See this poll on: https://poll.fm/1363814/embed
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
From what I have read about Ranjit Hayer, she has lots of family support and she and her husband had tried for years and years to have children. I think it's wonderful for them to have kids. I hope their children are healthy. I don't know why they went for fertility treatments now, but I can think of lots of reasons why they would try now instead of earlier. I seriously doubt that this is opening the floodgates for 60 year olds to flock to the fertility clinic. I also don't begrudge her the use of Canada's health care system. Plenty of kids born to young mothers have needed health care as well. I don't see any issue with a 60 year old raising children, but then I have known several children who have been raised by their grandparents, and if the parents are willing to do it, then those children will probably have wise and patient parents who will also have the financial resources to provide the best for their children.
Why don't we see these polls when 70 year old men have babies with their trophy wives?
I really don't see why M.I.A 's child wouldn't have a bright future, her child is going to be the one with the brightest out of all of the people on the poll. Only child, lots of money, parents are young enough... I still can't believe that a doctor would even consider using any kind of fertility treatment on a single lady with 6 children already.. it's insanity!!!
Has everyone forgotten that the world population increases by 80 million people a year. Some countries have already run out of food for their millions of excess humans.
The decision to implant Nadya Suleman with embryos was downright criminal. The MDs involved should be charged with a crime against humanity.
Third world countries are not the only people who should be restricting reproduction. First world countries should lead the world in starting a trend to decreasing world population.
For children to have a bright future, it would certainly help for the parents to have some level of emotional and financial stability, along with the physical strength and good health to care for them. This doesn’t appear to be the case with “octo-mom” who along with the doctor that implanted the embryos have got to be among the most irresponsible people on the planet. The 60-year mom with twins has a lot of nerve going to India to get pregnant, then returning to Canada and the safety of our social net, which she is likely to need as she will be 80 years old by the time these poor children get out of high school! As for MIA, being pregnant is not a disability. Many women work, dance and exercise the very day their babies are born, which has nothing to do with how bright their future will be. As usual the focus is on at least two, and maybe three dysfunctional situations with the outcome to be very likely less than bright for the unfortunate souls that have been brought into the world for all the wrong reasons.
I agree, I don't get the whole MIA thing, what's wrong with the dancing and singing. I think she will raise her child amazingly while the other two are selfish for doing what they did to have children and now the children will suffer
The ridiculous thing is that this ridiculous single woman on welfare is allowed to have a litter of 8, after having 6, while all throughout the US gay people are either not allowed to marry or not allowed to adopt, because "every child deserves a mother and a father." Yet the same mad Christians who say that aren't condemning the octomom, because every birth is sacred.
I am dissapointed of the money-hungry medical professionals who help these people (who do not have the sense of responsibility and well being of their babies) reproduce.
M.I.A is a talented musician ( and not merely a "rapper") whose husband is a New York millionaire.
There is no indication that she in any way abused fertility treatments or will rely on either welfare or publicly funded medical services to support her child.
She is, however, a "minority". Is this the reason she was included on this unscientific "poll"?
NOne Of The Above is right!!!!!!!!! What do all these people have for "brains"where they should be!!!!
This is what comes to mind: We are still trying to tell women how to and when they can have children. The "naturally" born Dion quintuplets when they were born many years ago to a woman in her later childbearing years, and there was no birth control, other than abstinance, were removed from their home by the federal government and were put on display for all the world to see for several years. They quints all had sad and lonely lives to tell from lack of love and or social/medical problems of some sort in later years. It was not a good scene at all.
Now -- women have children on demand: when they wish and how they wish due to the advanced medical and birth control procedures. Planned Parenthood, we asked for it!! Are we never satisfied!
I'm looking for the "none of the above" box?
The reporting has missed a few key points that weigh on which child will be ahead (the whole exercise being rather facile, but that's not for now).
First key point: what's the epidemiology on multiple births, specifically to what extent do such children face health risks or diminished opportunities linked to birth circumstances? Common wisdom is they're disadvantaged, but is this reliably supportable (notwithstanding Macleans' general assertion in its page 2 editorial - 'substantial' needs to be quantified for reasons below)? Does the degree of any average disadvantage outweigh any restrictions on freedom of choice that limiting 'litter' and overall family size would impose as an application of public policy?
Second: where's the discussion on the responsibility of parents to make informed and reasonable choices about procreation? There's a strong implication in the press coverage that Ms. Suleman is emotionally unstable or even feeble-minded and thus her choice was irresponsible. So when should authorities step in with regulation to assess and prevent such bad choices? Clearly there are many paths where that can go wrong.
Third: How much say does society get when society as a whole has to pick up the tab for individuals' poor choices? It is inconceivable that among Ms. Hayer's and Ms. Suleman's children that at least one of them won't require some significant medical or other society-as-a-whole provided service out of proportion to the parents' contributions. They have already consumed higher than average neo-natal support (an unsupported supposition - verification and quantification would be of interest). It has happened in the past, and sadly will continue, that capacity to handle such above average loads is limited and can lead to others being denied as a result.
Fourth: what are the public's involvement in the motivation of individuals to test the boundaries of pre- and post-natal child care? The public as a whole, abetted of course by the media, demand sensational behaviour but seems unwilling to be seen as complicit when that behaviour exceeds a norm that can't be known in advance. Another strong inference is that Ms. Suleman was expecting the usual public and corporate support that follows multiple births, but that seems to have backfired with her crossing a boundary that she must have thought she was safely inside of. As for M.I.A., her behaviour seems entirely consistent with celebrities' exploitation of their pregnancies and children for the publicity that enriches them and sates the public appetite.
Fifth: two of these mothers explicitly subverted established norms for in vitro fertilization, one for quantity, the other for age. It's clear they knew. So presuming there is a benefit (hard to define and bound, of course) to these norms, should these mothers face sanctions of some sort for their actions? The challenge of course is that any sanctions have consequences on their undeserving offspring and there's not much a sanctioning agency could do that would not appear heavy handed. How does society deal with scofflaws whose circumstances make them invulnerable?
Finally: I'm surprised that no one has dredged up previous government commissions and reports on the topic and railed about the waste of money funding these and then choosing not to apply them. Perhaps the media are actually starting to rise above lambasting such easy and diversionary targets?! Nevertheless, these events may provide the spark to act on reasonable engagement, or disengagement, by government in this domain.
Yeah. Where's the "none of the above" box?
Is it April Fool's day already?
(I refused to vote on this one)