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 6 of 9)
76. Didn't I read that the father is an x-congressman? If that's the case, then the answer to who paid for all of these births is simple: when people leave Congress, they take their healthcare insurance with them for life. So, it's the people who pay for it. Ms. Calhoun, maybe you can write about the health insurance Congress receives. I want a bumper sticker that reads: I WANT THE HEALTHCARE INSURANCE THAT CONGRESS GETS
Alice at 1:55PM on Jul 30th 2008
77. Mokele Mbembe:
Aids is only preventable if everything goes perfectly. That requires A) Condoms not break, B)A person's judgement NEVER be impaired--as in drugs, alcohol or emotional distress and, C) That when we do decide to have unprotected sex within the confines of a committed, long-term relationship, it is with someone whom has been 100% honest with us about their sexual and/or drug history.
Here's another scenario: A man contracts HIV (for the moment, it doesn't matter how) and a couple of day later, he donates blood as he does every year. Now, it's still too soon to detect his infection so, what is to keep the next person who receives his blood from being infected?
With such a low (i.e., nonexistent) margin for error whose figures are wrong?
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 1:00PM on Jul 30th 2008
78. The Hyposcisy, genius, is that reproductive rights to these "pro-choicers" obviously means ONLY THEIR right to terminate the life of a child they don't want and not this woman's right to give life to as many children as she wants. Why are her reproductive rights less important than that of "pro-choicers"
Trish at 1:00PM on Jul 30th 2008
79. Whose figures have a "nonexistent" margin of error???
Mokele Mbembe at 1:29PM on Jul 30th 2008
80. I agree that it is essential to be able to financially afford these children, but what about also being able to emotionally support them? Children need more than just food, clothing, and shelter. They also need A LOT of love, time, encouragement, reassurance....emotional support!! I don't believe it is possible for a mother to give the required emotional support to all of those children, and that is tragic.
Regarding birth control, do people realize that you are only likely to conceive a handful of days out of each cycle? It's not that hard to obstain for those few days and control the number of children you have.
xufan_2000 at 2:07PM on Jul 30th 2008
81. Lets got go too far. Some women CAN handle the responsibility. Don't sell a stranger too short.
Mokele Mbembe at 2:18PM on Jul 30th 2008
82. 69. Dustin,
"a poor excuse to get laid"
Is there such a thing?
Mokele
-----------
Not by my accounting Moke !
mac at 2:32PM on Jul 30th 2008
83. In other words, Socialism is enacted, under the auspices of other names such as Liberalism, Progressivism & the like, with the ultimate goal as being Communism.
xxx
AHA! Therefore,
In other words, libertarianism is enacted under the auspices of other names such as Conservatism, republicanism, corporatism and the like, with the ultimate goal as being fascists.
Communism and libertarianism are the pies in the sky.
So far in world history, the mounds on the ground are socialism (the government owns business) and fascism (businesses own government).
Under either extreme, the individual exists to serve the state.
The alternative is constitutional government.
If you want a return to it, corporatism must again be regulated. This is done by enforcement of the Sherman and Clayton acts, which controlled monopolies, price fixing, collusion and restraint of trade when enforced prior to Reagan taking office.
With the mcsame that enforcement will not happen and you will get poorer and corporations will take more, just like the past 8 years.
Under Obama there will be a return to constitutional government and a regulation of corporate practices that compromise the interests of the US and her citizens. He refers to this continually. It's an issue, and a very important one to many of us who want a return to democratic government.
A good example of the present disparity is this: in the British Virgin Islands there are over half a million virtual home offices of American corporations so they can evade taxes and make the middle class or their chinese banking comrades or their arab bankers take up the slack.
These corporations don't pay taxes but they do pay billions in lobbying to sway lawmakers to allow them more leeway.
The result is an ever more closely merged government and foreign controlled corporations. Remember when Exxon and Mobil were in competition? Not now!
Mcsame is their man. He's pushing to give them more tax 'relief' and he'll either borrow from the chinese communists or cut services like FEMA or the FDA or SBA to pay for it.
I think it's too late for most of you to figure this out.
By the way, for those of you who are paying attention it is the REPUBLICANS who are opposing offshore drilling. They did it last week.
And another thing. There is now 103 million acres on and offshore under lease and it isn't being used. What makes you think that cornering the rest of the oil would make them drill? the price is going up and that's the incentive, not some kind of welfare to the public. If gas is $20 a gallon, they certainly won't complain, nor would the government open the strategic oil reserves.
Don't think this is about drilling. It's about cornering the market and sitting on it until the prices are through the roof. If you vote for the mcsame, you'll find out.
Clif Kuplen at 3:47PM on Jul 30th 2008
84. this woman has spent THIRTEEN AND A HALF YEARS being pregnant.
i'm all for a woman's right to chose and i'm all for doing what makes you happy... but there is something almost - the word that immediately comes to mind is "disgusting" - about that to me. maybe it's because i've never really wanted to have children. it just incites visions of women as having no other purpose than being baby making machines. i'm amazed that a woman's body would even be able to do that.
that being said, if you can do it and you can do it right, good for you.
wikidbee at 4:13PM on Jul 30th 2008
85. 18 kids- is this A) a blessing or B) messed up
Kevin K. at 4:18PM on Jul 30th 2008
86. 18 kids- is this A) a blessing or B) messed up [VOTE]? http://snurl.com/36v3f
Kevin K. at 4:19PM on Jul 30th 2008
87. I cannot stress enough that it isn't just a moentary situation. Both my Father and my Husband come from a family of five. Quite simply no one in the family had the right amount of focus due to the number of children. The family focus becomes about getting everything done in the amount of time allowed and less about individual attention and nuturing. I always wanted a large family until I met my Husband. All of his siblings seem to have some issue that I can root back to the upbringing. Now I only want ONE.
Wifey at 5:40PM on Jul 30th 2008
88. 'm GLAD that I'm not the only one standing up for my faith!!!
xxxx
that's a lousy form of birth control. just sayin'...
Clif Kuplen at 6:10PM on Jul 30th 2008
89. I think the key words are "AS LONG AS YOU CAN AFFORD THEM" ...then more power to you! Now if you can't afford the children you already have... you are depending on the government to pay your way... and you continue to procreate? Then it my opinion that these people are being irresponsible and negligent. How much more of a strain can our tax dollar take?
Christina at 7:15PM on Jul 30th 2008
90. Mokele Mbembe:
It's not the figures that have a nonexistent margin for error but rather the circumstances themselves. Which are: A) A condom that breaks is a possible exposure, B) Impaired judgment as with alcohol, drugs, emotional distress and--I forgot to mention this last time--youthfulness!! C) Lack of disclosure. How many people, (male and female)in their youth slept around a little too much or got involved in drugs. Many such people 'outgrow' this tendency and are embarrassed about it now so, they keep it a secret. Now, their partner--with whom they are in a long-term committed relationship--cannot make an informed decsion with regard to what risks to take or are taking with their paramour. When you add all of these up, it is obvious that without a cure, we are doomed. Also, as far as AIDS not being such a threat because we are 'aware' of it, we are also 'aware' that drunk driving kills and how to avoid it but people still keep dying.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 7:54AM on Jul 31st 2008