• The Duggars, The Gosselins, Nadya Suleman - Should People be Limited on the Number of Kids They Can
    61 replies, posted
Now, I know everyone considers their children to be the best thing(s) in their lives, but as the old saying goes, "Know thyself, and [I]nothing in excess[/I]". I personally don't believe that 2, 3, or even 4 kids is too much, but then you get into the ridiculously excessive numbers of the people in the thread title. Let's start from the least: [B]Kate and Jon Gosselin[/B] The Gosselins have 8 children, a set of twins and a set of sextuplets. All in all, not really that bad, since it was only two pregnancies. The thing that gets me the most about this one is how the show has corrupted the parents. First of all there's Jon, who started cheating on Kate and seeing other women. Now, it's quite possible that even without his "fame ego" he might've still cheated on Kate, but it's also possible that he wouldn't. However, since the split he's let himself fade from the spotlight. Kate, on the other hand, has not. She not only continued the show without him, but has been trying (and occasionally succeeding) at either getting on existing shows (such as Dancing with the Stars, The View, and The Bachelorette) or start her own show (Twist of Kate and a talk show co-hosted with Paula Deen). There's no telling what effect this kind of life will have on the kids growing up. [B]Nadya Suleman[/B] Nadya Suleman, or "Octomom" as the media refers to her, has a grand total of 14 children. She has gone through a total of [B]SIX[/B] pregnancies. The five before the octuplets all yielded one child except for one in which she had twins. So before she got pregnant with the octuplets, she had six children. It was then she had herself implanted with the 8 leftover embryos from her in-vitro treatments. [quote=Wikipedia] In 2008, Suleman stated she had eight embryos left over from her previous IVF treatments. She explained at the time that she requested that all of the remaining embryos be implanted, despite the norm for a woman her age being two or three implanted at the most. Suleman states that part of her reasoning for attempting a sixth pregnancy was so that the frozen embryos would not be destroyed.[/quote] I can understand wanting to save your [I]potential[/I] kids, but there is a point where you need to look after the ones you've already got. Now, her family is in a great deal of financial trouble trying to take care of her and her 14 kids: [quote=Wikipedia] Before knowledge of the octuplets became public, Suleman had been living with her six older children and mother in a small three-bedroom house in Whittier, California. Property records show the Suleman house in mortgage default, scheduled to be sold at auction in May 2009. Suleman's parents filed for bankruptcy in 2008, citing nearly $1 million in liabilities. In March 2010 it was reported that Suleman's own La Habra house was facing foreclosure. Suleman's father, Edward Doud Suleman, identified himself as a former Iraqi military man and said he would be returning to his native Iraq as a translator and driver in order to financially support his daughter and her fourteen children. Suleman's mother, Angela Victoria Suleman, a retired high school teacher, has helped to look after the first six children. She has indicated that she is overwhelmed looking after them, and has been critical of her daughter in her earlier public statements. Amongst similar interviews, she revealed that her daughter never expected to give birth to the large number of children, nor did she expect to be unemployed and use public assistance.[/quote] The worst part of it though? This disgusting quote from her: "I hate babies, they disgust me. … Obviously, I love them - but I absolutely wish I had not had them." [url=http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_audio/071811_octomom_audio_1-2.mp3]Source of the quote[/url] [B]The Duggars[/B] Now we move on to the biggest offenders of them all, the Duggar family. They have a whopping [B][I]NINETEEN CHILDREN[/I][/B], and would actually have 21 had Michelle not miscarried two of them. Now she didn't pop out 8 or 10 kids in one go, in fact she has never had more than two children per birth. The Duggars simply don't believe in birth control, instead believing God will stop giving them kids when it's time. They did at one point, but when Michelle had her first miscarriage, the Duggars believed it to be because of the birth control (apparently condoms never crossed their minds). So since then Michelle has had a new pregnancy every year and a half or so. She miscarried what would have been their 20th child in December at the age of [B][I]47[/I][/B]. I may be wrong, but I believe medical advice is to not attempt to have children past the age of 40. I admit, I do applaud them for at least having the means to care for all their children. Jim works as a real estate agent, and before the show most of their income came from rent on their properties. They also have the older children help take care of a younger child. However, I believe there's no way each child is getting the amount of individual attention from their parents they should be getting. Now to get to the real question of debate for this thread: Should there be a limit on the number of kids people should have? If so, how would this limit be enforced? Personally, I think there should be a limit of 4 children, with exceptions to be made for multiple births. The only country I know of that actively enforces a child limit law is China: [quote] China has proclaimed that it will continue its one child policy, which limits couples to having one child, through the 2006-2010 five year planning period. China's one child policy was established by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1979 to limit communist China's population growth. Although designated a "temporary measure," it continues a quarter-century after its establishment. The policy limits couples to one child.[B] Fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, and even forced sterilization accompanied second or subsequent pregnancies.[/B][/quote] Now, I don't believe that our enforcement should be quite that severe. Fines perhaps, but nothing insanely outrageous, like $500. As for the sterilization, it obviously shouldn't be forced, but maybe a government-paid vasectomy and/or tube tying.
Except those kinds of people are in the extreme minority and are hardly representative of even a fraction of the US as a whole, the vast majority of families fall within the 1-4 range.
A quick answer to your question, no. The government would be stepping over the line.
China tried this and it went kind of horribly wrong, so I don't really think it'd be a good choice.
They've got too many kids! I know, let's fine them and make it even harder to survive.
How many kids they have do not determine how good of a parent they are. You can have one child and be a shit parent or have a dozen and be a very loving one. So, no. There is no point in doing so.
While I am annoyed with people who take it upon themselves to give birth to as many children as possible, I don't think they are really a problem since there aren't that many who give birth to a silly amount. What's more important is ensuring that children are treated properly and ensuring that no parents are irresponsible with their offspring.
Child support will take the children away if living conditions are worse enough (or should, I've heard that child support isn't that great in the US), so I don't see any reason for this.
On my mom's side, she had 8 siblings, on my dad's side he had 11. And they turned out alright. Honestly it depends on the parents capability of financially and mentally being able to take care of them. If they are financially stable, and are wanting to have that children, let them.
In an earlier age, having 8-10 children was quite common, especially among the rural areas of America. This was not more than 70 some years ago, too.
I think enforcing birth limits would be reasonable considering earth is already getting overpopulated.
I think the bigger matter here is not the condition of the children, but the exponential growth of the world population that is fast on the road to making the earth uncomfortably over populated.
[QUOTE=znk666;35634024]I think enforcing birth limits would be reasonable considering earth is already getting overpopulated.[/QUOTE] No it's not. This kind of baseless claim should be bannable in MD. [editline]19th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=rivershark;35634286]I think the bigger matter here is not the condition of the children, but the exponential growth of the world population that is fast on the road to making the earth uncomfortably over populated.[/QUOTE] Again, cite your claim. From what I have read and studied, you both just made these claims up.
All the curves are going the wrong way no matter how you look at it. They're unsustainable/uncontrolled and it can only lead to negative concequences and the negative concequences will feed the problem we are trying to prevent. As peoples lives become less and less sophisticated, as they are forced into a more primative circumstance, they will find the simple pleasure of a relationship and the product for it, children. And that's what they'll end up living for and life becomes simple and crued and overpopulation will only become worse and the average human standard of living will decline, and there would just be more suffering to be endured.. i mean it really is a waste just because people can't be rational and responsible. It would have to come down to some kind of negative social event. No more of this celebrating the preggo nonesense because it is a selfish act period. Having kids has to be recognized for what it is. Selfish, stupid maybe even cruel, but it is certainly rude alright. Especially facing the world we're facing. It's pretty damn rude to have a kid when you're looking at the future and you have no idea what it's going to be like. You have no guarantee that anything will be possible in that future, its just plain rude to have kids in that circumstance. You even force other people to raise your damn kids on top of it which is pretty disgusting. I mean it really is a huge social expense taking care of other peoples kids. It's a huge expense of society and people really shouldn't be able to walk into that without any appreciation of number one, the social cost and number two having some appreciation for the imposition on the individual they're giving life to because they can't create a world for that kid unless they've got the money in the bank. They have no business expecting everything to work out just fine because thats not how it works in the real world.
[QUOTE=Daemon;35635269]All the curves are going the wrong way no matter how you look at it. They're unsustainable/uncontrolled and it can only lead to negative concequences and the negative concequences will feed the problem we are trying to prevent. As peoples lives become less and less sophisticated, as they are forced into a more primative circumstance, they will find the simple pleasure of a relationship and the product for it, children. And that's what they'll end up living for and life becomes simple and crued and overpopulation will only become worse and the average human standard of living will decline, and there would just be more suffering to be endured.. i mean it really is a waste just because people can't be rational and responsible. It would have to come down to some kind of negative social event. No more of this celebrating the preggo nonesense because it is a selfish act period. Having kids has to be recognized for what it is. Selfish, stupid maybe even cruel, but it is certainly rude alright. Especially facing the world we're facing. It's pretty damn rude to have a kid when you're looking at the future and you have no idea what it's going to be like. You have no guarantee that anything will be possible in that future, its just plain rude to have kids in that circumstance. You even force other people to raise your damn kids on top of it which is pretty disgusting. I mean it really is a huge social expense taking care of other peoples kids. It's a huge expense of society and people really shouldn't be able to walk into that without any appreciation of number one, the social cost and number two having some appreciation for the imposition on the individual they're giving life to because they can't create a world for that kid unless they've got the money in the bank. They have no business expecting everything to work out just fine because thats not how it works in the real world.[/QUOTE] So by your logic it is "rude" to have children because things might turn out bad? Then it's also "rude" to eat any food because you might get food poisoning. It's "rude" to go outside and take a walk because you might get mugged.
I believe people should have as many kids as they well please ONLY if they have the means to give them a comfortable upbringing. The only exceptions should be some Asian countries where theyre eating every single world resource just to feed/take care of everyone
Many first world nations are actually reproducing below their replacement rate. (& it may very well lead to a crisis in these places down the road if things don't change.) It's the third world nations' populations that are blooming. Limiting birth-rates in first world nations would just be stupid. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate[/url]
Yes, for one thing, there's the financial capacity to support so many people, there a house right on the corner of my block, there are 6 small kids that run around half naked, the house is a mess too. Many of these kids that are in homes that can't support them end up being paid for by the public through welfare, sadly natural selection no longer applies as every single person in the first world is given every chance to get ahead with the government holding their hands every step of the way out of the pocket of people who don't want anything to do with it. At least, in the US anyway.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;35640112]So by your logic it is "rude" to have children because things might turn out bad? Then it's also "rude" to eat any food because you might get food poisoning. It's "rude" to go outside and take a walk because you might get mugged.[/QUOTE] Yes. You take a risk at your own expense. Having children is risking the expense of someone else to force them down a road they have no choice but to go down metaphorically. The fact that being born is always a harm and a risk because those who don't exist cannot be deprived. You can't be rude to yourself.
[QUOTE=Daemon;35644351]Yes. You take a risk at your own expense. Having children is risking the expense of someone else to force them down a road they have no choice but to go down metaphorically. The fact that being born is always a harm and a risk because those who don't exist cannot be deprived. You can't be rude to yourself.[/QUOTE] This is actually a pretty damn nihilist view as you're implying everyone & thing in this universe would be better off dead. The goal should be to make the world a better place, not just damn it by saying it should all die. Especially considering that taking such an impractical stance to begin with won't accomplish anything anyway. It makes as much sense as saying, "the earth should just stop having earthquakes."
I think you can have as many children as you want but make sure you can afford to support them unlike these losers you see on TV with 8 kids no job and still fucking without protection.
[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;35646282]This is actually a pretty damn nihilist view as you're implying everyone & thing in this universe would be better off dead. The goal should be to make the world a better place, not just damn it by saying it should all die. Especially considering that taking such an impractical stance to begin with won't accomplish anything anyway. It makes as much sense as saying, "the earth should just stop having earthquakes."[/QUOTE] It's not nihilistic, it's just fact that something that doesn't exist cannot be deprived of anything. The universe and everything in it probably would be better off if it didn't exist, prove me wrong. I actually believe in permitting ethical values to the circumstance so no, i don't want everything to die, i don't want it to be born. Impractical? Yeah right so there is something to be gained from dragging somebody out of nowhere and throw them into this poorly constructed somewhere. It accomplishes one less potential sufferer, one less to house, one god damn everything. You are wrong. Bringing life into this world is a risk that people play and many lose. I'm sorry if you don't agree with my reasoning that it's stupid to have kids. [QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;35646282]the earth should just stop having earthquakes."[/QUOTE] ya it should don't ya agree?
[QUOTE=Daemon;35646902]It's not nihilistic, it's just fact that something that doesn't exist cannot be deprived of anything.[/QUOTE] You are saying none of us should have ever been born. Unless you believe in an afterlife, death means non-existence. Again, the problem with your stance is that it will accomplish nothing. It works on a personal level but not a societal one. Again, the goal should be to improve the earth as a whole. There is a damn big difference between saying, "if you can't afford or be available to nurture a child, you shouldn't have one," & "no one should ever have children." Just as there is a difference between actually helping victims of earthquakes & just sitting back moaning, "earthquakes suck."
[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;35647008]You are saying none of us should have ever been born.. [/QUOTE] You, me and everyone else is born so what you presume i think is irrelevent. [editline] [/editline]This came out a bit pretentious so i'll say this, there is rationale to believe that your wellbeing was compromised by coming into existance. [QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;35647008]Unless you believe in an afterlife, death means non-existence. [/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but you wouldn't wish death upon your kids so why would you go ahead and do it anyway? [QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;35647008]Again, the problem with your stance is that it will accomplish nothing. It works on a personal level but not a societal one. [/QUOTE] Please explain why which you haven't done... again. It is a social cost because we have things like maternity leave, free housing etc. [QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;35647008]Again, the goal should be to improve the earth as a whole.[/QUOTE] I didn't disagree on this but i will argue that my views accompany what you believe as the right thing to do. [QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;35647008]There is a damn big difference between saying, "if you can't afford or be available to nurture a child, you shouldn't have one," & "no one should ever have children." [/QUOTE] Well whatever, i can't force people to not have kids so i will say if you are going to play frankenstien, do it with some understanding here. That we should have some respect for the life thats being created and have some propsect of creating a better world and a better life for those new life forms to live in. If we can't do that, if we can't guarantee a better future we have no business imposing it on anybody. So part of this argument is going to have to be done through conversation and just explain to people that yeah, there really is a life beyond pro creating. There's alot more to do in the world, there's alot more waste to entertain yourself in than raising families.
I personally believe that 4 kids should be the maximum a couple should have. Not saying that 4 is the legal max, but by standards. One of the main things to take into consideration is whether the parents can afford it, and whether the mother/father can actually raise them, if you get what I mean. If some people who [I]can afford it[/I] want to have 5, 6 kids - go for it: I think it's stupid, but if it's what they want hey, who am I to stop them. Obviously if you're a not-so well off family and you're having lots of children, then that's just stupid. It all comes down to personal choice, and unavoidably the parents' income. Of course, I'm referring to first world countries, as in some third world countries where there is no contraception, children are coming out left right and centre. There are obviously going to be cases where what I first stated doesn't really apply. For example, my dad was married previously when he was like 28 or something, and had three kids. Remarried about 20~ years later, had two children. But to sum it up, there shouldn't be a "legal" limit to having children, but most people (note [I]most[/I]) would have enough common sense to know not to have a ridiculous nest of children - but personally I believe that if you're having children, and you can support them, you should have 2-3 children.
I know a person whos mom has had 17 kids. They all seem about fine.
My grandfather came from a family of 11. He was able to move to America and successfully start a family with 4 children. His family was very poor in Ireland, yet they all turned out fine and successful. So what I'm getting at is, it's very difficult to determine whether or not parents will be able to take care of their children, even if they are very poor (and Irish!). How is it supposed to be determined how many children a couple should be able to have?
It all depends on wether or not the parents can take good care of them. My grandfather is from a big family and everything turned out fine for them.
People think of China when this topic comes up but India is the worst at gender preference. When you put birth limits on people then they shoot for a boy and if they get a girl they do a home abortion.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;35635147]No it's not. This kind of baseless claim should be bannable in MD. [editline]19th April 2012[/editline] Again, cite your claim. From what I have read and studied, you both just made these claims up.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.sixpak.org/vince/overpopulation.html[/url] [url]http://joesimonetta.hubpages.com/hub/Our-overpopulation-problem[/url] And keep in mind,it's not about space but about [B]resources[/B].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.