Hide This

FREEHER HealthToolkit

HER Health Toolkit

Sign up for EmpowHER updates and you'll receive our
FREE HER Health Toolkit

Reproductive System

Get Email Updates

Reproductive System Guide

Alison Beaver

Have a question? We're here to help. Ask the Community.

ASK

Health Newsletter

Receive the latest and greatest in women's health and wellness from EmpowHER - for free!

Octomom Under Fire as She May Finally go on Welfare

By Susan Cody HERWriter Guide
 
Rate This

News has been made yet again in the Octomom story. Otherwise known as Nadya Suleman, Octomom is in great danger of losing her home (again) and sources close to her have admitted that she is no longer able to care for her 14 children financially, and is likely to accept welfare. She maintains that she has only days left before having no money for food but is still saying no to welfare. In her last interview several days ago she said she borrowed money and has a week's worth to support her family.

This is hardly surprising when you consider that she finances her family alone and is also responsible for the payment of several nannies who still work for her. How she could survive without nannies is beyond the comprehension of many of us with three, four and more children. Having no identifiable income, it was only a matter of time before the services of the state were required.

Suleman has turned down offers of porn which any woman would rightly deem as insulting and degrading. Is that the struggling mother’s only option? Having sex with strangers on camera? But she has also turned down offers of a reality show, saying that option would exploit her children and expose them to publicity they never asked for. Fair enough – she has a point. It’s all very well to pop out five, six, or eight kids at one time but to make a living off that scientific feat does seem manipulative because the children have no say in the matter, no matter how a person convinces themselves that the kids love this kind of exciting , public life and would really miss it if it left.

Suleman did do the inevitable bikini pose for a magazine and was paid a substantial sum. She has lived to regret the photo shoot but admits it paid some hefty bills at the time.

(By the way, is anyone else sick of the "body after baby" bikini layouts in all magazines recently? Instead of recovering and bonding with baby, it's like the main goal of a post-partum celebrity mother is to show off a flat belly about nine seconds after giving birth. I'm amazed the placenta has been removed and the mother cleaned up before they rush to the set!

Add a Comment3 Comments

EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous

Better that she be on welfare than continue to do to her babies what she did to them last night on the Jimmy Kimmel show. Eight terrified screaming babies forced to be part of a Kimmel skit. Was she paid for that little fiasco?

September 29, 2010 - 8:45am
Susan Cody HERWriter Guide (reply to Anonymous)

I'll have to look into that skit, Anon. Thanks for the heads up.

And yes, guests on late night talk shows do get paid for their appearances. The children would likely be paid too and as their mother, she would control their finances.

~Susan

September 29, 2010 - 1:26pm
Crowsister (reply to Susan Cody)

While sincerely believing in the right of people to choose how they reproduce, I am startled that she was encouraged by law to reproduce to such an extent that her children are at risk - at risk of: neglect, starvation, lack of parenting time, manipulation by media, constant intrusion into their lives, and so many other things that my mind is boggling.

Let's face it, none of these children will have a 'normal' life, and some of them already appear to have special needs which require more time and income to support. To support such a person; who comes to such a state unknowingly, or because of lack of information, of course we do, this is what civilization means. To support the children, absolutely, completely, always, forever.

To support someone who knowingly and purposely creates this out-sized family in the full knowledge that they cannot ever support them financially, or with enough arms and love to care for them in the most basic ways - who assisted her in this seemingly criminal act? I am not in the USA but I thought that deliberately bringing a child into a situation where harm may befall would be illegal in the USA? Am I mistaken?

This is -for me- a case where the welfare of the children is paramount, and where the what seems to me to be unhinged notions of the mother, ought to be halted. These poor dear little kids - is there not a place of adoption, are there not couples who would gladly take some of these mites and be able to feed, support, and love them enough?

I am so sorry - I feel so so sorry for these children. It makes me cry to think that this thoughtless woman has been allowed and assisted to bring into being a family that she was never able to care for. A sad indictment on our society, and a mockery of 'freedom'. Surely personal freedom stops short of damaging another person?

Yes, I am heart-broken for these children. Totally so lost, abandoned, and dragged into their (I believe) unbalanced, mother's life. Tragedy.

September 30, 2010 - 8:40pm
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you agree to EmpowHER's terms of service and privacy policy

We value and respect our HERWriters' experiences, but everyone is different. Many of our writers are speaking from personal experience, and what's worked for them may not work for you. Their articles are not a substitute for medical advice, although we hope you can gain knowledge from their insight.

Improved

1637 Health

Changed

610 Lives

Saved

458 Lives
4 lives impacted in the last 24 hrs Learn More

Take Our Featured Health Poll

How do you control your PMS?:
View Results