17 Kids!!!

[popcornbird]

Sara, I fail to see how this family effects you, your taxes, your life. Really. Okay, so this family has 17 kids. Fine. I'm sure we have a lot more than just 17 couples here on PT who do not have ANY kids, due to infertility, or just by choice. So...if 17 childless couples had 1 kid each, that would make 17 kids...the same number of diapers disposed in the country, the same number of 'additional' children in the country, using the same amount of resources.

My point? We hardly have ANY family with 17 kids in the country, and probably few across the world today. Why does it matter if THIS family has 17? What makes us so sure that all of the kids will have 17 kids each? Jeez...my mom never used birth control pills, and she got 2 kids in her lifetime. Just two. There's no guarantee on how many kids one is going to get. Not being on BC is not a guarantee that someone will end up with a lot of kids. Every kid that is born in this world comes because God wants that child here. So, if God chose to bless this family with 17 children, all of whom they love, what is everyone's problem? Its not like everyone out there is having 17 kids. No one is! So if this family is the only one that had 17 kids, I don't really see how it has such a great impact on the population. Again, there are thousands of couples that have NO children.

God has created a balance in this world. To some people, He gives many. To some, less. To some boys. To some girls. To some both. To some, none. Its not like everyone in the world is going to have 17 kids now. Come on...

And to compare them with gays, that just does not make any sense. You can't compare apples and oranges. The government doesn't want gays to marry, not because 'they control family life'. Its because marriage is between man and woman, and that is how God made mankind, and made the world, and the reason He made two genders, and that's just how it is, and has been, from day 1. People can argue all they want, have whatever opinion they want to have, but at the end of the day, people do that in regards to everything. And at the end of the day, not everyone arguing is right. The excuse 'who are we to judge who someone else falls in love with?'...well, people fall in love everyday, and some people cheat on their spouse because they 'couldn't help falling in love with that girl at work'. There's something called feelings, which we cannot control, and something called action, which we can control...and some actions are wrong, period. I do not disapprove of gays because of their feelings. I disapprove of their actions. And, as a member of planet earth, I guess I have the right to comment on that too.

I know this is a hot topic, but Sara, you know I've always liked you, so please don't take any of this to heart. Its just how I feel on this issue.


And before anyone thinks I'd want 17 kids, I wouldn't. I couldn't handle that many, but I would love to have 3 or 4 or 5. And I don't think having a baby every year is good for a mother's health either. All I'm saying is if they can manage it fine, and if all 19 members of the family are happy, then more power to them. I don't know how they do it, but clearly, they seem to be doing just fine at it.

Giselle, I don't get your comment regarding us 'dying'. We're all going to die anyway, one day, and the next generation will replace us. That's how the cycle of life goes, and no, there's nothing we can do to prevent that. Its going to happen whether people have 0 kids, or 20.

[lady_zana]

And to compare them with gays, that just does not make any sense. You can't compare apples and oranges. The government doesn't want gays to marry, not because 'they control family life'. Its because marriage is between man and woman, and that is how God made mankind, and made the world, and the reason He made two genders, and that's just how it is, and has been, from day 1.

This is slightly off-topic and please don't think my disagreeing with your view is a slight on you because you always post in a respectful and polite manner.

That said, I have a real problem with this argument. It's one I've heard many times before. "Gays can't marry because God made marriage between a man and a woman." In America, government is not supposed to be ruled by religion. Even if one thinks marriage should only between a man and a woman because of their religion, our government should NOT take that into account when making a decision. If you take religion out of the picture, I can't think of any reasons that gays should not be allowed to marry.

If any religion disapproved of gay marriage, they should have the right to not perform the ceremony but there is no reason two men or two women should not be allowed to marry in a civil ceremony at the courthouse if they wish to do so.

[Pam]

Glad you asked, Pam. The state of Florida, for example, does not allow gays to adopt children. There are only what, one or two states that allow them to marry?

Yes, and people are free to actually move from state to state and do it often for many reasons. I would imagine that to a gay person this might be a good reason to move. I repeat again that I do not see the connection at all between that topic and the original idea behind this thread.

I suppose you might also think that, in keeping with the explosive population, sterilizing people based on their family income might be a good idea. After all, a poor family cannot contribute much at all to the planet but instead just takes. Where I have heard the term *unproductive eaters* before? I shudder to think where your attitude could take us.

Yes, you pay taxes and so do I. Your tax dollars are no different than mine yet you take such offense. I think your problem with this family goes deeper than just the size of their family.

[jackie]

I'm just confused as to what the heck their religion has to do with any of this. I grew up with a classmate who was one of 13 (Catholic), known others who weren't particularly religious but grew up in a family with double digit children, had a co-worker who was atheist and had 9 children, etc. Doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with religion, more of a personal choice of the parents.

I was the one who brought up religion because I was curious if they were member of a religion which disapproves of birth control.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Yes, and people are free to actually move from state to state and do it often for many reasons. I would imagine that to a gay person this might be a good reason to move. I repeat again that I do not see the connection at all between that topic and the original idea behind this thread.

I suppose you might also think that, in keeping with the explosive population, sterilizing people based on their family income might be a good idea. After all, a poor family cannot contribute much at all to the planet but instead just takes. Where I have heard the term *unproductive eaters* before? I shudder to think where your attitude could take us.

Yes, you pay taxes and so do I. Your tax dollars are no different than mine yet you take such offense. I think your problem with this family goes deeper than just the size of their family.

Please do not analyse me without a license!

And PCB...

The government doesn't want gays to marry, not because 'they control family life'. Its because marriage is between man and woman, and that is how God made mankind, and made the world,

The government of the United States should NOT be making decisions based on religion just as religious leaders hould not be making political decisions!

I have a problem with overpopulators - white, black, brown, christian, muslim.

So, if a man went on the Today Show (or Jerry Springer) and introduced his wife, then said he was also having relations with her sister, her brother, her mother, her grandmother, her great uncle and his wife, your response would be..."this is a free country so I make no judgement!"

I am my brother's keeper, no man is an island, etc. WE all have to live on this earth together so I DO get to have an opinion (judgement if you prefer) about how others are using the planet. And so do you.

Do you think if I see someone polluting it would be judgemental of me to disapprove?

[lady_zana]

The government of the United States should NOT be making decisions based on religion just as religious leaders hould not be making political decisions!

That's what I said! I completely agree!

Yes, and people are free to actually move from state to state and do it often for many reasons. I would imagine that to a gay person this might be a good reason to move.

Gay people shouldn't HAVE to move. They should be allowed to marry and adopt kids in ANY state. I would be interested in hearing any arguments against gay marriage and adoption that are not religious-based.

[sparks19]

It just sounds to me like people are just out for a good witch hunt here.

All the issues brought up about this family are based on nothing but assumptions. They are polluting the earth with 90,000 diapers (yet you don't know if they even used disposable. You just assume) Well then they consume more food and produce more waste (yet you don't know if they have a compost, recycle, etc etc.) They COULD be more earth friendly than anyone around them but that wouldn't matter to any of you because there are 19 of them.... well I for one think that perhaps 19 people who always turn off the lights, unplug appliances, recycle everything that can be recycled, compost etc etc are much better for the planet than say.... 19 families of 3 that do NONE of that.... and we all know there are PLENTY of those families. All based on assumption of what you THINK this family does or doesn't do. Not to mention "It's MY tax money" Well eventually all 19 of those people will be paying tax money too.... but I'll bet they don't throw a hissy fit everytime you use their roads. Your tax money vs 19 people's tax money.... seems they will be paying more into taxes than you do.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Nineteen people create more waste than five people. I don't care if they use cloth diapers, disposable diapers or no diapers. Human beings create waste...and more human beings create more waste...and consume more water and put more weight on the roads and more pollution into the enviornment.

I brought up the taxes in response to a question I was asked. "How am I harmed?" Please do not try and twist that response into something entirely different and inane.

Here it is. I am harmed as a taxpayer and as a citizen of planet earth.

These two people have produced 17 more consumers.

I do not care what their religion is or their race. I do not care if they educate their children at home or not at all.

They are, in my opinion, selfish and irresponsible. I would feel that way if they live in the ghetto, a mansion or on a farm.

Overpopulation is a serious threat. Overbreeders should not be glorified in my opinion.

[Giselle]

I did not mean "dying" as in our own personal lives. I meant "dying" in the context of carrying capacity.

We are reaching, if not overreached, carrying capacity. As soon as we hit the carrying capacity, the entire human race plummets because there is too many people and not enough resources. By "dying off", I mean that literally. I mean subjecting our next generation to decreased resources and, ultimately, premature death. This family has produced 17 children and raises them under a belief that God wants us to create more and more children. Those 17 children may not produce 17 children themselves, but their parents' beliefs will help them to harbor the desire to create more children, or a "quiver full" so to speak.

[mike001]

The opinions on here totally amaze me. I fail to see where anyone has more right than another to live on our planet earth. Judging people by the number of children they have just isn't civilized. If they can open their hearts and love 17 kids, then so be it. I know I could never do it, but I have nothing against large families.
Some of the opinions sound like Hitler's view on Jews, he didn't think Jews should be allowed on the planet either.
This family is probably happier then your average family who are so busy with their own lives that they never see or do anything as a family unit.
The Kennedy's had very large families, who complained about them?

[Hellow]

And to compare them with gays, that just does not make any sense. You can't compare apples and oranges. The government doesn't want gays to marry, not because 'they control family life'. Its because marriage is between man and woman, and that is how God made mankind, and made the world, and the reason He made two genders, and that's just how it is, and has been, from day 1.

Actually, God made Woman to provide Man with companionship in an more personal way lol.

[Marigold2]

This is the great country of America. Here in America you can have 17 children or 27 or 57. Not only can you have 57 but you can do it on welfare. One man can make 100 kids with 100 different woman if he wanted and the government can not stop him, here in America. Reproduction is still a personal choice. As is abortion, here in America.
This family seems to be good, kind, decent, loving. They take care of all of their children. They are not a single man impregnating hundreds of different woman for sport and fun then abandening them. Here in America a gay couple can have children. They can do so with a donor. Here in America we have millions of illigal aliens taking up space, food, water, jobs, healthcare. Perhpas we should worry about the millions of them instead of 17 well feed, loved and supported children. Here in America we can still voice our opinion and not be shot.

[mike001]

Congratulations Marygold---you said it best.

I'VE BEEN BOO'D

[dukedogsmom]

Yeah, but you just have to have the "right" viewpoint, apparently.

[critter crazy]

Whatever happened to the saying "to each his own" ?? I see nothing wrong with what this family is doing. I personally would not have 17 kids, but that is just me. They can do whatever they want, this is after all America.