Sextuplets born in St. Petersburg, Fla.

Socrtease

Socrtease

Verified User
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_re_us/florida_sextuplets

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - It was a Labor Day weekend for the record books at a Florida hospital, where a woman gave birth to the state's first set of sextuplets...

The expecting parents were showered last week with clothing, diapers, baby wipes and gift cards. They also received a year's supply of ready-made meals and baby formula, six months of in-home wellness care and a $7,000 generator for backup electric power in this hurricane-prone state.
Click to expand...

So here is what I don't get, WHY do we feel the need to reward these people with all this free stuff? Is it because they could not have kids and now, because of science they have a litter of kids? Could they not take care of these kids themselves? Were they financially unable to live up to the obligations that come with a litter of children? WHY are they more important than the poor single mom who also lives in St. Petersburg and has a few kids and can't afford them either? Why do we choose to idolize people who can't have children in the first place and now have a gaggle of them and really can't afford to have a gaggle? This just pisses me off that society says that these people are worthy of having heaps of gifts showered on them but these other people are irresponsible for having kids they can't afford.
 
No, worries. I am sure socialized healthcare will take care of this. Bastards wanting to have their own children. How selfish and irresponsible of them!
 
Jarod said:
Its because they need the stuff, now that they have 6 kids!
Click to expand...
Well maybe they should have waited till they could AFFORD to have 6 kids. Shit people complain when out of work welfare mothers have TWO kids and want to cut her off completely. But the same people will have fund raisers for people who act even MORE irresponsibly and have a litter of kids.
 
and no one has yet answered my question. Why don't people have fund raisers and buy new shit for the OTHER people that are having kids they can't afford? I haven't even gotten into how selfish it really is to have quints and sexts. The health problems from large numbers of kids is MUCH higher than for twins and even triplets. But they have to have 6 all born premature all weighing less than 4 pounds and ALL having to take up huge amounts of resources in Neonatal ICU's.
 
Socrtease said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_re_us/florida_sextuplets



So here is what I don't get, WHY do we feel the need to reward these people with all this free stuff? Is it because they could not have kids and now, because of science they have a litter of kids? Could they not take care of these kids themselves? Were they financially unable to live up to the obligations that come with a litter of children? WHY are they more important than the poor single mom who also lives in St. Petersburg and has a few kids and can't afford them either? Why do we choose to idolize people who can't have children in the first place and now have a gaggle of them and really can't afford to have a gaggle? This just pisses me off that society says that these people are worthy of having heaps of gifts showered on them but these other people are irresponsible for having kids they can't afford.
Click to expand...

I never really thought of it like that, but it's a good point. At least government (we) are not paying for them though.
 
Socrtease said:
and no one has yet answered my question. Why don't people have fund raisers and buy new shit for the OTHER people that are having kids they can't afford? I haven't even gotten into how selfish it really is to have quints and sexts. The health problems from large numbers of kids is MUCH higher than for twins and even triplets. But they have to have 6 all born premature all weighing less than 4 pounds and ALL having to take up huge amounts of resources in Neonatal ICU's.
Click to expand...

More good points and good arguments against government funded healthcare, if people want to be foolish and have multiple kids by overdoing fertility drugs then they should bear the costs of their actions.
 
Soc, it is fairly obvious. They have solicited the donations, their solcitation is well advertised due to media attention and people chose to give them their money. Who cares?
 
I can't imagine having six babies at one time...

How would you ever manage to sleep, eat bathe or do anything normal, again?

Plus, what quality time would be available to them? Gads, I would just adopt, especially if I already had a biological child, but that is just me and to each their own!

I just know I couldn't do it well!
 
Socrtease said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_re_us/florida_sextuplets



So here is what I don't get, WHY do we feel the need to reward these people with all this free stuff? Is it because they could not have kids and now, because of science they have a litter of kids? Could they not take care of these kids themselves? Were they financially unable to live up to the obligations that come with a litter of children? WHY are they more important than the poor single mom who also lives in St. Petersburg and has a few kids and can't afford them either? Why do we choose to idolize people who can't have children in the first place and now have a gaggle of them and really can't afford to have a gaggle? This just pisses me off that society says that these people are worthy of having heaps of gifts showered on them but these other people are irresponsible for having kids they can't afford.
Click to expand...

The proud father, Ben Byler, described the birth as "amazing."

"Thanks to the Lord above," he said. "If everyone could just keep us in their prayers."

Sounds like a real idiot, and now a father of 7. (they already had 1 child). So that is 7 future idiots we can count on. The lord had nothing to do with this, the article plainly states they were using fertility drugs.

As for the gifts...it doesn't sound like anybody threw them a party, but rather, as the first sextuplets in the state, corporations could not wait to use them for free advertising. That's capitalism. Everything is a marketing opportunity.
 
Darla said:
The proud father, Ben Byler, described the birth as "amazing."

"Thanks to the Lord above," he said. "If everyone could just keep us in their prayers."

Sounds like a real idiot, and now a father of 7. (they already had 1 child). So that is 7 future idiots we can count on. The lord had nothing to do with this, the article plainly states they were using fertility drugs.

As for the gifts...it doesn't sound like anybody threw them a party, but rather, as the first sextuplets in the state, corporations could not wait to use them for free advertising. That's capitalism. Everything is a marketing opportunity.
Click to expand...

It sure is the name of the game anymore, isn't it!
 
All the good intentions will eventually go away and then there will be the seven children who need to be raised and at today's costs, well, i don't envy them!
My four are raised and for that, I am very happy!
 
Darla said:
The proud father, Ben Byler, described the birth as "amazing."

"Thanks to the Lord above," he said. "If everyone could just keep us in their prayers."

Sounds like a real idiot, and now a father of 7. (they already had 1 child). So that is 7 future idiots we can count on. The lord had nothing to do with this, the article plainly states they were using fertility drugs.
Click to expand...
Darlalaling, I thought the official Liberal line was that genes don't matter and that it's the environment that a child is raised in that matters. Be careful you are using logic here!

Darla said:
As for the gifts...it doesn't sound like anybody threw them a party, but rather, as the first sextuplets in the state, corporations could not wait to use them for free advertising. That's capitalism. Everything is a marketing opportunity.
Click to expand...
It does work out pretty neatly though, who else would need more help.
 
TheDanold said:
Darlalaling, I thought the official Liberal line was that genes don't matter and that it's the environment that a child is raised in that matters. Be careful you are using logic here!


It does work out pretty neatly though, who else would need more help.
Click to expand...

Umm, is someone other than the idiot father raising them Dano? He's going to raise 7 idiots, just like him. Now, if they are adopted today, by someone like, oh say, usc, Cypress or Onceler, then they might end up being able to find their asses with two hands, a google map, and a flashlight.
 
I had no idea that genes didn't matter. So if a person has a child with 47 chromosomes instead of 46 but is raised in a good environment with all the correct care, are the right books, and music and good nutrition etc, they won't be affect by Down Syndrome?
 
Socrtease said:
I had no idea that genes didn't matter. So if a person has a child with 47 chromosomes instead of 46 but is raised in a good environment with all the correct care, are the right books, and music and good nutrition etc, they won't be affect by Down Syndrome?
Click to expand...

Well you know, nature vs nurture, it's the old debate.

I personally doubt it's 100% of either, but, I think that in most cases nurture plays a larger part. Downs Syndrome would be an obvious exception.
 
Darla said:
Umm, is someone other than the idiot father raising them Dano? He's going to raise 7 idiots, just like him. Now, if they are adopted today, by someone like, oh say, usc, Cypress or Onceler, then they might end up being able to find their asses with two hands, a google map, and a flashlight.
Click to expand...
When you said we can "count on" 7 future idiots, then that would make you think more they are guaranteed to be that way (genes - a definite) rather than probably going to be that way (if the father is there to raise them - a probable).

Honestly I bet if Liberals like you had your way you would approve a state program to take children away from parents who you did not approve of to have them raised by others whom you did.
Let me ask you Darla, if a child is spanked hard by his parents, would you take the child away? Be honest.
 
Darla said:
Well you know, nature vs nurture, it's the old debate.

I personally doubt it's 100% of either, but, I think that in most cases nurture plays a larger part. Downs Syndrome would be an obvious exception.
Click to expand...
I think environment plays a much smaller role than you think. I knew kids who were adopted in a family of other kids and they often ended up very different from the other kids, despite being raised in the same environment.

Even kids sharing the same parents genes, obviously have genetic differences as brothers and sisters can end up quite different despite being raised in the same environment. Liberals might realize this a little more if they actually had kids or more than 1...
 
TheDanold said:
I think environment plays a much smaller role than you think. I knew kids who were adopted in a family of other kids and they often ended up very different from the other kids, despite being raised in the same environment.

Even kids sharing the same parents genes, obviously have genetic differences as brothers and sisters can end up quite different despite being raised in the same environment. Liberals might realize this a little more if they actually had kids or more than 1...
Click to expand...

Oh, anecdotal evidence...compelling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top