I think I left the comment during ICLW, when I was just getting to know some (delightful!) new blogs, and I hadn't got everbody's name straight yet. So I don't know whom I owe the apology. But the owing part is pretty clear.
What I said was an attempt at defending this mother of octuplets. My defense was premised on my understanding of the attack - I thought people's point was that you shouldn't have fourteen kids, period. And I think, if you really would like fourteen kids, and you can really take good care of fourteen kids, and God blesses you with fourteen kids (I'm not 100% clear that that God's blessing can be accomplished by implanting eight embryos, but whatever), then good. I mentioned that I hadn't read up on the story.
Anyway, now I've read up on the story. Oh, my. OK, what I missed, among other things, was that (1) these babies have no father to be in their lives; (2) the mother cannot take care of them; and (3) her having babies appears to be sort of compulsive, which tends not to bode well for the kids. I'm kind of concerned. And, of course, late to the party.
I'd also like to point out some unnoticed victims here: her dead children, the five babies apiece who didn't make it when she implanted six embryos at a pop for her six previous pregnancies. This is a lot of casualties for that project. Which I suppose is the lighter side of the octuplets - they all survived. And if, as some have reported, she was not even sub-fertile, why didn't she get her sperm donations the old-fashioned way, as so many have before her? Not that I'm approving this behavior, mind, it just strikes me as more efficient and, well, cost-effective. I recognize that clinic donation has some legal benefits, but I'm not clear that this gal was after that. I guess I just generally don't get her.
Anyway, I jumped, or perhaps un-jumped, to conclusions. And I apologize. I may not follow all the news more diligently from now on (I just can't keep up), but I will try to be less, um, you know. With the commenting.