17 is not enough?

[Taosman]

Jst the cost of that many kids! And he's no millionaire.
WTF are they thinking?

 

[jwinslow]

The ignorance shown on this board by those who make blind assumptions and slam the family simply because they are different from the so-called "norm" is incredible, and really sad. (I'm not talking to those making jokes, only those criticizing this family and making assumptions about them.)

Bingo.

But today it is selfish, egotistical and narrow-minded to bring that many children into an already overcrowded and overburdened world.

No it's not. It's different, so it's being judged, bashed and treated as a sin. If they have the means to support the family, then why can't they have that many children?

I haven't seen the father on TV, as discussed earlier. But the morality of having that many children is independent of how this particular father treats them.

Some parents don't believe in having more than 2-3 kids, and think 5+ will result in too little attention for their children and too little time for their marriage. Does that preference of theirs mean the 5+ kid families are wrong?

 

[Best Buckeye]

Bingo.
No it's not. It's different, so it's being judged, bashed and treated as a sin. If they have the means to support the family, then why can't they have that many children?

I haven't seen the father on TV, as discussed earlier. But the morality of having that many children is independent of how this particular father treats them.

Some parents don't believe in having more than 2-3 kids, and think 5+ will result in too little attention for their children and too little time for their marriage. Does that preference of theirs mean the 5+ kid families are wrong?

Absolutely right. The parents will decide how many kids they want to have and can have. No one here as any God given right to question or judge.

 

[JCOSU86]

2 words for Michelle: blow job

That would be a gift from God.

 

[Buckeye86]

Absolutely right. The parents will decide how many kids they want to have and can have. No one here as any God given right to question or judge.

It's their right as citizens of the United States to have as many children as they want and everyone else's right as citizens to say about them whatever they feel is appropriate.

 

[Brewtus]

No it's not. It's different, so it's being judged, bashed and treated as a sin. If they have the means to support the family, then why can't they have that many children?

I haven't seen the father on TV, as discussed earlier. But the morality of having that many children is independent of how this particular father treats them.

Some parents don't believe in having more than 2-3 kids, and think 5+ will result in too little attention for their children and too little time for their marriage. Does that preference of theirs mean the 5+ kid families are wrong?

It's not about having the financial ability to support that many children, but rather providing the best nurturing environment for each child and being a responsible citizen in an overpopulated world. It's selfish and shortsighted to bring that many more people into the world, especially in the U.S. which uses a disproportionate share of the world's limited natural resources. What's his reasoning? To stroke his own ego and glorify his own personal God? I'm not arguing that it should be illegal to have 17 kids, but he also shouldn't be immune to criticism either. Maybe it will make him look past his own needs and wants for once and consider what's best for each of his children and all of humankind.

 

[jwinslow]

Brewtus, how many kids do you feel is too many? What is the Brewtus cutoff number?

It's not about having the financial ability to support that many children, but rather providing the best nurturing environment for each child and being a responsible citizen in an overpopulated world.

And that magic number varies wildly among families. What makes your 'number' worth listening to?

It's selfish and shortsighted to bring that many more people into the world, especially in the U.S. which uses a disproportionate share of the world's limited natural resources.

Then maybe you should take up your fight with America, not one particular family.

How do you know they are as wasteful as most americans? Given the scope of their family, that may not be the case at all. Given their religious background, how do you know they won't produce a number of missionaries who will help the rest of the world? ASSumptions are not becoming.

What's his reasoning? To stroke his own ego and glorify his own personal God?

What a wonderfully balanced list of choices

Maybe it will make him look past his own needs and wants for once and consider what's best for each of his children and all of humankind.

So he should adjust his family to fit your beliefs. Perhaps you should look past your own needs as well.

 

[Deety]

A different generation and different circumstances. Your grandfather was born during the 1920's I assume and probably lived on a farm? Larger families were more of a necessity and the norm back then. The sad fact is that one or more children would probably die before making it to their teens. And his parents needed as much help as they could get on the farm. Birth control was also in short supply (or not even available) back then. But today it is selfish, egotistical and narrow-minded to bring that many children into an already overcrowded and overburdened world.

This is a few years out of date and not what I'd use if I had time to do the true research, but here's a UN publication referencing a 50-year projection indicating an ongoing decline in the U.S. population. I don't see population as a real factor in this discussion, but that should be sufficient to dismiss it.

I also don't see what is egotistical about wanting to allow nature to take its course and have as many children as come naturally over one's lifetime. Wouldn't it be more egotistical to say that your wish to limit the number of children is is to say you know better than a system refined by evolution? (Creationists are likely to follow other reasoning in this matter, so this argument need not encompass them.) Could it be egotistical in some cases, sure - and so could be the motivation for any sort of reproductive choices. Again, just something I'd dismiss as an argument against a big family, as having any number of children for reasons of ego alone would be wrong.

I know of two big families from experience. My grandmother was one of a dozen children, and the man I dated in college was the second-oldest of ten, though sadly his older sister died in her teens. Both families were case studies in how to get along with people. I've never seen a family function as well as my ex-boyfriend's, where rather than missing out on attention, each family member had that many more people making sure they felt cared for and had their needs met. I saw those kids help each other in ways I've never seen before or since, and it was absolutely fantastic. Had he been "the one," no doubt I'd be up to at least five by now - not because I have any set plans in that regard, but because those decisions are a function of the relationship, and children would have been the primary purpose of that particular one.

I don't think the combination of compassion, organization, ability to support many children, and parenting skills (in sets of two no less) that are needed to have a successful big family are found all that often, but when they are, by all means go for it.

 

[NJ-Buckeye]

I guarantee you... my father did not want 17 children... I know that for fact.. can't tell you much more about him.. he died when I was very young... My mother did not want 17 children but was so religious she had no choices - duty and a strong sense of whatever God's will... one tough lady...

I can tell you... 17 is geometrically so different than even 10, you can't imagine... I missed out on a lot most of you took for granted...

In today's world... I'm not sure why anyone would do this... other than religion...

Three was a lot for me... altho I wish I had four...

 

[Brewtus]

Brewtus, how many kids do you feel is too many? What is the Brewtus cutoff number?
And that magic number varies wildly among families. What makes your 'number' worth listening to? Then maybe you should take up your fight with America, not one particular family.

2-3 children, enough to replace you and your spouse but not add to world population growth. And this number isn't just for America, it's for every parent in every country in the world.

How do you know they are as wasteful as most americans? Given the scope of their family, that may not be the case at all. Given their religious background, how do you know they won't produce a number of missionaries who will help the rest of the world? ASSumptions are not becoming.

Even if they lived their lives in the most conservative way, 17 children would still be much more wasteful than 2 or 3. And why would you ASSume that a missionary who travels to another country with the intent to convert people from their native religion to Christianity is somehow a good thing?

What a wonderfully balanced list of choices So he should adjust his family to fit your beliefs. Perhaps you should look past your own needs as well.

No, not my beliefs, my opinion based on what I think is best for the entire planet, not just my little world. I never said they were bad parents and that having 17 children should be criminalized. But they need to realize that their choices do have an impact on an already overcrowded world and that it's a selfish and unnecessary decision to have 17 children. That is a fact, it's not my "belief". Wouldn't Jesus rather have him consider what's best for all of mankind and not just him and his wife?

 

[jwinslow]

2-3 children, enough to replace you and your spouse but not add to world population growth. And this number isn't just for America, it's for every parent in every country in the world.

If the world's overpopulation is your personal responsibility, why not help out and not have any children? Or limit your family's footprint to one?

And why would you ASSume that a missionary who travels to another country with the intent to convert people from their native religion to Christianity is somehow a good thing?

Yep, all missionaries do over there is bring clubs and beat them until they accept their personal world view. Never mind all of the ways they give back, with time, love, money, services and most of all, their presence to do whatever is needed. There is much work to be done, and few that are willing to answer the call (whatever their belief system).

That is a fact, it's not my "belief".

Nope, it's a belief that you hold so dearly that you treat it as fact. Some would view 3 children as selfish and unnecessary, whether it be due to overcrowding, or personalized attention/love for a child. I seriously doubt you'd agree with their 'beliefs' (that they may also view as facts).

 

[Brewtus]

This is a few years out of date and not what I'd use if I had time to do the true research, but here's a UN publication referencing a 50-year projection indicating an ongoing decline in the U.S. population. I don't see population as a real factor in this discussion, but that should be sufficient to dismiss it.

It's not specifically about the U.S. population, it's about thinking globally and taking responsibility for just replacing you and your spouse and not contributing to an already overpopulated world. (And by the way, the native US population may be declining, but with immigration the population continues to increase)

I also don't see what is egotistical about wanting to allow nature to take its course and have as many children as come naturally over one's lifetime. Wouldn't it be more egotistical to say that your wish to limit the number of children is is to say you know better than a system refined by evolution? (Creationists are likely to follow other reasoning in this matter, so this argument need not encompass them.) Could it be egotistical in some cases, sure - and so could be the motivation for any sort of reproductive choices. Again, just something I'd dismiss as an argument against a big family, as having any number of children for reasons of ego alone would be wrong.

But we're not slaves to nature, hopelessly allowing it to "take its course" (besides the fact that 17 children are not "natural" - without modern medicine and food production there is no way they could have fed all those hungry mouths thousands of years ago). We have the ability to look beyond ourselves and make decisions on what's best for the world as a whole, not just ourselves. It's also "natural" to let disease and cancer take it's natural course on people and not do anything about it, but I'm sure no one would advocate that. And I don't wish to limit the number of children people have, I wish for people to make that decision based not only on what's best for them (and their God) but for the rest of humanity.

I know of two big families from experience. My grandmother was one of a dozen children, and the man I dated in college was the second-oldest of ten, though sadly his older sister died in her teens. Both families were case studies in how to get along with people. I've never seen a family function as well as my ex-boyfriend's, where rather than missing out on attention, each family member had that many more people making sure they felt cared for and had their needs met. I saw those kids help each other in ways I've never seen before or since, and it was absolutely fantastic. Had he been "the one," no doubt I'd be up to at least five by now - not because I have any set plans in that regard, but because those decisions are a function of the relationship, and children would have been the primary purpose of that particular one.

I don't think the combination of compassion, organization, ability to support many children, and parenting skills (in sets of two no less) that are needed to have a successful big family are found all that often, but when they are, by all means go for it.

I don't deny that there are many millions of families that have experienced the same thing and feel the same way. Just as there are many millions of families that have had only 1 or 2 children and wouldn't have changed their experiences for anything. But we don't live in a remote world anymore, our personal decisions now have a much more lasting effect than anytime before. It's the grandchildren of these 17 children that are going to be facing the toughest challenges, why not leave them with the best possible world that we can?

 

[scooter1369]

I just can't imagine needing a school bus to take the family to church or to dinner.

 

[Buckeye86]

I just can't imagine needing a school bus to take the family to church or to dinner.

How about a couple hundred bucks to take your kids to a movie or the zoo, and a couple thousand to take them to a ball game.

I saw a show on TLC last night about a different family that had 16 kids, and they had a group of older boys, the oldest being 24, not sure how old the youngest of the group was, and one was talking about how it was weird none of them were in a serious relationship or married. Well let's see, you were home schooled, you are unable to go out and do anything to meet people, you spend all of your time with your family, you can't have people over to your house and have an ounce of privacy together... I wonder why no one is in a relationship?? I personally feel kids in such large families are seriously deprived.

Another thing I was thinking about was college... do any of these kids in such huge families get to go to college?

 

[scooter1369]

Another thing I was thinking about was college... do any of these kids in such huge families get to go to college?

The same way other kids do. Get a farking job and pay for it.