• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

octuplets

One of the many things that rubs me the wrong way about her website(besides the donations part, but I commented about that on the other thread) is that she's calling it the "Nayda Suleman" family. There are at least two things wrong with that title from my point of view: 1) Again with the narssicism, and 2) The website is not about the family as the other six kids are missing.

Why not call the site "The Suleman Octuplets"? The site would then clearly be about them and not her. Also, it would be less misleading because the donations are surely going to be used in supporting the other six kids as well.
 
Nursefoxfire said:
It's funny (funny odd, not funny haha) how this seems to be the first time I've ever seen an event happen where nearly everyone, universally, is on the same side.

I've yet to read or watch anyone defending her (except her hired shill publicist). The closest anyone comes is probably the OP in this thread where LibraryLady waffles between the woman's right to do what she wants with her body vs. bringing in state and federal money to pay for that right. (p.s. not bashing you, LL, I feel the same way you do/did when you wrote that :) ).
Click to expand...

The P.R. firm that is representing her:

http://killeenfurtneygroup.com/Public-Relations-Killeen-Furtney.cfm

It says that Ms. Killeen is a "professional counselor"...she needs to get to work on Ms. Suleman right away.

There seem to be guidelines for IVF that state that no more than two embryos should be implanted in a woman of her age. However, these are not strict rules. Maybe someone should look into that?

Also read in the NYT that the Dr. that Sleman used has a higher than average implant rate for his patients (number of embryos implanted per patient) though the success rate was somewhere around 50%. I don't know if that is typical or not.
 
Pretty disgusting. If I didn't have to give an email, I'd leave a message telling her just what I think of her. I'm sure a lot of people already have. She should put those babies up for adoption immediately. There's no way she can care for them. "I'll use my student loans..." -- student loans are for students. Not to raise babies!
 
Corgi, make up an email address. I did.

Also, I noted there was no link provided there to actually read the comments left.
I can't imagine why not.
 
slingblade said:
Corgi, make up an email address. I did.

Also, I noted there was no link provided there to actually read the comments left.
I can't imagine why not.
Click to expand...
So what did you tell her, since we'll never be able to read it?
 
slingblade said:
Hee, I said it earlier. It was nothing much.

"You're kidding? You had 'em, you feed 'em."

Nothing brilliant. Just how I feel.
Click to expand...

I would say she is indeed kidding. She has been kidding 14 times now.
 
The Los Angeles Times wrote a depressing article on how much these 14 children are costing not just California taxpayers, but federal taxpayers as well.

Los Angeles Times said:
Even before she gave birth to the octuplets Suleman was receiving $490 in monthly food stamps, and three of her children were receiving federal supplemental security income because they are disabled.

Lowell Kepke, a spokesman for the San Francisco office of the Social Security Administration, said that a single parent with no income qualifies for up to $793 a month for each child with a physical or mental condition...

If Suleman's disabled children received the maximum payment, she would get nearly $2,900 a month in state and federal assistance, including the food stamps.

Suleman's octuplets qualify for Medi-Cal, California's healthcare program for the poor. Three sources told The Times that Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Bellflower had requested reimbursement for care of the eight premature infants.

Using the 2007 average as a low estimate, Kaiser would be eligible for a combined $9,584 per day in Medi-Cal reimbursement. The babies, who are 16 days old, have already racked up a conservative $153,344 in Medi-Cal costs, not including their delivery. Kaiser doctors have said they will remain hospitalized for seven to 12 weeks. If they stay for seven weeks, the cost would be $469,616. If they stay 12 weeks, the cost would be $805,056.
Click to expand...

Linky: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-octuplets11-2009feb11,0,1790195.story
 
I imagine the anti-abortion crowd should be eager to kick in the funds for these precious lives. Surely they wouldn't have wanted all these precious embryos to have been wasted in stem cell experimentation and the like. It's time to prove exactly how "pro-life" and "pro-family" these folks are. What better opportunity to "prove" that their "pro life" stance extends to the lives after they are born and not just the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg?
 
Skeptic Guy said:
There seem to be guidelines for IVF that state that no more than two embryos should be implanted in a woman of her age. However, these are not strict rules. Maybe someone should look into that?
Click to expand...

A national medical society is investigating whether a fertility doctor followed its guidelines when he implanted six embryos into a Southern California woman who gave birth to octuplets last month.
Click to expand...
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/us_...ces-In-Vitro-Investigation-.html?corder=&pg=1
 
Looks like octumom is full of lies and deceit.

You should watch the video:
Is The Octuplet mom obsessed?


Seems octumom might have held back information that she sent letters to actress Angelina Jolie.

Looks like octumom might have withheld information as to how her lips got so full, and how other of her facial features have changed. There is a possibility she didn't lie about having plastic surgery, but octumom may have had procedures not necessarily considered as "plastic surgery" so she could alter her appearance, so she could look more like Angelina Jolie.
 
Personally, I think Octomom looks more like Janeane Garofalo than Angelina Jolie, but how much more bizarre can this story get?

Chicago Sun-Times said:
Though Suleman categorically denies she's undergone any plastic surgery to make her look like Jolie, neighbors, friends and family members of the unemployed single mom of 14 challenge those denials -- as do earlier photographs of Suleman clearly indicating thinner lips and a different-looking nose.

Apparently, over the past year or so, Suleman has made attempts to reach out the the actress -- sending her admiring letters and extolling her talent and humanitarian efforts on behalf of children's issues around the world.
Click to expand...

Linky: http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/zwecker/1426927,CST-FTR-zp12.article
 
Alt+F4 said:
Not very suprising, but....



...but don't worry folks, she found another publicist to arrange a book deal and manage her appearances.

Linky: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-octuplets15-2009feb15,0,4935931.story
Click to expand...


Actually the story now (was on the radio so I have no links) is that the agency who represented the Septuplets and his company are not the agent(s) for Octomom. so another lie shot down.

ETA: Found the link where Ambassador is not representing Suleman
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OCTUPLETS?SITE=MOSPL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
 
Last edited:
BPSCG said:
You're missing the point; the point I'm making is that it is inconsistent for the state to pay to end a woman's pregnancy if she can't afford to pay for it herself, while refusing to pay to start that same woman's pregnancy if she is unable to pay for it herself.

What is the difference? The woman is the same, her financial situation is the same. The only difference is that in the first case she wants to end a pregnancy while in the second she wants to start one. Why should the state pay for the former but not the latter?
Click to expand...

One factor might well be that if the woman is using taxpayer money to get pregnant, seems likely she'll wind up using taxpayer money to support the resulting child(ren), and the state would have an interest in someone intentionally adding to the welfare rolls.
 
I can understand some anger over this but sending death threats to the publicist? I mean if that publicist does a good job then these kids never need welfare and we have one less thing to bitch about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom