According to the Canadian Press, a British Columbia woman, age 44, just gave birth to her 18th child, a girl who weighed almost eight pounds. Her oldest is twenty-three. Her husband, Alexandru Ionce, said he wouldn't say no to more children: "We never planned how many children to have. We just let God guide our lives, you know, because we strongly believe life comes from God and that's the reason we did not stop the life. We let life come."
The large family is out of fashion these days, but maybe it's making a comeback.
Mother of four Katie Allison Granju writes on Babble.com about wanting six kids, and about how she doesn't feel her choice is widely respected:
While we do appear to have a pop culture fascination with big families - witness the interest in the Duggars, Jon and Kate Plus Eight, and even the Jolie-Pitt brood - our focus is somewhat akin to the way one would observe a circus sideshow act, complete with requisite smug ridicule. In fact, many of the people I know personally who make it a point to actively support reproductive rights don't seem to believe that those rights should also extend to actual reproduction; this is especially true for pro-choice folks who seem to believe I am committing some kind of heinous eco-crime by giving birth.
We never would have thought having a passel of kids would be controversial if you can take care of them, but judging from the feedback so far people have very strong feelings about the relative benefits and dowside of having birthing a small army. What do you think: heinous eco-crime, or god-sent miracle?
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 9)
61. Who's picking up the tab? You can bet your shorts the family is getting some welfare from the state. The cute "home on the prairie" attitude will not cut it in this age of technology. Are the parents paying for their schooling, school lunches, supplies and even clothes? What about higher education? When they can support these kids with no help from the government then I'll be surprised. Another aspect is the emotional support for the kids. They'll be lucky if their parents remember their names. After living in a large family in a tiny apartment I can assure you some will get short-changed.
MarKeane444 at 7:27AM on Jul 30th 2008
62. Winston,
Socialism is NOT a transition from one form of government to Communism. It might be something that tends to happen but it isnt the definition.
Socialism is state or community shared ownership of all property, business, and services. It is not defined by how it runs the governemnt.
Communism is defined as a one party system which runs strictly by Marxist-Lennist guidelines.
Just thought I would chime in on this.
Also, if everyone in the world starts having 10+ children, then the planet is going to be real small, real quick. What happens when the population becomes too much for resources to handle? What happens when food and water shortages occur? when there are not enough jobs?
I am not saying that abortion is the answer, but having 18 children certainly doesnt help.
CaptainCack at 8:12AM on Jul 30th 2008
63. There is much being said about the obvious (i.e., where is the money coming from?) but what about just, the opportunity to actually know you children--and conversely, for them to know you? I think that after 3 children, that becomes problematic at best and after 6, your just running an assembly line. I mean, heck, just to talk to your parent privately would require an appointment! This also places an unfair burden on the older children whom must effectively 'raise' the younger ones. Most of us have had to watch our younger siblings from time to time but generally, this is not a full-time job--and should not be.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 8:30AM on Jul 30th 2008
64. This all sounds like a spinoff of 7th Heaven.
Not to play Moderator, but abortion doesn't seem related to this. Who's ever going to have 18 children "by accident"?
Mokele Mbembe at 9:09AM on Jul 30th 2008
65. Mokele... is there truly evidence out there to suggest that overpopulation in this country will be a problem in the next 20 to 50 years? Would you choose the number of children you have based on this?
Shannie at 9:27AM on Jul 30th 2008
66. We really shouldn't worry about over-population. Unless we find a cure for AIDS--TODAY--in 40 years, the only uninfected people will be those who, A) Never have sex and, B)Never have surgery or need blood. So, unless a cure is found TODAY, in 50 years, the population of Earth will be about 25% of what it is today.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 9:36AM on Jul 30th 2008
67. Shannie,
I believe as people of most faiths do, that we should love our children more than we love ourselves. Ignoring a problem on account of it being decades from urgency is a spit upon our children. Overpopulation is quite simply a mathematical inevitability. Future generations will have increasingly difficult choices, that is irrevocable. The "more the merrier" mentality will lead to an economic crisis beyond the likes the world has ever seen.
Keith,
I'm not sure where you get your figures, but AIDS is preventable and the 25% figure just seems implausible in an already AIDS-conscious society. Contagious flu outbreaks are more likely to cause such an apocalyptic population drop.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:28AM on Jul 30th 2008
68. don't we have enough people on this earth? also when he says "We never planned how many children to have. We just let God guide our lives, you know, because we strongly believe life comes from God and that's the reason we did not stop the life. We let life come." i think thats just a poor excuse to get laid.
Dustin at 11:11AM on Jul 30th 2008
69. Dustin,
"a poor excuse to get laid"
Is there such a thing?
Mokele Mbembe at 11:35AM on Jul 30th 2008
70. Guarantee you that all the people railing against this are Pro-"Choice". Hypocrites!
Trish at 12:56PM on Jul 30th 2008
71. heinous eco-crime: you do have a choice when it comes to how many children you want to have, but you need to be conscious of the environment. Just remember that most if not all of your 12, 16 or 18 children will have a child of his or her own. And because they themselves came from big families, they're also more likely to have big families. And it just keeps multiplying and getting bigger and bigger. Big Families are harmful. It's just like not letting the faucet run when not in use, don't have a huge family. Just one of the many small things you can do to make the Earth a better place.
Honk at 11:50AM on Jul 30th 2008
72. Will all those kids get to go to college? What kind of work does he do that he can really afford all those children?
gina at 12:36PM on Jul 30th 2008
73. This is terrible. People like these wing-nuts feel that the sooner what's left of our earth caves in on itself due to the crushing weight of overpopulation, the sooner they and their litter and alllll the rest of the Bible thumpers can experience the "rapture" and go to heaven. Seriously. That is what they believe. They are waiting on the end of the world. It is not the Third World people who do the most destruction. They do not have the means. It is the families who do have the "means" and are so "well taken care of ", who end up having greater resources and therefore access to the most stuff over a lifetime, compared to a poor family in the streets of Calcutta.
It's ironic and sad that study after study shows that it's the more intelligent and prosperous and well educated in this country who are the ones reigning in their reproduction.
Paula Dell at 12:27PM on Jul 30th 2008
74. The year 2012 - December 21st to be exact the world will end as we know it - according to the Myan and some old Chinese dude.
So overpopulation solved.
Nice knowing you.
TJ at 12:38PM on Jul 30th 2008
75. Pro-"Choice" Hypocrites! Trish
Where is the hypocrisy?
TJ at 12:40PM on Jul 30th 2008