The morning show hosts reduce role of octuplets’ father to monetary supplier.
It’s a battle of materialism vs. morality on NBC’s Today show, and materialism is the clear winner. Apparently, the single mother of octuplets only needs their father for financial support.
In a February 6 preview of an exclusive interview with the Nadya Suleman, single mother of octuplets, the Today Show hosts mention the father of the octuplets only in terms of a financial provider, ignoring any moral obligation he might have, and failing to acknowledge that his involvement might be essential for successful parenting.
Ann Curry previewed her interview with Sulamen and fielded questions from co-host Matt Lauer about the father’s involvement with the children. After Curry responded that Suleman wishes for the reportedly “overwhelmed” sperm donor and biological father of her fourteen children to be in their lives when he is ready, Lauer pressed the financial issue, rather than confirming the positive presence a father has in the children’s lives.
“And can I just go back to the financial side of this for a second, she says that when she’s finished her schooling she knows she’ll be able to support them but in the, in the near term, immediately,” Lauer asked. “How are these children going to be cared for in terms of the financial cost that it will take?”
Earlier in the segment, video showed Curry pressing Suleman on the issue of financially supporting her fourteen children. “People feel you know this woman is being completely irresponsible and selfish to bring these children in the world without a clear source of income and enough help to raise them.”
Suleman defended her actions, saying “a lot of couples, usually its couples, do undergo this procedure you know and um, it’s not as controversial because they’re couples so it’s more acceptable to society. For me, I see, I feel as though I’ve been under the microscope because I’ve chosen this unconventional kind of life.”
“Income and enough help,” not moral support and male role models, were the key factors for Curry. And to Suleman, it’s about her and her “unconventional life.”
However, statistics prove that children in two-parent homes are less likely than children in single-parent homes to suffer from behavior problems, health problems, and low educational achievement, among other things.
Erin Brown is an intern for the Culture and Media Institute.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
UGH.
February 6, 2009 - 16:42 ET by MotherThis woman [using the term loosely] must be mentally ill or exceedingly narcissistic. I want to punch her in the vagina for being such a selfish piece of work.
I guess this is the direct opposite end of the spectrum of "PRO CHOICE". Welfare recipients can have spendy in vitro too. Yay! DOY!
This is all so sickeningly and blatantly unethical.
That Woman's Nuts!!!....
February 6, 2009 - 16:53 ET by connmanI saw her this morning on the Today Show Good morning-Good morning-Good morning with Madame Curie. She sure looks like her lips are packed with Collagen and she had a Nose job! But she justs wants to be a "self-less" mom with "unconditional love" for her forty something children. Oh by the way Matt and Madame please read chapter two of Anne book Guilty, it's all you need to know.
Pssssst <whispers> Emperor Barry isn't wearing any clothes!
RE: connman
February 6, 2009 - 17:34 ET by MotherExactamundo!
Yeah, it looks like the 'ho'mosapien woman is trying to turn herself [via plastic surgery] into Angelina Jolie ad infinitum and injections.
Every conservative with two brain cells to rub together should read or rent Coulter's book. She's right on the moula.
This fem-beast is all kinds of backasswards. Eww. Just ewwwwwwwwww.
Well maybe the single moms
February 6, 2009 - 19:24 ET by MightyMouthWell maybe the single moms just need the money, but the kids need DADS!!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
The real cost of Suleman's 14 kids-
February 6, 2009 - 19:50 ET by riff_raffI am a California taxpayer, and sadly, this woman is a California resident whose 14 children will soon be attending public school. The per-child cost of public schooling, to California taxpayers, is currently about $11,000 per year. That would amount to $154,000 per year to educate Suleman's children. The cost of which will be entirely paid for by taxpayers, since Suleman does not seem interested in gainful employment.
Of course, on the bright side, the country's going to need all of the future taxpayers it can get to pay off the 2009 Porkulus Bill congress is about to pass.
"Don't blame me.....I voted for Palin"
Right...
February 6, 2009 - 20:21 ET by Flying_FlynnAnn Coulter was totally wrong about single mothers being elevated to victim-hood!
Flying Flynn
Aren't around 70% of criminals in prison...
February 7, 2009 - 09:08 ET by JohnMcGrew...from single-parent households?
But it's not hard to understand how media liberals believe that all it takes is money to raise a child. After all, they're all for the programs that make single parenthood even possible, and I'm sure they provide their children with the best nannies, private schools, etc.
*Gastp* Am I morphing into a lib?
February 7, 2009 - 11:36 ET by QueenMumI don't know. I don't see this as an example of blatant bias. Whatever the mom has to say about the sperm donor, it's clear that she gave no thought to the idea that her children should have a real father. The story is that she wanted children and pretty much didn't care about how she achieved this. I think bringing up the financial aspect was a reasonable way to point out how irresponsible this woman is overall. No matter who the sperm donor is, she's the one who made the decision to go forward with implanting all these embryos. I guess I'd want to pursue finding out more about the agreement between her and the sperm donor. She's stated that the donor was a friend. But I don't think we can at all take what this woman says at face value. This case is so beyond the pale that focusing on whether or not all these kids will have a father seems fruitless. And frankly I'm glad to see the likes of the "Today" show hinting at the possibility that the American taxpayers are likely to be the ones who will be caring for all these children.
Does she even know who the 7
February 7, 2009 - 12:22 ET by shirtsbyericDoes she even know who the 7 other fathers are?
shirtsbyeric
February 7, 2009 - 12:50 ET by sherylsimsI had heard that it was the same guy who was also the father of all the others. I also heard that he said no when she wanted him to father the last batch and she forged his signature and had it done anyway. I don't know personally if that is true, but it was from what consider to be a reliable source. I heard all this (and more) from my daughter in law who has followed the story for her own reasons.
sheryl: I don't understand.
February 7, 2009 - 18:15 ET by QueenMumsheryl: I don't understand. The donor's sperm is joined with the harvested eggs and the resulting embryo is stored. In this case, the woman in question had 6 such embryos left and decided that she wanted them all implanted at once. Her 6 other children were also the result of IVF; but I haven't heard how many embryos were implanted in each of these cycles or how many embryos total were created from her harvested eggs. Are you saying that the sperm donor must agree to each IVF cycle before the embryo/s can be implanted? This is the only reason I could see where the donor's signature would be required except in the case of a married couple. In fact, it's my understanding that often sperm donors are anonymous other than being required to disclose any health problems that might be passed on to the embryo
Edited to add: Link to Wikipedia article re: sperm donation