Originally Posted By Liberty Belle As long as they can afford it, the kids aren’t being neglected and they’re being raised in the right way, who cares? I don’t see the merit in telling people when they can have kids and how many they should have, and that goes for same-sex couples and single parents as well. Although I haven’t seen them on documentaries or anything like Deb has, it sounds like they’re responsible and intelligent kids. I wouldn’t have 17 children – no way in the world! Why? Because I’m too selfish to have that many, which is why I’m surprised by the amount of people who call having 17 children ‘selfish’. The parents probably had to give up plenty of material items, time on their own, etc to raise the kids. Although I’m not in any way against working mothers, I do agree that these kids probably spend more time with their mother than children who are sent to day care five days a week while their mum works. Also – I don’t really know what the case is in the US, but I know here in Australia couples are being urged to have more kids, because of our ageing population and the decreasing rate of couples having more than 2 kids. We probably need more families like this!!
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<As long as they can afford it, the kids aren’t being neglected and they’re being raised in the right way, who cares?>> I think "neglect" is the issue of contention here. I had two sisters and a brother -- four kids total. My parents could barely holler out the right name when they were upset with one of us. Four kids was a handful. This family has FOUR TIMES as many kids as were in my family. It is not possible that those parents have gotten to know each kid as three-dimensionally as each kid deserves to be known.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip That speaks to the particular abilities of your parents (which like mine weren't all that great). It has NOTHING to do with parents who successfully parent a large number of children. Your parents (and my parents) failed so ALL parents will fail? I think not.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<It has NOTHING to do with parents who successfully parent a large number of children.>> Okay, okay. So let's throw out our own anecdotal experiences about less-than-perfect parents. Then let me state my belief in ABSOLUTE, not personal, terms, that... There's no f'ing way that these parents are really going to get to know each kid.
Originally Posted By debtee <There's no f'ing way that these parents are really going to get to know each kid.> The same could be said for families with one or two kids that work all the time and ignore them.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal "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! " O.K...I'll admit it. Part of the reason that this bugs me is because the members of this family are Evangelical Christians. As such, they'd disagree with your message of marriage equality for gay people. The intolerance associated with fudamentalist (add your own religion here) frustrates me. I'd rather not see another 17 more people in the U.S. who believe that way. It doesn't matter whether it's 17 people from the same family, or 17 kids in different families. I find it difficult to believe in this day that people propogate such intolerance. And yes, I get that this does not apply to all Christians. Or even most Christians. But the fundamentalist view, of any religion, is way too intolerant for me, and they do it under the guise of wanting everyone to know the truth. They may get along with each other well and can sing Kumbayaa, but those kids will not ever be able to really go out in the world and fit in with the majority of society. Maybe that's their parents' goal, but the point remains. I know this post will be attacked. There. I said it. Flame away.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal And before it gets said, NO, I do not believe in curbing the reproductive rights of anyone regardless of whether or not I agree with their religious affiliation. I am pointing out a reason that this particular situation bothers me. Of course they are free to have as many children as they can afford - and they can clearly afford them all.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "There's no f'ing way that these parents are really going to get to know each kid." You're entitled to your opinion, but just the same, there's no f'ing way, as you say, you know that for a certainty.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<The same could be said for families with one or two kids that work all the time and ignore them.>> I certainly don't endorse THAT, either.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<You're entitled to your opinion, but just the same, there's no f'ing way, as you say, you know that for a certainty.>> Sure I do. It's just mathematics. There are only so many waking hours in a day to read to a kid, go for walks with her, help him explore future plans, etc. There's no way that, say, #13 of 18 is going to get the attention that a single child or a kid raised with a single sibling is going to get. But, okay, I'll re-phrase: There's no physical way each of these kids can get the attention that *I* think each kid deserves.
Originally Posted By barboy Ok, now to be more serious--- R.T. I don't see whether one has 0 children or 10 to be qualified to have an opinion on this. I am coming at this from an overpopulation angle. What do we have here in the US? 300 million, 350 maybe. People need and use resources which tend to be finite; that is why I jokingly invoked Malthus who was on to something important say 200 years ago.
Originally Posted By barboy "I am also a strong believer in a little thing called the Bill of Rights" By this do you mean the implied "freedom of expression"......... as in baby milk from a breast? Or do you mean the "right to bear arms"........ legs, heads, and ultimately entire children?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Sure I do. It's just mathematics. There are only so many waking hours in a day to read to a kid, go for walks with her, help him explore future plans, etc. There's no way that, say, #13 of 18 is going to get the attention that a single child or a kid raised with a single sibling is going to get. But, okay, I'll re-phrase: There's no physical way each of these kids can get the attention that *I* think each kid deserves." Normally you're not this judgmental. We'll have to disagree. You might be right, but just the same, since you're not there, you just don't know, not at all. I don't think it's fair of you to apparently transfer your own experiences onto these people. Some are just born parents. Some are born to be musicians, artists, writers, whatever. Quite possibly the talents of the mother and father here are rooted in parenting. Ever supervised people? I have. At times, I've had as many as 20 people under me. I knew them all. It's a chore, but it can be done. Moreover, I had only working hours to do it, while these parents have 24/7.
Originally Posted By x Pirate_Princess x By this do you mean the implied "freedom of expression"......... as in baby milk from a breast? Or do you mean the "right to bear arms"........ legs, heads, and ultimately entire children? ---------------- Absolutely. And their intended meaning, given to us by our forefathers 231 years ago. You have your opinion, and I have mine, and Inspector and RoadTrip have theirs. That's what makes this country great. That we can sit here and for 74 posts, argue as to this woman's right or responsibility to have 17 kids, and we're not getting censured for our opinions. And as far as them (the children and paretns) not endorsing or supporting gay rights, again, who cares? The gay population I'm sure doesn't. It's only 19 people out of 350 million people? I'm sorry to say that a majority of the earth's population do not support gay rights. It doesn't stop the gay population for fighting for them, and it doesn't stop this great country from eventually granting them those rights.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Who knew? You've never mentioned them" I have, in passing. I don't think it is necessary to give a resume of my life history here.
Originally Posted By jonvn "From what I read is that they have a really nice house" It's nice that this one instance shows a nice family, such as it can be with that many kids. However, unless you are quite wealthy such an undertaking is a disturbing and sick behavior.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <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?> You know I like you, RT, but I think you need to look a little deeper. The primary factor in reproduction rate worldwide is economic. Poor people tend to have more children than well-off people. And that's true all over the world, so it's not really a case that western societies have the "know-how" and people in the third world are clueless. They're not clueless, they're poor. Elites within those countries have low birth rates. WITHIN a given society we see the same thing. You alluded to this yourself when you noted that minority Americans have a higher birth rate than white Americans. Of course, minorities are more likely to live in poverty. And the birth rate among, say, middle-class blacks is closer to that of middle-class whites than it is to poor blacks. Likewise, in most third world countries, no matter how high the birth rate in general, the birth rate among elites tends to be low. Simply put, when people get better off economically they tend (with exceptions, of course) to have fewer children. This can be seen all over the world, within just about any country you look at. I worked on a paper at Oxford that looked at this within Britain from 1870-1970. It was amazing - whenever a sub-community of Britain started doing better economically, their birth rate dropped. The economics always led. The expression "the rich get richer, the poor get children" has been around a long time, and not without reason.
Originally Posted By barboy "as to this woman's right or responsibility to have 17 kids" The issue here, as I see it, is not about reproductive rights but more about social responsibility. They have the right to produce 40 or more, of course, but that doesn't make what they are doing any less selfish. Enough is enough--- do they think that this is some game for bragging rights among their peers? Those two are playing with real lives. What would happen if the parents passed on soon? Who is going to pick up the social bill on this? This couple is completely selfish and have some warped sense of responsibility regarding family size.
Originally Posted By barboy As for Europe needing more people: You are kidding right? Tell me you are joking because that place is now approaching 800 million. I'll give you Iceland because that country is pretty darn desolate but the rest of Europe collectively has well enough people especially considereing its total living space and "carrying capacity".
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight * after selling a handfull of tickets to this debate, LS sits cross legged on the floor with her box of popcorn and a diet soda and listens intently*....
