Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My definition of "reasonable" is what is generally accepted to be the norm in a industrial, developed first world country such as the US and Canada. By any stretch of the imagination, 18 children is not acceptable for a western style country. Eighteen children may be OK for a tribe in the Amazon rain forest where the child mortality rate is 40 or 50%, but not in a first world country.
Again - why not?
If, as it appears to be the case here, they are happy, well adjusted, cared for, what business is it of mine, or yours, to tell them they are wrong.
And, in your opinion, what IS an "acceptable" number of kids that a family can have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Hazzard My definition of "reasonable" is what is generally accepted to be the norm in a industrial, developed first world country such as the US and Canada. By any stretch of the imagination, 18 children is not acceptable for a western style country. Eighteen children may be OK for a tribe in the Amazon rain forest where the child mortality rate is 40 or 50%, but not in a first world country.
Greatday
Quote:
Again - why not?
If, as it appears to be the case here, they are happy, well adjusted, cared for, what business is it of mine, or yours, to tell them they are wrong.
And, in your opinion, what IS an "acceptable" number of kids that a family can have?
You are now engaging in circular logic for the sake of argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Hazzard My definition of "reasonable" is what is generally accepted to be the norm in a industrial, developed first world country such as the US and Canada. By any stretch of the imagination, 18 children is not acceptable for a western style country. Eighteen children may be OK for a tribe in the Amazon rain forest where the child mortality rate is 40 or 50%, but not in a first world country.
Greatday
You are now engaging in circular logic for the sake of argument.
No, he's not. I think he's trying to make you be specific so we can understand if your criteria has any objectivity to it at all or if it's just as subjective as it seems to be.
Didn't mom say in her interview that she needs to make an "appointment" way ahead of time, to have a one-on-one quality time with each child individually?
That's kind of sad.
As far as "buddy" system goes, it's all great and dandy, but it appears that mother doesn't really have time for each and one of them. How do you show your love? Cuddle, tell bed-time stories, laugh and cry together, share your very little personal things?
Children raising children... is it really beneficial to either party?
This is not just about this particular family, this is about every large family with more then 3 to 5 kids. Especially those who don't have any abilities to provide. Having many children for religious reasons is absurd. Having many children because we CAN is absurd. Having many children to help "around the house" or farm, or whatever excuse it is, is absurd.
To me it's just selfish. Children need their mothers to raise them, not their siblings.
Didn't mom say in her interview that she needs to make an "appointment" way ahead of time, to have a one-on-one quality time with each child individually?
That's kind of sad.
As far as "buddy" system goes, it's all great and dandy, but it appears that mother doesn't really have time for each and one of them. How do you show your love? Cuddle, tell bed-time stories, laugh and cry together, share your very little personal things?
Children raising children... is it really beneficial to either party?
This is not just about this particular family, this is about every large family with more then 3 to 5 kids. Especially those who don't have any abilities to provide. Having many children for religious reasons is absurd. Having many children because we CAN is absurd. Having many children to help "around the house" or farm, or whatever excuse it is, is absurd.
To me it's just selfish. Children need their mothers to raise them, not their siblings.
Just my .02c
I understand your points. Does that mean you are basically against mothers leaving their kids in daycare to go to work because the kids need their mothers to raise them?
I understand your points. Does that mean you are basically against mothers leaving their kids in daycare to go to work because the kids need their mothers to raise them?
What is day care have to do with it?? If you have 18 kids standing in line for 10 days to get your individual attention, then it's wrong.
I'm not saying people shouldn't have biological children, but if they need huge numbers of them it would be nice if they could adopt some. I say selfish because the world is overpopulated and americans use tremendous amounts of resources so bearing 18 more children by one family is selfish IMO.
This is just simply not true, yet I read it over and over again. Just this last week "natural disasters" rid the worlds population of over 100k people. We're not even close to being overpopulated, and anyway, who decides what that arbitrary number is? It's like hazzards "reasonable" number of children. Honestly, as long as we aren't paying for them, which ironically, liberals are usually in favor of, it's none of our business how many kids they have.
YOU were the one who use the term "reasonable" - I'm asking you to define it.
I'm also going to ask you if, in your opinion, there should be a limit, by law, on the number of children someone can have in the United States
Greatday, you know we agree on many points but I beg to differ on this "reasonable" portion of your question. If I may draw an analogy to a definition of an "emergent situation" when defining what constitutes an emergency, the definition in health care is that of a "layman's" interpretation. I am willing to wager that if I polled a statistically significant number of respondents as to whether 18 or more children is considered reasonable, the result would be that majority would consider this a bit much. Whether anyone has a right to dictate how many children one can have is another issue altogether. I agree no one can limit that. I believe that there is a point of diminishing returns here, that the quality of care in terms of attention provided each child, will if it hasn't already suffer. It isn't all about money, and it isn't about that the kids are well fed, clothed and educated. There are only twenty four hours a day. With just six hours of sleep, that leaves an hour for each, and we all know that the infants and toddlers need more than that. I have to take a position that 18 and more is a ridiculous and irresponsible number of children to have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
