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

[abecedarian]

This thread sure has lots of bunny trails..
The original family in question, like my own, is headed by two parents in a stable marital relationship. I can understand the arguements about teen parents and welfare moms, but the family in question, does not fall under those limits. This family seems to be taking care of themselves, without government assistance. If they should ever fall into dire straits, they are entitled to such assistance according to federal guidelines. These people are not hurting anyone. Yes, having more than the average 1.3 children is odd these days..but so what? Sure there are risks, but who knows what each individual child's ultimate benefit to society might be? Which child should not be born? The Next Beethhoven(7th born btw)? Somewhere in depths of my house, I have a book called Full Quiver, by Rick and Jan Hess, that has a list of famous people from large families. Another useful book for this discussion is Raising a Large Family by Katherine Schaerth.

 

[muggle]

Okay, back on track:

All very valid points... except for the fact that it really removes these kids from having a valid future. According to your plan they have to drop out of school and basically be unable to complete their high school diploma. Going back to school after a long absence is incredibly difficult. THis is what perpetuates the poverty loop. There are some schools these days which are set up for teen parents to be able to study and have their kids in childcare at the same facility. Is it "rewarding" bad behaviour? Well, it depends on how you view sex - it *is* legal, it's more about cultural acceptance.

The other thing is that many teens have kids to escape the poverty loop. Kids mean child support. In small-town Newfoundland, for example, many teens will have kids just so as they can start their own lives and try and escape the poverty their parents are in. My friend from a very small island off the Rock returns to find kids she went to school with having a house, car, etc all from government support. It's not socially acceptable, but it's survival.

It is difficult for most of us to fully understand exactly how difficult it is for kids that are raised under povery and/or other certain social conditions. I would be careful judging what kids may be doing until I fully understood their situation. Again, IMHO I think we should always try to help those less fortunate.

 

[moonshot]

I would say, with all the sincerity I can muster, that if an opinion is determined by a religion founded on the contents of Nonspecific Book X, written hundreds or thousands of years ago, then that opinion (or more properly the 'reason' for that opinion) is not worth having.


I believe your sincerity 100% and all that you are saying may well be true. I may even agree with you. But that does not mean that another opinion should be excluded from a discussion. Science, Religion Politics and Philosophy can run side by side and even feed off each other. The danger is when one is excluded.

 

[moonshot]

I would say, with all the sincerity I can muster, that if an opinion is determined by a religion founded on the contents of Nonspecific Book X, written hundreds or thousands of years ago, then that opinion (or more properly the 'reason' for that opinion) is not worth having.


I believe your sincerity 100% and all that you are saying may well be true. I may even agree with you. But that does not mean that another opinion should be excluded from a discussion. Science, Religion Politics and Philosophy can run side by side and even feed off each other. The danger is when one is excluded.

I believe your sincerity 100% and all that you are saying may well be true. I may even agree with you. But that does not mean that another opinion should be excluded from a discussion. Science, Religion Politics and Philosophy can run side by side and even feed off each other. The danger is when one is excluded.

 

[Motokid]

You seem to be getting rather personal Motokid.

Yep. A little bit. We all are capable of following the rules of the forum. We are having no issues with this thread. Even the mods have been active in this discussion. You seem to be the one with the problem stating your position without possibly resorting to violating the rules of the forum. If you can manage to piece together your thoughts in a way that conforms to this forum's regulations, then by all means join in on the fun. Otherwise, it's best for all of us if you find another thread to enjoy. Start your own. Do whatever you want just don't close this thread because you can't follow the rules.

As for the rules. The issues of religion and politics has been beaten quite dead numerous times. Darren owns the place and he won't change it. Like it, or leave it. Those are your two options. There is no debate there. We all suffer a bit, but we do our best to work around it. Sometimes we push the limits. That's the part I love. I've had a few problems, and caused some unrest. I've also created some very interesting, and eye-opening discussions. If you can't handle this one in a way that the rules dictate you must, then I propose you go to another thread. It's pretty simple.

As for words that some might be offended by. I've yet to hear one person complain. I've yet to get one pm asking for some kind of restraint. I've read many threads about how people feel about censorship of any and all kinds, and as far as I can tell most people here can handle that too.

I'm slightly sorry if I offend you, but not completely. I can't be everybodies cup of tea. Some like my threads. Some don't. I'll put you down as a don't and get on with my life.

 

[Kookamoor]

It is difficult for most of us to fully understand exactly how difficult it is for kids that are raised under povery and/or other certain social conditions. I would be careful judging what kids may be doing until I fully understood their situation. Again, IMHO I think we should always try to help those less fortunate.

I hope you don't think I'm judging the kids, muggle - that's exactly what I'm trying not to do (you quoted me, and I'm not sure why...). You don't try juveniles as adults for a reason - everyone should be allowed to make mistakes, and in some cases mistakes result in wonderful children. I think Moto is being a little hasty in his suggestions that kids should suck it up and deal with it like adults (yeah, I'm paraphrasing there). Even adults have trouble coping with things at times, and part of our society is helping others. There are two sides to helping teen pregnancy - prevention and assistance. I agree that people should not profit from having kids, or see pregnancy as a way out of poverty, but government assistance has far too many loopholes where welfare is concerned. Those that need is sometimes can't get it, and there are others who benefit more than they should.

This family seems to be taking care of themselves, without government assistance. If they should ever fall into dire straits, they are entitled to such assistance according to federal guidelines. These people are not hurting anyone. Yes, having more than the average 1.3 children is odd these days..but so what?

Ah! Abece, I was hoping you'd join in here!! A voice of experience with great wisdom. I think what people are failing to realise is that one family with 16 kids isn't going to alter the overall average one iota! Societal trends are to have less than 2.3 kids these days, I believe. If larger families started becoming more prevalent, then it would be cause for concern, but in this case I hardly see what the issue is. As long as the family is happy, healthy and financially stable - who are we to criticise??

 

[muggle]

I hope you don't think I'm judging the kids, muggle - that's exactly what I'm trying not to do (you quoted me, and I'm not sure why...). You don't try juveniles as adults for a reason - everyone should be allowed to make mistakes, and in some cases mistakes result in wonderful children. I think Moto is being a little hasty in his suggestions that kids should suck it up and deal with it like adults (yeah, I'm paraphrasing there). Even adults have trouble coping with things at times, and part of our society is helping others. There are two sides to helping teen pregnancy - prevention and assistance. I agree that people should not profit from having kids, or see pregnancy as a way out of poverty, but government assistance has far too many loopholes where welfare is concerned. Those that need is sometimes can't get it, and there are others who benefit more than they should.

Goodness no Kookamoor. I respect you too much for that. I messed up what I was trying to say and I could not get back in time to correct my intent. I was trying to use your excellent examples by stating that people, not you, should not judge to quickly as we may not fully understand the situation as it exists in Newfoundland or elsewhere. My opinion in general is that kids today need all the help they can get as it is tough to grow up in today's world.

Ah! Abece, I was hoping you'd join in here!! A voice of experience with great wisdom. I think what people are failing to realise is that one family with 16 kids isn't going to alter the overall average one iota! Societal trends are to have less than 2.3 kids these days, I believe. If larger families started becoming more prevalent, then it would be cause for concern, but in this case I hardly see what the issue is. As long as the family is happy, healthy and financially stable - who are we to criticise??

I totally agree with you.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

I think what people are failing to realise is that one family with 16 kids isn't going to alter the overall average one iota! Societal trends are to have less than 2.3 kids these days, I believe. If larger families started becoming more prevalent, then it would be cause for concern, but in this case I hardly see what the issue is. As long as the family is happy, healthy and financially stable - who are we to criticise??

Finally someone else pointed out what I've said twice already. I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice this.

One single family is hardly a cause for concern. Yes I know of a family in a rural district here in DK where the girl through whom I know them has 10 or 12 siblings (I forget) and both the parents have around the same number of siblings since they're from the generation where you had a lot of siblings - period. But this is one single family and they can't even make up for all the singles in one single city that remain childless all their lives. I work at a church and not too long ago we buried an old lady of 84(I think) who had never had any children. The big family can make up for only three people of her kind.

Moto points out rightly enough that many kids might also have many kids, though there is no guarantee that if you grew up in a big fam you'll have at least 4 kids yourself. However the moment someone does not have kids it has the same sort of 'growth' factor, if I don't have the kids I should the generation after me will be lacking two people, the generation after: 4, and so on.

If a law should be made that has a maximum of allowed children, there will have to be the opposite law as well, forcing everyone to have at least 1 child. Otherwise the balance will sooner or later falter.

While I can only agree that through education and information we should do our best to prevent that people get snappers or otherwise unwanted children, we cannot regulate families in this way.

I find it interesting to observe that the Americans(please excuse the generalisation) who get in an uproar about something as 'dreadful' as nation-wide organised ID cards because it's a breach of the personal sphere, can think of regulating something as intimate as sex and children. Either those two groups don't overlap at all(which I'd find hard to believe) or the American definition of personal sphere differs a LOT from mine

Regardless, as I've stated before: when the statistics turn up that show too many people having large families and thus shifting the average number of children - then I'll be worried. Until then, until the people of the Western world actually start having the children they need in order to keep their countries going, I'm gonna sit back and relax.

On a side-note: I felt sooo tempted to revive the 'offended' thread.

 

[Motokid]

but who knows what each individual child's ultimate benefit to society might be? Which child should not be born? The Next Beethhoven(7th born btw)?

It's not about looking at a family of 12 kids and pointing to the last 6 or 8 and saying they should not have been born.

But I can certainly question why someone who has 16 kids would be thinking about, and willing to have more. What's the point?

Then I googled the fathers name and found the family website. The religious undertones, and overtones coming from these people was alarming. I understand loving kids. That doesn't mean having them as long as my wife is physically capable of having them. If 16 isn't enough how many is? I really think these people need to have some mental counseling. I would certainly never vote for this guy if he decides to run for public office.

To be honest. People like this scare me. The extreme of extremes always make you question why.

If they want more kids why can't they adopt? Why do they have to keep breeding? In all contexts of the word it's freakish.

And by the way...I have no problem with anybody questioning why I only had two. Or, why I had two. This is a discussion, and as far as I know none of us here are making any laws, or causing any harm one way or the other by discussing this topic.

 

[Miss Shelf]

I'm not sure why this is even a topic of discussion. If they can have 16 kids without government assistance, and want more and can support them, who has the right to criticize them? Their religious beliefs are their own, they aren't shoving it down peoples' throats and encouraging more people to be like them. I don't see that this family is any more reprehensible than people who take fertility drugs and wind up having 8 babies in a single pregnancy, and (on religious grounds) ignore advice to abort a couple to give the others a better chance at survival, and some or all of those infants are handicapped and become dependent on government resources.

 

[Motokid]

My guess is that 150 posts makes it a discussion.

 

[StillILearn]

For the record, we had one bio-child and afterward opted to adopt a child who had been in foster care for a couple of years. This was back in the sixties when people were having these kinds of discussions on a regular basis.

(Also, for the record, the love felt and the rewards received have been equal . Different, but equal!)

 

[muggle]

But I can certainly question why someone who has 16 kids would be thinking about, and willing to have more. What's the point?

To be honest. People like this scare me. The extreme of extremes always make you question why.

Why would people like this scare you. There are many things that scare me but not a couple that willingly have 16 children. If anything that is related to people having many children scares a person it should be the Countries where they are uneducated about how to not have children, "if that is their choice". The prevention of unwanted and uncared for children in some countries is more my concern. You choose 2 and that is fine. Others choose not to have any and that is also fine. Some choose to have more than 2 and that is also ok with me. If we are concerned about the world's population growth why not concentrate on areas that are of significantly more concern than a couple that has willingly had 16 children.

 

[Kookamoor]

muggle - Cheers! That's what I thought - damn this new 15 minute editing time limit, eh?

Jemima - I was going to quote you, but the whole thing was so dang spot-on that all I can do is raise a glass and say "I agree".

But I can certainly question why someone who has 16 kids would be thinking about, and willing to have more. What's the point?

If they want more kids why can't they adopt? Why do they have to keep breeding? In all contexts of the word it's freakish.

The point? Is there a 'point' to having kids? Sure, there's the biological reasons of perpetuating the species. But isn't it more like some underlying "feeling" that you should have children? I can't speak about that really as I'm not a parent. Why *did* you stop at two kids, Moto?

I think I can see where Moto's going with this (though I still think the idea of big family = bad because of population size is a poor argument). Assuming they are very religiously minded as Moto is suggesting, it is possible that these children are the result of a healthy sex life between two very fertile people who are not using contraceptives. The parents just let the children be born as they are conceived naturally. If this is their attitude and the kids are healthy and happy I see no problem with it. But I think Moto is trying to say (correct me if wrong) - is it possible that the parents are 'addicted' to having children? Is this a healthy process? I think it is impossible to tell, and even then, unless the children or the mother was in danger then it would be even more difficult to do anything about it. I still don't really see this as a debate - speculation and astonished comments (can you even imagine the stretch marks ?? ), but not a debate. For a debate we would definately need more facts about the family, and that ain't going to happen.

 

[G4G]

Anyone who has access to Sky News: there's a report coming up about this subject very soon, apparently. Don't know if it's the same family though. In the next few minutes, I think

 

[Motokid]

The idea that "If they can afford to do it what difference should it make to others" is the very same mindset that gets America into trouble all over the world. It's a selfishness thing isn't it?

I can have huge Hummers and other SUV's even though I don't need them because I can afford them.

We can use up huge quantities of the earths resources because we can pay for them.

 

[Kookamoor]

The idea that "If they can afford to do it what difference should it make to others" is the very same mindset that gets America into trouble all over the world. It's a selfishness thing isn't it?

I can have huge Hummers and other SUV's even though I don't need them because I can afford them.

We can use up huge quantities of the earths resources because we can pay for them.

It's not the same thing at all! The ecological footprint of one more human being isn't that great compared to the examples you mention. If one person owns an 4WD vehicle for use on the farm that's fine. If families all over the country start buying SUVs because it's trendy/safe (rendering everyone else unsafe) or whatever, then there's a problem. Equally, if one large family exists, no problem, not selfish. If everyone starts doing it and the population increase becomes problematic then your point may be validated.

From the Sky News article (didn't see the broadcast, just this article):

However, Ian and Sue get upset when people accuse the family of 'scrounging'.

Sue said: "We have chosen to have a large family and we provide for them. It is hurtful when people tar all large families with the same brush."

 

[Motokid]

It's not just one more. Based on the national average it's 13+ more...and those kids will have kids, and probably more than the national average because that's the way they grew up...

The population growth from just the two original parents will be staggering after 4 or 5 generations down the line. In theory anyway.

Plus...now they are semi-celeb's. The Learning Channel or Discovery's going to do a show on them. They've been on TV, and all over the internet. Society is wrapping their arms around them and making them almost famous. Very few are pointing out that there may be an underlying problem here.

You may have hit it on the head Kook. They(she) may be addicted to having kids.

I just think it's time for them to stop breeding like rabbits, and if they can handle more, or want more, they should adopted.

 

[muggle]

It's not just one more. Based on the national average it's 13+ more...and those kids will have kids, and probably more than the national average because that's the way they grew up...

.

The National average is just that, an average. The 16 children the couple had did not influence the National average at all. I know for a fact that there were 8 other couples that had no children.

I think this discussion has run it's course. We are reading a lot of the same stuff now.

muggle - Cheers! That's what I thought - damn this new 15 minute editing time limit, eh?
.

Kookomoor - And Cheers to you. Remember, this old man is not quite as quick as he was in his younger days, either physically or mentally.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

Jemima - I was going to quote you, but the whole thing was so dang spot-on that all I can do is raise a glass and say "I agree".

Thank you, I feel much honoured