Arkansas mom delivers 16th child

What is the problem Reyn? Those kids look well taken care of. If people think they can handle a large family more power to them. My mother, and grandmother used to tell me stories about large families, and how well they did, loved each other, and took care of each other.

They take care of each other!

I also have an aversion to extremely large families. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't: like any other.
I just don't like it. It's excessive and somewhat gross to me (note: no offence to anyone who chooses this for themselves).
Why not have some bio kids and adopt others? How far can the resources of two adults honestly stretch?
Plus, I just wish people would stop procreating so much! We have so many people on this planet, it's ridiculous.

rant done. Just my gut feelings and reaction. Eww.

Speaking as one of twelve children, I have to say that I generally oppose families that large, but, as has been said already, if the parents can provide, and everybody is happy, who am I to speak up?

That's not a family......................That's a tribe!

Seriously though, as long as the family can take care of itself, I have no problem with it, although, IMO, it is very impractical.

I am curious as to why the father wants to go back into government. Real estate pays so much better, if you are good at it. But then again, the folks who are in public service have many opportunities to pick up a perk or two along the way! :wink:

I'm with flushd, there seems to be a certain level of arrogance to this. It's not, "I want to open my heart to a lot of children", but rather, "I feel like spreading my seed. A lot. And now I'm gonna spread it some more." Oy.

While everyone appears well cared for (good), who is taking care of the youngest, say, 5 kids? I can't imagine Mom is doing all of that, seeing as she's more or less constantly pregnant. So who is? Why, it's the older kids, of course! "Okay, you're at least 12, time for you to care for children" - regardless of whether you're any good at it and regardless of whether homework and perhaps other interests (e. g. if a talented child wanted to learn to play the violin) eat up a lot of your time. No! You've got child care! And lots of it!

If it's nannies, and not the older kids, then the arrogance, to my mind, is even more troublesome. Is this reproduction for the purpose of someone else caring for the huge number of offspring? Yikes.

1) they look well cared for -
its aposed picture. Everyone gets dressed for a picture.

2) they can provide for them-
what ? A home? OK fine.. so how does one person ( mom) sit down and read with the kids? How does one person teach those kids to write? read? How to calm themselves ( terrible 2's) , potty training?

---------

I am a little set back by that number of kids as well.
I dont think it is possible to be an effective parent with that many children. How do you manage one on one time that kids need to feel secure? Granted.. they are growing up in a situation where this is normal to them. But what does that do to their psychological health , when they have nothing that is truly their own, no space, no toy, no silent "hug time" from mom or dad.
Mom is drained if she is a stay at home mom. I guarantee at more then one time, she has had 2 kids who were not yet sleeping through the night.
When does she get to re charge?
How effective at his job can dad be when he has to play daddy 24-7 and... im hoping.. help with babies at night too?

Nannies are a great answer and in this case I hope there is one.
But, I cant judge, im not there. I only have one child. I have no clue what it is like to have more then one- so I cant say that having a large family is bad..
I just question 16.

This used to be the norm. My mother came from a family of 12 kids. Her fathers' brother had 14. It may seem unusual now but there was a time when large families like this weren't unusual at all and it worked. Yes, the older children were counted on to help with the younger kids but what's wrong with that? That's what a family is.

Forget about whether they can afford them or not. With finite resources available on the planet, these people are beyond selfish.....................IMO

that is very true Eoe..
not but less then 60? years ago? I think would be a good guess
birthcontrol was non existant to a certain extent.

kid were always being had and the family did nothing but get larger and larger.

very true..

The norm way back when was because 1) the infant and child mortality rate was much higher 2) families needed the workers or 3) birth control was not as widely accepted. My mother came from a large family and it was so because they needed someone to work the farm. Plain and simple.

I just think it's irresponsible to have that many kids now. There are plenty of unwanted kids out there who need homes.

I guess each family must be considered on an individual basis.

For instance for my taste, this women has had 16 children spaced too closely together, even with 2 sets of twins, there is barely a year between most of them

I can't imagine where this doesn't take a lot out of her physically. How does she coordinate pregnancy, nursing, nursing children of two different ages, etc.? That is, if she nurses at all.

Very true what (I think flushd) said about putting the childcare in the hands of the older children.
We always assume the older kids will be good care givers, since they've had babies around them all their lives.

If you gave me a baby to look after when I was let's say 15, I wouldn't have had a clue.
I personally was just never interested in babies, and would have really resented it.

My husband was 10th of 11 children, however, by the time he was born 2 of them were already married and out of the house, and another 1 or 2 where living on their own. He said there was never more than 6 or 7 people, including the parents, living at home at the same time.

I don't understand it for myself. However, I've met families that are on the larger side, 5 or 6 kids or more that do really bond and form an invincible team

16

That must take alot of sanity.... Somebody might want to call Nanny 911

16 kids? Damn!!!! "Help me find the keys and we'll drive out".

Just to kind of reword what I and others have already echoed:

Firstly, no offense to those that come from a large family, but 'rodeman' has pretty much posted what I was going to add.

I mean, we're not even talking about a family of 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. 16 just seems way over the top. One needs to starting thinking about what kind of future we are creating for our offspring.

It just doesn't seem "ecologically correct" to have families that large anymore, even if you can properly that care of them.

as eoe pointed out- and i want to elaborate on-

it isnt until just the past 2 maybe 3 generations that single child families have become the 'norm'
But in the big scheme of things, this is a tiny amount of time and should be considered AB-normal, since the human race has been around thousands of years.

Maybe there is a key to this somewhere . This ( in a really wattered down sort of explination) could be a big part of the human development that has been lost in the past few generations.
It could be one of many reasons, that we as people have started developing many more psychological issues then before. ( depression, lack fo self esteem..)
The lack of community, family, and feeling of simple belonging and defination of person could possibly be found in large families where everyone has their place, their job and their function..


but im realllllly grabbing at straws here..

You know Reyn, I'm always confused when a country or area reports that the population is in decline, like this shouldn't be allowed.

Yes, you could say that one generation would have the burden of caring for the elderly of a previously more numerous generation, but I think that's short sighted.

In the end, it would even out. In the end, there would be more resouces available to a smaller population.

Sometimes it sounds like if a countries population goes down, they are losing some kind of a contest.

I don't think the human species is in any danger of going extinct, even if every person who wanted a child gave birth to just one for a generation or two.

Now, I'm not advocating that, and of course that's taking the yearning to be a parent and all that out of it.....

However, if you don't mind me posing this question in your thread.....

What do you think the world as a whole would be like if, for one generation, every woman who wanted a child, for some reason just gave birth to one?

I like that question. Do you think I should post it on another thread?

According to this article, those who had more than two children appeared to have a significantly increased risk - and the risk became larger for each additional child.

We can talk about it here, or if you prefer, start a new thread. I'm okay with either. :wink:

Time for this dude to get to work though. I'll look back at this topic when I get back home....

Bye all.....

I believe china is doing that..
only one child allowed per family unless granted permission by the government..

dont quote me. Im not sure wich country it is.. but one of the countries in Asia has this rule in place.