Originally Posted By ecdc >>It would be interesting to know how many kids jonvn, barboy and ecdc have. My bet would be NONE.<< RT, I have two kids. I don't know why this thread is so personal to you, but try growing up and quite making it personal with everyone else, ok?
Originally Posted By jonvn Actually, it's kind of interesting. I would think that people who don't have kids would be the ones who would not disapprove of someone having 17 kids. Having kids, I know that a parent can not devote the proper amount of time and attention to a child if they have 17 of them. I know that a child's education is important, and home schooling someone like I've personally seen is having them grow up ignorant, and will leave them poor with little chance of advancement. Having kids also makes me rather unforgiving of the molesters and their protectors. People who claim to have some sort of superior moral outlook with kids here are the same ones basically letting that go by without much more than a whimper of protest. It also makes me pro-choice, too, because as I've said in the past we had a very difficult time having children, with multiple miscarriages and when I see people have children they don't want, and abuse them, that is a real slap to my face. If people don't want kids, they shouldn't have them. And abortion is what is needed. These are the things I think of because of my family situation, which is not the concern of anyone here. And if someone thinks they are more moral because they believe a fairy story and have swallowed a pack of nonsense telling them to listen to some guy in a funny hat, then they could not be further wrong.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle >>And if someone thinks they are more moral because they believe a fairy story and have swallowed a pack of nonsense telling them to listen to some guy in a funny hat, then they could not be further wrong.<< Can we PLEASE stop bringing religion into every debate? There are, what, three religious threads in WE at the moment? Why don't we limit the religious talk to those topics? I can't remember the last WE thread I read that didn't mention religion at at least one point in the conversation. I guess proper debate is a thing of the past, now that people can just post "you're an idiot because you're religious, therefore your opinion on this unrelated matter is worthless". Sorry, but it's just getting really old. To pre-empt what I know is coming, I KNOW the family in this story is religious, but the comment above just isn't related to this story at all. Comments like >>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<< are at least relevant, because they actually discuss the family in question and their viewpoints.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Can we PLEASE stop bringing religion into every debate?" I was basically scolded because this individual thought I was without child, and had "what can you expect from someone who believes god is santa claus" said about him. I didn't bring religion into this conversation. But if someone wants to do so, trying to hold up their ridiculous and unsupportable beliefs in an attempt to be insulting to me personally, I'm not particularly disinclined to respond.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle First off, I should say that I wasn't aiming my comment specifically at you Jonvn, although I realised after posting that it did come across that way. It's just that I've noticed a few posts about religion in this topic (from both "sides") as well as other topics, and I'm just getting a bit over it in general. One of the reasons I never used to come to World Events was that every conceivable topic turned into a political debate, regardless of whether it was related to the topic at hand or not. I remember when London was bombed, there were about 3 posts before it became a debate about George Bush - which to me was not only irrelevant, but rather disrespectful. Anyway, over time that changed (of course there's still plenty of political talk, but it seems to remain mostly in topics that are actually ABOUT politics, which I can avoid - I simply don't know enough about American politics to venture in there) and I started coming here more. Now it looks like religion is taking over topics the way politics used to.
Originally Posted By jonvn I see it as people having to bolster their own beliefs up, because if they actually sat and thought about it, no rational person would believe in them. I don't know why else it was brought into this conversation.
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight I think what we are used to seeing is people in the USA and how they have oodles of kids and sit on thier butts to collect welfare and make the states/us pay for them while they go and make more babies and remain on thier butts and not care for the ones they already have. Thats what the underlying basis is that no one will just come out and say it without setting themselves up for a beating in here. Religeon has nothing to do with it and neither does race. Your poor? get a job. No skills? The USA offers many free schooling options to train you for somthing as well as places that will find jobs for you to be placed in. It's lazy butt people who don't care for whatever reason and want hand outs. Then in return thats what they are conveying to thier children on how to live thier lives. Grow up, spit out kids and let everyone else pay for them as well as yourself. The people who really do LOVE big familys and CAN take care of them and thier financial needs get whipped because we are used to the seeing the other types MOST of the time.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 And I wanna have wild sex with Antonio Banderas. The difference between us, Lady Starlight, is that your dream can someday come true.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle LOL Inspector! Not if my mother gets there first. Which is, possibly, the most disturbing thing I've had to write / think about in months.
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight NO WAY is my dream comming true now!!! And miss out on having hot monkey lovin' with Antonio Banderas?!?!? Not on your life! LOL!
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<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.>> STP, I hope you know how much I respect you. [Oh, God, I sound like I'm "copying" Dabob's comment to RT. Damn you, Dabob!] I'm happy to agree to disagree with you. BUT WHY DON'T YOU AGREE WITH ME?!?! I find it ironic that -- given your line of work and my "lifestyle" -- I'm the one who's arguing for the quality of kids' lives. Don't we find it undesireable -- for the kids' sakes -- for kids to go into group homes? Don't we (cringe but go ahead and) pull the lever to increase the school levy in order to decrease classroom sizes? Don't we look at heartwarming Kodak commercials picturing a Dad and a daughter playing together in a raked-up pile of fall leaves and think, "Yeah, THAT's what makes it all worth it"? Kids need INDIVIDUAL attention from parents. My relationship with my parents was good and my at-home life was happy. But with three younger siblings, my "quality" time with my working parents was too precious. When I think of favorite childhood memories, I think of: my Dad laying on the floor with me doing a kid's jigsaw puzzle (before the other twerps took over); my Mom and I alone in the kitchen, her patiently letting me "help" her cook; riding with either of them to my Cub Scout meetings; my Dad coaching my Little League team; my Mom taking just me shopping for school clothes; the two of them sitting me down to talk to me about the responsibility of driving; my Dad taking me car shopping; the two of them coming alone to visit me at college. I treasured my "me" times with my parents. And with three sibs, it was too rare. Imagine what it would be like for a kid who has 19 siblings. This isn't about ME. I'm not carping about my history here. But I AM using aspects of my own experience as a factual basis for saying... "Quality" parenting? Individual attention? Meeting the standards that are used for deciding whether someone's fit for adopting?... I don't think so. This family is all about fulfilling the parents' weird desires to please themselves and glorify God -- at the expense of their children. <<Quite possibly the talents of the mother and father here are rooted in parenting.>> Their "talents" are no matches for the laws of physics. These kids are not going to get the individual attention I think that every kid deserves.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 For those of you who are feeling defensive about this family's rights, given the "attacking" posts that some of us have placed here... The Duggan's are perfect "human interest" fodder for the feature-hungry networks. He's a former politician, they're media-savvy, they're lily-white, they're physically attractive. Cooperative, and cute, cute, cute. "Yours, Mine, or Ours" -- except they're all "Ours." Brilliant. Let's go with it! The consumers eat it up. What a NICE family! But what if the story were to come to the media's attention because a neighbor complained that the Muslims next door were violating a zoning ordinance by having too many children in their house? There was no safety issue, but a ZONING issue was being violated. And the parents argued that Allah had told them to have as many children as they could bear. And then they ADMITTED that they couldn't handle all the kids they had and had assigned the older children to take care of the younger ones? What if a travel writer went on assignment to some luxe resort in Mexico, and, en route, stepped off the bus that took him to Paradiso Barrato long enough to visit a family of twenty? And he reported on how happily those kids seemed to play together, never mind that the parents couldn't actually always remember each kid's name. Would it bring a smile to your face and heart that these parents decided to have twenty children?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I can't exactly put my finger on it, but there's a "stunt" aspect to having this many children that troubles me. Perhaps if they weren't so eager for the media attention about it all, it would be easier for me to accept the idea that this is just a couple of people going about their business and leave it at that. But that isn't the case. These folks sought the publicity, perhaps out of an idea that their's is a Christian 'inspirational' tale for some reason. The whole deal creeps me out. On the other hand, I remember the Debolt family here in California -- a couple who adopted an ethnically diverse bunch of children with special needs. That I find inspiring and miraculous. So, maybe I have a double standard, but there it is.
Originally Posted By officerminnie >>>These kids are not going to get the individual attention I think that every kid deserves.<<< I have to agree. And it's not just receiving individual *attention*, but able to *be* an idividual. I watched the special on this family and it kind of creeped me out. The kids all have to dress alike. The boys haircuts are indentical. The girls all have long hair and always have to wear dresses. Their names all begin with "J". Not much individuality there. It just seems kind of Stepford-ish to me.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 ^^^ Yep! I was SO weirded out by this. If they were doing this without the media attention, ok still quirky but none of my business BUT to me they are having these kids to push a personal agenda. He's a politician and it's all very weird and creepy. If they really love kids that much and really wanted to have a big family and do good, then why not adopt kids already in this country that need a good home and care. I come from a HUGE family and I love having a big family and it still rubbed me the wrong way.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 I think the person who satisfactorily writes the 101 post on this thread should get bonus Doobie Points.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<I come from a HUGE family and I love having a big family and it still rubbed me the wrong way.>> This summer I attended a big-deal family reunion celebration of the 100th wedding anniversary of my great-grandparents who had 11 children. Naturally, there were TONS of grandchildren and great-grandchildren (like me) and great-great-grandchildren and... It was a wonderful time. And... yeah. John and Minnie had eleven kids because that's what you did then. The kids helped on the farm. And, yes, the older kids raised the younger kids. That was 100 - 85 - 70 years ago. This is now.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 This will be personal as I think it might help support Inspector's point of view for which I basically agree 100% with. In my family, my mom's generation and the generations before them all had big families. My mom is from eight, another set of cousins are from 14, another from 16, it goes on and on. When we get together and talk of family comes up while everyone cherishes our big loud parties and gatherings you hear snippets of siblings and cousins talking and it makes me think of this family and their dynamics later down the line. My mom was the oldest daughter so her sense of responsibility was great to her younger siblings emotionally and as their caretaker. As her eldest daughter I feel I grew up in some ways too fast and with too much responsibility as I helped carry her baggage of care for her sibling and then their kids. Her sisters always talk about how she was more like their mom then their mom. My grandma was just plain to busy to be there for each of them so they were substitued by their elder sister. My one cousin always talks about how there were fourteen of them so it's like they were sectioned off as a family, the top four, the middle five, the bottom five, etc. The middle five felt their elder siblings were more parental and the bottom five felt the middle five were more like mom and dad to them. By the time the last two or three were born their parents were just done emotionally. The rearing of them was left to older siblings. My point is this has had all kinds of psychological situations occur for these people as individuals into adulthood. While poor most of these people were what would be viewed as a loving, supportive environment however some siblings felt ripped off of their childhoods as they were mini-parents, others felt neglected as children because they were more raised by their sisters and brothers than their parents. Yes, it's their right to have as many kids as they want but I'm not buying that it's a completely healthy situation. Call it reading into what you see but I looked closely at the picture of all those kids gathered around their mom and new sibling's bed. They didn't all look that thrilled.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle >>The kids all have to dress alike. The boys haircuts are indentical. The girls all have long hair and always have to wear dresses. Their names all begin with "J".<< Hmmmm. Okay, that is a little weird, then. Still their choice, of course, but I can see now why some people think it's a bit strange.
