or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Number 18 on the way.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Number 18 on the way. - Page 2

post #31 of 61
Isn't there enough children without a home on this planet? If they wanted that many kids, why didn't they just adopt? Or are they trying to break world records here? >_>
post #32 of 61
They are allowed to have as many kids as they want. If the kids are fed and obtain a minimum of a highschool education I have nothing negative to say. Frankly, I would rather see children that are taught to be self reliant, and learn that there are others in the world besides themselves.

The thing that scares me is that at some point her body is going to give out. I worry about the long term affects on her health and the difficult time the family would have if God forbid she did not make it through giving birth to number 18.
post #33 of 61
My grandmother had six, and a few years ago she had surgery to have some of her internal organs put back into the right place. I can only imagine what her insides look like.

It's her choice, of course, but personally? I think anyone who thinks their DNA is valuable enough to warrant replicating 18 times is a little narcissistic. And frankly, I think it's irresponsible.

I can see years of therapy ahead for all of them.
post #34 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
I actually think this is irresponsible. To each their own and everything but there is no way to parent that many children effectively.
I grew up Catholic and knew of families with 15 and 16 kids and many of them were miserable. Every one of them thought it was neglectful. Not to mention the horror stories which I won't go into. One lady I met said her mother only liked babies and not older children. So she kept having them.
Why would anyone do this? What could be a motive?
I knew families with 15, 16, or 17 kids, too, and not all of them were miserable. It wasn't all that unusual a generation or two ago for Catholic or Mormon families to have so many kids, so I don't know why such a big deal is being made about this family.
post #35 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzyn View Post
Isn't there enough children without a home on this planet? If they wanted that many kids, why didn't they just adopt? Or are they trying to break world records here? >_>
That is what I say about animals but people just keep on breeding.
post #36 of 61
I have much more of a problem with single women on government assistance that keep churning out one child after another. You mention "get a job"
or "get spayed" and they are horrified.

Now THEY are the ones I will criticize.
post #37 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I have much more of a problem with single women on government assistance that keep churning out one child after another. You mention "get a job"
or "get spayed" and they are horrified.

Now THEY are the ones I will criticize.
Ditto. Those are the folks that are a drain on our system and I agree they should be neutered.
post #38 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I have much more of a problem with single women on government assistance that keep churning out one child after another. You mention "get a job"
or "get spayed" and they are horrified.

Now THEY are the ones I will criticize.
Why does it matter that they're single? If a married couple is on public assistance and "churns out" children, does that raise your ire as well?

One of the major problems in those instances is a lack of access to education and good health care, as well as in some instances a cultural issue glorifying that lifestyle. But most of those women would give anything to be able to properly care for their children, and a lot of them do work themselves out of the hole. We, as a society, don't make it easy though.

Of course there are horror stories, and we've all heard them, of the mother dragging her third kid by the arm prattling on about having another baby so they'll give her more money. But how do you fix that? For that matter, if people think the Duggars shouldn't have more children, what to do?

Forced sterilization is wrong on about 30 different levels. Taking the kids away in most cases, and especially the Duggars', would result in the kids being put in a worse environment. It's hard to justify taking someone's children away for reasons that don't qualify as abuse or neglect.

In the case of families on public assistance, you can't take away their support because that will punish the children, who have no blame whatsoever in their mother's reasons for having them.

So it seems all one can do is pass judgement and gripe about it. Or, encourage a cultural shift which will discourage this sort of thing, either the Quiverful movement or the use-a-baby-as-a-paycheck idea.
post #39 of 61
Oh boy I could NOT imagine but good for them!

http://health.discovery.com/beyond/?...eId=1545110647
post #40 of 61
HOLY CRUD!

That's a whole football team with an entire second string

I'd imagine that guy has to make a pretty big paycheck to support that huge of a family.

And they must have one ot those stretch hummers just to get the family around
post #41 of 61
There is a thread about it in "IMO Forum".

They're quite the controversial family.
post #42 of 61
I thought the new baby will make #19?
post #43 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahp View Post
I thought the new baby will make #19?
I think new baby is #18 and mom and dad make 20!

...and I thought I had a large family! I have enough trouble keeping track of my kids' names.

I always said though, that if I lived in the 1800's I could've been one of those women cranking out 15 kids. I loved being pregnant. Their family appears to be well adjusted. I am awed by the pictures they managed to pose for! I have enough trouble getting 5 to sit still!
post #44 of 61
People may just need to make a distinction between their personal and political views. I don't know that anyone posting to this thread would actually encourage government-mandated sterilization programs. Doesn't mean they don't see a huge family and think to themselves, "Yikes! Ever heard of birth control?"

Personally, I think having 18 kids is disturbing on a few different levels and should remain in the minority. I don't want that to ever be normal. Kids tend to live to adulthood nowadays, so having a dozen or more just to CYA is no longer necessary. Have at it, if you want. I would fight any attempts to make it illegal, but I can still think it's wrong.

In my world, wrong /= illegal. JMO.

Zissou's Mom, the cultural shift thing is my preferred method to change people's behavior. Just because something's technically legal doesn't mean everyone has to shut up and love it.
post #45 of 61
Ahhhhh gotcha!. I'm a little slow today
post #46 of 61
My great aunty popped out 21 children
post #47 of 61
Let me tell you this, a large family is not as miserable as a smaller family.

Being an only child, and watching other families through out my childhood, Only child have it the toughest. When something happens to a parent, they are on their own, when something happens at school, they are also on their own. No back ups from siblings. When they get home they are bored, they have nobody to interact with, sometimes i even had to beg some of my friends parents to let me play with their children because i did not want to be home since my mother was drunk and passed out on the couch.

I know so many large families with decent children, they are very welcoming even if they are tight on money.

I have decided i wil have atleast two to three children. Of course children will fight, but in the long run it will be better for them.

Mind you, if i ever see an alcoholic neglect their child like my mother did to me, you will be sure that i will be taking that child in.

Living with an alcoholic is much much much worse than a family of 18!


Vent done.
post #48 of 61
In Australia we have what's called a `baby bonus' which is essentially a government payout to people as soon as they have a baby, of $5,000. Everyone who has a baby gets it. It's independent of income. It's tax-free. If you have twins, you get $10,000. If you have a stillborn baby, you still get it. It's virtually impossible NOT to get it.

There are many who have babies just to get the baby bonus. This is a real problem.

Our new prime minister and new government released our 2008 / 2009 federal budget tonight. As of next year, the baby bonus will be means-tested. Which means that if you earn a lot, you probably won't get it. It will also not always be distributed in cash anymore. So, some of it may be in vouchers so you can buy prams and cots etc.

Now, we are really relying on the baby bonus to help us survive on a single income for the six months after our baby is born before I go back to work. But many, many people abuse it. I think the new changes are fantastic and applaud the government for introducing them.

If they were Australian, the Duggars would have received $90,000 from the government in baby bonuses. Bet they're spewing they're not Australian!!
post #49 of 61
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I have much more of a problem with single women on government assistance that keep churning out one child after another. You mention "get a job"
or "get spayed" and they are horrified.

Now THEY are the ones I will criticize.


I'm getting spayed on June 2nd, and I get horrified looks when I talk about it. I'll admit the Duggars and I are on the total opposite ends of the baby spectrum, but the reaction to our choices is still the same.

The ONLY thing that concerns me about this is what if one of the kids want to leave the family and live a different type of life? Would they shun him or her, or would they accept it? No one has ever asked that question of them as far as I can tell, and I'd really like to know the answer.

EDIT: I grew up in a big Catholic community. Having kids in the double digits wasn't that uncommon, so I think I have a different perspective on this. The family's I grew up around were tight knit, and worked together. The family that lived behind us had ten kids and my family had five. There were 15 kids under the age of 20 running around the neighborhood. We were our own gang wearing plaid skirts and navy pants. It was nice to be a part of that.
post #50 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
In Australia we have what's called a `baby bonus' which is essentially a government payout to people as soon as they have a baby, of $5,000. Everyone who has a baby gets it. It's independent of income. It's tax-free. If you have twins, you get $10,000. If you have a stillborn baby, you still get it. It's virtually impossible NOT to get it.

There are many who have babies just to get the baby bonus. This is a real problem.

Our new prime minister and new government released our 2008 / 2009 federal budget tonight. As of next year, the baby bonus will be means-tested. Which means that if you earn a lot, you probably won't get it. It will also not always be distributed in cash anymore. So, some of it may be in vouchers so you can buy prams and cots etc.

Now, we are really relying on the baby bonus to help us survive on a single income for the six months after our baby is born before I go back to work. But many, many people abuse it. I think the new changes are fantastic and applaud the government for introducing them.

If they were Australian, the Duggars would have received $90,000 from the government in baby bonuses. Bet they're spewing they're not Australian!!
Canada also had a baby bonus when I was growing up. I believe they still do but now if the family income is over a certain amount then you are not eligible for the monthly payment.

I personally think large families are lovely because my experience with relating to large families has been so positive. You can be sure of one thing - the kids are not spoiled rotten and miserable little b's.
post #51 of 61
I would think that all the people that are so concerned about our environment and global warming and overpopulation of this planet would be against baby bonus'.

Why are we rewarding people monetarily for over populating the planet?

Nowhere in this thread did I mention "mandatory" sterilization BUT I think it should be an either or thing. Either you get spayed or support your own kids.

I don't understand the "cultural" thing Z. What do you mean, are you talking about generational welfare? Access to education, baloney I say.

Most women, single or married, churning out one kid or another, it is their own dang fault. Good grief, poor people have access to free birth control.
There are millions of lazy people out there that just don't want to work and we all know it and I Refuse to excuse their loser lifestyle.
post #52 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Bunny View Post
This isn't the 19th century where the child mortality rate was sky-high and you needed workers for your farm!
Technically speaking the US has one of the highest rates of birth related deaths in the developed world though.
post #53 of 61
i guess i dont care either way. this family doesnt effect me so its none of my business... im just going to throw two things out

if i remember right, watching one of their shows they were getting bags of clothing donated to them... if they need clothes donated then they are not FULLY capeable of providing for their children.

and i think some of the kids were interviewed on if they would want their own large families... some said yes some said no, only 1 or 2 kids.
post #54 of 61
fwan, I'd have to disagree about small families being miserable.

Being the only child of an alcoholic parent is hardly the norm, and hardly seems fair as evidence that only children suffer more than children in larger families.

I'm an only child. The world certainly didn't revolve around me, but I didn't have to share my parents' time or financial resources with a sibling. My parents were reasonably comfortable with one child. I am glad they didn't decide to have us all living paycheck to paycheck by having three or four more kids. I grew up without bill collectors calling the house, never worrying about money for necessities or little luxuries and hobbies. That's not to say that wealthier people can't afford to do these things with half a dozen kids, but the average family income in the United States is going to be strained by the addition of several more kids.

It's not all about the money, obviously. Like I said, I didn't have to share their time, either. Not to mention, it's a lot easier to take one kid to museums and other educational "field trips" at the drop of a hat than it is to take half a dozen. My friends/family with several kids all have to make plans to take the kids to a theme park or the zoo (usually coordinating with other relatives to serve as kid-wranglers for the outing). My family just jumped in the car and left.

Oh, and ckblv, I completely agree with you about supporting your own kids. I have massive issues with our welfare system in the United States. Perfectly reasonable to expect people to take care of their own, if you ask me.
post #55 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
I disagree. I am in the less-common situation of having a sibling but having been the only child in the house growing up, as she's a full decade older. That time I spent reading as a child (and I, too, had moved quite past the children's section of the library long before I could actually reach the shelves in the YA section) I enjoyed, as did I enjoy playing pretend safari alone in the yard. I made friends and such with the other kids in the plat, but I missed having a co-conspirator. My sister was never too young to babysit me and in many ways I had a third parent until I was 16, and no sister.

Now my sister and I are very close and I can't imagine how lost I'd be without her. I wish we'd been closer as kids, but I'll take what I can get.

Anyway, 18 is still pretty excessive. But, hey, they're cared for and not on the government's dime, so. I just wish they'd send their kids to real school.

I'm in the same boat as you. My sister is 11 years older than me and I couldn't be happier and we couldn't be any closer although I wish we were closer as kids as well.
post #56 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
If they were Australian, the Duggars would have received $90,000 from the government in baby bonuses. Bet they're spewing they're not Australian!!
Not quite that much, the baby bonus wouldn't have been around when they had the first children and the amount has changed. My nephew is 4 and it was only 3 thousand then, my other sister got 4 thousand last October.
post #57 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by boringjen View Post
fwan, I'd have to disagree about small families being miserable.

Being the only child of an alcoholic parent is hardly the norm, and hardly seems fair as evidence that only children suffer more than children in larger families.

I'm an only child. The world certainly didn't revolve around me, but I didn't have to share my parents' time or financial resources with a sibling. My parents were reasonably comfortable with one child. I am glad they didn't decide to have us all living paycheck to paycheck by having three or four more kids. I grew up without bill collectors calling the house, never worrying about money for necessities or little luxuries and hobbies. That's not to say that wealthier people can't afford to do these things with half a dozen kids, but the average family income in the United States is going to be strained by the addition of several more kids.

It's not all about the money, obviously. Like I said, I didn't have to share their time, either. Not to mention, it's a lot easier to take one kid to museums and other educational "field trips" at the drop of a hat than it is to take half a dozen. My friends/family with several kids all have to make plans to take the kids to a theme park or the zoo (usually coordinating with other relatives to serve as kid-wranglers for the outing). My family just jumped in the car and left.

Oh, and ckblv, I completely agree with you about supporting your own kids. I have massive issues with our welfare system in the United States. Perfectly reasonable to expect people to take care of their own, if you ask me.
Yeah! That pretty much describes my childhood too.
My mum didn't work until I was 6 so she could be there for me. I went to museums, exhibitions, gigs, festivals etc. My parents took me everywhere with them, which is much easier if you only have one child. I love not having to share my parents attention. My best friend is the only child in her entire family. She had a perfectly happy childhood.

My uncle has twins and they are fine individually, but unholy terrors together, and they can't take them anywhere.
Family breakdown can be more difficult for families with siblings. If a parent leaves or dies the oldest sibling can feel like they have to be a surrogate parent for the younger siblings. This can be resented by the younger siblings.
post #58 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by missymotus View Post
Not quite that much, the baby bonus wouldn't have been around when they had the first children and the amount has changed. My nephew is 4 and it was only 3 thousand then, my other sister got 4 thousand last October.
Dang I knew someone would do that!!! I'm speaking figuratively

Cindy - the Baby Bonus was a scheme aimed at offsetting the expenses associated with rearing a child but was also introduced as a means of increasing Australia's fertility rate and to encourage people to have more babies - to mitigate the effects of our ageing population. I'm not sure which year it was introduced but it was some time ago.

BUT with things the way they are environmentally I agree with you - it should be reviewed. And it has been. I suspect that it will be phased out altogether in years to come, but the changes made in our most recent federal budget will be a start.
post #59 of 61
Sarah, being pregnant has made you so darn agreeable I can't argue with you anymore.
post #60 of 61
My opinion hasn't changed since last time. I respect their right to have as many children as they like as it doesn't affect me in any way and they are self supporting, but like anyone else who has read about them or watched any of their documentaries, I do have opinion about a family of that size.

1. I just can't imagine being pregnant for 12 years solid, which is what her 16 pregnancies total. I find the idea quite horrific! I do worry about the health of the mother if she is going to continue to get pregnant until nature says otherwise.

2. With 18 children there are bound to be a range of personalities. Most may love being part of a large family but there may be one or two kids in there who would benefit from a bit more one on one time with their parents. I wonder whether their voices would get heard in a family of that size. There's no way the parents can spend much time with each child individually.

3. I have no problem with kids helping around the home. In fact, I think it's essential that they do so. But being responsible for certain chores in a family of that size on a daily basis is a huge undertaking. I seem to recall from one of the documentaries that one or two of the girls were responsible for all the laundry. In a family of 20, that's a lot of laundry! The older children seem to take responsibility for a lot of the childcare and I think the parents themselves miss out by delegating so much. A lot of things such as bathing, changing nappies, putting to bed provide opportunities for parent - child bonding too.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Number 18 on the way.