win.
Well, I live in CA and smoking is social suicide here. There's a real stigma to smoking that the messages have created. I think you can do the same thing with family planning. In the 1970's family planning was big. All young girls were made familiar with the term and the options available. And that was just the message of "Gee, you can take control of your reproduction if you want to". The whole women's liberation movement was spawned from that for the first time, because of the Pill, we had control of our reproductive destiny.

Now you could elaborate on how to be a responsible parent by only having as many kids as you can provide for financially. Show a family of 12 living in poverty in a trailer, explain what happens to those kids, how the cycle perpetuates. Show a small family, like Michelle Obama's, and how the children of a 2 child household, were able to exceed their parents by the devotion of their parents to those 2 kids. That'd be far less likely to happen if there were 6 kids. This sort of thing will seep into the culture and people will start to accept that having fewer is better for their children.


Cheesy public service announcements versus the most powerful instinct in all of nature. I wonder which will win.
Sex is definitely a powerful instinct. But reproduction is different. When you can separate the two, as we have with birth control, then you can definitely at least get people to control the reproduction if not the sex. We already have, family sizes have gone down.

Your examples illustrate how, as time progresses, people eliminate restrictions, not create new ones.Wrong. They just change.

It used to be acceptable (preferred, even) for an older male to pick a 12-year-old female as a mate.

If you try it now, you'll get thrown in a cage.

It used to be acceptable for a male to have as many mates as he could afford to maintain.

Now, such behavior is shunned, those people are forced into isolated colonies, and their behavior is not given effect of law.

These are NEW breeding restrictions.

Yeah, and the Eugenics movement here in the US was horrible.So you think insane people should be allowed to breed without limitation? Or people so mentally retarded that they can't care for themselves? Or people who carry very serious genetic diseases that society will have to pay for?

Eugenics got a bad name not because it's a bad idea in principle, but because the Nazis abused it. Now, unfortunately, it's linked with the Nazis and no one will touch it, at least for some time until the history of the Nazis fades and becomes less important. However, at the time, many prominent politicians, scientists, and medical/social organizations supported it, because it is a very logical idea.Well, I live in CA and smoking is social suicide here. There's a real stigma to smoking that the messages have created.Smoking is simply a drug addiction. Sex is the strongest human instinct, more so even than survival.I think you can do the same thing with family planning. In the 1970's family planning was big. All young girls were made familiar with the term and the options available. And that was just the message of "Gee, you can take control of your reproduction if you want to". The whole women's liberation movement was spawned from that for the first time, because of the Pill, we had control of our reproductive destiny.You're preaching to the choir here. But that's the flip side of the coin: people breeding unintentionally. This thread is about people breeding intentionally, and recklessly.

Eugenics was abused in the US. Go read up.

Sex != Reproduction -- we invented this stuff called "birth control".

And all the eugenics laws that various states tried to pass were thrown out by the Supreme Court. So it just isn't going to happen. The Supreme Court doesn't undo it's decisions, it uses them as precedent.

You're living in a fascist fantasy world on this particular topic. It's cool. I have these fantasies too but I at least recognize they're fantasies.

Eugenics was abused in the US.Almost anything can be abused. It doesn't mean it should be banned.And all the eugenics laws that various states tried to pass were thrown out by the Supreme Court. So it just isn't going to happen. The Supreme Court doesn't undo it's decisions, it uses them as precedent.The Supreme Court changes its mind whenever the political leanings of the court and/or public opinion change.

For example, Dred Scot v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson are not only not followed, but an embarrassment to the court.You're living in a fascist fantasy world on this particular topic. It's cool. I have these fantasies too but I at least recognize they're fantasies.Hardly fantasies. China has already done a great job of restricting breeding for the greater good, and so have we, in the past. We're all willing to do it, there's just one obstacle in the way -- a faulty opinion that breeding is an absolute good.

But with overpopulation now a reality, that WILL change. It's just a matter of when. And I'd rather have it change now, when we can do something about it before it becomes a crisis.

we invented this stuff called "birth control".Notice how much you love birth control. But hate eugenics.

Although pre-Nazis, many people were proponents of both, including the founder of what is now Planned Parenthood. Probably because both are logical ideas.

US != China, that should be fairly obvious.

Unless we lived under a dictatorship, your fantasy would never become reality.

Look at how hard the religions are working to prevent even the family planning we made easily available in the 1970's. We've gone steadily backwards in promoting family planning ever since... hmmm... probably the Reagan years.

People in this country trust the government as far as they can spit a rat, what sort of tortured reasoning leads you to believe they'd allow them to control their reproduction?

It used to be acceptable (preferred, even) for an older male to pick a 12-year-old female as a mate.
As I have said before, there are a bunch of reasons why minors are treated differently from adults. You choose to feign ignorance of them because doing otherwise is inconvenient to your argument.

It used to be acceptable for a male to have as many mates as he could afford to maintain.
Marriage and breeding aren't the same thing. A male can breed with as many females as are willing (and vice-versa). Where's the restriction?

These are NEW breeding restrictions.
No, these are evidence that you're entrenched in an absurd position and that you're grasping at straws.

People in this country trust the government as far as they can spit a rat,Oh really? To take a recent example, all the government had to say in the past eight years is "terrorist" and the people let them do whatever the hell they want with zero oversight.

When breeding gets out of control, there will be a new catchphrase, and that phrase will rally the people just as "terrorist" has.

As I have said before, there are a bunch of reasons why minors are treated differently from adults.Yeah. And they have to do with human instincts regarding sexuality, which lead to breeding restrictions, which lead to labels like "minor".

I've connected all the dots for you; if you still can't see it, I don't know what else to say. It just reinforces my point about how willing people are to accept breeding restrictions: you are SO willing that you can't even imagine NOT having the restriction.Marriage and breeding aren't the same thing. A male can breed with as many females as are willing (and vice-versa).Restrictions on marriage are simply indirect restrictions on breeding, because marriage is about breeding.

Granted, marriage has far less legal effect than it used to have, but there are still strong social forces at work, plus a good number of lingering legal ones.No, these are evidence that you're entrenched in an absurd position and that you're grasping at straws.Still can't see it, eh? Thank you for illustrating my point so nicely. :)

Notice how much you love birth control. But hate eugenics.



Eu is the prefix meaning 'good'.
Genics is the suffix meaning 'genetics'.

To hate eugenics only means that you definitionally support bad or poor genetics.

There are good things I suppose about supporting bad genetics.
1) It gives me a rather lucrative paycheck in taking care of them. That you all pay for.
2) Our true Epsilons are usually sterile naturally.

At least in Huxley's little story, their Epsilons at least a job to do, some role, or means of production or service.

You 'normal' people never really see them. Or know how much you are paying for their care and healthcare.


To hate Eugenics only because the NAZIs used it, and you yourself don't want to appear to be a NAZI is about the most morally devoid and intellectually vacuous form of thinking. It's dishonest self delusion at best.

As I have said before, there are a bunch of reasons why minors are treated differently from adults. You choose to feign ignorance of them because doing otherwise is inconvenient to your argument.

He is saying that it is an artificial construction.

It is.

Think about it.

12 year olds can have babies because they have always been able to have babies. I would bet you most of your grandmothers were 12 when they started bearing children. It is the reason your 12 year old daughter can.

You may find the notion reprehensible. But it is true.

Oh really? To take a recent example, all the government had to say in the past eight years is "terrorist" and the people let them do whatever the hell they want with zero oversight.

When breeding gets out of control, there will be a new catchphrase, and that phrase will rally the people just as "terrorist" has.

If you sell it with, "Do It For The Children" it would be an easy sell.
Because you really are doing it for the children.

He is saying that it is an artificial construction.

It is.

Think about it.
Of course it is. So are most of our laws. If we were to strip away all the artificial constructions we'd be reduced to a might-makes-right society.

There are reasons why we treat minors differently. Until you are of age, the State deems that you lack the maturity to make informed decisions. It protects both the minor and society by limiting a minors rights and responsibilities. Despite the fact that many people never attain the level of maturity necessary to responsibly procreate, it will be virtually impossible to convince Americans that they should be treated like children for their entire lives. Americans won't put up with that level of government intrusiveness. It would be vigorously rejected by both the Left and Right. The Left has fought for decades to retain an almost absolute right of personal choice over the reproductive process. Similarly, the Right has (at least traditionally) fought for limited governmental intervention in personal liberties. You will not be able to sell this concept to Americans. It just ain't gonna happen.

So Tudamorf... how likely do you think it is that breeding restrictions, like you've proposed, will be implemented in the next 10 years?

There are reasons why we treat minors differently. Until you are of age, the State deems that you lack the maturity to make informed decisions.Breeding restrictions regarding females under age 18 have NOTHING to do with any lack of maturity to make informed decisions. That is not and never was the intent behind such restrictions. The real intent is to prevent you to devaluing another man's assets, with the devaluation being due to the peculiarities of human sexuality. The history of these laws is long and well-established.

Furthermore, females are ready to breed when Nature says so, not you, or your priests, or your politicians. Evolution centers around reproduction, and any mechanism of reproduction is therefore well-tuned to the species. There is a very good reason human females can start breeding around age 12, but not at 8, and also don't have to wait until 16. It's because that's the optimal age for maximum reproductive success.

Telling a human female that she can't breed until age 18 is like telling a child that he can't walk and must crawl until he reaches age 6. It's stupid. And until recently, we all understood that, and allowed them to breed when Nature said so, so long as they bred with the right people.Americans won't put up with that level of government intrusiveness.Look around you. Americans will gladly let themselves be monitored and tracked without independent scrutiny and be whisked away to secret prisons to be tortured without a trial. They don't just tolerate it, but they ASK for it. Americans LOVE governmental intrusion.You will not be able to sell this concept to Americans. It just ain't gonna happen.I will sell the concept very easily once I eliminate the opinion that breeding is an absolute good. You have already shown that you will question that opinion. That's a good start. One down, 300 million to go.

So Tudamorf... how likely do you think it is that breeding restrictions, like you've proposed, will be implemented in the next 10 years?First we have to invent a low risk, simple, easily reversible sterilization method for women, or at least a very long term contraceptive.

Then we give it to them at age 12, along with vaccinations.

When they want to breed, they apply for a temporary reversal, and prove that they are financially, mentally, and physically capable of raising a child without the taxpayers shouldering a huge burden. At that point we intervene, reverse the contraception, and make sure they get the prenatal and other medical care they need so that their child has the best chances.

Those who try to evade the system will be forced to pay a fine, equal to the burden they are putting on the taxpayers, or if they can't, thrown in a cage (not ideal, but the best alternative punishment we have readily available).

Simple and effective.

Breeding restrictions regarding females under age 18 have NOTHING to do with any lack of maturity to make informed decisions. That is not and never was the intent behind such restrictions.
It is now. Go ask any parent. I guarantee you they won't give you any twaddle about being worried about devaluation of their assets.

Furthermore, females are ready to breed when Nature says so, not you, or your priests, or your politicians.
So what? Nature says that if I'm bigger, stronger, and better armed than you I can forcibly take your stuff. Nature isn't the only thing that imposes restrictions.

Evolution centers around reproduction, and any mechanism of reproduction is therefore well-tuned to the species. There is a very good reason human females can start breeding around age 12, but not at 8, and also don't have to wait until 16. It's because that's the optimal age for maximum reproductive success.
It may result in more babies but it doesn't result in more successful ones. A 12 year old may be physically able bear children but she isn't likely to be mentally able to raise one that can make it in modern society. Nature is only part of the equation. Modern society is built on thousands of years worth of knowledge and abstractions that nature alone doesn't prepare you for.

I will sell the concept very easily once I eliminate the opinion that breeding is an absolute good. You have already shown that you will question that opinion. That's a good start. One down, 300 million to go.
Good luck.

It is now. Go ask any parent.Human instincts have not changed in the past few decades. It takes thousands of generations, and the proper selection pressure (which I don't see happening anyway).

Ask any father if he wants his 14-year-old daughter sleeping around with other men, assuming no risk of pregnancy or STD, and you'll get a pretty consistent answer.

That answer is partly cultural (the patriarchal aspect), but mostly instinctual. It would otherwise be the mother. It is not intellectual, as you claim; not in the slightest.

Your liberal PC police may have recently sugar-coated a law with a purpose that doesn't jibe with their current agenda, but nothing has really changed. In fact, things have gotten a lot MORE restrictive.Nature says that if I'm bigger, stronger, and better armed than you I can forcibly take your stuff.And that's the way the world works, in case you haven't noticed.

Not that your comparison is totally valid, though.A 12 year old may be physically able bear children but she isn't likely to be mentally able to raise one that can make it in modern society.Twelve-year-olds have done it for countless millennia. Those "thousands of years worth of knowledge" were passed down by people born to mothers who began breeding at age 12. Even today they breed at age 12 in a number of cultures, although not recently in ours. If they couldn't, you wouldn't be sitting there, typing that reply.

Ask any father if he wants his 14-year-old daughter sleeping around with other men, assuming no risk of pregnancy or STD, and you'll get a pretty consistent answer.
That's just a father being protective of someone he loves. Pregnancy and STDs aren't the only risks that a sexual partner might bring into their daughters lives. A negative external influence strengthened by sexual intimacy could lead their daughter astray or hurt her in a variety of ways. Fathers want their daughters to be happy. Getting involved in sexual relationships before they're old enough to understand the consequences puts that at risk.

And that's the way the world works, in case you haven't noticed.
Far less now than in the past. Our legal system goes to great lengths to protect the weak from the powerful.

Not that your comparison is totally valid, though.Twelve-year-olds have done it for countless millennia. Those "thousands of years worth of knowledge" were passed down by people born to mothers who began breeding at age 12. Even today they breed at age 12 in a number of cultures, although not recently in ours. If they couldn't, you wouldn't be sitting there, typing that reply.
Let me quote myself and highlight the part you appear to have missed: "A 12 year old may be physically able bear children but she isn't likely to be mentally able to raise one that can make it in modern society."

Heh! You answered a question I didn't ask. I didn't ask how to implement it, I said how likely do you think this is to happen in the next ten years.

First we have to invent a low risk, simple, easily reversible sterilization method for women, or at least a very long term contraceptive.

Then we give it to them at age 12, along with vaccinations.

When they want to breed, they apply for a temporary reversal, and prove that they are financially, mentally, and physically capable of raising a child without the taxpayers shouldering a huge burden. At that point we intervene, reverse the contraception, and make sure they get the prenatal and other medical care they need so that their child has the best chances.

Those who try to evade the system will be forced to pay a fine, equal to the burden they are putting on the taxpayers, or if they can't, thrown in a cage (not ideal, but the best alternative punishment we have readily available).

Simple and effective.

That's just a father being protective of someone he loves.No, it's an instinctive, emotional reaction. NOT an intellectual one as you claim.

He loves his son too, but his instinctive reaction to his son screwing around will be much different. Same goes for his brother.

The daughter will be very happy to have sex. The father will not (though he would be happy to have his own sex, of course).

This is pretty basic stuff. I'm surprised you're unaware of it.Far less now than in the past. Our legal system goes to great lengths to protect the weak from the powerful.Our legal system exists because the powerful conquered the weak.

And the powerful continue to dominate the world, to the detriment of the weak.

You cannot see that? /boggleLet me quote myself and highlight the part you appear to have missed: "A 12 year old may be physically able bear children but she isn't likely to be mentally able to raise one that can make it in modern society."So you're saying, it's harder for a 12-year-old to raise a child in modern society, where taxpayer-funded experts do everything for her, she has to do just about nothing (not even breast feeding, if she doesn't want to), and she faces virtually zero risk of maternal death, than it is for a 12-year-old in a primitive hunter-gatherer tribe to raise her child, without the help of any technology or experts at all.

Right.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/25/state/n103410S81.DTL&tsp=1Octuplets mother offered $1M p0rn contract

(02-25) 10:34 PST Los Angeles, CA (AP) --

The Southern California mother of octuplets is being offered $1 million to star in hardcore p0rn.

Vivid Entertainment spokeswoman Jackie Martin says the offer also promises a year of health insurance for Nadya Suleman and her 14 children.

Suleman gave birth to octuplets at a Bellflower hospital on Jan. 26, and already had six other children. The home the unemployed single-mother lives in is facing foreclosure.

Vivid says the offer was sent Tuesday via overnight mail and there has been no immediate response.

The offer letter says Suleman's video would be distributed under the Vivid-Celeb imprint, which has released videos starring Pamela Anderson and Kim Kardashian.Just keeps getting better and better.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/23/state/n090803S16.DTLMan who donated sperm wants DNA test for octuplets

(02-23) 09:08 PST Los Angeles, CA (AP) --

A former boyfriend of Nadya Suleman says he could be the father of her 14 children, including her nearly month-old octuplets, and he wants DNA tests to be sure.

Denis Beaudoin told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday that he donated sperm to Nadya Suleman during their three-year relationship because she claimed to have ovarian cancer and had to act quickly to have children.

Suleman has denied that Beaudoin is the father of the children, according to ABC.

Beaudoin still wants the test because he says he was misled about why she needed him to make three sperm donations "because she couldn't have kids and, you know, it turned into this."

All 14 of her children were conceived through in vitro fertilization, with sperm from an unidentified, platonic friend, the 33-year-old mother has said.

Single and unemployed, Suleman gave birth to octuplets on Jan. 26. She already had six other children.

Beaudoin, who said his mother is black and his father is white, claims Suleman's older children bear a resemblance to him. Suleman's father is Arabic and her mother is Lithuanian, according to public documents.

ABC said Suleman denied Beaudoin was the donor, but when pressed she admitted he had been a sperm donor, but was unable to have children. Beaudoin said he has two children.

Regardless of whether DNA tests show he is the father, Beaudoin pledged to help Suleman, because "it's hard nowadays to raise two kids, let alone 14 kids."This guy has balls (no pun intended).

He wants to take financial responsibility for the whole litter and gamble on getting his own multi-million dollar interview, book, or p0rn contract.

Our legal system exists because the powerful conquered the weak.

And the powerful continue to dominate the world, to the detriment of the weak.

You cannot see that? /boggle
You are better protected now than you would have been 500 years ago under any of the monarchies that existed at the time. If you'd publicly expressed many of the opinions you've expressed here on the Grove back then you'd have been executed. If you can't see that you're an idiot.

So you're saying, it's harder for a 12-year-old to raise a child in modern society, where taxpayer-funded experts do everything for her, she has to do just about nothing (not even breast feeding, if she doesn't want to), and she faces virtually zero risk of maternal death, than it is for a 12-year-old in a primitive hunter-gatherer tribe to raise her child, without the help of any technology or experts at all.
That sounds to me like a perfect example of NOT making it. When I used the phrase "make it" I meant it as "be successful and contribute to the society", not merely survive. There is a lot more to understand now than there was back in the hunter-gatherer days. A 12-year-old isn't prepared to impart that understanding on their child anywhere near as well as a better educated and more experienced mother. Our society pretty much agrees that a high school education is a prerequisite for success. When mothers lack the prerequisite it doesn't bode well for the children they're raising.

You are better protected now than you would have been 500 years ago under any of the monarchies that existed at the time.Well, that's another debate.

But those bureaucrats only existed because they were stronger than the bureaucrats they replaced.There is a lot more to understand now than there was back in the hunter-gatherer days.Really? I think there's a lot LESS to understand.

A child today can do absolutely nothing and still get all of his needs met, and then some, because we, the ones who do do things, will use our resources to take care of him.

That was not true for the child in the hunter-gatherer society. They generally have to pull their own weight.

Not to mention, your implicit assumption that hunter-gatherers are simple-minded people who need not learn any complex skills is false.

A child today can do absolutely nothing and still get all of his needs met, and then some, because we, the ones who do do things, will use our resources to take care of him.
That child is not successful. IMO, there are two basic criteria to gauge success. The most basic is success as a biological organism. This is what you are focusing on. I think that the second, which you are neglecting, is success in the context of society -- that is, contributing at least as much as you take away (pulling your own weight). While a do-nothing child may satisfy the first criteria, they certainly do not satisfy the second.

Not to mention, your implicit assumption that hunter-gatherers are simple-minded people who need not learn any complex skills is false.
I don't think they're simple-minded, they just aren't familiar with the 10k years worth of social and technological abstractions modern humans must deal with in order to be successful. In modern society, we teach these things to kids in school.

I think that the second, which you are neglecting, is success in the context of society -- that is, contributing at least as much as you take away (pulling your own weight).That's my point. They don't need to pull their own weight (any more).

And they can still reach breeding age, and breed like rabbits, making even more Epsilons, in an exponential fashion. Not only will we allow it, but we cheer them on, and pay them to keep doing it. That's the attitude that needs to change.I don't think they're simple-minded, they just aren't familiar with the 10k years worth of social and technological abstractions modern humans must deal with in order to be successful.We aren't familiar with them either.

The average American does not know how to grow food, how to build guns, or how to forge steel. He knows how to press buttons and push levers, but has no clue how those things work. He is totally dependent on other specialists to do everything for him, while he sits eight hours in a day in some cubicle shuffling papers around.

Furthermore, I doubt most American adults could pass a high school level test in math, science, history, or literature, which negates your point about those subjects being necessary in the first place.

They could tell you, though, the exact order they need shuffle the papers while in their cubicle, their favorite TV stations, and the directions to the nearest Krispy Kreme.

Individually, they know LESS than hunter-gatherers, not more.

That's my point. They don't need to pull their own weight (any more).

And they can still reach breeding age, and breed like rabbits, making even more Epsilons, in an exponential fashion. Not only will we allow it, but we cheer them on, and pay them to keep doing it. That's the attitude that needs to change.
I'm not sure how many people are cheering them on. It seems like the overwhelming majority of the coverage of Suleman has been negative, often brutally so. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks a family (or mother) that's having trouble making it on their own should have (more) kids. I don't believe, however, that this will translate into these people wanting to give the government absolute control over who can and who cannot procreate. I invite you to prove me wrong.

The average American does not know how to grow food, how to build guns, or how to forge steel.
Yet, the average American knows more about these specific things than any hunter-gatherer.

He knows how to press buttons and push levers, but has no clue how those things work. He is totally dependent on other specialists to do everything for him, while he sits eight hours in a day in some cubicle shuffling papers around.
So what? The average hunter-gatherer doesn't know how to read, interpret a map, use a coke machine, buy airline tickets, make change for a dollar, etc... You are taking for granted a lot of the knowledge and abilities that modern humans use on a daily basis.

Furthermore, I doubt most American adults could pass a high school level test in math, science, history, or literature, which negates your point about those subjects being necessary in the first place.
The most important thing you learn in school isn't the raw information you're taught, it's the more generalized problem solving and reading/researching skills. Also, as you have pointed out, our society is one of specialists. Our education system is set up to prepare you for any of a wide spectrum of specializations.

They could tell you, though, the exact order they need shuffle the papers while in their cubicle, their favorite TV stations, and the directions to the nearest Krispy Kreme.

Individually, they know LESS than hunter-gatherers, not more.
I can go on and on telling you why you're wrong but you have such an incredibly low opinion of your fellow Americans and their knowledge/capabilities that you'll just continue to promote the notion that we're nothing more than a nation of Homer Simpsons. If you really believe that then you should probably toss your TV and get out and meet some real people.

I'm not sure how many people are cheering them on. It seems like the overwhelming majority of the coverage of Suleman has been negative, often brutally so.It is NOW negative. At first it was positive.

The very fact that it takes such an absurdly extreme case to bring out some negative coverage demonstrates how powerful that faulty opinion is.

When a woman tells you she's pregnant or has given birth recently, do you congratulate her without knowing the circumstances?I can go on and on telling you why you're wrong but you have such an incredibly low opinion of your fellow AmericansThis tangent is getting pretty pointless.

Fact is, hunter-gatherer societies are a lot harder on mothers than ours is. It's much riskier, you have to do a lot more, and if you fail you don't have millions of people who will do all the work for you.

Twelve-year-old females have been doing it for generations, they can still do it now, and we have created an artificial breeding restriction, like many others that we create and like.

Get rid of the faulty opinion, and the restrictions will be easy to put in place.

As for the capabilities of the average American, my opinion stands.

The overwhelming majority of non-scientists cannot do the simplest problem in algebra, that they should have learned in eighth grade. I certainly have never met a American non-scientist who could do math (except foreign immigrants, or possibly second generation immigrants).

The American public rallied in support of the Iraq war, yet most of them can't even place Iraq on a map (one-third can't even recognize their own country on a map of their own country).

Americans are, on the whole, uneducated fatasses. Homer Simpson would be an appropriate avatar, which might explain his popularity.