Here we go again--Woman pregnant with 18th Child

[Nate]

(And, they aren't supposed to stay stinker for too long...)

Maybe not but I have a weak stomach and I absolutely refuse to change a diaper, period. And it would be pretty lame and rude of me to insist that my wife do it all the...

Wait, I'm speaking as if I'm actually getting married someday.

You might feel different about your kids. Because, they'd be your dang kids, not someone else's dang kids.

I have a feeling I'd dislike my kids the most, because I'd have to put up with them constantly, rather than an hour or two a day. Also I'd know that their stupidity, stubbornness, rudeness, forgetfulness, laziness, and ugliness would be inherited from me. In other words I'd be to blame.

And since I hate myself the prospect of having a kid just like me pretty much pushes the odds to the side of me being disgusted by them. It'd be like a living embodiment of everything I can't stand about me! I'm sure that would endear them to me. -.-

[Syreth]

I fail to see the moral implications of having children or not having children. It just isn't a moral issue--it's a choice.

But if we have children, they are important to God, so they should be important to us as well.

[KhakiBlueSocks]

.,..but I would still say it's irresponsible to bring a child in to the world intentionally past age 40.

With all respect, I don't think I agree with your use of the word "Irresponsible". If God meant for them to have a child at that particular age, who are we to judge it as irresponsible? What does that say to those couples who have been trying to have a kid naturally throughout their fertile years and only achieved pregnancy when she was in her 40's?

[Warrior4Christ]

They look like they love children and do their best to care for them. And they look like they're able to organise and adapt themselves to cater for them all... So being able to handle a family that large is pretty impressive.

However, I don't agree with the Quiverfull movement. Though, if they choose to have a big family, then that's fine.

[KhakiBlueSocks]

[font="Trebuchet MS"][SIZE="4"][color="RoyalBlue"]Of interest, I Wikied Quiverfull, and I was lead to this article on a website called "Christian Moms of Many Blessings" which pretty much states, in a nutshell, what some posts in this thread have been saying.

http://www.cmomb.com/why-do-i-have-all-these-kids/[/color][/SIZE][/font]

[rocklobster]

With all respect, I don't think I agree with your use of the word "Irresponsible". If God meant for them to have a child at that particular age, who are we to judge it as irresponsible? What does that say to those couples who have been trying to have a kid naturally throughout their fertile years and only achieved pregnancy when she was in her 40's?

Let's not forget that Abraham's wife Sarah and Elizabeth were both VERY old when they had their children. And they had only one each. But it was enough. We all know how great their kids turned out, right? In case you're not getting it, Sarah gave birth to Isaac and Elizabeth gave birth to John the Baptist.

[ShiroiHikari]

[font="Trebuchet MS"][SIZE="4"][color="RoyalBlue"]Of interest, I Wikied Quiverfull, and I was lead to this article on a website called "Christian Moms of Many Blessings" which pretty much states, in a nutshell, what some posts in this thread have been saying.

http://www.cmomb.com/why-do-i-have-all-these-kids/[/color][/SIZE][/font]

Hrm. Well, they can think what they want.

[rii namuras]

I was going to make it so my girl's names had the same ending sound ^^ Like, Serena and Relena ^^ Or, Aaliyah and Serena, but my cousin took those names already

[color="Red"](This is kinda late because my computer hasn't been loading this thread... but do not do this. Especially if you're going to have more than a few. My sister and I have same-ending names [with a -y, if you're wondering], and every single time when someone calls one of us, both of us come out because all we hear is the -y.)[/color]

[Etoh*the*Greato]

With all respect, I don't think I agree with your use of the word "Irresponsible". If God meant for them to have a child at that particular age, who are we to judge it as irresponsible? What does that say to those couples who have been trying to have a kid naturally throughout their fertile years and only achieved pregnancy when she was in her 40's?

If God intends it sure, but we also do a lot of stuff that God doesn't intend. If you work a pregnancy at that age, you're running physical dangers to yourself and you're running a high risk of mental/physical damage to the child. I would call that irresponsible. If the child has Downs, that woman will have to live with the knowledge that her decision to run a pregnancy at that age actually caused that situation for the child. It's an awful thing to bear for the mother, and it is unfair to the child.

I want to get out there that just because we're doing something doesn't mean God has blessed us to do it. Yes, God does bless us, but not everything is immediately an "OK" stamp from God. Sure, he'll use those things to bless us in the future, but keep in mind that he's also a master of making the most of a bad situation. I'd rather not risk it. If you're gonna go at it like bunnies at that age, maybe you should consider surgical options (again), and if God really wants you to have a child then you'll have one anyway. I've seen it happen.

[Mave]

For boy names, you still have

J
JJ

If they do run out of names, they can go the George foreman way and call them all Josh Jr, the III, the IV, V.

Just wanted to offer the name Jun Jie, which can be shortened to JJ. As far as I understand, this name only exists in Singapore. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

Only a few forms of birth control are anything even remotely resembling dangerous. The most birth control will usually do to a woman is give them unusual mood swings.

I was tempted to assume that you’re taking the task of swallowing the pill lightly but I shall not. I just want to point out that those unusual mood swings can be pretty bad for some women. Some of friends swung really badly and it was quite detrimental emotionally, even if it wasn’t physically (from a strictest sense).

I only support Premies. Posties? Over my dead body.

Loud. Annoying. Smelly. Ugly. And I realize I'm not smart in the least but there's a certain baseline level of intelligence I desire when I talk to someone. Children do not have this.

LOL This could apply to some adults too and some of those traits can be a result of certain eh….parenting styles. But I sincerely respect your preferences.

[minakichan]

Let's not forget that Abraham's wife Sarah and Elizabeth were both VERY old when they had their children. And they had only one each. But it was enough. We all know how great their kids turned out, right? In case you're not getting it, Sarah gave birth to Isaac and Elizabeth gave birth to John the Baptist.

Yes, but you're citing two examples, both of which come from the Bible and involve particularly blessed people... argh. I don't know how to word this without inciting debate. At any rate, as Etoh has said, the risk of complication is much greater as a woman gets older, and just because you're a Christian doesn't make it any less. If a woman at that age is willing to have a child knowing the potential risk-- i.e. the expected outcome based on perceived probabilities is positive-- then I suppose it's her choice, but she should at least become aware of the risks and factor them in.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Well, if an older woman does end up unexpectedly pregnant, I suppose she'll just have to deal with it.

[KhakiBlueSocks]

If God intends it sure, but we also do a lot of stuff that God doesn't intend. If you work a pregnancy at that age, you're running physical dangers to yourself and you're running a high risk of mental/physical damage to the child. I would call that irresponsible. If the child has Downs, that woman will have to live with the knowledge that her decision to run a pregnancy at that age actually caused that situation for the child. It's an awful thing to bear for the mother, and it is unfair to the child.

Once again, with respect, I have to disagree with you. It's not for us to say whether or not a mother or a father is irresponsible for bringing a child into this world after a certain age. Frankly, it's a lot more responsible than terminating a living child--to me, that's unfair.

What I do consider unfair and irresponsible is if the parents in question were not aware of the risks that are involved. Or if the physician in question explicitly told the parents "Look, because of XYZ factors, it will be inadviseable for you to become pregnant" and they did it anyway.

[Cognitive Gear]

Yeah, seriously, J names? Those are some of the lamest and most generic in the book. If they were L or S names, it might be a little better.

Or Q. *_*

Yeah, but with L or S names you don't get the added benefit of someone being called "Mister J".

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Once again, with respect, I have to disagree with you. It's not for us to say whether or not a mother or a father is irresponsible for bringing a child into this world after a certain age. Frankly, it's a lot more responsible than terminating a living child--to me, that's unfair.

What I do consider unfair and irresponsible is if the parents in question were not aware of the risks that are involved. Or if the physician in question explicitly told the parents "Look, because of XYZ factors, it will be inadviseable for you to become pregnant" and they did it anyway.

I never even put terminating a living child on the table. That was never at any point in my argumentation. I'm simply saying that if you're planning on rabbiting your way through your middle ages you ought to plan on pregnancy prevention. And I would imagine that most doctors are probably telling women who want to give birth at that age the risks. Some doctor has got to have sat down with the woman in the article and said, "You're taking your life in to your own hands and potentially trashing the life of your as-yet unconceived child." This'd be like the response any doctor would have if you told them you were considering taking up smoking. "Well, we know the risks and I would strongly advise you to not, but in the end it is your own choice."

Part of my point is that just because we're doing something doesn't necessarily mean God is blessing it. And just because it is being allowed to continue it doesn't mean he's blessing it. Often times we have to live with our mistakes because we'll never learn otherwise.

[Sheenar]

If God intends it sure, but we also do a lot of stuff that God doesn't intend. If you work a pregnancy at that age, you're running physical dangers to yourself and you're running a high risk of mental/physical damage to the child. I would call that irresponsible. If the child has Downs, that woman will have to live with the knowledge that her decision to run a pregnancy at that age actually caused that situation for the child. It's an awful thing to bear for the mother, and it is unfair to the child.

Yes, there are increased risks of Downs with increased age, but that doesn't mean the mother is the cause of it. Downs is caused by an extra chromosome on Chromosome 21--either the sperm or egg has an extra chromosome. It's a game of chance...that that one individual sperm will fertilize the egg. Even someone my age still has a chance of having a Downs child.
Another example: Because research shows some genetic link in Asperger's and in autism, it is possible to pass it on genetically. So does that mean I should tie my tubes and not have children because I have Asperger's and could potentially have an autistic child? No...because there is still a large chance that it won't happen. And again, this is all in God's hands. If He wants a child to be born with special needs, then the child will be born for God's purposes. (And yes, God can use special needs children--I worked with them at camp last year and I can't even begin to tell you how much I learned from and was blessed by them.)

But I agree with you in that parents should make sound choices about their family...and if they feel it is not wise to have another child, then they should do family planning to avoid getting pregnant. They should temper their decisions with some wisdom.

Note to Mave: Some premies (drugs taken to prevent conception) can still cause abortion--some women still ovulate even on the drugs--and the drugs thin the lining of the uterus, preventing implantation--the embryo is discharged in menstruation--that is the reason I support natural family planning over using the Pill...as I've said before...

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Yeah, but with L or S names you don't get the added benefit of someone being called "Mister J".

And it's way better if the person calling you "Mister J" is female and has a strong Brooklyn or Boston accent.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

And it's way better if the person calling you "Mister J" is female and has a strong Brooklyn or Boston accent.

Mmmmmm... Delicious.

[minakichan]

Yes, there are increased risks of Downs with increased age, but that doesn't mean the mother is the cause of it. Downs is caused by an extra chromosome on Chromosome 21--either the sperm or egg has an extra chromosome. It's a game of chance...that that one individual sperm will fertilize the egg. Even someone my age still has a chance of having a Downs child.

Ovaries decline in function as a woman ages. Sperm does too for men, but not nearly as much. There is a higher risk that a defective egg will get fertilized and result in a Downs child if the mother is above 40. Again, it's a matter of PROBABILITY; no one is saying that at 40 years of age, a woman's chances of bearing a Downs child jumps from 0% to 100%. If a woman drinks heavily while pregnant, her baby might end up with complications. It's possible that a completely sober woman can have similar results as well; that doesn't justify a pregnant woman's drinking. It's a difference in the probability though, and if all we look at is the range of possible outcomes without factoring in percentages, the result can be catastrophic.

No...because there is still a large chance that it won't happen.

So where do we draw the line and say that the chance is big enough? 25%? 50%? 75%? I like Etoh's smoking example; not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer or some other complication, but the risk certainly increases. Sometimes people need to make a decision whether the risk is worth it-- is my increase in pleasure from smoking enough to offset the potential decrease in my health or the possibility of death? Some people say yes, others say no. As for children with special needs, no one is saying that they're less than human, but a woman needs to consider that it's a possible outcome, and if she doesn't or cannot handle that possibility, she shouldn't press her luck! If she can handle it and thinks it's worth it, by all means, go for it!

[Tsukuyomi]

[color="Red"](This is kinda late because my computer hasn't been loading this thread... but do not do this. Especially if you're going to have more than a few. My sister and I have same-ending names [with a -y, if you're wondering], and every single time when someone calls one of us, both of us come out because all we hear is the -y.)[/color]

Hmmm, good point ^^ I also thought of the same beginning like Serena, Selena, and Sierra, but that's a little over the top ^__^;

[LadyRushia]

As an aside, I think it's dumb to give your kids similar sounding names. It takes away a sense of individuality. That's just my opinion, though. The continuous alliteration would annoy me to no end, XD.

Especially with 18.

[Radical Dreamer]

Hmmm, good point ^^ I also thought of the same beginning like Serena, Selena, and Sierra, but that's a little over the top ^__^]

What happens next is that when you're trying to call "Serena," you accidentally say "Selena" and then correct yourself by saying "Sierra." Before you know it, you're in a Bill Cosby comedy skit asking what your children's names are. XDD

As an aside, I think it's dumb to give your kids similar sounding names. It takes away a sense of individuality. That's just my opinion, though. The continuous alliteration would annoy me to no end, XD.

I actually know a family with three kids, and the husband, wife, and all three children all have J names.

What makes it even worse is that they were missionaries to Japan. XD Now they're in Germany, which only ruins it because the letter is wrong, but the sound is still there. XD

[Etoh*the*Greato]

My fiancee's best friend growing up was one of three girls all named B. Bridgette, Bethany, and Brittany. They called 'em B1 B2 and B3.

[LadyRushia]

What makes it even worse is that they were missionaries to Japan. XD Now they're in Germany, which only ruins it because the letter is wrong, but the sound is still there. XD

They should've gone to Johannesburg. Do they own jet skiis? Or do they prefer jousting?

[GeneD]

Wow, my head hurts, I've just read through 4 pages centering mostly on contraceptives.

I must say I'm a little in awe of a woman who can have 18 kids, there's no way I'll ever be able to do that. I understand concerns about individual time spent with each kid though, but I'm sure the parents knew what they were getting in to (at about child nr. 10) and hopefully they have a system to accommodate for this. I wonder if the kids share the same beliefs about family planning as their parents do. If so, they sure are going to have a lot of grandkids.

I don't have a problem with birth control such as the pill (obviously not posties). I agree that if it's God's will for you to have a child now, you will, but I believe as a Christian couple you should at least more or less know what God's will is for you concerning children. I think things like your financial situation and age are important factors which you should be at least aware of when deciding to have a child. For example; my sister recently got married and since she's still studying it would be quite unwise for her to fall pregnant, so she's on the pill.

I've seen a lot of arguments against birth control revolving around the fact that if the Lord wills you to have a child, you will anyway, but have you though that it is possible for the Lord, if he doesn't want you to have children at that time, to use some method of birth control to accomplish this. I'm not exactly sure that this is coming out right, but I believe that God can use everyday things/circumstances to accomplish his will, so why not birth control? Let me try and use an example: if you are in a car accident and you survive because you were wearing your seatbelt (i.e. the experts say that if you weren't wearing it you would be dead) you could very well argue that the seatbelt saved your life. But since we believe that our lives are in the hands of God and He's in control, then you could also argue that God saved your life. Of course, you could have not had your seatbelt on and God could have preformed a miracle to save your life, but you could also just have had your seatbelt on and God’s will would still have been done. I hope I'm making sense.

To Sheenar: I really don't mean to single you out, but I find it interesting that you disagree with the use of the pill for the reason it was made, but you don't mind using it for a secondary purpose. Of course I don't know the details of your situation and I'm sure you've consulted your doctor concerning this matter. I also understand not wanting to use the pill as birth control for fear of adverse effects on the pregnancy. Again I don’t mean this as an attack or anything, it’s just interesting.

Here’s another point for you: I have a friend whom I know would be saying that this couple are being a bit selfish; in that instead of having 18 kids, they should have stopped somewhere and adopted the remainder. There are a lot of parentless kids out there and they could easily provide a loving home for at least some of them.

Okay, I've just read my opening sentence and I must say that if I voiced it out load in the company of my parents I would get quite an interesting reaction.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

My terminology has stuck! The power! The power!
*Transforms in to He-man!*

[Radical Dreamer]

I've seen a lot of arguments against birth control revolving around the fact that if the Lord wills you to have a child, you will anyway, but have you though that it is possible for the Lord, if he doesn't want you to have children at that time, to use some method of birth control to accomplish this. I'm not exactly sure that this is coming out right, but I believe that God can use everyday things/circumstances to accomplish his will, so why not birth control?

Quoted for truth.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

I was thinking last night (Showers are good for meditation, doncha know) that this line of thinking is very close to the Christian Science line of thinking that if God truly wants you to be well you will be. God uses all kinds of means for achieving what he wants, and who's to say modern medicine isn't one of them?

[Sheenar]

To Sheenar: I really don't mean to single you out, but I find it interesting that you disagree with the use of the pill for the reason it was made, but you don't mind using it for a secondary purpose. Of course I don't know the details of your situation and I'm sure you've consulted your doctor concerning this matter. I also understand not wanting to use the pill as birth control for fear of adverse effects on the pregnancy. Again I don’t mean this as an attack or anything, it’s just interesting.

But I'm not having sex, so there isn't the risk of abortion that the Pill. carries...

I'm just going to use it to control my acne and regulate my periods. (Also get rid of the facial hair that makes me look like a man:shady: ) Just for regulation of my hormones...I'm just against using the Pill when you're having sex and there's the risk of losing a fertilized egg...

I'm still unsure whether I'll take Ortho-Tricyclen...I've heard about the blood clotting risks...and it's kind of scary sounding...my doctor says it would be safe...but I'm still kind of worried.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Bah. Bloodclotting is nothing when you pop tylenols like wurthers!!