Stop.

[The ClayTaurus]

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).

Absolutely. Financial status shouldn't be the sole factor. Apologies if I offended you or anyone else with a large family. No harm meant.

 

[CSM]

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

Fixed

 

[CSM]

Absolutely. Financial status shouldn't be the sole factor. Apologies if I offended you or anyone else with a large family. No harm meant.

I was not personally offended. The big family joke is "our poor destitute parents". Believe me, we lacked for nothing...we may not have had the fancy color TV or steak once a week, but we ll survived and ended up doing very well actually. Which is why I do not understand why fiscal status (though certainly a factor) should be an indicator of social resposnibility. The context of a family's situation must be taken in it's entirety....which is why I am refraining from commenting on this particular family....without knowing all the details, it would seem that in this case, they are doing well enough and should continue to do well....thus, god bless their pea pickin lil hearts!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Even longer if they had none.

Hey, you're right! I didn't think of that. We should all have NO kids then!

(Because I feel I have to put up a disclaimer, this is not a serious post, and should be taken as an attempt at sarcastic humor)

 

[no1tovote4]

True enough. I was pointing out that things can change, includiing their ability to support 16 kids without gov't assistance. We just don't know. Ideally, none of us would have kids we couldn't provide for in case of our incapacity.

It would be impossible to tell. Even with insurance there can be no real gaurantee the insurance company would still be around in the even of need. Rental property can be destroyed by nature or human action. Nothing in life is certain. That they took the chance with 16 seems no different than me taking a chance with two and then adopting a god-child.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

It would be impossible to tell. Even with insurance there can be no real gaurantee the insurance company would still be around in the even of need. Rental property can be destroyed by nature or human action. Nothing in life is certain. That they took the chance with 16 seems no different than me taking a chance with two and then adopting a god-child.

It's just a much larger chance, that's all.

 

[no1tovote4]

It's just a much larger chance, that's all.

It seems he has more resources than me. If all things were equal it would be more of a chance for him, but from the fact that he can afford a 7000 ft sq house to be built for his brood I have evidence that he has realized more resources than I. It is likely that I took more of a chance with my three than he did with his sixteen.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

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.

If I won the lottery, I'd buy a Porsche. And a billiard table too. And a big fat diamond stud earring like a black football player. And a sailboat.

 

[no1tovote4]

If I won the lottery, I'd buy a Porsche. And a billiard table too. And a big fat diamond stud earring like a black football player. And a sailboat.

I'd teach. Some sort of unimportant class that they take by choice. Then I would use the time off in the summer to travel.

 

[Abbey Normal]

It would be impossible to tell. Even with insurance there can be no real gaurantee the insurance company would still be around in the even of need. Rental property can be destroyed by nature or human action. Nothing in life is certain. That they took the chance with 16 seems no different than me taking a chance with two and then adopting a god-child.

That there are no guarantess was the exact point I made, to those in here who were saying that because this family may not be on assistance now, they are good to go. When you have two kids, chances are much greater that the surviving/healthy spouse, can take care of them whatever happens. If both parents die, a relative can step in. When there are 16 children, good luck finding a relative to take them all in. The chances that all will be well for them are statistically much, much lower.

While we agree that nothing in life is certain, there are things we can do to reduce risk as much as possible. Adequate insurance being one of them. It is not sensible to assume that since bad things can happen, it's pointless to prepare. Keeing your family at a size where they can survive financially should bad things happen, including the bankruptcy of your insurer, seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

That there are no guarantess was the exact point I made, to those in here who were saying that because this family may not be on assistance now, they are good to go. When you have two kids, chances are much greater that the surviving/healthy spouse, can take care of them whatever happens. If both parents die, a relative can step in. When there are 16 children, good luck finding a relative to take them all in. The chances that all will be well for them are statistically much, much lower.

While we agree that nothing in life is certain, there are things we can do to reduce risk as much as possible. Adequate insurance being one of them. It is not sensible to assume that since bad things can happen, it's pointless to prepare. Keeing your family at a size where they can survive financially should bad things happen, including the bankruptcy of your insurer, seems pretty reasonable to me.

Thank you.

 

[no1tovote4]

That there are no guarantess was the exact point I made, to those in here who were saying that because this family may not be on assistance now, they are good to go. When you have two kids, chances are much greater that the surviving/healthy spouse, can take care of them whatever happens. If both parents die, a relative can step in. When there are 16 children, good luck finding a relative to take them all in. The chances that all will be well for them are statistically much, much lower.

While we agree that nothing in life is certain, there are things we can do to reduce risk as much as possible. Adequate insurance being one of them. It is not sensible to assume that since bad things can happen, it's pointless to prepare. Keeing your family at a size where they can survive financially should bad things happen, including the bankruptcy of your insurer, seems pretty reasonable to me.

We are once again outside of evidence here. Do we know if each child has a godparent? Do we even know what religion they are? If they do have godparents it would be their responsibility to take care of the child which they are godparent to. The assumption that they have not thought of this and taken care of this is simpy that, an assumption. It may very well be that they have more safegaurds than we do and the future of the kids is well insulated against such events.

The assumption that they have not planned for their children's futures because they have 16 kids or prepared for unexpected events is not actionable. It appears that these people are logical and seem well prepared to have 16 kids, it is likely that they have planned for these things. The number of children doesn't make them less responsible as parents, and they seem to understand responsibility well.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

We are once again outside of evidence here. Do we know if each child has a godparent? Do we even know what religion they are? If they do have godparents it would be their responsibility to take care of the child which they are godparent to. The assumption that they have not thought of this and taken care of this is simpy that, an assumption. It may very well be that they have more safegaurds than we do and the future of the kids is well insulated against such events.

The assumption that they have not planned for their children's futures because they have 16 kids or prepared for unexpected events is not actionable. It appears that these people are logical and seem well prepared to have 16 kids, it is likely that they have planned for these things. The number of children doesn't make them less responsible as parents, and they seem to understand responsibility well.

Good points.

 

[Abbey Normal]

We are once again outside of evidence here. Do we know if each child has a godparent? Do we even know what religion they are? If they do have godparents it would be their responsibility to take care of the child which they are godparent to. The assumption that they have not thought of this and taken care of this is simpy that, an assumption. It may very well be that they have more safegaurds than we do and the future of the kids is well insulated against such events.

The assumption that they have not planned for their children's futures because they have 16 kids or prepared for unexpected events is not actionable. It appears that these people are logical and seem well prepared to have 16 kids, it is likely that they have planned for these things. The number of children doesn't make them less responsible as parents, and they seem to understand responsibility well.

I think you are confusing godparents with legal guardians. Godparents are traditionally responsible for a child's religious upbringing in case of a parent's death. Guardians are responsible for the general welfare of the child. I did not assume that this couple did or didn't do anything. Are you assuming that they are well-off enough that the mother can raise them all by her non-working self, and they have prepared for every contingency?

I have nowhere assumed or stated that these particular parents are irresponsible, as you have indicated. Have you seen me say that? My point, which I will restate once again, is that risk is greatly mulitplied when there are 16 children to raise, and nothing you have said shows otherwise.

I would say, though, that given the dearth of information in the article, you may be assuming too much when you say the "these people are logical and seem well prepared to have 16 kids, it is likely that they have planned for these things." Is this based on fact or assumption?

 

[no1tovote4]

I think you are confusing godparents with legal guardians. Godparents are traditionally responsible for a child's religious upbringing in case of a parent's death. Guardians are responsible for the general welfare of the child. I did not assume that this couple did or didn't do anything. Are you assuming that they are well-off enough that the mother can raise them all by her non-working self, and they have prepared for every contingency?

I have assumed nothing. I look at what evidence I have. My point is we cannot assume they are irresponsible because of the number of children. Traditionally a godparent took on the raising as well as the religious upbringing in event of the parents death. I am a godparent, I have adopted my godchild because of the death of her parents.

I then extrapolate what I would do in their situation. I would ask specific people to be the guardian of each child in the event of the death of both parents as I did with my three. I would make sure of insurance as well as many different investments to insure that if I died and my wife was left she would have the monetary resources to care for the children. It would take a major catastrophe to kill off all of my investments at the same time, if that event were to take place we would likely be hunter/gatherers and much of this would be moot large families would be needed to gaurantee the survival of the species.

I have nowhere assumed or stated that these particular parents are irresponsible, as you have indicated. Have you seen me say that? My point, which I will restate once again, is that risk is greatly mulitplied when there are 16 children to raise, and nothing you have said shows otherwise.

No, you have assumed that they took on greater risk and I stated that there is no evidence of that and in fact evidence to the contrary. They clearly have large resources in order to be able to purchase that house, while living in another at the same time as affording groceries etc for 18 people. They have shown a huge responsibility level and would probably take a risk assessment into consideration when making choices on whether to have more children. The risk can only be greater if they did not have the resources they so clearly do have.

I would say, though, that given the dearth of information in the article, you may be assuming too much when you say the "these people are logical and seem well prepared to have 16 kids, it is likely that they have planned for these things." Is this based on fact or assumption?

The dearth of information in the article doesn't take into account the information I got from the Discovery Health special on the family.

But if all I were going on was the article then the information in the article does tell you that the gentleman is a former Senator, not likely to get there without logic, has the resources to pay for all of this, once again not likely to get there or to keep it without logic and planning. It was based on deductive reasoning, I asked the question "What would I need to get to a place where I could do all that?"

BTW - I am not saying that your points are invalid, only that we are not in a good position to judge these people. I personally would not have 16 kids, I think it would take from personal time with my children and I think they need that time.

 

[sagegirl]

Just for argument sake.....

Living in Memphis, this has received a lot of press. Husband is a former senator, selling real estate now. They are building a 7,000 square foot house. I haven't seen any reports where they are asking for hand-outs or assistance from the government.

Why does she has to stop?

Maybe a good reason to stop would be to spend more time with the ones shes got .......and share in THEIR experiences.

 

[Trigg]

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

This is all over the web all you have to do it type in Europe population, or if you want some real education type in Germany or Italy's birth rate. They have more deaths than births. Australia, France and Finland actually pay people to have more chidren, with France paying people more for having a 3 child.

http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2003/000021.html
Currently there are only 1.5 children born for each woman of child bearing age -- far below the 2.1 replacement level. Why so few children? Largely because women are waiting longer and longer to get married, on average, in Europe.

As of 2000 the European population was about 375 million. If current marriage and birth trends continue, Europe's population fall below 300 million by the end of the century.

Here's one for the US. Our birth rate is bearly replacement the reason for the US population increase is immigrants.

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Sec...tManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7261

At the end of the 1990s, the total fertility rate (TFR) was about 1.4 children per woman in Europe, for example, while the U.S. rate was about 2.1. Yet surveys find that women in all these countries say they want about the same number of children, most often two. Why is fertility higher in the United States?

One explanation for the higher U.S. fertility is that many European countries have racially homogeneous populations compared with the United States. In the United States, fertility rates differ among the nation's varied racial and ethnic population groups. In 1998, the U.S. TFR of 2.1 children per woman was made up of several different rates: non-Hispanic white, 1.8; black, 2.2; American Indian, 2.1; Asian and Pacific Islander, 1.9; and Hispanic, 2.9.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

This is all over the web all you have to do it type in Europe population, or if you want some real education type in Germany or Italy's birth rate. They have more deaths than births. Australia, France and Finland actually pay people to have more chidren, with France paying people more for having a 3 child.

http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2003/000021.html
Currently there are only 1.5 children born for each woman of child bearing age -- far below the 2.1 replacement level. Why so few children? Largely because women are waiting longer and longer to get married, on average, in Europe.

As of 2000 the European population was about 375 million. If current marriage and birth trends continue, Europe's population fall below 300 million by the end of the century.

Here's one for the US. Our birth rate is bearly replacement the reason for the US population increase is immigrants.

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Sec...tManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7261

At the end of the 1990s, the total fertility rate (TFR) was about 1.4 children per woman in Europe, for example, while the U.S. rate was about 2.1. Yet surveys find that women in all these countries say they want about the same number of children, most often two. Why is fertility higher in the United States?

One explanation for the higher U.S. fertility is that many European countries have racially homogeneous populations compared with the United States. In the United States, fertility rates differ among the nation's varied racial and ethnic population groups. In 1998, the U.S. TFR of 2.1 children per woman was made up of several different rates: non-Hispanic white, 1.8; black, 2.2; American Indian, 2.1; Asian and Pacific Islander, 1.9; and Hispanic, 2.9.

So maybe they should move to Germany then? (being facetious) I don't really get what those European countries have to do with a woman having 16 kids in the United States.

Your rebuttal to population increase due to immigration is something I hadn't thought of.

 

[Zhukov]

I think the point is, complaining about overpopulation because one white woman in Arkansas has 16 kids is kind of rediculous considering white people in Europe and the U.S. actually have a declining birth rate.

 

[Said1]

Maybe this has been said already, but I think 16 kids is too many.

The most I ever had in my care over the years was 6, that was stressful (twitch, twitch) - and they went home at 5 pm!

Who would want to have 16 children, I mean seriously??