Stop.

[Abbey Normal]

...And I think the world is overpopulated or will be soon (within the next generation), but that's probably just me.

It's not just you.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

This was my favorite post. So many wild assumptions and generalizations.

Who are you to tell this woman she shouldn't have as many kids as she wants? Who are you to say what is socially irresponsible when your lot puts embezzelers away for 10+ years, but child molesters and rapists for less than 5?

My lot? What or who is my lot? If you're implying that I'm ok with those sentences, I'd like to see your reasoning, because I certainly am not.

Are you the Reproduction Police? Why does YOUR opinion matter more?

When did I say my opinion mattered more? I think she should stop having kids, and I said so, respectfully. I didn't say "she should stop having kids and if you disagree you are a dolt." I didn't disparage who she was or where she was from or call her a hick or whatever. I merely stated I thought she needs to stop having kids. You almost sound like I shouldn't be able to voice MY opinion.

She and her husband are doing nothing against the law, they are upstanding citizens, their kids are very well behaved, and they do not need government assistance. If they can afford this lifestyle, then who are you to tell them that you think they shouldn't just because YOU think so?

This was a point that many people brought up, so forgive me if I only answer it one time. If you can guarantee me that all 16 kids will be taken care of no problem, that's fine. But you can't. If God forbid something was to happen and he lost his job, he got hurt, or even if he died, that family would be in a terrible position and would almost certainly need to go on government assistance. He very well may have a huge nest egg that will be able to cover them through hard times, and if so then fine. If not though, the potential for financial tragedy is huge.

I am wondering if it is because they are a very religous couple, that you have a problem with this...

You can keep wondering all you want. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to accuse me of saying this because I was anti-religion, which I'm not. 16 kids is 16 kids whether your white black christian muslim retarded atheist or otherwise. My opinion has ZERO to do with their religion. I don't even know what their religion is, but I would guess some form of Christian, based on the heavy repitition of "J" names.

If this woman wants to go through being pregnant more, than so be it. I commend her for going through this more than a few times-most women just could not handle it. I am guessing I will stop at 2, because I am not really wanting to go through all the 1st trimester misery again. I might change my mind later. My grandma on my dad's side was the oldest of 10 kids.

I commend her too; if she's had 16 kids and still has even half her sanity, that's impressive.

However, I have always said that if I won the lottery, I would have additions built on to the house, and adopt as many kids as I have room for, and when they were old enough to move out, adopt more. This woman is just doing the same thing, but they are genetically hers.

More power to this woman for doing what she loves-raising children to be good, decent people. Why is that so bad?

It's not the same thing. She's creating children; you would be adopting children that would exist whether you adopted them or not. I'd actually be more greatful to you, because you would be assuring that unwanted children get a healthy, normal upbringing.

She's adding to the population, you're improving what already exists. If she wanted to raise that many kids, then adopt.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Here is where you and I part roads. If they can support 16 or 17 kids on their own, go for it. This is America, where people are allowed to live their lives freely.

No, I agree. If they can guarantee that they can, then fine. But what happens, as Abbey pointed out, if something goes wrong? What do you do with the 16 kids if both their parents die? Or are unable to work? Then what?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Well the way i see it, we need more white people to comabt the overpopulation of Hispanics and blacks. Go for it woman.

Birth wars. Brilliant.

 

[CSM]

No, I agree. If they can guarantee that they can, then fine. But what happens, as Abbey pointed out, if something goes wrong? What do you do with the 16 kids if both their parents die? Or are unable to work? Then what?

A logical extension of this suggests that any couple....regardless of race religion, etc should show a guarantee continued support for the child (or 16 of them) before conception....therefore, we shall determine who is allowed to have children based upon financial status????

For some, supporting 16 children is no problem....for some, supporting one child is too much.

I am not sure I agree with that stance at all....

 

[The ClayTaurus]

There's just so much wrong with this statement. A typical liberal knee jerk reaction.

A typical right-wing reaction, label it left-wing so that you can more-easily dismiss it.

Ann Coulter is right. The earth will survive a mother having 16 children.

You're right, the earth probably will, but it won't if we keep reproducing at the rate we are. Maybe we'll get lucky and colonize another planet before it becomes too big of a problem.

And who are you to make a judgement on people CHOOSING to have many children?

I can judge whatever I want to judge, it's a free country. That doesn't mean my judgement has to be worth anything, so just label me a socialist left-winger again and move on with your happy life.

Are we in China?

Not yet...

Or are you against CHOICE?

The inference is cute. She has the choice to have as many kids as she wants. I have the choice to voice my displeasure over it.

One woman out of millions who has some extra kids she can support. Big deal. How about the millions of welfare moms who pop babies all the time? I'd say that is more "socially irresponsible".

And I'd agree with you. Doesn't change the fact that I think having 16 kids is socially irresponsible. Can I think more than 1 thing is socially irresponsible?

And if you're really worried about your wide open spaces - then I'd focus more on those millions entering illegally ever year - and not on an occasional American citizen who happens to have a few extra.

Still waiting for the president to step up on that one...

And btw, just how many more "J" names are there?

The least they could do is use real names, instead of taking names like "Ginger" and mispelling them "Jinger". I see Jinger and I say it like it rhymes with "winger."

 

[The ClayTaurus]

A logical extension of this suggests that any couple....regardless of race religion, etc should show a guarantee continued support for the child (or 16 of them) before conception....therefore, we shall determine who is allowed to have children based upon financial status????

For some, supporting 16 children is no problem....for some, supporting one child is too much.

I am not sure I agree with that stance at all....

No, that's not what I was saying. There's a difference between a family with two kids falling onto hard times and needing assistance vs. a family of 16 doing the same. In fact, the family of 16 would have been able to self-sustain longer if they only had even 8 children. That's my point.

 

[dilloduck]

You're right, the earth probably will, but it won't if we keep reproducing at the rate we are. Maybe we'll get lucky and colonize another planet before it becomes too big of a problem.

think "bird flu".

 

[CSM]

No, that's not what I was saying. There's a difference between a family with two kids falling onto hard times and needing assistance vs. a family of 16 doing the same. In fact, the family of 16 would have been able to self-sustain longer if they only had even 8 children. That's my point.

How about 16 families with one kid? Asking for a guarantee against disaster (acts of God?) as a condition for bearing children just seems wrong to me....under any circumstances....

 

[The ClayTaurus]

How about 16 families with one kid? Asking for a guarantee against disaster (acts of God?) as a condition for bearing children just seems wrong to me....under any circumstances....

16 families with 1 kid are 16 seperate chances, 1 for each kid. If the family with 16 goes down, it's all in one swoop. Not to mention that 16 families have 16 times the earning potential. That logic doesn't compare well...

It's not a condition for bearing children, it's a condition for being socially responsible. And that's my opinion, which doesn't mean much to many people here.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

This was my favorite post. So many wild assumptions and generalizations.
My lot? What or who is my lot? If you're implying that I'm ok with those sentences, I'd like to see your reasoning, because I certainly am not.
When did I say my opinion mattered more? I think she should stop having kids, and I said so, respectfully. I didn't say "she should stop having kids and if you disagree you are a dolt." I didn't disparage who she was or where she was from or call her a hick or whatever. I merely stated I thought she needs to stop having kids. You almost sound like I shouldn't be able to voice MY opinion.
This was a point that many people brought up, so forgive me if I only answer it one time. If you can guarantee me that all 16 kids will be taken care of no problem, that's fine. But you can't. If God forbid something was to happen and he lost his job, he got hurt, or even if he died, that family would be in a terrible position and would almost certainly need to go on government assistance. He very well may have a huge nest egg that will be able to cover them through hard times, and if so then fine. If not though, the potential for financial tragedy is huge.
You can keep wondering all you want. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to accuse me of saying this because I was anti-religion, which I'm not. 16 kids is 16 kids whether your white black christian muslim retarded atheist or otherwise. My opinion has ZERO to do with their religion. I don't even know what their religion is, but I would guess some form of Christian, based on the heavy repitition of "J" names.

I commend her too; if she's had 16 kids and still has even half her sanity, that's impressive.
It's not the same thing. She's creating children; you would be adopting children that would exist whether you adopted them or not. I'd actually be more greatful to you, because you would be assuring that unwanted children get a healthy, normal upbringing.

She's adding to the population, you're improving what already exists. If she wanted to raise that many kids, then adopt.

:blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

"Your lot", means you and the rest of your liberal commie buddies. I figured since you are so educated, you would figure that out. Then again, liberals are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

I DON'T and WON'T wait or even worry about your approval (it means shit to me) about what i post in response to you, so kiss my ass.

You didn't even answer the original questions - Who are you to tell this woman she shouldn't have as many kids as she wants? Who are you to say what is socially irresponsible when your lot puts embezzelers away for 10+ years, but child molesters and rapists for less than 5?

If she wants to go through the creation and birth of her kids rather than adopt, that is HER CHOICE, NOT YOURS YOU MORON! I thought you liberals were all about choice? Why are you so dense on this? Why do you think your opinion, or that of others, matters to this family? If it did, do you really think they would continue with this?

Stop worrying about what others are doing with their, stable, happy, productive lives and families, and get on with yours-if you have one beyond the internet.

 

[CSM]

16 families with 1 kid are 16 seperate chances, 1 for each kid. If the family with 16 goes down, it's all in one swoop. Not to mention that 16 families have 16 times the earning potential. That logic doesn't compare well...

It's not a condition for bearing children, it's a condition for being socially responsible. And that's my opinion, which doesn't mean much to many people here.

Obviously, they feel they are socially responsible since they have the means to support 16 children. You imply that if disaster strikes, they would not and then state that they should offer a guarantee that the children will be taken care of. If disaster strikes, ANY family could very well be in trouble very quickly; your suggestion that social responsibility begins (and ends?) with fiscal status just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

:blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

"Your lot", means you and the rest of your liberal commie buddies. I figured since you are so educated, you would figure that out. Then again, liberals are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

I'm not a liberal, but it's easy for some people on this board to label me as such if I disagree with them. I never said anything about being more educated then you or anyone else. But keep up the labeling, it makes it easier for you to argue with me, and you probably feel better thinking you're hurting some liberal's feelings.

I DON'T and WON'T wait or even worry about your approval (it means shit to me) about what i post in response to you, so kiss my ass.

umm, ok? I don't really get where this comes from, but... sorry? I guess?

You didn't even answer the original questions - Who are you to tell this woman she shouldn't have as many kids as she wants?

All I said is I disagree with her choice to have that many kids. I didn't say she should be banned from doing it. I can't disagree with someone's choice?

Who are you to say what is socially irresponsible when your lot puts embezzelers away for 10+ years, but child molesters and rapists for less than 5?

Did you even read my response? My "lot" doesn't do that because I'm not in that "lot." I think both of those sentences are entirely too lenient. I asked you to prove where I thought otherwise, but you just ignored that and said I didn't answer your question. So I'll try again: where did I say that 5 years for child molestation or 10 years for embezzlement is an appropriate sentence? Not "where did whatever group you think I'm a part of" say that, but where did I? I'm treating you as an individual, and not a part of some political faction or group, I ask for the same in return.

If she wants to go through the creation and birth of her kids rather than adopt, that is HER CHOICE, NOT YOURS YOU MORON! I thought you liberals were all about choice?

You certainly are acting like one right now. Again, I'm not a liberal.

Why are you so dense on this? Why do you think your opinion, or that of others, matters to this family? If it did, do you really think they would continue with this?

I don't think my opinion matters to that family. Does that mean I should only be able to voice my opinion if it matters to someone? If I really thought what I had to say would mean something to that family, I'd write them a letter, not debate it with the likes of you on a message board.

Stop worrying about what others are doing with their, stable, happy, productive lives and families, and get on with yours-if you have one beyond the internet.

How about you take a deep breath, stop insulting me every chance you get, and just engage in a little debate.

 

[Mr. P]

No, that's not what I was saying. There's a difference between a family with two kids falling onto hard times and needing assistance vs. a family of 16 doing the same. In fact, the family of 16 would have been able to self-sustain longer if they only had even 8 children. That's my point.

Even longer if they had none.

 

[Zhukov]

Of which we can only live on an extremely minute portion of. When Mars opens up for condo development, then we'll talk.

I'm counting on over-population to be a driving force for space exploration.

The Earth becomes a crowded crime-ridden slum. The rich go live in space.

 

[CSM]

I'm counting on over-population to be a driving force for space exploration.

The Earth becomes a crowded crime-ridden slum. The rich go live in space.

The middle class can only make it to the moon or orbiting spcae platforms....

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Obviously, they feel they are socially responsible since they have the means to support 16 children. You imply that if disaster strikes, they would not and then state that they should offer a guarantee that the children will be taken care of. If disaster strikes, ANY family could very well be in trouble very quickly; your suggestion that social responsibility begins (and ends?) with fiscal status just doesn't make sense to me.

Fiscal status certainly plays a roll in social responsibility. After all, if the family wasn't capable of providing for 16 in the best of times and needed government assistance, plenty of people would have a problem with it. So I'd say that fiscal status certainly has something to do with social responsibility; there are plenty of welfare moms "popping kids out" as it was previously stated, and that's even more socially irresponsible.

My point is, you can't guarantee the well-being of 16 as easily you can 2. If they have and will provide for all the children they produce, good for them, but the family income doesn't increase because they have more children. 200k a year amongst 4 is different then 200k amongst 18.

I still think it's over-reproduction, which has nothing to do with financial status at all, but it's already been determined that that opinion is in the minority of members of this board.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'm counting on over-population to be a driving force for space exploration.

The Earth becomes a crowded crime-ridden slum. The rich go live in space.

You may have a valid point here

 

[CSM]

Fiscal status certainly plays a roll in social responsibility. After all, if the family wasn't capable of providing for 16 in the best of times and needed government assistance, plenty of people would have a problem with it. So I'd say that fiscal status certainly has something to do with social responsibility; there are plenty of welfare moms "popping kids out" as it was previously stated, and that's even more socially irresponsible.

My point is, you can't guarantee the well-being of 16 as easily you can 2. If they have and will provide for all the children they produce, good for them, but the family income doesn't increase because they have more children. 200k a year amongst 4 is different then 200k amongst 18.

I still think it's over-reproduction, which has nothing to do with financial status at all, but it's already been determined that that opinion is in the minority of members of this board.

Opinions on this board should absolutely not be used for anything but entertainment!!!

I guess it is a matter of perspective. I agree that fiscal status does have an impact on assurances of continued support, however, I do not think it should be the sole basis for determining who is socially responsible and who should be allowed to have x number of kids. There are many poor, large families that ended up just fine (mine being one of them).

 

[The ClayTaurus]

CSM, your Inbox is full, I can't respond back to ya...