The Woman With 17 Kids!

[mitsuki lover]

Still the question has to be asked what woman in her right mind would want to be pregnant half her married life like that?

[RedMage]

I'm really not quite understanding what people mean by "too many." How many kids a married couple have is nobody's business but their own, assuming they can take care of and support all of them. I sincerely hope nobody means to imply there's something wrong with having "too many" kids. I assume people just mean that 17 is more than they would want to have themselves.

[termyt]

Having that many children certainly forces you to prioritize wants and needs.

There are several considerations that pop into my mind when considering whether "17 is too much". I'd make these considerations for even one child. One child is clearly too much for some parents out there.

Certainly, a family of 17 will not likely be able to afford many of the things many of us take for granted like cell phones, cable TV/any TV, computers, cars, vacations, eating out in restaurants, your own room. While these things are nice and can add enjoyment to our lives, they certainly aren’t necessary. Don’t get me wrong, I love my creature comforts, but they aren’t required for a good, healthy, well-adjusted life.

I’d hate to see a family of that size living off government assistance or strictly on the charity of others, but as long you can meet the basic needs of your family, then you are doing better than most in my book, regardless of the number of children.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

I visited their site and they seem to be really nice God-fearing people. My only concerns are that the kids and teens will have trouble adapting and coping in the outside world and not being able to be individual people.
It seems to be a very loving but also very 'closed off' lifestyle. Will be interesting to see where this takes them. The most number of kids I would want are 3 or 4 but 17 - no.
But the best of luck to them. Keep living for Him!

[mitsuki lover]

Well it does become other people's buisness if and when they have to use medical and social services.

[SailorDove]

Um, nobody stated some of these basics thoughts, (though some have indirectly touched on them).

1) A husband & wife that dedicated to each other aren't the kinda people that would think 17 children a burden, but a blessing. They must love each other a lot. Or to put it simply, "Where there is lots of love, children will abound"

2) My dad's father had 11 brothers & sisters and that was normal. Kinda sad in an odd sort of way that its become abnormal and riducled today.

3) There's enough habital land on the earth for every person to have his/her own square mile. This is a fact. Overpopulation is a well publized lie, just like Evolution. Anyone who's driven cross country may understand what I mean.

I don't come from a large family, nor do I know of any personally. Nor am I "forgetting" the bad or financial problems everyone faces. But there's my 2 cents.

[Nate]

And here I am to counter these "basic thoughts." Well, some of 'em anyway.

[color="Black"]1) A husband & wife that dedicated to each other aren't the kinda people that would think 17 children a burden, but a blessing. They must love each other a lot. Or to put it simply, "Where there is lots of love, children will abound"[/color]

I agree with the first half of that quote. However, your statement about "Where there is lots of love, children will abound" I take offense at. Does that mean my parents, who had only three children, didn't love each other as much as a couple who had eight children, or 17?

Just like those who take offense at people who look down at their noses at families with lots of children, so I take offense when someone implies that simply because a couple doesn't have a lot of children they somehow don't love each other as much as a couple with a lot.

[color="Black"]2) My dad's father had 11 brothers & sisters and that was normal. Kinda sad in an odd sort of way that its become abnormal and riducled today.[/color]

It is sad, I agree. However, things change...it used to be normal for a family to live in one town (or even the same house) for generations...now, you have families spread out all over the country, sometimes even spread out across countries. Inflation has also raised the cost of child-rearing, and some lower-income families simply don't have the economical resources to care for multiple children.

This doesn't make it right for others to ridicule large families. However, the only sadness I see in it being abnormal is the sadness that the American government seems to care very little for its middle and lower classes.

[color="Black"]3) There's enough habital land on the earth for every person to have his/her own square mile. This is a fact.[/color]

It's a fact, BUT, it's a skewed propaganda fact. The same as if I said "There are more automobile related deaths now then there were 40 years ago." Well yeah, that's true, but you have to take into account that the number of drivers on the road has risen as well.

So while TECHNICALLY there is enough land on the planet for every person to have their own square mile, you have to take into account other things. For example, sources of fresh water. Can they get electricity where they live? Can they get to their job in a reasonable fashion? Roads don't run everywhere, after all, and it costs a lot of money to pave one. Also, you have to take their job into account. For example, a farmer can't just live anywhere he chooses, there's certain levels of fertility in soil in different areas, not to mention some crops are very sensitive to different temperatures.

Habitable? Yes. Would they be able to do what they do now for a living? Probably not. You can't just say that like it's a be-all end-all to an argument about overpopulation. Besides, overpopulation ALSO has more to it than just "land space." There's food supplies, economical impact, environmental impact, so on and so forth.

Am I saying these are reasons to not have lots of children? No, I'm not saying that. How many kids a family has is their own business. I'm just saying overpopulation isn't just "space to live in," it's a lot more.

[color="Black"]Overpopulation is a well publized lie, just like Evolution.[/color]

No matter how bad I wish to respond to this, I know doing so would only get this thread locked on theological debate grounds. So I'm just going to let it slide...though it's taking EVERY ounce of my willpower to do so. >.>;;

Anyway, there's bashing on both sides of this. Yeah, there's people who bash families for having lots of kids, but I'm also seeing a lot of bashing of families who don't have lots of kids, either intentional or not. Why don't we just say however many kids a family has, whatever reasons they may have for having a lot, or a little, it's THEIR reasons, and we don't have a right to tell them what to do, hmm?

[Fish and Chips]

Overpopulation is a well publized lie, just like Evolution.

...I'm not going to say one word.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

So while TECHNICALLY there is enough land on the planet for every person to have their own square mile, you have to take into account other things. For example, sources of fresh water. Can they get electricity where they live? Can they get to their job in a reasonable fashion? Roads don't run everywhere, after all, and it costs a lot of money to pave one. Also, you have to take their job into account. For example, a farmer can't just live anywhere he chooses, there's certain levels of fertility in soil in different areas, not to mention some crops are very sensitive to different temperatures.

China is a good example of that. Most people live in crowded cities because that's the only place which then can make some sort of income. True you can live in certain less-crowded regions (Like closer to the north), yet it's a bare and desolate place. If I recall, farmers have trouble with their product because of the poor condition of the ground (as a result of the mass amounts of goats they herd which they need to keep). It's really a continuous cycle that's making everything worse. Goats are required so they can sell their wool/hair/fur/whatever. Farmers need good grass and plentiful water supply to raise the goats. The goats kill the land because they eat the roots of the grass and their hooves damage the ground, thus killing the ability to grow good grass. Farmers are then requires to A) Purchase grass and water from another source, thus costing them more money, or B) get rid of some goats. That leads to less fur being produced. The net income decreases every year, and the land rots.

This is why most people live in the crowded cities and working industrial jobs as opposed to agricultural ones.

[c-girl]

>"< Y'know.. My family and a few other people cleaned out this house one time for a christian family that had just gotten in town.. They had about.. >X_x< Ummz.. I think they were on their 11th child then.. They were still wanting more too. I was REALLY small, but the name Duggar does sound familiar... I wonder if it could've been them? I'll have to ask my mom.

But geez.. I think 2 or 3 is enough.. I think it's really important that children get lots of love and individual attention. I don't think it would be easy, or even possible to succeed to give a great quantity of attention to each individual kid when you have 17 kids. Let alone, having to provide for them all.. Personally I wanna be able to give my kids whatever they need and WANT.

[Doubleshadow]

Am I the only one who saw the shows about this family?

They were your typical couple, that is, two working college educated people who wanted one child. After having him, they got involved in the Quiver-full movement, which is based on a verse in Psalms

4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one's youth.

5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their enemies in the gate.

Psalm 127:4-5

They say this verse means only God determines how many kids you have and any, and I do many any, attempt to prevent pregnancy, including not... spending time together shall we call it? is unbiblical. They aren't the only family like this but I don't know how many there are.

They believe in being good financial stewards, and live debt free and without any social assistance by spending carefully and living simply. They built there new house themselves, the father and his sons, to save money.

They family is extremely close knit because they all pitch in, everyone helps everyone, they spend all there time together, playing, learning music, studying for school (good grades are stressed) and the bible together. I saw no TV or radio in the house, and everyone was busy with their chores and very obedient. The even host a home church.

Also, because I saw it mentioned, the oldest son was interested in a girl from another Quiver-full family and told the interviewer he knew he had to find a girl who shared his values.

I don't think this approach is economically feasible for most families, but the emphasis on family-values over material goods is admirable.

[termyt]

So while TECHNICALLY there is enough land on the planet for every person to have their own square mile, you have to take into account other things. For example, sources of fresh water. Can they get electricity where they live? Can they get to their job in a reasonable fashion? Roads don't run everywhere, after all, and it costs a lot of money to pave one. Also, you have to take their job into account. For example, a farmer can't just live anywhere he chooses, there's certain levels of fertility in soil in different areas, not to mention some crops are very sensitive to different temperatures.

Habitable? Yes. Would they be able to do what they do now for a living? Probably not. You can't just say that like it's a be-all end-all to an argument about overpopulation. Besides, overpopulation ALSO has more to it than just "land space." There's food supplies, economical impact, environmental impact, so on and so forth.

Are you suggesting she is suggesting that everyone has to live a mile apart? What would they do to make a living and where would they find water? Where are they working and what are they drinking now? Seems logical they could continue to do so. Whoever "they" is.

If I were to point out that every single person on the planet can have 3 square feet in Montana (based on a 6 billion world population) does that mean I am suggesting that we should all actually go stand in Montana? I suppose it would take no time for someone to point out that they would not want to be the one forced to stand on a glacier.

This kind of post is why we aren't allowed to have debates here and it makes me sad. A reasonable debate will never take place when each counter point jumps to a more extreme conclusion.

However, the only sadness I see in it being abnormal is the sadness that the American government seems to care very little for its middle and lower classes.

*sigh*

I don’t know what fills me more of the abnormal sadness. The fact that that’s a totally free cheap shot since no one can write an answer to it without violating forum rules or the statement itself.

What really fills me with sadness is even after so many thread closings and such, we still don't treat each other very well in these discussions. I realize we have very few good examples in our culture today of reasoned debate and compassionate discourse, but we are supposed to be filled with love for each other that should well over-ride any hatred we have for a particular opinion.

[Tommy]

Overpopulation is a well publized lie, just like Evolution.

I will respond to this, but not on the grounds others were going to.

Overpopulation isn't limited to the amount of people.

It's limited to the amount of money needed to support each individual person's existence which can be a lot.

I forget where, but it's a proven fact that every person on this planet standing in one clump could take up only one specific town in Florida.

I have to look into more, but I remember a certain Christian Scientist speaking out against over population saying something about that.

Either way, as for Evolution being a lie, as others have said, I'm going to refrain from responding to that bit.

[Nate]

[color="Black"]Are you suggesting she is suggesting that everyone has to live a mile apart? What would they do to make a living and where would they find water? Where are they working and what are they drinking now? Seems logical they could continue to do so. Whoever "they" is. [/color]

No, but what I'm saying is, it's fallacious to say that "Everyone can have their own square mile" when really, there's a lot more to living conditions than just amount of land. I was saying, there's a lot more to overcrowding/overpopulation than just how much land a person can live on, which is what she was saying, that there's enough land that everyone can have x amount of space. Really, overcrowding/overpopulation has little, if anything to do with the amount of property every person on the planet can own.

[color="Black"]we are supposed to be filled with love for each other that should well over-ride any hatred we have for a particular opinion.[/color]

I don't have any hatred for her opinion, though. o.o I think she is making some statements that are fallacious, but never did I say her opinion is wrong because of it. Indeed, I even said she is free to have her opinion, and that it was good if she supported families with large numbers of children.

The only thing I took issue with was the implication that 1) Families with small numbers of children don't have as much love as those that have large numbers, and 2) that overpopulation is merely the amount of land a person can own. Well, and one other thing that really can't be discussed here for theological reasons. XD But I let that one slide.

She's still free to say this family is blessed, or that any family with large numbers of children is blessed. And indeed, they ARE blessed, because the Bible says they are. I merely think some of her reasoning behind it is faulty, but you can have a valid opinion for invalid reasons.

[termyt]

I think she is making some statements that are fallacious, but never did I say her opinion is wrong because of it. Indeed, I even said she is free to have her opinion, and that it was good if she supported families with large numbers of children.

"Fallcious" means "wrong"

You are basically saying that she is free to be wrong if she wants to be. That's what gerenally passes for "open-minded" these days, but it's kind of a fallacious definition for it.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Edit: Disregard this post.

[Nate]

[color="Black"]You are basically saying that she is free to be wrong if she wants to be. That's what gerenally passes for "open-minded" these days, but it's kind of a fallacious definition for it.[/color]

And again, I said her reasoning was wrong, not her opinion.

The other day in the chat, Ryan was trying to say that human life is more sacred than animal life...a statement which I agree with (which is not to say that animal life is not sacred, simply that humans are more important).

Now, even though I agreed with Ryan, he kept giving reasons for his belief that were wrong (such as "animals cannot learn language," a false statement as many primates can utilize sign language). I countered his points, and showed them to be false. Yet I still agreed with him. Why is this?

Because, as I said in my last post, her opinion is certainly valid. It is her opinion, and it is neither right nor wrong by virtue of it being an opinion.

What I said was the logic behind her opinion was faulty. If I may quote myself, since it was somehow missed:

[color="Black"]you can have a valid opinion for invalid reasons.[/color]

Meaning that your opinion can be valid, yet based on propaganda, misinformation, etc. Nowhere did I say her opinion was wrong. Nowhere.

Now, do I disagree with her opinion that large families are better than small families? Well...yeah. But the great thing about opinions is that even if you disagree with someone's opinion that doesn't make it wrong. Some people think country music is great. I think it sucks. That doesn't make it wrong for them to like country music, it just means I don't agree with their assessment of it.

And ultimately, though it does not apply in this situation, yes, people are free to be wrong if they want to be. That's one of the rights we have in this country.

[SailorDove]

First let me apologize to the mods. It wasn't my intention to touch on topics that might start a theological debate. (Which the members kindly refrained from.)

Two, nor was it my intention to offend by what I didn't state or clarify. My apologies gentlemen. Thank you for respecting my opinions.

I wasn't trying to say that small families or large families are better than the other. Nor do I believe that land is the only issue in "overpopulation".

To try to claify those thoughts is why in the closing statement I wrote:

I don't come from a large family, nor do I know of any personally. Nor am I "forgetting" the bad or financial problems everyone faces.

I'm not perfect, nor do I always write let alone speak the right words. But in reading your responses, I understand I didn't post enough information and therefore caused the confusion.

[KhakiBlueSocks]

[color="RoyalBlue"][font="Trebuchet MS"][SIZE="4"]::blinks::

Man, this is causing a bigger debate than the time me and Kitchan got into it about Eureka Seven and FLCL!

Seriously guys, this was just ment as a friendly topic![/SIZE][/font][/color]

[c-girl]

Don't we have a debate thread on this website? >0.o<

[Radical Dreamer]

Don't we have a debate thread on this website? >0.o<

Nope, debate is either not allowed or is redirected to theologyweb. I'd personally consider this more of a discussion than a full-on debate, though.

[Nate]

Already said it in the chat, but I figured I'd post it publicly too.

[color="Black"]It wasn't my intention to touch on topics that might start a theological debate. (Which the members kindly refrained from.)[/color]

It happens every once in a while, not a problem. :3 I'm not a mod, by the way. XD I'm just saying everyone posts something that others don't agree with on a theological level.

The key is to remember that things that you may believe are taken for granted on a theological level really are varied from person to person, and not everyone can agree on what is or is not a lie or mistranslation or misunderstanding on certain things. Live and learn, though.

[color="Black"]I wasn't trying to say that small families or large families are better than the other. Nor do I believe that land is the only issue in "overpopulation". [/color]

Ah, okay, sorry for the misunderstanding, I got caught up in replies to other people and assumed you were making that statement, but I see now I was wrong. My apologies!

And don't let it bug ya, Dove, misreadings and misinterpretations happen all the time in text, especially on a forum. It sucks when it happens, but eventually you learn to kinda live with it. XD

[SailorDove]

As I said in the chat, Thanks & no worries. Be happy...

[termyt]

I wasn't trying to say that small families or large families are better than the other. Nor do I believe that land is the only issue in "overpopulation".

And that is why I wrote what I wrote. It’s too easy to take a statement contrary to your way of thinking and immediately jump to a conclusion that is not warranted by the statement itself. Thankfully, and to her credit, SailorDove is not easily offended.

While the amount of available land is not the only consideration in over-population, it is one of them and it is valid. It is not a fallacious statement at all. On the contrary, it is key to pointing out that over-population isn’t just a problem of space. It isn’t even primarily a problem of space. Over-population has been a problem for centuries. It was a problem when the world population was only a fraction of what it is today.

The problem lies more with the lack of opportunity afforded to people. Anywhere where access to liberty and opportunity are strictly limited, over-population will be a serious problem.

By saying that the amount of space has no place in the discussion denies the reality of the situation and prevents reasonable discourse about a potential solution. Allow me to demonstrate my point.

[quote="Conversation 1"]
Person A: “There are too many people here. It’s not sanitary, it’s not safe, and it’s too hard to get around.â€

[Okami]

That'd be pretty nuts...all the more power to them.