• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

"Mom delivers 16th child" - Is there something wrong with this?

Motokid

Motokid

New Member
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/parenting/10/12/sixteen.kids.ap/index.html

I'm having mixed thoughts about this. At what point, in a world that's crawling with poverty and hunger, not to mention plenty of children who have no parents at all, does this kind of thing exceed rational thinking?

Why can't they stop having children of their own, and adopt? They could have had 6 kids of thier own and adopted 10 that had no parents....

16 kids all from the same parents....it's certianly their right to do it....but I just think it's really.....I don't know.....how can they afford this? That's 18 people to feed every day, and the laundry, and the cost of raising, where do they all sleep....how do you provide for the needs of so many children?

It almost seems selfish....it seems...rediculous....and they might have more:eek: :eek: :eek:

I'd love to know what others think of this kind of thing.
 
Is bringing 16 of your own children into this world so different from having 3 children of your own? I don't think so. So why do you consider the parents of 16 selfish? I don't get it.
 
It's like having a Hummer for a vehicle when a Honda Accord will do the same job. It's taking things to the extreme.

How can two people provide the nuturing for 16 plus kids? Why don't they adopt instead of bringing more people into the world? There's so many kids with no parents that are falling through the cracks of the system. Isn't the over-population of the world a bit of a problem?

I can think of a few reasons why it seems above and beyond rational thinking.

And again, I did say I had mixed thoughts about it.

and yes....16 is very different than 3....by about 13....that's a huge, huge difference.
 
It's not, Moto. If you want people that have 16 children to adopt, then you should want people to have just 3 (or 2, or 1) to adopt too.
 
Having a herd myself, I find myself admiring these people for going against the flow and enjoying their family. As long as they aren't abusing the system or their kids, its not for any of us to say if they are right or wrong. I have met several families larger than ours, and they've all been extremely bright and interesting people, with a very keen sense of humor.

BTW-you all are welcome to have and express different opinions..you won't hurt my feelings at all. I've heard just about everything anyway. I've even thought about having a t-shirt printed with some of my favorite answers to "witty questions."
 
Motokid said:
It's like having a Hummer for a vehicle when a Honda Accord will do the same job. It's taking things to the extreme.

How can two people provide the nuturing for 16 plus kids? Why don't they adopt instead of bringing more people into the world? There's so many kids with no parents that are falling through the cracks of the system. Isn't the over-population of the world a bit of a problem?

I can think of a few reasons why it seems above and beyond rational thinking.

And again, I did say I had mixed thoughts about it.

and yes....16 is very different than 3....by about 13....that's a huge, huge difference.
Click to expand...


Have you ever tried to adopt a child? I'm not trying to be confrontational here..I know you mean well, but I want to try to explain why that may not work for most people.
For one thing, many families are stretched to the max to "afford" however many they have naturally. Housing in this country no longer is designed for more than 4 kids..at least if we have to meet child services guidelines. Most adoption agencies will not place kids in a home unless they have their own room or at least a separate bed. My kids shared double beds for years until we managed to get singles for all. They did fine too. My kids have always shared rooms, sometimes 3 to a room..again, it wasn't the greatest, but they're still all alive and kicking and of reasonably sound mind and spirits(although some days...)
And that's just if a family is willing to adopt an older child. Babies are much much harder to come by. Between the abortion rate, and the increased numbers of birthmoms keeping their babies, infants are harder to adopt. And then there's the cost..
I believe adoption is a calling, just like being called to the ministry to preach or serve as a missionary. Not all are called to such a task.
 
It's funny to me that American's are almost always portrayed as excessive wasters of resources, and always being extreme in everything we do and yet having beyond a normally large number of children is not looked at in the same way. A single guy living in Florida driving an SUV that does not have a boat to tow, or a trailer to tow, is looked at with disgust yet 2 people clearly taking child bearing to a news making extreme are not.

I'm not saying they can't have all the kids they want....but I do see it as a very strange and very foreign thought process. Kids from large familiy's usually have large families. If each of these 16 kids has 8 of their own that's 128 more people in the world.....it grows exponentially.

Should this family pay more in taxes for things like public schooling than a family with just one or two children?
 
My paternal grandfather was one of 23, although this was about 100 years ago and several of the children died before adulthood.
 
Motokid said:
It's funny to me that American's are almost always portrayed as excessive wasters of resources, and always being extreme in everything we do and yet having beyond a normally large number of children is not looked at in the same way. A single guy living in Florida driving an SUV that does not have a boat to tow, or a trailer to tow, is looked at with disgust yet 2 people clearly taking child bearing to a news making extreme are not.

I'm not saying they can't have all the kids they want....but I do see it as a very strange and very foreign thought process. Kids from large familiy's usually have large families. If each of these 16 kids has 8 of their own that's 128 more people in the world.....it grows exponentially.

Should this family pay more in taxes for things like public schooling than a family with just one or two children?
Click to expand...


Well, as someone who doesn't use the public school system, I resent the idea I should be paying more than my neighbors with three kids. I don't mind helping to fund the public institution down the road..I also help fund the prisions and pray to never have a child of mine go there too. We don't own an SUV.But there's a family in town with 3 kids who drive two Hummers, and their twin dds each have massive fancy trucks, and their son has a nice new truck too..So, who's consuming more than their share? Define a share.. We aren't on welfare, and my husband supports us, and my kids are well clothed.
It is an assumption that kids from large families go on to have bigger than average families themselves. My inlaws each came from large depression-era families and they had two kids. Most of their siblings had just one or two also. So many people are opting to have just one, or even No kids, so I don't feel guilty for adding to the future workforce.
 
I understand exactly what you're saying, Moto, and I agree with you.













(I'd say more, but I haven't had my coffee yet.) ;)
 
Doesn't China have a pretty hefty tax placed on a family if they have more than one child or something like that?

In America you get a tax break for every child you have...or does that stop after a certain number?
 
Motokid said:
Doesn't China have a pretty hefty tax placed on a family if they have more than one child or something like that?
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me, don't you think?
 
China also has a policy of forced abortions for women who are foolish enough to get pregnant after the second child. No thanks. Perhaps if their government would allow people to work for themselves, the economic environment would change, and the poverty level might rise. But we are not in China, we are in a country that has a constitutional form of government, and in the case Moto has put before us, no laws have been violated. If we were to line up these 16 children, and look into their eyes, which child would you point to and say," you should have been aborted?"
 
aaaackkkkk......I'd prefer that that one word not enter into this discussion again....I never had any intention of going there...and I'm sure others don't want to either....
 
I find the idea of 16 children (with the probability of more) repellent. The older ones are assigned the task of looking after the younger ones, which is the mom's job-but of course she can't do it alone. I read that their new house has dormitory-style rooms for the boys and girls. (let's hope there are more than two bathrooms.) This sounds more like an orphanage than a home. I'm not saying that kids deserve their own room with their own TVs and computers, just that they might be shortchanged in all areas-material and emotional. I'm sure that if you talk to them, they will say they're all happy with the way things are, and if that's so, that's terrific. It's just not my idea of Utopia.

I think what's interesting about this is that the family is not receiving public assistance (at least not that I'm aware of).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top