Boy or girl? Family with 12 sons will soon find out about #13

[Liberal_in_LA]

A western Michigan couple with 12 sons is waiting to find out whether baby No. 13 keeps the streak going.

Jay and Kateri Schwandt's baby is due Saturday, the day before Mother's Day. They're sticking to their tradition of not finding out in advance whether they're having a boy or girl.

They say they'd be shocked if the baby is a girl.

Kateri Schwandt told The Grand Rapids Press (http://bit.ly/1caghwk ) that the "odds are not in our favor," but that the family would be happy either way. She grew up in a family of 14 children.

The Schwandts live Rockford, which is north of Grand Rapids. Jay Schwandt says he is expecting another son, but "if I could put my order in, I would root for a girl."
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Boy-or-girl-Family-with-12-sons-finds-out-soon-6248384.php

[snooper2]

1. put the number of children they are having in the hands of god

We get enough fundies doing this we may have to put the number of children being had in the hands of the state

[yeoman6987]

4. My brother in law and sister wanted a daughter bad.

Luckily number 4 was a daughter. 4 kids is not too bad. A lot of fun actually. I think 13 boys would be a ton of fun. Too bad the cost of raising them is outrageous. Hard to believe 50 years ago 13 kids would be a small family. Large families I have known are tons of fun. I only had a family of 5 including parents.

[Shrike47]

28. 50 years ago, 12 children would have been 9 too many where I grew up.

I think there is and has been a lot of cultural variation on the subject.

[Warpy]

97. The experience in my own family is that the birthrate drops like a rock

when the kids grow up and marry. Their experience as children was of a harried mom, pregnant with 3 kids in diapers, and a gang all clamoring for her to notice them, too. Not fun, not even if the family was wealthy enough to get some help for poor Mom.

Most of them grew up and had no children, married or not. They'd had a bellyful of raising their brothers and sisters..or of being the babies raised by older brothers and sisters.

[SheilaT]

108. 50 years ago 13 kids was still a large family.

I'm 66, one of six kids, and we were one of the largest families around.

[Pooka Fey]

117. You've made an outrageous statement: "13 kids would be a small family 50 years ago"

My family of 7 was considered VERY large 50 years ago - though families nearing that number were not rare.

In the late 1890-1910 period, my great-grandmother's family of 14 (farmers) in the deep south was considered EXTREMELY large.

If your statement is only about about attitudes in your own family, fine - state your idea as a personal opinion.

Don't distort the USA culture in general.

If 13 kids is a "small" family, you've just stated by implication that the wife needs to pump out more kids - in order to approach the size of what you consider "normal". You attempt to hide this by hoping nobody will remember what America was like 50 years ago. FAIL.

Blech.

[Gormy Cuss]

124. No, 50 years ago a family with 13 kids wasn't a small family.

It's never been considered a small family in monogamous communities.

[WillowTree]

14. So, are you saying that the government DOES get to legislate what a woman does with her body?

Really?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

19. I'm really hoping that comment was sarcasm n/t

[WillowTree]

21. Me too. Really.

[snooper2]

122. how about what a man does with his body

[NaturalHigh]

2. Dang - and I thought one of each was a lot of work.

[woodsprite]

17. I think after you get past 3, it's kind of like potato chips :)

Always room for one more.

[Ilsa]

3. Good grief. She should give her uterus a rest.

It looks like she gets pregnant the first time the dr says it's okay to resume intercourse. Those boys look like they are less than a year apart.

[yeoman6987]

5. Like I said in a previous post,

13 would be considered small 50 years ago. The fun they will have will be well worth the labor she will have gone through.

[Ilsa]

9. I'm older and most families I know from 50+ years ago

didn't have 13 kids. They had about 4-6. And the pill was invented. Thrilled my mother to be done.

I come from a large family. I was largely ignored as one of the middle children because my parents were tending to someone younger most of the time. I learned most tasks from an older sibling who wasn't mature enough to have patience to deal with me kindly. It wasn't fun. I don't look back on those days with longing.

Don't whitewash the problems of families that are too large to manage effectively. It sucked.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

22. I am sorry your childhood experience in a large family wasn't good.

I come from a large family and my experience was almost totally opposite of yours. In the interest of full disclosure I am the oldest child and that is most certainly different from being in the middle.

[Ilsa]

25. Uh, yeah. Birth order affects a lot.

Lots of articles have been written about the effect.

The large family affected our finances, too. It wasn't pretty living so close to the poverty line, a paycheck away from homelessness. I'm not saying that being rich guarantees happiness. But being really poor affected our ability to participate in social events, look like peers (nutrition, dental care, etc, not just clothing), and later which college was affordable.

[upaloopa]

83. In our block in the 50's we had one family with

12 kids and another with 13. My brother-in-law comes from a family of 12 kids

[Ilsa]

20. Here's a link to US Census info in a NY Times

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/02/us/size-of-us-family-continues-to-drop-census-bureau-says.html

Completely debunks your "13 would have been considered small 50 years ago" claim.

[yeoman6987]

36. Thanks. I am not sure why I thought everyone had large

Families 50 years ago. I was wrong.

[Politicalboi]

62. Maybe you're thinking of the 1930's

Families were big to work on the farms. More rural counties had more children. They were less likely to have electricity, so no TV, no lights, now what do we do? With this family and the Duggars, to me is a freak show. And with proof the planet IS melting is very selfish of these people.

[Ms. Toad]

89. In the 1930s, they were still way smaller than 13.

1915 was the peak according to an article I posted earlier, with only around 1 in 5 families having 5 or more members (meaning 5 kids). So even at the peak around 80% of families had fewer than 5 children.

[LeftInTX]

87. A family of 13 is very large by any historical standard.

Infant mortality was higher prior to WWII which kept families smaller.

My grandmothers (1903 and 1911) came from families with 5 and 2 respectfully. My dad was from 3 (5 were born but 2 died in infancy). My mom was an only child.

[Warpy]

98. That's because half (or more) died before they were five.

Now that all the kiddies can get their shots and live through infancy, toddlerhood and childhood, the huge families exist intact and can be unmanageable.

[Laffy Kat]

110. Yep.

My great grandmother gave birth to fourteen babies but only a handful made it to adulthood. They were poor as dirt in the rural Arkansas. Oddly, she lived to 103, although she went to bed when she was in her early seventies and stayed there until her death. Nothing really wrong with her that the docs could find. My mom said she was probably just tired. IMO she was entitled to the rest.

[LiberalElite]

104. I was born in the '50s -

I'm one of two.

[Ms. Toad]

27. 13 was large, almost no matter how long you go back.

5-7 would have been on the large-ish end for 50 years ago (we had 5 - 3 by adoption - and our family was one of the larger ones). 13 is larger than any family I knew growing up in a rural community (where families are often larger to handle the farm work).

That isn't to say there aren't larger families around, just challenging the assertion that 13 is small.

In 1915 (the peak of the family size), "more than 1 in 5 households included more than 7 or more persons." That's more than 5 children. It also means that nearly 4/5 (i.e. nearly 80%) had fewer than 5 children.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1990/03/art1full.pdf

[Shrike47]

29. 50 years ago, I was on the pill. Really. Which means lots of other people were, too. I was 18.

[Mariana]

111. In 1965?

I think if you look up the numbers you'll find that very few families had 13 or more children in 1965.

[ProfessorGAC]

119. So You Said It Again, And You Were Wrong Twice

I'm 59. That means 50 years ago i would have been a self-aware 9 year old. I knew NO families at all that had that many kids.

And, i went to a grade school with over 1100 kids, so that was a lot of families. And, it was a catholic school.

The largest family i knew had 7 kids.

Now i'm at least the 3rd person who has told you that you're wrong.

[Reter]

140. 13 was never considered small

It was always well above average, at any time and in any place all over the world, except royalty.

[B2G]

6. Her uterus, her choice.

It's not yours to judge.

[Ilsa]

12. It is her choice. Never said it wasn't.

I forget, is DU a place where we can still express opinions about overpopulation?

[B2G]

15. That didn't seem to be your main concern. nt

[Ilsa]

18. It's my main concern.

The fact that my life in a large family was not very happy causes me to have concern for the well-being of so many kids, too. There is only so much time in a day.

[kcr]

33. Apparently it's the new liberal way.

What the heck are you doing, concerning yourself with the well-being of others? Did you think that was some sort of progressive ideal or something?

Seriously, so much individualistic thinking nowadays. I'm with you and find nothing wrong with your concern. Certain choices can be condemned even while upholding basic rights.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. If it's OK to condemn someone for having too many children

is it also OK to condemn someone for having too many abortions?

Just trying to figure out when it's OK to condemn women's choices and when it's not.

[kcr]

46. Why are you equating the two?

Who is harmed when a woman has an abortion?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

48. Because both are related to choice

Pure and simple. Either you believe in it or you don't.

I do.

[kcr]

49. Robbing a bank is also a choice

I condemn that as well.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

53. Nice non sequitur

Here, I'll make it clearer...

Do you believe that women have the right to make reproductive choices for themselves without condemnation or not?

[kcr]

57. I believe women have the same human rights as men do.

Which is why I believe they have a right to abortions, because of the basic human right of bodily autonomy. That does not mean I think the decision to have 14 children is immune from criticism. I understand you're conflating the two but they really are two separate things. Believing in the basic human right to have control over ones own body does not therefore mean that you cannot condemn the actions of a person that affects other human beings. And consciously deciding to have 14 children because that's what you want, without any regard as to how that will affect those 14 children, is not a decision I support.

[KittyWampus]

74. Do you realize that an individual is entitled to have an opinion and can't legally condemn anyone?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

79. Do you realize that the first definition for "condemn" has nothing to do with legalities?

"to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure. "

[Ilsa]

61. Who is "condemning" them?

I haven't stoned or even defenestrated anyone for their reproductive choices. I happen to think that people should be more aware of overpopulation, though, and think about what's good for the planet and the rest of humanity.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

66. Condemn

"to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure."

Yes, there has been unfavorable or adverse judgment and strong disapproval regarding large families on this thread.

[Ilsa]

70. Oh, I thought you meant violently. Then yes,

I disapprove.

[KittyWampus]

77. As long as the state isn't doing the condemning, it's irrelevant.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

81. OK

then I'm assuming you have no issue with people criticizing and judging women who have abortions, correct?

Two sides of the same coin.

[swilton]

107. Agree with your argument that not all of the largest families are the happiest

This is anecdotal - recognizing that it's hear say

My sister is from Alabama - and is close friends with a family who have 11 children - oldest child is schizophrenic ....other children in the family were home schooled so successfully that they were going to college in their teens. This family's achievements (multiple children, home-schooled) have been celebrated to the extent that the father has appeared on some of the television shows -possibly, Good Morning America. On the other hand my sister who has a PhD has talked to some of the older children personally. The older children have issues with the substitute parenting - i.e., having to fill in as parents for the younger siblings. Some of the children who have gone to college and beyond (medical school, architectural school, etc.) have done materially well but have lost their 'normal' childhood having gone to college at such young ages.

Anyway, the last I heard, the mother is now working on child # 12- God wants her to do this.

Imho - history reveals that families in the past didn't have the luxuries of birth control and women who had jobs outside the home. The larger the family, the more likely the family institution would be to survive in that everyone shared in the work. Survival rates for children on the prairies/wilderness was not guaranteed; therefore, a large family with lots of children - odds were that there would be some survivors to take over the business/farm and share the work.

In 21st century world, having large families with more than 2 children is imho morally wrong, especially in societies as materialist-consumer driven as the US -if one wants to have a large family, there are plenty of children to adopt.

[LanternWaste]

23. As long as we do not ever deny her ability to choose...

As long as we do not ever deny her ability to choose, we may criticize, laud, judge or simply observe that choice.

[B2G]

31. I don't know, can we?

Can we negatively judge women who get an abortion?

Somehow, I think that would go over like a lead balloon here.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. Excellent point n/t

[kcr]

37. How does an abortion compare?

How does an abortion harm anyone else?

[B2G]

38. How is this family's choice harming you?

Are you proposing a China solution? Would that not remove choice?

[kcr]

41. I'm only allowed to have concern for matters that harm myself?

That's not very progressive.

I'm not proposing any solution at all.

[B2G]

42. OK how are they harming anyone?

[kcr]

43. It's already been explained

But for one thing, the children of such families often suffer considerable harm.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. I'm assuming

you have a scientific study of some sort that bears out your assertion?

[kcr]

54. Well, there are no scientific studies I've ever seen that have told me

that just because something is a choice it automatically makes it okay and immune from judgment and criticism, but I will assert that all the same, so I think a childhood spent in a huge family where resources and attention are stretched thin is more likely to be miserable, and there are numerous tangential studies about childhood outcomes related to available resources that lead me to come to a logical conclusion I'm pretty comfortable with. There may be the occasional wealthy family that bucks the trend, but they'd be the exception.

[kcr]

58. Oh, I see. Yeah, not taking the pro-life bait.

Not interested.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

56. If you think it's OK

for people to judge and criticize a woman's reproductive choice if she chooses to have 13 children, then you're really just the other side of the so-called pro-lifers that think it's OK to judge a criticize a woman's reproductive choice when she chooses to have an abortion.

Either you respect women's reproductive choices without judgment and criticism or you don't. And you apparently don't.

[B2G]

59. Plus one million

Thank you for getting it so eloquently.

[kcr]

63. I'm not judging a woman's reproductive choice though. You're only framing it that way.

Because you're exploiting the tendency for the debate to be framed that way. I don't do that, see. I don't give a rat's batootie if something is a choice or not. As I said upthread, robbing a bank is a choice. Does anyone contort themselves into pretzels agonizing over the right to choose to rob a bank? Of course not. I'm concerned with rights. A woman exercises her basic human rights when she gets an abortion. And it doesn't affect anyone but herself.

If a couple decides they're going to have 14 kids? Entirely different matter. Yes, this is also a reproductive matter, but other human beings who are affected are also involved. So concern for their wellbeing makes judgment entirely valid. The fact she can choose abortion does not make exercising that judgment hypocritical. Concern for children in overly large families is not at odds with concern for upholding basic human rights.

[B2G]

65. Robbing a bank is illegal

Fail.

[kcr]

69. So it is.

But it is also a choice. Hence why I don't care that an action is a choice. See? No fail in my argument.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

72. So-called pro-lifers

claim that women are injured, physically and emotionally, and babies (their word, not mine) are injured to the point of death by abortion. In other words, they make excuses as to why it's OK to judge and criticize women's reproductive choices the same way you do.

If this thread is any indication, you appear to simply be the flip-side of the anti-choice coin.

[kcr]

84. But again. I'm not talking about choices, like they are.

Which is why I don't frame it that way and think it's important to move away from doing so when it comes to the abortion debate. Choice has become a buzz word and has moved the emphasis away from rights. I don't respect choices. I respect rights. Choices can be criticized and judged. Rights are to be respected and upheld, whatever people think of the decisions people make regarding those rights. Do you see the difference?

In other words, the argument seems to be, "You have to respect her choice!" regarding having a large family. No, I don't. I respect her basic human rights including bodily autonomy. That does not mean I have to respect any choice she makes, particularly if it affects other people. If suffering is caused by a choice she has made, I can judge that choice and I will.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

88. Fair enough

Then you should have zero problem with the so-called pro-lifers that criticize women who have abortions.

[kcr]

92. Well of course. From a logical POV, if they believe a fetus is a human with rights of its own

their criticism makes sense. I just don't get the "It's a choice so you can't criticize it" logic, because choices, in and of themselves, aren't criticism proof. There is such a thing as bad choices. See: burglary.

[Gormy Cuss]

132. The difference is, they're making up excuses and supporting legislation to restrict that choice. n/t

[Ilsa]

67. They can judge me all they want. Just don't

Stone me to death or take away the option for a safe, legal abortion.

No one here has proposed legally limiting her choice to have 50 kids. But we reserve the right to criticize her not considering the good of the planet, the effects of overpopulation and the contribution to climate change. If our planet wasn't in this situation, I probably wouldn't care, except for concern about some of the middle kids feeling neglected. I've been a middle child. It sucks. And while I don't have any current studies to refer you to, I've also read (10, 15 years ago?) that the middle ones get less attention and resources, and tend to be less successful in life.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

76. "the middle ones"

get less attention whether they're in the middle of three or the middle of thirteen, so that's irrelevant, IMO.

I'm assuming you have no problem with so-called pro-lifers making the following statement:

"But we reserve the right to criticize her not considering the good of her unborn child, the effects of abortion on the emotional health of the mother and the contribution to break down of the family."

[treestar]

91. There is a difference between

Criticizing and advocating illegality. You are refusing to allow that difference.

Yes you could criticize someone for having a lot of abortions - maybe lay some attention to birth control- without on the least advocating any legal restrictions.

People sometimes seem to want to jump all over someone rather than discuss a subject. Wow you've found someone you can label anti-choice. Except they probably aren't. Overpopulation is an issue. Any huge family will make people think of that.

[Politicalboi]

80. Oh please, we've watched 8 is enough

And the Brady Bunch, and those kids were happy all the time. It doesn't matter if 6 out of the 13 go hungry, or not get to the doctors office because mom and dad are too busy with the babies. I'll all work itself out in 42 minutes.

[kcr]

86. Oh, that's old school.

Nowadays it's 50kidsandgrandsandcounting on TLDiscoveryC. It's so sweet how those older girls never go to school and spend all day changing the younger ones' diapers. Such heartwarming devotion. They don't really want an education anyway.

[LanternWaste]

44. Is there anything other than one's own trepidation preventing anyone from posting an opinion?

Is there anything other than one's own trepidation preventing anyone from posting an opinion?

Should anyone lack the courage of their own convictions to speak a rational premise (rather than mere bias), that's pretty much all on them.

[Ilsa]

71. Exactly. Why can't I have an opinion on an issue that

Affects the planet, possibly the survival of our species?

[aikoaiko]

7. This makes buying clothes much easier.

[Mike Nelson]

8. Great to have that many if...

...you can afford them!

[stevenleser]

10. The idea of trying to support and give enough time to each of those kids is daunting.

Last edited Fri May 8, 2015, 12:00 PM - Edit history (1)

Daycare is prohibitively expensive so I guess one of the parents has to stay home and take care of all of those kids. If they're lucky they each get a few minutes of attention from each parent each day.

[Ilsa]

13. See my post above.

It sucked being in the middle.

[stevenleser]

137. I believe it. In my experience as a parent, even with one at a time, it always feels like one

isn't/wasn't doing enough. My youngest was born 5 weeks ago and my other daughter is at college and about to turn 21 so I could devote all my energies to each while they were home and at times it still felt like I wasn't doing enough. Other parents have told me the same thing.

I can't fathom any amount of kids over 3. My oldest daughter was involved in soccer and several other extra curricular activities. How do you and your Significant other/spouse attend and drive them to all those events if you have three or more? And since you can't, do you just tell them they can't be involved and/or sorry I can't attend?

[aikoaiko]

11. This is what random looks like.

Sometimes you toss a fair coin 12 times and 12 times is comes up heads.

[seveneyes]

16. If all families worldwide had 12+ children

We would quickly run out of bugs to eat for survival.

[B2G]

68. And if all families had no children

Our species would die out in short order.

Neither scenario is going to happen.

[Ilsa]

75. It's what, 9 billion now?

Isn't that enough to stop pushing a culture of huge families and massive reproduction? The point is that everyone could do their part.

[B2G]

78. I wasn't aware that was a part of our culture.

[Ilsa]

103. Do you have any concern for overpopulation,

or is that something you have no issue with? Because I get the sense that you do not care or that you think it is irrelevant now and for the future.

[Aerows]

24. They probably have

the washing machine and dryer going 24/7, not to mention a sky-high grocery bill!

[Shrike47]

30. Imagine feeding 12 or 13 teenage boys. They don't MAKE enough food.

[Aerows]

32. That's what I thought!

12 of them? And the laundry!

I don't have kids, but I've seen teenage boys demolish enough food to feed a third world country at one sitting.

Can you imagine meal planning?

[AngryAmish]

40. 12 gallons of milk a day....

[sufrommich]

51. Easily. I'd hate to pay that grocery bill.nt

[Aerows]

96. How many eggs

do you think they go through in the morning?

[Lancero]

109. Half a dozen...

cartons.

[Aerows]

112. LOL

I'll bet grocery shopping for that mob is a treat!

[Lancero]

114. Imagine going through a drive through

"Yeah, uh... I'll take two dozen cheese burgers, couple gallons of coke, and all the fries you have"

"What?"

[Aerows]

115. "Oh, all of us here for dinner."

"What should we chain the refrigerator out until dinner is ready and put some leg irons on them so they don't eat the firewood in the fireplace?"

I have three cousins that are football player size. One of them came to stay with us because my uncle was having surgery.

That was *one*. I was mad because there was never any dinner leftovers, peanut butter disappeared, and you'd think somebody in the house was planning on flooding the house with milk, because it HAD to be in storage. I'm a milk drinker myself, but it was lunacy. You couldn't get a drop unless you were up at five.

What one Earth is it like with twelve?

If the mother and father aren't starving to death, I'd be shocked.

[etherealtruth]

60. OMG ... yes

I am convinced adolescent boys eat twice their wieght in food every day

[treestar]

95. Twins boys in my family

Had an 18th birthday breakfast with like 6 of their friends. They consumed mass quantities. It was amazing. 3 dozen eggs at least. And everything else

[LittleBlue]

26. Unbelievable! The chances of having 12 sons in a row is .02%.

Hope they get a girl this time.

[stevenleser]

134. That assumes the husband is producing healthy X and Y sperm at the same rate. However...

... many men simply don't. Think Henry VIII

[IggleDoer]

35. How many kids does it take ...

... before they get their own reality show?

[Ilsa]

73. How many does it take to be happy? nt

[AngryAmish]

39. A guy I know was the only boy in a family of 9 kids.

He still has that 1000 yard stare.

[sufrommich]

52. lol. nt

[polichick]

50. Guess they've never heard of over-population.

[tridim]

64. I once saw "red" come up on a roulette table 23 times in a row.

The dealer was just as amazed as everyone else.

50-50 shot, 100% of the time.

[Politicalboi]

85. They can start their own

Westboro clan because they turned out to be such fine people.

[LiberalElite]

90. Here's two more links - they're devout Catholics, don't use birth control AND-

she says she loves being pregnant. It's "neat" and "very special."

http://www.today.com/parents/12-sons-no-13-way-will-baby-be-girl-1D80252005

I was also very curious to see what the father does for a living - he has a law degree and owns his own business. She has a degree in social work.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/08/boys_by_the_dozen_birth_of_12t.html

My opinion: These folks are alien to me. I was raised RC but left it behind in high school. I believe in family planning and am concerned about overpopulation. Most people who can do use birth control- even Catholics in the U.S. at least - but these two Catholics are apparently by-the-book. In the photos in these links it doesn't appear any one of the kids is neglected. Because some suffer as part of a large family doesn't mean everyone does. You can be neglected as a single child.

[Ilsa]

100. Will she still love herself as a person when she can't

Get pregnant any more? I've heard of new moms missing the attention that pregnancy brought them.

[LiberalElite]

102. Who knows? -

Fertility does end. It's best for her to accept it. If in the not-so-distant future (I think she's 38?) she does have difficulty accepting that she can't bear biological children anymore - she can seek counseling. Or adopt. It's not our problem.

[HockeyMom]

93. I worked with little boy who was the youngest of 5 sons

When his Mom finally had a girl, he was so PROUD. He always talked about his baby sister and how he would help take care of her now since he was her BIG BROTHER. So adorable. He was 5 years old at the time.

[Liberal_in_LA]

99. that is a sweet story. much preferred to the girl hate stories

[treestar]

94. That's 12 apostles

The next one will be a boy. It's Jesus.

[Scootaloo]

101. I'll bet that house has a record amount of funk

And I don't mean George Clinton.

[Throd]

105. DU supports choice when it's choices they support.

[stevenleser]

116. You are confusing fighting for legal rights with opining on the wisdom of certain choices

If you make false equivalencies like that everything becomes a hypocrisy.

[Gormy Cuss]

133. And this false equivalency happens every time there's a thread about large families.

It's not as if there have been dozens of bills restricting family size a la China.

[stevenleser]

135. And I am not seeing the difficulty in understanding this. Maybe that poster will explain to me their

disconnect. I am also in favor of the legalization of all drugs. Outside the medical uses of marijuana, I would opine that it is a bad choice to use drugs. I do not even drink alcohol.

I don't believe my position there is hypocritical either.

[liberal_at_heart]

139. +1

[stevenleser]

142. You are plus one-Ing that false equivalency??? Nt

[BlueJazz]

106. I disapprove of any woman having over 3 children. I believe it's rather selfish and inconsiderate..

...of the populous.
However, at the present time, I wouldn't want the government to interfere with her/family's choice.

[WinkyDink]

130. And you picked "3" over "2" or even "1" because....? Because a family of 5 ain't exactly small.

[BlueJazz]

136. I'd prefer 2 simply because I don't want the earth to be over-populated. I don't want people..

...starving to death in the future. (as if they're not now) I chose 3 just to be reasonable. I figure a growing amount of people will chose to not have any children...including myself so I put that into the equation.

But..I'll certainly change my mind if shown I'm in error.

[MisterP]

113. the phrase of the day is, "Ponzi parenting"

[Pooka Fey]

118. 12 kids including the tiny new baby in Daddy's arms, and Mom's pregnant AGAIN

Looks like we've got a Hoarding situation.

[ScreamingMeemie]

120. If you count them, there's 12. I think that's the youngest son being held by the eldest.

[Pooka Fey]

123. Too busy looking at the 4th kid from the left - the "black sheep"

who, by the look on his face, is the only one of the litter who knows his family situation is absolutely insane.

[HappyMe]

125. lol! Right.

You know this how again?

[Pooka Fey]

126. LOL!

I already stated "how", in my previous post.

Try reading for comprehension next time.

[HappyMe]

127. Oh my!

A dunce hat, a snotty insult and 2 eye rollers!

Yeah, calling them hoarders explains a lot.

Choice is all good, if you agree with people's choices. If not, fuck others' choices. Is that about it?

[Pooka Fey]

128. ...

[HappyMe]

129. Buhbye to you too, dearie.

[Ms. Yertle]

131. That must be an old picture

If you read the article you will find that the youngest is two, and the kids are all reasonably separated by at least as couple of years.

[HappyMe]

121. Nice looking family.

Good luck to them.

I don't care that they have a lot of kids. Choice means choice.

[shanti]

138. she's a braver woman than me

i desperately wanted a daughter, and gave it 4 (really 3, as one was unplanned) tries to get one, even with 2 different hubs, but it just wasn't meant to be. i should have stopped at one and called it a day, but you can't undo the past...

but yeah, feeding all those boys is going to be terribly expen$ive!

[KamaAina]

141. I suspect they may be Quiverfullers like the Duggars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull

Quiverfull is a movement among some conservative evangelical Protestant couples, chiefly in the United States, but with some adherents in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain and elsewhere. It promotes procreation, and sees children as a blessing from God, eschewing all forms of birth control, including natural family planning and sterilization. Adherents are known as "quiver full", "full quiver", "quiverfull-minded", or simply "QF" Christians. Some refer to the Quiverfull position as Providentialism, while other sources have referred to it as a manifestation of natalism. Currently, several thousand Christians worldwide identify with this movement, although entire Christian sects hold many beliefs correlative to those who self-identify as Quiverfull adherents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull#Criticisms

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, a former ardent Quiverfull adherent, mother by birth of eleven children, and former editor of Gentle Spirit Magazine, argues that the Quiverfull movement is one "in which women and children are routinely and systematically subordinated and subjugated by the men in their lives - fathers, husbands, older sons,. . .pastors, elders, leaders - as a matter of biblical principle." Seelhoff charges that Quiverful adherents "never talk about the victims of the movement," other than to distance themselves from the charges by explaining that the victims are aberrations.

[Liberal_in_LA]

143. update.. she gave birth to boy number 13

[City Lights]

144. Thanks for the update.

When I was growing up, there were two families on our block with 7 children. One family had 6 girls and a boy; the other had 6 boys and a girl. If I were to have placed a bet on this, I would have bet on them having another boy.