How many truly think kids are a blessing?

[-Cp]

If so, why do you have only a few? :)

My wife and I watched show the other night on TLC called "Kids by the dozen" and it featured a family in Minnesota who have 16 biological kids and are adopting a 3yr old girl...

We were struck w/ how well behaved the kids seemed and their mom said that she rarely ever hears any of them complain they are "bored" - when they do, she can always find something for them to do :)

They're kids also all commented on how amazed they are at their parents' relationship "They act as if they're still on their honeymoon".... Awesome stufff that sure flies in the face of "modern wisdom"..

Here's a pic of them:

http://www.buildingthefamily.com/famsite/Graphics/heppners1120062.jpg

Good lookin' bunch...


your thoughts?

[Grumplestillskin]

Kids are cool. However, the planet needs more people like the black rhino needs a cull...

[jackass]

My grandparents had 17! My mom was the oldest. Although it took alot out of them my grandfather lived into his 80's and my nana is still kicking to this day.

[stephanie]

Kids are cool. However, the planet needs more people like the black rhino needs a cull...

I've always wondered??

Just how is it that some people know, Just how many people this planet can hold....

Do they talk with It...Did It tell them this...Is IT sighing and groaning, and saying...NO MORE.???

:uhoh:



I am the baby of eight......shame on my momma...

[darin]

Kids are cool. However, the planet needs more people like the black rhino needs a cull...

You don't buy into the 'global-over-population' scam, do you?

[retiredman]

I would suggest that the fact that they still act like they are on their honeymoon might be a major factor as to why they have so many kids.

[stephanie]

I would suggest that the fact that they still act like they are on their honeymoon might be a major factor as to why they have so many kids.

That......And she is....Fertile Myrtle....:eek:

We used to kid my mom about that....All my father had to do.....is hang his pants on the bedpost......And....Wall ah.....:laugh:

[Nienna]

I would suggest that the fact that they still act like they are on their honeymoon might be a major factor as to why they have so many kids.

Now, THAT was funny!
:D

[Nienna]

My husband and I are both the oldest in families of four kids. And we have four kids, ourselves. Kids are DEFINITELY a blessing. Kids pull us out of OURSELVES, help us to realize that life is not all about pleasing our own desires. We have to arrange our schedules around THEM--- at least we SHOULD. Parenting kids helps us to understand God better, because how we feel about them is in the ballpark of how He feels about us. How we want our kids to act toward us (with obedience and gratitude) is how He wants us to act toward Him.

Yep, kids are definitely a blessing! :)

[5stringJeff]

We are about to have our third, which is enough for both of us, but I agree, children are a blessing. Nothing to totally change your life perspective than having babies...

[-Cp]

That......And she is....Fertile Myrtle....:eek:

We used to kid my mom about that....All my father had to do.....is hang his pants on the bedpost......And....Wall ah.....:laugh:

She said on the show that they were even using two forms of birth-control for the longest time...

On their family website, they said they finally surrendered control of that area of their life to God - obviously he had other plans! :)

[avatar4321]

I do think kids are a blessings and i hope to have a number of them.. i just hope there is a living room big enough for everyone.

My question is how on earth did she stay in such good shape after having that many kids????

[The ClayTaurus]

My thoughts? I think that's too many kids for one family to have.

[jackass]

My thoughts? I think that's too many kids for one family to have.
Why? Its like your own clan. It kinda sucks growing up and being in your teen years with no privacy, but you really enjoy it as you grow older.

[Nienna]

My thoughts? I think that's too many kids for one family to have.

I think it depends on how many kids a couple can love and provide for. If people have a super-supportive marriage and enough love to go around, why not place as many kids in that environment as possible?

[Nienna]

Why? Its like your own clan. It kinda sucks growing up and being in your teen years with no privacy, but you really enjoy it as you grow older.

How big is your family? If you don't mind my asking? :)

[The ClayTaurus]

I think it depends on how many kids a couple can love and provide for. If people have a super-supportive marriage and enough love to go around, why not place as many kids in that environment as possible?Because it becomes irresponsible. What if something happens to a parent, or heave forbid both? If you can raise 'em and love 'em, good for you. The risk if something goes wrong, however, is too high.

...in my opinion.

[The ClayTaurus]

Why? Its like your own clan. It kinda sucks growing up and being in your teen years with no privacy, but you really enjoy it as you grow older.I'm sure it's great! The potential downfalls are what concern me.

[Nienna]

Because it becomes irresponsible. What if something happens to a parent, or heave forbid both? If you can raise 'em and love 'em, good for you. The risk if something goes wrong, however, is too high.

...in my opinion.

If you have THAT many, the older kids are old enough to care for younger ones, if both parents pass on. I think that is one of the advantages of a large family--- the kids HAVE to help out. Teaches responsibility and lack of self-absorption. :)

[The ClayTaurus]

If you have THAT many, the older kids are old enough to care for younger ones, if both parents pass on. I think that is one of the advantages of a large family--- the kids HAVE to help out. Teaches responsibility and lack of self-absorption. :)I think there are other ways to do that besides childcare necessitated by situation.

[-Cp]

My question is how on earth did she stay in such good shape after having that many kids????

Uhh... I guarantee - if you have THAT many kids. you WILL stay in shape! Always doing stuff! ;0


My thoughts? I think that's too many kids for one family to have.

So.. what should be the cut-off number?

I don't think so at all - you should've seen the show.. how much they cared for each other and took care of things around the house.. it was very cool...

[The ClayTaurus]

Uhh... I guarantee - if you have THAT many kids. you WILL stay in shape! Always doing stuff! ;0



So.. what should be the cut-off number?

I don't think so at all - you should've seen the show.. how much they cared for each other and took care of things around the house.. it was very cool...I don't have a cut-off number. I don't think there SHOULD be a cut-off number. I, personally, as in me, think 16 is too much.

[-Cp]

I think it depends on how many kids a couple can love and provide for. If people have a super-supportive marriage and enough love to go around, why not place as many kids in that environment as possible?

Personally, I don't think there is a limit on the love of a Parent... It's not as if you have kid number 12 and say "Sorry kid, you're outta luck as we're both out of love for you".... :)

[Nienna]

I think there are other ways to do that besides childcare necessitated by situation.

Of course there are other ways. Just saying that if this is the way they choose to do it, there's nothing wrong with that. :)

[Nienna]

Personally, I don't think there is a limit on the love of a Parent... It's not as if you have kid number 12 and say "Sorry kid, you're outta luck as we're both out of love for you".... :)

Well... not "love" as in "emotional attachment." I mean "love" as in "look after their needs, be willing to invest in him, be involved with them." Some people do not have the desire to do that, or the desire to let go of THAT much of their personal time & freedom to do it for that number of children. Those people should not have that many kids. But if a couple is willing to give that much of themselves, I say, they deserve PRAISE, not derision.

[-Cp]

Well... not "love" as in "emotional attachment." I mean "love" as in "look after their needs, be willing to invest in him, be involved with them." Some people do not have the desire to do that, or the desire to let go of THAT much of their personal time & freedom to do it for that number of children. Those people should not have that many kids. But if a couple is willing to give that much of themselves, I say, they deserve PRAISE, not derision.

I know - from their testimony - that the parents of these 17 kids give all the glory to God for both the blessing it has brought them and for the love, endurment and sanity he has provided for them in order to raise em' all...

[jillian]

Personally, I don't think there is a limit on the love of a Parent... It's not as if you have kid number 12 and say "Sorry kid, you're outta luck as we're both out of love for you".... :)

How about time and attention for 12?

[-Cp]

How about time and attention for 12?

It's all priorities... ...

I think the reason it's beyond the imagination of most folks to grasp their arms around the idea of a large family is because they are too self-absorbed with their own "careers" - even under the dupe of "I'm working all these hours to provide for my family"...

News Flash - your kids do NOT need your money, they need your time, lkove and emotional support!

Large familes used to be the norm until we became more of an industrialized nation which ultimately let to folks seeking selfish ambitions over family...

[jillian]

It's all priorities... ...

I think the reason it's beyond the imagination of most folks to grasp their arms around the idea of a large family is because they are too self-absorbed with their own "careers" - even under the dupe of "I'm working all these hours to provide for my family"...

News Flash - your kids do NOT need your money, they need your time, lkove and emotional support!

Large familes used to be the norm until we became more of an industrialized nation which ultimately let to folks seeking selfish ambitions over family...


Well, I think we're in the same place in terms of believing kids need your time and attentinon, hence my belief that it is impossible to provide such time and attention with that many children.

It isn't selfishness that keeps people from having large families. In the agrarian society, people needed more kids to work the family farm. They weren't having a family, they were having employees. Talk about selfish.

Then, there's also the question as to whether one can feed/clothe/educate a large brood.

[avatar4321]

Because it becomes irresponsible. What if something happens to a parent, or heave forbid both? If you can raise 'em and love 'em, good for you. The risk if something goes wrong, however, is too high.

...in my opinion.

Yeah, it is your opinion.

If something happens to a parent, there are children clearly old enough to take care of themselves by that time and can help out. thats the point of family.

[The ClayTaurus]

Large familes used to be the norm until we became more of an industrialized nation which ultimately let to folks seeking selfish ambitions over family...There are so many other factors to explain why large families aren't as common these days.

[The ClayTaurus]

Yeah, it is your opinion.

If something happens to a parent, there are children clearly old enough to take care of themselves by that time and can help out. thats the point of family.And I wouldn't want my children, at 18-24 years of age, have to be responsible for 10-12 siblings under the age of 16.

[avatar4321]

And I wouldn't want my children, at 18-24 years of age, have to be responsible for 10-12 siblings under the age of 16.

Yeah, because teaching the older children how to care about others is just so bad.

[The ClayTaurus]

Yeah, because teaching the older children how to care about others is just so bad.I'm sorry... did I do something to you to deserve the condescension?

READ what I said. I never said it was bad. I never said I wouldn't teach my children how to care for others.

Thanks.

[Nienna]

Well, I think we're in the same place in terms of believing kids need your time and attentinon, hence my belief that it is impossible to provide such time and attention with that many children.

It isn't selfishness that keeps people from having large families. In the agrarian society, people needed more kids to work the family farm. They weren't having a family, they were having employees. Talk about selfish.

Then, there's also the question as to whether one can feed/clothe/educate a large brood.

Well, the benefit of an agrarian society is that both parents worked at home. And the hard work was seasonal. There was lots more time AVAILABLE for the kids. And if the kids are working in the fields with you, that CAN BE a bonding or learning experience. Employees? I doubt that's how most parents saw their children, although most kids had chores. I don't think that's a bad thing.

[The ClayTaurus]

Well, the benefit of an agrarian society is that both parents worked at home. And the hard work was seasonal. There was lots more time AVAILABLE for the kids. And if the kids are working in the fields with you, that CAN BE a bonding or learning experience. Employees? I doubt that's how most parents saw their children, although most kids had chores. I don't think that's a bad thing.The point is, that society is long gone.

[jillian]

Well, the benefit of an agrarian society is that both parents worked at home. And the hard work was seasonal. There was lots more time AVAILABLE for the kids. And if the kids are working in the fields with you, that CAN BE a bonding or learning experience. Employees? I doubt that's how most parents saw their children, although most kids had chores. I don't think that's a bad thing.

My point was that we no longer live in an agrarian society. I do think, though, that you're romanticizing that era. It was brutal work. Crops failed, people lived in poverty and were uneducated. As to whether kids were employees or not, I suspect that varied family to family.

BTW, nothing wrong with some chores for kids. Although I grew up with someone who was always late for everything because she did most of the cleaning in the house and took care of her little brother. I saw that as her mother totally abdicating her responsibility.

[Nienna]

The point is, that society is long gone.

Well, the point in Jillian's post that I was disputing was that it was selfish in that society.

I agree that in our current culture, it would be difficult to provide for all the needs of that many kids. Our culture is set up to separate the family unit--- from parents working outside the home to the lengthy school day, and even the growing trend of preschool, all the extra-curriculars that take the place of the family evening playing board games. However, if a couple is willing to undertake this task, I think they deserve commendation, not derision. :)

[darin]

Well, the point in Jillian's post that I was disputing was that it was selfish in that society.

I agree that in our current culture, it would be difficult to provide for all the needs of that many kids. Our culture is set up to separate the family unit--- from parents working outside the home to the lengthy school day, and even the growing trend of preschool, all the extra-curriculars that take the place of the family evening playing board games. However, if a couple is willing to undertake this task, I think they deserve commendation, not derision. :)

Just a warning - when you talk about the 'new order' of "families" people here tend to become VERY convicted in their spirit. Instead of taking the wisdom in your post, they can become angry. You're exactly right though - society is slowly degrading the family to just a "group of people."

[-Cp]

My point was that we no longer live in an agrarian society. I do think, though, that you're romanticizing that era. It was brutal work. Crops failed, people lived in poverty and were uneducated. As to whether kids were employees or not, I suspect that varied family to family.

BTW, nothing wrong with some chores for kids. Although I grew up with someone who was always late for everything because she did most of the cleaning in the house and took care of her little brother. I saw that as her mother totally abdicating her responsibility.

You're also assuming that it was only farm-families that had "large" families back then...

[The ClayTaurus]

Well, the point in Jillian's post that I was disputing was that it was selfish in that society.

I agree that in our current culture, it would be difficult to provide for all the needs of that many kids. Our culture is set up to separate the family unit--- from parents working outside the home to the lengthy school day, and even the growing trend of preschool, all the extra-curriculars that take the place of the family evening playing board games. However, if a couple is willing to undertake this task, I think they deserve commendation, not derision. :)I commend their ability to feed that many mouths. I do not deride them.

We were asked what we think, and I think, if that were me, I would rather have less kids and help countless more through charity. Hell, I could even have my kids participate in the charity!

[darin]

I commend their ability to feed that many mouths. I do not deride them.

We were asked what we think, and I think, if that were me, I would rather have less kids and help countless more through charity. Hell, I could even have my kids participate in the charity!

*fewer* kids... :)

[avatar4321]

I'm sorry... did I do something to you to deserve the condescension?

READ what I said. I never said it was bad. I never said I wouldn't teach my children how to care for others.

Thanks.

yes. Yes you did. you started off acting condescending yourself.

[The ClayTaurus]

yes. Yes you did. you started off acting condescending yourself.Kindly direct me to the post.

[The ClayTaurus]

*fewer* kids... :)But I don't want *fewer* kids. I want less! :2up:

[KitchenKitten99]

The thing about these large families, is they are reproducing at the rate that most of the country was about 70 years ago. I hate comparing our country to Europe and the rest of the world, but several countries are actually trying to PAY families to have multiple children, because their birth to death rate is so off, the number of children expected to enter the workforce is declining at a huge rate. And because our country has become a WIIFM society, and abortion is legal, we might be on the same path. The income tax credit helps, but only those who make below a certain amount. And celebrities are always adopting because they don't want to stop their careers or because they are afraid of gaining weight for 3/4 of a year.

I would love have more children biologically but getting pregnant again could jeopardize my health. I have residual blood pressure and heart issues from being pregnant only twice.

I commend this and other families for having as many children as they can handle in all areas, as long as they do not rely upon the government for help, although most of the kids in these families are hardly leeches. Honestly, I would have just as many kids if I was physically able to. Although we are already looking into either adoption or surrogate mothers because we do want at least a 3rd.

[Grumplestillskin]

You don't buy into the 'global-over-population' scam, do you?

What scam?

[-Cp]

What scam?

The scam (dupe) into thinking we are somehow "over-populated" on this Earth...

[Grumplestillskin]

The scam (dupe) into thinking we are somehow "over-populated" on this Earth...

It's a scam? Hhhhmmm...you ever been to China or India? Or Bangladesh? Or LA? :lol:

I did read about five years ago that if every human on Earth had one square metre we'd fit into Texas, which suggests there is a lot of land out there. However, you take away the deserts, inhospitiable places, non-arable land, you'll find the Earth a smaller place. Also, the amount of crap six billion people put into the air is horrendous. Why add to that?

[The ClayTaurus]

It's a scam? Hhhhmmm...you ever been to China or India? Or Bangladesh? Or LA? :lol:

I did read about five years ago that if every human on Earth had one square metre we'd fit into Texas, which suggests there is a lot of land out there. However, you take away the deserts, inhospitiable places, non-arable land, you'll find the Earth a smaller place. Also, the amount of crap six billion people put into the air is horrendous. Why add to that?We have a hard enough time all getting along as it is anyways.