• 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?

I think the real question here is, when does concern about overpopulation overpower the rights of individuals to have as many kids as they want?

Currently, there's no way we could support everyone in the world living the standard of first world countries. There's not enough materials, production or food to support it. If all of China quickly became First World, prices for metals and such would go through the roof.

So, is it irresponsible to replace you and your mate with 8 times as many people? Are you stabbing the human race in the back for your own selfish desire? Or are you just exercising your right as an individual?

I'm all about the rights of the individual man, but in the case, my personal opinion is that having so many kids is a transgression against the world. We need to be pulling the reins back on the population if we want to survive as a species.
 
Good luck to these people with thee 16 kids!
This women must never get her figure back being pregnant all the time!

As i women two kids are enough for me!

If you bring kids into the world you should be able to provide for them!
 
From the article, it appears these children ARE being provided for. As one of those moms committing crimes against humanity by having more than two kids, I can speak for my own situation. We are doing our best to raise godly, caring kids, who care about others and will hopefully be a help to society rather than a hindrance. The problem with lack of food and other necessities in most parts of the world can be traced to their governments and social ills within those nations.
 
On the contrary, I'm in Real Estate, and the primary caregiver for my kids, granted, I only have 2 kids, but my husband works long hours, so it's me and the kids for most of the day and into the evening. With real estate, you make the time and the hours are flexible

Motokid said:
"Jim Bob Duggar, who sells real estate, previously lost his bid for the U.S. Senate. He said he expects to run for the state Senate next year but isn't ready to make a formal announcement."

How much time can Dad be spending at home with the children if he's a real estate salesman and he's running for U.S. Senate, and he has to provide for building this new house, while also providing for himself and 17 other people?

Unless this guy is making some astronomical salary I just don't see how Dad can be around much in his kids lives....
Click to expand...
 
I agree that some of the problem is corruption, but we are reaching the limit of our ability to provide for ourselves. Here's a stat for you: according to Jared Diamond, if we stopped having more than two kids per couple, the world's population would still grow for the next seventy years! Could we handle that? I really don't know, but I don't think so.

I'm a pessimist. I accept the fact that we're going to be extinct one day, but I'm holding out that people will give up their ideas that this place was made for us. We're just part of the systme that is Earth (and the universe), and it's going to be done with us one just as it was done with the dinosaurs. I would just like to prolong our presence and make it as comfortable as possible for all of us on the ride, but maybe it doesn't really matter. "On a long enough time line, your probability for survival drops to zero."
 
The number of children that you have should be a personal decision. I do not believe the problem is how many children people have but rather having children that were not wanted. When people are better educated I believe we will see a trend of less children per couple than we now see in the world's heavily populated areas. By better educated I mean that people will have the ability to determine whether or not they want to have children.
 
muggle said:
The number of children that you have should be a personal decision. I do not believe the problem is how many children people have but rather having children that were not wanted. When people are better educated I believe we will see a trend of less children per couple than we now see in the world's heavily populated areas. By better educated I mean that people will have the ability to determine whether or not they want to have children.
Click to expand...

And, in what we like to think of as an enlightened age, how could anyone of any intelligence disagree with you, muggle? I would only add to your words "the ability" the phrase "and the legal right".

Not too many years go in this country it was illegal for a woman to seek advice about birth control without her having obtained her husband's permission first. I believe there are some who think of those days as 'the good old days'.

Margaret Sanger must be spinning in her grave at present.
 
StillILearn said:
Not too many years go in this country it was illegal for a woman to seek advice about birth control without her having obtained her husband's permission first. I believe there are some who think of those days as 'the good old days'.
Click to expand...


wow, american women would go crazy if that was forced again.
 
I don`t think we have enough information here to form a correct opinion.
Were all 16 children happy accidents? (Religious overtones here). Were they all planned, if so were the couple able to afford them or are they relying on state handouts. Here in the UK, the Government are a bit frivolous with tax payers money; too many people seen to be getting handouts at the expense of others.(Politics).
If the couple can afford 16 children, then its a free country, until we change the laws.
An even bigger question would be, what if it were religious grounds that they found them selves with 16 children, but could not afford them without handouts. What then?
Its strange how religion and politics seems to creep into many discussions. But its even stranger how they seem often to be omitted.
 
abecedarian said:
From the article, it appears these children ARE being provided for. As one of those moms committing crimes against humanity by having more than two kids, I can speak for my own situation. We are doing our best to raise godly, caring kids, who care about others and will hopefully be a help to society rather than a hindrance. The problem with lack of food and other necessities in most parts of the world can be traced to their governments and social ills within those nations.
Click to expand...
I have read many of your posts abecedarian and I would believe that you are one terrific parent. Your love for your children is obvious, at least to me. You have committed no crime against humanity by having more than 2 kids. Just the opposite I believe, as it is MHO that your children are being raised in a manner that sets a high standard and your children will be the better for it. Everyone will make some mistakes while raising children but the point is to love your kids and do the best job you can. I would bet that you are doing exactly that.
 
muggle said:
I have read many of your posts abecedarian and I would believe that you are one terrific parent. Your love for your children is obvious, at least to me. You have committed no crime against humanity by having more than 2 kids. Just the opposite I believe, as it is MHO that your children are being raised in a manner that sets a high standard and your children will be the better for it. Everyone will make some mistakes while raising children but the point is to love your kids and do the best job you can. I would bet that you are doing exactly that.
Click to expand...

Here I go agreeing with you again, muggle. Abecedarian is quite obviously not one of those women who is having so many children that she doesn't know what to do.

But birth control needs to be made readily available to those people who really are not equipped to handle a batch of babies.

Lots of people should be completely childless and that option should also be an easy one to choose.
 
muggle said:
I have read many of your posts abecedarian and I would believe that you are one terrific parent. Your love for your children is obvious, at least to me. You have committed no crime against humanity by having more than 2 kids. Just the opposite I believe, as it is MHO that your children are being raised in a manner that sets a high standard and your children will be the better for it. Everyone will make some mistakes while raising children but the point is to love your kids and do the best job you can. I would bet that you are doing exactly that.
Click to expand...
Just wanted to second this. I love hearing about all the parental stories on this forum, and am taking subconcious notes for the future (*listens* 'tick,tick,tick,tick,tick'). Abece has some wonderful kids, and from everything I've read is doing an amazing job with them. I've never known what to think of homeschooling, but am seeing it in a completely different light. I always enjoy hearing about what's going on with her kids!

For the record, I have always wanted to have a large family, and would love to have 3 or 4 kids someday. Yes, it's not a sustainable number, but in Australia the average birthrate is about 1.8 or something, and the PM is talking about "one for each parent and one for your country" (not quite that glorified, but you get the idea). The bigger problem is that concepts of birth control in developing countries are non-existent. I think that is a bigger problem to address than people having 16 kids that they CAN support. But then we get into religious quandries... I don't know what the answer is, but I think that the population growth in developing nations needs to be addressed in a SERIOUS way.
 
I can only agree with those who say that birth control measures should be readily available - and this includes doctors and other people who know what they're talking about to seek advice from. However, I see more and more, both in the US and in many Southern Europena countries that birth control is hushed up because somehow it has come to the point where supporting birth control also means supporting pre-marital sex. To people here on TBF I should think it's obvious that they're two different things. I have no idea whether the above opinion stems only from religious views or if there are some who are of this opinion because they simply think that's as it should be religion or not. I don't much care either :p

Fact is that the above opinion has become predominant in some countries and this means that birth control will not be readily available. Now I think it's quite alright if the mother next door doesn't ant her kids to know about birth control. But that her and those who agree with her shall make it hard for other people to get info about it, that's simply absurd.

[sarcasm]There seems to be an idea that once you're married you're free to have sex and you doggone well better take all the kids that comes with having that sex. Of course you will only have sex in order to have kids since there is no such thing as sex for fun/pleasure, so why would you need birth contorl anyway?[/sarcasm]

Anyways, people can live their own lives however they please as long as they don't harm anyone. But preventing others from getting things they needed... that doesn't fit anywhere.

And on the actual topic: In order to keep a population stagnant every couple needs to have 2.3 kids. By far most around here only have 2, many only have 1. This means that for every two families that has only 2 kids there needs to be one fam with 3. So I don't think a fam with 16 kids will ruin anything population-wise as such, and definitely not in a Western country, where the kids themselves will not suffer because they are so many.
 
You are in Denmark, Jemima Aslana, and I am in California. We are currently preparing to go to the polls to vote on this:

Proposition 73

Amends California Constitution, defining and prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent/guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. Mandates reporting requirements. Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.
 
In other words, minors can no longer get abortions without their folks being notified? Is that correctly understood or am I missing something?
 
Jemima Aslana said:
In other words, minors can no longer get abortions without their folks being notified? Is that correctly understood or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
That's how I read it too. What age is "unemancipated"? If that means 14, I can understand this in a way. By the age of 14 one should not be having sex, let alone making decisions such as this without appropriate counselling, and in many cases this would be best from the parents... but in some cases involving the parents would be terrifying for a child, by placing this into law there isn't even the discretion of the counsellor which would be able to determine whether the parents should be involved or not.

I do agree that it should be legislated that all women seeking abortion should obtain counselling from a health professional that is neither for or against abortion. For women under, say, 16, it should be at the counsellor's discretion to contact the parents or not.

In my town there is an abortion clinic, and right nextdoor there is a women's centre which offers family counselling. What the 'Womens Centre' doesn't tell you, is that it is run and sponsored by the Catholic church. It seems blatently misleading to have such biased advice given to women who are probably in a great deal of mental anguish and possibly aren't thinking straight. I've often thought about going in and pretending that I'm considering abortion, just to see what they say and what sort of advice they give.
 
In a further followup, which just occurred to me, my high school advocated students getting their own health insurance cards at the age of about 15. I remember distinctly having a class in which we were told it was an option to seriously consider, because there may be some questions and health issues that we may not want our parents to know about. I think this sort of advice is excellent - very open minded and accurate information which would be really beneficial to some kids. Not sure how many schools would give this sort of advice...
 
Yup.

I'm trying to be unbiased in my presentation of this up-for-election state law.

Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Waiting Period and Parental Notification.

Proposition

Amends California Constitution to bar abortion on unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. Permits judicial waiver of notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor's maturity or minor's best interests. Physician must report abortions performed on minors and State shall compile statistics. Authorizes monetary damages for violation. Minor must consent to abortion unless mentally incapable or in medical emergency. Permits judicial relief if minor's consent to abortion is coerced.

(A minor in this case would be below the age of 18.)

We are voting yea or nay on Tuesday. It's a part of a bang-up Special Election being thrown for us by our very own Governator.
 
Here in DK the pregnant kid can keep an abortion a secret if they're not minors... however, our age of consent is at 15 and that changes the picture a great deal. If they're under 15 the doc is law-bound to inform the parents, though not necessarily before the abortion has occured - that one's up to the doc.

I have a friend who had an abortion when she was 13. The parents did know before abortion even became an issue for the simple reason that it was the result of a rape. Nonetheless, in the hospital in the resting period such young 'aborters' always get, all my friend got from her folks was a teddy bear. No hugs, no nothing, according to her folks it was her own fault she'd been raped and she would have to take the consequences on her own.

I dunno what I think about that proposition you're gonna vote about. To me it doesn't seem all *that* dreadful. You have a way of defining minors, and if people are considered minors they should indeed not be allowed to get an abortion without the parents being notified. I sort of agree with that. That I don't agree with the US definition of 'minor' is another story :p
 
RitalinKid said:
I think the real question here is, when does concern about overpopulation overpower the rights of individuals to have as many kids as they want?

Currently, there's no way we could support everyone in the world living the standard of first world countries. There's not enough materials, production or food to support it. If all of China quickly became First World, prices for metals and such would go through the roof.

So, is it irresponsible to replace you and your mate with 8 times as many people? Are you stabbing the human race in the back for your own selfish desire? Or are you just exercising your right as an individual?

I'm all about the rights of the individual man, but in the case, my personal opinion is that having so many kids is a transgression against the world. We need to be pulling the reins back on the population if we want to survive as a species.
Click to expand...

Damn RK....these are the exact same thoughts I have about stuff like this. What is it that these people think they are doing for the overall good of the world, that they could not accomplish by having two or three kids instead of 16 or more?

If all 16 kids have 4 of their own, that's 64 more people on the planet all thanks to two people. The geometric progression is mind blowing. It's just not healthy for the overall planet.

Yes, having 16 loving, caring, compasionate, intelligent kids is better for the planet than having 1 or 2 spoiled rotten brats.

But why not have 2 loving, caring, compasionate, intelligent kids?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top