Originally Posted By RoadTrip It would be interesting to know how many kids jonvn, barboy and ecdc have. My bet would be NONE. Which of course is why they know everything there is to know about having kids.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You obviously not nothing about his family yet feel the need to make ignorant comments." Earth to debtee. I was talking about the people I know.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Lady Starlight, your mom and mine are quite similar. Mine was one of 13. Farm family in rural Missouri. My grandma had kids from the age of 18 to the age of 45, having a child (all single births) just about every 2 years like clockwork. This was not atypical of farm families of my mom's generation. Basically, you hired farmhands, or you had more children. They did not live in squalor, but during the Depression (my mom was born in 1930), they were definitely poor. Of course, much of America and especially rural America was poor then. You don't see it so much nowadays. One reason: the family farm is an endangered species - agribusiness owns a huge percentage of the land now. But my mom never felt "unparented" or anything. I think probably some parents can raise a dozen children just fine; some have trouble raising one.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I actually do have children. Thanks.>> Who knew? You've never mentioned them, and from MANY comments you've made I assumed you had none. You learn something new and surprising every day.
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight <<I think probably some parents can raise a dozen children just fine; some have trouble raising one.>> I agree 100%. Dabob2( nice to meet you btw.) I agree with you about how our mom's felt. They never felt 'unparented'. I think that's beautiful and they had alot of siblings.
Originally Posted By Elderp "No. It's not what is wrong with America today. Having that many kids, raising them in squalor, and home schooling them so they grow up to be ignorant and stupid, that's what is wrong." From what I read is that they have a really nice house, none of them look like they are in poor health, and the older students are looking towards college. Am I missing something here? I don't see the problem. Hey, maybe I am wrong but show me what where they are going wrong.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip My wife grew up in a family of 6 kids where her dad worked as a janitor in a Catholic School. He never earned a wage that would have put them above the official poverty level. But working as a janitor in the Catholic School enable him to send all six of his kids to Catholic Schools, and that was invaluable to both him and his family. My wife NEVER felt that she wanted for anything. She LOVED the life she had growing up. She constantly knew that her folks loved her and enjoyed the experience of having a bunch of siblings... even if it meant that none of them ever had their own bedroom. Yes, they had many meals that were based on flour, cheese and veggies; and not a whole lot of meat. But it was DELICIOUS food (I know... I had the fortune of my wife's mother cooking their traditional meals for me and it was wonderful!). My wife and her siblings never felt poor either. They always had food on the table and other things they needed. Going to a Catholic School where everyone wore uniforms, you could not tell the richest kid from the poorest on the basis of what they wore. All six of those kids have gone on to become very successful; both in their careers and at home. All six of those kids cherish the life they had as children and would not change it for anything. I didn't have that in my family. I came from a high income family with only four kids. My dad was away on business two weeks out of every four. My mother resented him being away on business four weeks out of every four. I could describe my childhood as a lot of different things, but a close loving family would never enter the description. In our family my father had a Bachelor's degree in Music, a Master's degree in Finance and a Law Degree. My mother had a Bachelor's degree in Education. We were provided with a large amount of stuff, and we certainly ate pretty well. I was amazed when I found out that not everyone had MAJOR meat at every dinner. We always had steak, leg of lamb, pork roast, lobster or whatever for dinner. It never even occurred to me that people would eat something like wieners and Mac and Cheese for dinner. So we grew up with all the advantages. Out of the four kids in my family, only two as adults would meet any reasonable definition of success. I am the only one who has come to peace with my childhood. I've decided that my parents did the best they could with the skills they had and leave it at that. The other kids are for the most part pretty bitter. Between my family and my wife's family; which would YOU rather have been a part of? I know my answer. What is yours?
Originally Posted By barboy What are you talking about? I very well might have children. I can think of at least 8 countries where they might be living(Ukraine, Mexico, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, US, Philippines and Netherlands). Come to think of it, Canada has a decent chance of being represented too.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I very well might have children. I can think of at least 8 countries where they might be living(Ukraine, Mexico, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, US, Philippines and Netherlands). Come to think of it, Canada has a decent chance of being represented too.>> Frankly, I don't doubt that for a minute. I still don't think it means that you know jack squat about what it is like to have kids. I'm talking about fathers who actually stick around. Something that you apparently have no experience with.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<You know, for most of human history, families were large. That's because children were considered assets, not liabilities like they are considered now. Your children were expected to help out on the farm or the family business and with their younger siblings.>> For most of human history, life expectancy was somewhere in the 20's or 30's. For most of human history, basic education was reserved for the elite. For most of human history, people thought that the sun revolved around the flat earth. This is 2007, not "most of human history." Things have changed. Society is not agrarian anymore. (At least it's not where this family has popped out 17 children.) This family doesn't need 17 kids to help on the farm. The earth is now overcrowded with humans. We can't afford for each couple to replace themselves -- plus 15. This couple is just plain selfish. Selfish in terms of having kids for their own purposes at the expense of the kids' own individual attention, or selfish in that they want to populate the earth with people of their own belief system, and/or just plain selfish in terms of using up the resourses of their municipality and the global community.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 And, no, RT, I don't have kids. I'm responsible enough to have avoided that. One doesn't need to have kids to have the valid viewpoints that: (a) children deserve more individual parental attention than they'll get when they have 16 siblings; and (b) the world can't afford many couples that replace themselves x9.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The earth is now overcrowded with humans. We can't afford for each couple to replace themselves -- plus 15.>> Wrong. Europeans don't have a high enough birth rate to replace themselves. Americans barely have a high enough rate to replace themselves, and are below replacement rate if you exclude minorities. Of course you have impoverished people in third world countries whose birth rate far exceeds the replacement rate. So you tell me... we have large numbers of uneducated, unproductive people reproducing like fricking rabbits. You have people who have the technology to SAVE THEM... to produce enough food in excess of what they need themselves to SAVE those in the third world. Do you REALLY want to minimize the birthrate of those who have the only chance of saving this planet long term? I wouldn't think so. But then you guys don't ever think of that. You think that if you reduce the birthrate in the U.S. that the third world will automatically come along for the ride. Just how damned NAIVE are you, anyway??
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Just how damned NAIVE are you, anyway??>> No, you're absolutely right, RT. Let's have white people overpopulate the US in an attempt to keep up with the minorities who are taking over the world.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 It also occurred to me to wonder... How many people who defend/applaud the decision of an all-American white couple to have kids they can't possibly pay sufficient individual attention to are the same people who reflexively condemn such "alternative" situations as kibbutz, same-sex parents, and single-parents?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<No, you're absolutely right, RT. Let's have white people overpopulate the US in an attempt to keep up with the minorities who are taking over the world.>> No. Let's have those with the knowledge of how to produce more than they need for themselves retain enough influence on this planet to assist those who have no clue about how to do that. I don't really give a damn who has the knowledge and who doesn't. I just know that at the present time this knowledge is primary with western societies, and by and large they are not reproducing at a replacement rate. Of course it is easier not to think about that and just throw around bogus claims of racism. Which of course will feed no one. But if it makes you feel better… what the hell? Go crazy!!
Originally Posted By x Pirate_Princess x Not me. I am proud to support the Duggar's decision to have as many babies as they want. I've said it before and I'll say it again. She's a stronger woman than me. And I don't mean physically. I loved being pregnant and giving birth. Heck, I'd do it 14 more times, as long as I didn't have to keep the babies (i.e. be a surrogate). I am also a strong believer in a little thing called the Bill of Rights. You can have your "whacked out" religion (not my words)...gay people should be given the right to marry each other. Why not? Doesn't hurt me! I was applauding when MA and SF was allowing it! And as for them becoming parents, well, why the heck not? There are millions of children in this world who DON'T have a loving home (with or without 16 siblings) so if someone is willing to take them in, love them, raise them, give them the best life possible, who cares if it's 2 dudes or 2 chicks? I sure don't. And don't even get me started on single parents. They have the hardest job in the world. I should know. I am one. I'm not tooting my own horn or patting myself on the back. I am in no way a perfect mother. But my girls are thriving, intelligent beings. Enough said.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Let's have those with the knowledge of how to produce more than they need for themselves retain enough influence on this planet to assist those who have no clue about how to do that.>> Umm... How, specifically, does having big American families help us globally?
