I just read an article on Yahoo! that has me irate. This woman has 14 children all concieved through invitro. She has a history of depression that ended her marriage and she thinks she wants 14 children? Here's the article.
The sperm was all donated by a friend she hopes will be in their lives at some point? Hello! If he doesn't want you now why is he going to want a depressed woman with 14 kids? I know men and I know they don't like baggage.. and thats a little more than just a carry-on!
Number Two:
Our world is over populated as it is. I want to have children, someday, no time soon just to make that clear. But I know someday I'll meet a man and say "hey I'd like to have this dude's kid" but as long as there are selfish people in the world having 14-18-25-487,000,000-until their uterus gives up.. children I probably won't. I would never want to bring a child into a world that has no room for them to live their life like I am able to live mine, or be able to reproduce as well. This is in by no means being critical to the many ladies on this site that are getting fit and healthy to have children in the healthiest way possible. In fact, I applaud your concern for the well-being of another human life. This belief is my personal standpoint on my body producing a child. I have issues with it because of the state of our economy and our natural resources- I do not mean, and repeat, DO NOT mean to insult anyone who has a child or is wanting to concieve.
My personal belief is that people who have that many children are simply selfish. Because I am concerned (and educated) about the state of our world I am unable to justify having children of my own. And again this is my personal belief. In my mind, they have taken away my ability to have children. Let me add that I have never been that girl who just wants to be a mother. My goals are to be a student and educator of life and a mentor. I've always known I'd go to school, get a good job, work my way up and maybe someday have children. I understand that my goals are different from others.
Number Three:
This woman was bed ridden with her decision to have 8 children at once. She was unable to care for her other children, she had to know that was going to happen when she was WANTING to bear 8 children at one time. I feel this woman is selfish in every aspect of the word.
I see woman on TV about once a month. "Mrs. So-and-So gives birth to her 18th child." and everyone thinks this is amazing. If I met Mrs. So-and-So I'd smack her across the face. I want to tell these people to stop being selfish. Whether they believe having as many children they can for religious or cultural reasons or just because they want to be mothers I think they need to consider the rest of the people in the world before they go spoutin off at the baby maker.
My opinion, my rant. Agree? I would like some insight on this- I feel strongly about my opinion but at the same time I'm an open minded person who is willing to hear and understand both sides of the story.. I may not agree, but I'll agree to disagree!
I think it was a huge oversight of the medical community and the specialist who implanted the eggs needs to go under review.
I saw an interview with her on the Today Show today. She has these grand visions of GOING BACK TO SCHOOL and putting the kids in the campus day care while she gets her masters and then she'll be able to provide everything.
I think she is ill. I think there are people out there who hoard trash. People hoard animals. I think this woman hoards children. They don't understand why it's bad and are perfectly well intentioned, but clearly there is something very, very wrong with this woman. And the fact that she's out there peddling her story for cash?
Okay, I totally agree with both of you and I'm glad that it's finally being discussed (even if it is only in our little 3fc world). Another example - the duggars on TLC. They have 18 children and what do they get for it? A TV show! I hate the way TLC promotes them along side 'Jon and Kate plus 8' (who conceived through invitro with hopes of only one child). Threre is a quality of life issue that needs to be addressed here - I feel for these children that are going to be forced to become parents to their younger siblings at such young ages. It's simply irresponsible and selfish to intentionaly have that many children.
I have to agree, at one point I had decided I wanted 6 children and have since completely changed my mind. What I want to know is how on earth she affords in vitro?? Last I heard she lived with her parents and didn't work. Could be totally wrong on that note though!
The Duggars make me shudder, I understand it's their "belief" and that they do support all of their children without living on state aid, but cmon now...what kind of childhood is it to raise your younger siblings? And who's to say this womans older 6 aren't going to have to step up once old enough (how old are they now?? ) and help care for their younger 8 siblings?
John and Kate, while I can't imagine having 8 kids I do understand why they have 8. They refused to let the doctors "remove" the extra babes early on in the pregnancy, if I were in the same position I have to say I'd do the same thing. I can watch their show and enjoy it much more than the Duggars that's for sure!
I used to watch Jon and Kate but when it became a trend to have tv shows with people who had tons of kids I made myself stop supporting it. I, to an extent, understand their situation but at the same time I do not support the overall concept. They already had two of their own so they could have easily adopted one more.
I agree with all of this, but I do see John and Kate in a different light. Just because they didn't exactly choose to have so many children. I believe they said they were hoping for just one more after the twins, which I guess they could have just stopped but 3 children isn't bad. And once they found out 6 more were on the way, I think it was a good decision not to "get rid of" the 5 they hadn't intended.
I think having that any children when you can take care of them is fine in my opinion BUT when you have that much children and have to resort to everyone else's taxes than that's the problem i have.
I think the Duggars were raising there family pretty decently even before they got on TV . And John and kate with those 8 kids are people i look up to .. so if you can handle it and don't need anyone else's money and time then why the **** not?!
But, in most western countries, the birth rate isn't high enough to keep up the population from declining. According to a NY Times article from June 29, 2008, (I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post links yet), "for the first time on record, birthrates in southern and easter Europe had dropped below 1.3." according to the article, replacement birth rate levels are "widely considered" to be 2.1. So, as it stands right now, in Europe at least, the population will fall if the birthrate doesn't increase. That is why in countries such as France, they offer huge incentives to have more children. I think once you have three children in France, you get significant financial assistance from the government.
According to NCPA.org, the UN's projection of the global population in 2050went from 9.8 billion in 1994 to 8.9 billion in 2005. According to the same website, the U.S. birth rate has gone from 1.9 to 2.0 but that is mainly due to immigration, not native-born Americans reproducing more. Finally, "over the past 30 years, the average number of children born to women in the less-developed countries has fallen from 6.2 to 3.0-a decline of record-brekaing speed."
So really, I think it is unreasonable to call women who want to have more than the average number of children selfish.
This way of thinking seems to me to inherently flawed; although popular sentiment is to cry out that people need to have less children, in fact, in places such as Europe, for the population to simply remain constant, the birth rate must increase.
I'm worried about the environmental implications of having children one day. It's something I struggle with because like that majority of people out there, I do have the desire to have kids. I think it's interesting kelli32 that you mention about your wanting your child/ren to have the same lifestyle you have, because I don't think that will be possible either way, in terms of the measures that will need to be taken to deal with environmental realities. However I guess I'm getting off topic.
I agree with those of you that have said that this woman is probably mentally ill, and rather than giving her in vitro the doctors should have referred her to a psychiatrist. Luckily the Duggars family is on tv because they are such a rarity that it makes them unusual!
But, in most western countries, the birth rate isn't high enough to keep up the population from declining. According to a NY Times article from June 29, 2008, (I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post links yet), "for the first time on record, birthrates in southern and easter Europe had dropped below 1.3." according to the article, replacement birth rate levels are "widely considered" to be 2.1. So, as it stands right now, in Europe at least, the population will fall if the birthrate doesn't increase. That is why in countries such as France, they offer huge incentives to have more children. I think once you have three children in France, you get significant financial assistance from the government.
According to NCPA.org, the UN's projection of the global population in 2050went from 9.8 billion in 1994 to 8.9 billion in 2005. According to the same website, the U.S. birth rate has gone from 1.9 to 2.0 but that is mainly due to immigration, not native-born Americans reproducing more. Finally, "over the past 30 years, the average number of children born to women in the less-developed countries has fallen from 6.2 to 3.0-a decline of record-brekaing speed."
So really, I think it is unreasonable to call women who want to have more than the average number of children selfish.
This way of thinking seems to me to inherently flawed; although popular sentiment is to cry out that people need to have less children, in fact, in places such as Europe, for the population to simply remain constant, the birth rate must increase.
This is true and it's an interesting point, but the bottom line is that a child born in a developed country will generally consume far, far more of the world's resources, and produce much more pollution, than one in a poor country. So from an environmental point of view, the argument is that it's not about overpopulation per se, but about consumption.
But of course there are other arguments... like France offering money for French people to have more children, is because they don't want specifically the French population to dwindle.
I agree that other countries have their own issues of population but I'm looking at the US, where I live and would raise my children. We are outgrowing middle schools and high schools before we finish getting them built. Suburbs are booming and even in the state of our economy people are still building. What I mean by my kids having the same opportunities I have, IF I have them is that they won't be faced with the same decisions I am. They won't have to feel like they can't have children because of the population and so forth. Not that they are going to grow up the same way I did, it will be nearly 3 decades later and thats unreasonable to think.
I agree that some people deserve more credit than others, the ones that raise their multiple children on their own without assistance. What happens though when those 18 kids have 5 or so kids, thats like almost 100 grandchildren. Thats similiar to the baby boomers which you've all heard of and what has our retirement system in the current state it is in. I think we'll notice an impact on the economy when the children of the "age of invitro and multiple births" are old enough to have their own kids. It'll also be interesting to see if they have the same issues with fertility and they decide to take the same path as their parents.
I agree that other countries have their own issues of population but I'm looking at the US, where I live and would raise my children. We are outgrowing middle schools and high schools before we finish getting them built. Suburbs are booming and even in the state of our economy people are still building. What I mean by my kids having the same opportunities I have, IF I have them is that they won't be faced with the same decisions I am. They won't have to feel like they can't have children because of the population and so forth. Not that they are going to grow up the same way I did, it will be nearly 3 decades later and thats unreasonable to think.
I agree that some people deserve more credit than others, the ones that raise their multiple children on their own without assistance. What happens though when those 18 kids have 5 or so kids, thats like almost 100 grandchildren. Thats similiar to the baby boomers which you've all heard of and what has our retirement system in the current state it is in. I think we'll notice an impact on the economy when the children of the "age of invitro and multiple births" are old enough to have their own kids. It'll also be interesting to see if they have the same issues with fertility and they decide to take the same path as their parents.
I definitely have the same concerns about the state of the retirement system. But, I think that the solution is to raise the age when you become eligible for social security. When FDR signed the bill in the 1930s, the age of eligibility was 65, I believe, and the life expectancy wasn't much higher. But now, we have people retiring in their 60s and then living many years past that. I don't see any reason for someone to be receiving social security at the age of 65 unless they're disabled and can't work. But, if you're able bodied, then you have two options: save money on your own to fund your own retirement or work longer. It frustrates me because I'll be paying to fund all the baby boomers' retirements but I highly doubt I'll see the same benefits when I'm that age.
The baby boomers have hardly "paid enough into the system" to justify receiving 20-30 years worth of retirement benefits from the government. When the social security system was started, there were many more working age people to one retired person. Now, the ratios have shifted dramatically, placing more of a burden on the younger generation.
The social security system was never designed to be something that you lived off of for more than a few years. I don't want to sound harsh, but that's reality. A huge chunk of my paycheck is going towards something that I probably won't get to enjoy in several decades.
I also feel that there is a big difference between a family like the Duggars, and someone who irresponsibly has 10 children that they then demand assistance from the government to help pay for these children. As much as I don't support the Duggar's methodology - I don't believe that the older children should be forced to be surrogate parents - I do give the Duggars credit for living frugally and coming up with their own creative ways (including having a tv show) to fund their lifestyle, without asking the government for a handout.
This woman has never used welfare and paid for all of the IVF treatments with money she got from a lawsuit settlement. As far as I know she is supporting her children and raising them. They do not use assistance. They are not in danger so I see nothing wrong with it. If her parents have a problem with her living there then they need to kick her out, it's none of my business.
The reason she is doing these interviews is because the media will not leave her or her family alone. They are literally camped out on her front lawn. In order to get them to leave she almost has to do interviews... and hey, if they want to pay her she might as well take the money.... she's obviously going to need it.
I do agree that the doctors put back too many embryos (they put back six and two of them split), but I work on the inside of fertility medicine and it's really not that uncommon to put back four or five embryos.
Ladies, while I understand some of your concerns, some things you say are contradictive: many baby boomers have worked since their teens until 65 and beyond, as many take part-time jobs once they retire from their main careers. You can't have it both ways: complaining we have too many people, or not enough people to support you when you retire. YOU will have to put money away if YOU want more to live on too. There are many reasons the pension system is having problems: a major one being the increase in the cost of living and indexing (which is increasing the amounts doled out as the years went by); and not putting enough back in it in the first place.
Back to the children issue: I wouldn't assume anyone is mentally ill without knowing them. Many Catholics had huge families because for religious reasons they don't believe in some types of birth control. My parents had many children because there was NO BIRTH CONTROL then, and that's when most 'baby boomers' had children!!! And, they all raised these families on their own (we didn't have social assistance until many years later and most didn't use it anyways). So, you have to get your facts right first ...
In Quebec (a province in Canada) they give $checks$ in the 4-figures for all children that are born ~ as like France, they want their population to grow; and they want more Mrs. So and So's. So, it's all a matter of perspective.
Besides all that, most people don't make all their decisions in life based on how much it will cost them! They have children because they love children and want to have a family, which is considered quite normal the world over.
In Canada, we have put a limit on how many eggs can be used at one time in our Invitro Fertilization procedures, so that people won't have to make that horrible decision ... do I abort some or have too many? I think the number is no more than three eggs at one time, which I think was an intelligent and caring idea for everyone involved, because we know that children in large # births can end up with serious health problems, and that was another reason why the numbers were limited.
Anyways, I think your country should consider this option as well and that would solve some of your concerns. But we still live in a free society and people can have as many children as they want, and we cannot dictate to people, you can have only this many or we'll end up like China who told parents they could only have one child and they ended up tossing all their girl children because most of them wanted a male child.
Therefore, we have to think over the things we say and the policies we make very carefully and thoroughly beforehand so we don't offend others, but also that we don't cause harm to innocents either. JMHO ... Rosebud
OT- Single Mother of 14
