Stop having so many damn kids; population control, anyone?

[GeezerSue 7]

I admire these quiverfull-thinking folks, who are considered religious nut heads by a few here. I suppose I took it a bit persoanlly? Kind of like slamming red heads at a party and turning around to find one staring at you, mortified.

They're nuts. And few people are born believing that using birth control is rejecting God's gifts...whereas many people are born red-headed. It would be ridiculous to criticize someone's genetics, whereas criticizing faulty logic is a whole different ballgame.

People who believe that random bits and pieces of stuff, passed along many thousands of years ago by warrior tribes (not unlike the Taliban, BTW) and committed to writing a couple of thousand years ago should dictate what they do today...while simultaneously (and conveniently) omitting the other stuff...well, they are less than honest with themselves and others.

FIRST, if you check that particular bible verse, you'll see that what is being discussed is the wisdom of HAVING SONS IN ONE'S YOUTH. That they'll be handy for smiting enemies and all...so I guess real believers would consider any daughters disposable because no respectable daughter would be hanging out at the town gates killing off the enemy.

THEN, further along in Psalms (137:9), the text also says:

Happy shall he be, who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock.

Yeah...let's just pick random shit out and go live by it.

[Alexandra 55]

While I in no way would want to have many, many children, I do see the attraction of letting the chips in one's life fall where they may. That's a guiding principle I abandoned at the age of , oh, 13 or so.

Nuts? I don't know about that, if the families are truly ready and able to provide for the care of so many. How that would actually be possible I can't imagine; most of the kids are probably acting as pseudo-parents rather than having their own childhoods. It's a very different environment than I can actually picture for myself, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for everyone--or wrong on any level at all.

[GeezerSue 7]

For the record...I don't think people who want a bunch of kids are, on the basis of that decision alone, nuts. I think that people who make the decision to have or not have kids based on an apparently misunderstood piece of scripture from a line of reasoning that (we can hope...using your sons to smite the enemy at the city gates and all) is no longer valid...THOSE are the nuts.

[Alexandra 55]

I think that people who make the decision to have or not have kids based on an apparently misunderstood piece of scripture from a line of reasoning that (we can hope...using your sons to smite the enemy at the city gates and all) is no longer valid...THOSE are the nuts.

Sue, you'll get no argument from me on that score. :confused:

[Ariel 1]

weird religious people do scare me. I am not talking about one religion in particular but rather people that take religion to the extreme. Religion is good for people but it is when it consumes them then i have a problem.

[Carlene 12]

weird religious people do scare me. I am not talking about one religion in particular but rather people that take religion to the extreme. Religion is good for people but it is when it consumes them then i have a problem.

"Extreme" is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, no one thinks their religion is weird, or extreme....only other people's. Except that my DH thinks it's extreme to miss a Dallas Cowboys game in favor of going to church.

[jla734 0]

So....would you outlaw multi-generational living as well as large families? In my household there are four people. The oldest was born in 1920 - the youngest in 1992. Seems pretty harsh to put an 86 year old woman and a 14 year old out on the street because they flush more than the neighbors.

Yes....anything that skews the average can impact a lot of people, but this is AMERICA, where we deal with it. We don't legislate people into the norm. It's just not right. Same thing with eminent domain used to grab land to build shopping centers and athletic stadiums. It sucks!

Thanks Carlene for some common sense.It can be scary when we have people inour country that think like the Chinese gov. Oh wait China at LEAST ALLOWS one child per family pitty if the child is a firstborn GIRL.

[jla734 0]

I worked in child protective services for awhile. families had "farmed" children out bc they could care for them... only to make more. One mother had 17 children. She was a functioning addict She was also a grandmother. She was 35.

Tanf is just a fancy term for welfare. Families still get foodstamps and other services that go with it, and once they have another baby they get exteneded another 3 yrs, and if they live in the projects they pay anywhere from $2.00 a month - 150.00 a month to live. food stamps for 1 adult and 4 children is almost 1100.00 a month. I know even UN BANDED i couldnt fathom eating that much food.

It is a game on how to get the money. Too many kids is not good. It is hard on many structures of life.

I am not against large families. some people can do it ok, but most people can not pull it off this day and age.

Consider me a little saddened and jaded by the "system"

I used to feel the same way you do re foodstamps and such. I mentioned this to my uncle once.Guess WHERE he worked in Washington DC with the department of Welfare and fraud. He told me that it is a HUGE myth re welfare "cheats" they ARE there but it is low like 3 percent.One other thing I think the military now has almost HALF their people getting foodstamps.I see MANY working class poor with both parent's working and yes those families are getting either mediciad or FS. I have no problem with working class poor getting help or their children for that matter. There was a story last year on our local news about 40 percent of all families that go to local foodbanks are MIDDLE class. Things are hard for many people now from all income levels.

BTW,my grandmother had 13 children and they did fine. Don't get me wrong as I really do understand BOTH sides of this.

[anonemouse 1]

"Extreme" is in the eye of the beholder.

Well, yes and no. No extremist thinks they are being extreme but it doesn't change the fact that they are extreme. If you asked Fred Phelps and his nutso congregation, they could probably give you several explanations for what they do that they think are perfectly reasonable. Doesn't change the fact that they are nuts and that they are extremists. Extremism is simply being far outside what is considered to be "the norm". Having 25 kids? That's extreme. Thinking that the 9/11 attacks were because of our nation's tolerance of homosexuality (like Phelps and his congregation)? Extremism.

[Boo Boo Kitty 3]

Ok I have alot of opinions on this, my first one being does anyone REALLYi want the goverment being able to tell us when we can have children or not? If so, move to China or something where your choices to have children are limited.

Secondly, one of my very good friends in school is the oldest of 17 children. There is something you are missing if you have never had the great opportunity to be in one of those households. There is more love than you can imagine. The children are all very independent, but ALL help out and do their fair share of work. The children are more responsible than most adults I know. They know how to save resources. They aren't using up more electricity than a family of 4 living in a house they can't afford. They learn how to use coupons, save money, allocate resources ect. They are better than a family that we think to be normal I honestly believe. They aren't nuts. They ARE HONEST CARING PEOPLE that have made a personal decision for their life. Nuts are people that run airplanes into buildings in the name of god.

And Sarah, the oldest for the record is now a Pediatric Dr at the U of M who has saved many many lives. All of those children have the potential to change the world, and as far as I am concerned sometimes have more drive to do so because of the way they were brought up with a different view of the world. One that is unselfish unlike most American brats. (my kids included.)

[anonemouse 1]

Personally, I feel that the government should not be telling us how many kids we can have. It should be something that we take the responsibility to do ourselves.

Brandy, if you ask your friend how much time she spent taking care of her 16 siblings, I will bet a lot of money that she will say, "A lot." To me, that's inexcusable. When a couple has 17 kids, they simply don't have time to give them all the attention they should have. If "middle-child syndrome" is so bad when there are only three kids, think how bad it is when you are stuck in the middle of 17. Between working to provide the necessities for 17 kids and actually attempting to care for 17 kids, there isn't enough time in the day. Kids should be kids. They shouldn't be forced into the role of parent or caretaker simply because their parents decided to pop out sixteen other kids. Learning responsibility is great, but it can easily be taught without having to have 17 kids. Those kids are probably more responsible than most adults you know because they were forced to essentially grow up a lot earlier. They weren't allowed to be the kids they should have been.

I am firm believer in not having more kids than you and your spouse can take care of. It isn't considered "kosher" to send them off to live with Granny when you start having more than you can look after at one time, so why is it okay to have your older kids become surrogate parents? If the only way you can take care of all your kids is to have other people (even family) look after them, you have had too many.

Your friend's family sounds great on the surface, but look deeper. Were they allowed to be kids? Or were they forced to grow up before they were ready because Mom and Dad couldn't give everyone the attention they should have?

[Wheetsin 714]

What about instead of a limitation of the number of kids someone can have, certain criteria for having them? E.g. level of income per child.

Not saying I'm for or against, but I see the conversation going toward "limiting"... rather than perhaps "qualifying" - and am curious to see what you guys think.

[GeezerSue 7]

Well, Wheetsin, you'd might as well ask for an IQ test. Wait...that might not be such a bad...NO!!! No! What am I thinking?!? Tempting as it is I don't want my government to be involved in ANYONE's reproductives issues WITH THE EXCEPTION of the reproductive activities of those who are unable to care for themselves and, probably, in the case of incarcerated folks with conjugal visit (if those things still happen) rights...I'm thinkin' no babies there, either.

I have a couple of relatives with Down Syndrome. Tear-jerker movies on the topic to the contrary, neither of them should ever become parents because neither of them will ever be capable of caring for or protecting a child. Laws about reproductive rights and those relatives would not, IMHO, be out of line.

[kygal 0]

Good heavens you childess heathens.

I feel like I must confess. My husband and I were married six years, finishing college, and buying a house...while unbeknownst to us, the "baby making gene" was slowly growing in the back of our brains.

Alas, it reared it's ugle head...

My husband talking me into getting off the pill....

And you know.....actually trying.....

And boy did we learn a lesson.

We had twins.

I apologize to each and every one of you on this thread, and to prove the sincerity of my remorse, I will send them back immedately. We've been feeding and watering them for eleven years, but ya'll are right, we shouldn't have. We're so sorry.

Do we return them to the hospital, or to the obstitrician? We are afraid if we drop them off at a local childrens home they may find their way back to us. Please help.

:uwelcome:

[Michelle Fisher 0]

Wow...your messsage seems a bit harsh. I mean I *totally* agree with you that 18 or 20 is way too many and I definitely don't agree with an idealology that only God is responsible for childbirth..

But I have to tell you guys something..BE VERY CAREFUL with weight loss from the band..becaues guess what? I lost 150 ponunds and I had Bandster Baby #1 (2nd baby)..totally planned for..just happened to come VERY quickly after getting off birth control..I was pretty surprised..but bandster baby #2 (baby #3) was SURPRISE Bandster baby who came three months after I had Bandster Baby #1. I was on Birth control I didn't miss a pill but SURPRISE..somebody's plan was that I have this third baby. The best I can figure...weight loss makes you fertile!!! Just be extra careful!!!