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 7 of 9)
91. Better her than me.
Diana B. at 10:46AM on Jul 31st 2008
92. back to the topic. I myself have had seven children (lost one). Though i love dearly the six i have, i can speak of the possiblity of "biting off more than you can chew". Clearly one can produce more children than one can effectively parent and i believe that that happens many times and the number of childrendoes not have to be i n the double digits for this ti be so. If you dont have the financial means, social support and spiritual strength it will be anything but a 'blessing' to anyone.
teopa at 4:07PM on Aug 5th 2008
93. "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."
The problem with that is there's not a surefire way of knowing when those days are, and it's possible for a woman to ovulate at any time during her cycle. My 10th grade health teacher made us all stand up and say in unison "There are NO 'safe' days" during which you for sure can't get pregnant.
Melissa at 5:57AM on Aug 1st 2008
94. Melissa,
My friend teaches Natural Family Planning. There are certain symptoms that only occur when you ovulate. Something happens to the mucus and she teaches the couple how to recognize the changes. It is pretty effective. None of my married friends use contraception. They all practice NFP. During periods of abstinence they cuddle, kiss, take walks, have romantic dinners, etc. They tell me that when they do have sex; it is even more wonderful.
PS. You are right that whenever you have sex a pregnancy could result. This is why being open to life is crucial.
janesophie1 at 10:26AM on Aug 1st 2008
95. Winston,
You've been corrected, yet in your recidivism continue to present a complete distortion of the definition. It's not the same as totalitarianism either. Whoever gave you this tale placed more priority in political propaganda than intellectual honesty.
Mokele Mbembe at 11:59AM on Aug 1st 2008
96. Ada these births would be miraculous if they were all virgin conceptions, but no miracle is involved.
JefFlyingV at 4:04PM on Aug 1st 2008
97. Jane; I wish you could see that the opposition to birth control by the catholic church is just their support of the antiquated patriarchal view that women should not be the ones in control of the reproductive process.
Birth control gives power to women.
Ryan Anderson at 6:04PM on Aug 1st 2008
98. Mokele Mbembe,
In order to be adequately corrected, the rebuttal would have to be correct, which is an assumption on your part based on the fact that you are the one who made the supposed "correction."
I can understand that you would think your perspective is the right one, as do I regarding mine, but you should know that by now & not feel the need to make such an arrogant claim that your correction must be the right one by my understanding as well as yours.
If you get a hold of any dictionary dating back at least 20 years, you will find the definition of "Socialism" as being the one I claim. “The transition from one form of government, especially Capitalism, to Communism.” The reason this is so relevant is that these editions predate the newer, or re-written definitions which have since crept into our text books in order to sanitize the Socialist agenda & make it not seem to the average American, you included, that what is taking place in this nation is actually taking place. That, of course, from my perspective, is the Socialization of America with the ultimate goal as being Communism.
There is a reason why the German Nationalist Socialists (Nazis), Soviet Socialists, Communist Chinese, European Socialists & American Liberals believe(d) in gun control, Abortion, Euthanasia, opposition to religion & the like. They have more in common with each other than any of them do with American Conservatism.
Your definition of "Socialism" might be found in today’s liberal text books rather than the original ones, but that is only because we are well on our way, & even many so-called Conservatives have un-wittingly adopted Socialistic viewpoints.
Either your viewpoint is the "tale," or mine is, & I am sure neither of us will expect anything less from each other. Obviously, one of us is misinformed.
Winston
Winston at 9:23PM on Aug 1st 2008
99.
Winston wouldn't christianity be deemed sosialistic in its nature? In turn would christianity lead to communism?
JefFlyingV at 8:04AM on Aug 2nd 2008
100. I guess Winston's never read Acts.
Ryan Anderson at 8:18AM on Aug 2nd 2008
101. Jet, here is the difference.
And Ryan, you are real wit. Actually, I have probably read Acts more than you, along with the rest of the Bible.
There is a difference between voluntary communal living according to the book of Acts & imposed Socialism &/or Communism in which you don't have a choice. Especially when the government can arrest & incarcerate those who don’t comply while confiscating their property by force, & in the case of full-fledged Communism, can & do execute those who don’t comply.
There is also a difference between constraint & choice, & what one does with their property should be according to choice, unless it involves murder or the violation of similar laws.
Oddly, according to statistics, Conservatives are more inclined to oppose government imposed confiscation of private property, which includes taxation without representation over & above Constitutional allowances, but also more inclined to give voluntarily to charitable causes, than their Liberal counterparts. According to these statistics, Conservatives also out-give Liberals 2 to 1, & are less likely to evade taxes, even though they are also less likely to agree with the parameters of the tax burden than their Liberal counterparts.
Winston
Winston at 1:20PM on Aug 2nd 2008
102.
Winston, yet with you trumpeting your knowledge of the bible, you live in a secular society where the church can not force its will on the American
community. Would this still be the case if the church controlled the government and implemented a theocratic state?
JefFlyingV at 1:52PM on Aug 2nd 2008
103.
Winston in your eyes being conserative is synonymous with being religious? Are you taking a leap of faith that giving to ones own church is being charitable and not buying ones way to heaven?
JefFlyingV at 2:01PM on Aug 2nd 2008
104. Winston; in Acts there appears to be evidence that one would be executed for not turning over all of their property to the church. Voluntary indeed.
Ryan Anderson at 3:21PM on Aug 2nd 2008
105. here is a reason why the German Nationalist Socialists (Nazis),
xxx
Winston, fascism, which the national socialist party actually was and socialism are mutually exclusive. Mussolini, the co-creator of Fascism explains why, and his definition fits Hitler, not Marxism.
He states that he created the concept of fascism to preserve social classes. He said by doing that he could avoid the endless class struggle that existed under socialism in his day.
If you didn't get your talking points from corporatists or if you'd had some history in the first place, you wouldn't be so easily bamboozled.
Think about this: if you buy all that, someone else will wind up with your money.
If you want to call socialism a transition to communism, you'd have to point to a socialist country that went on to communism and of course you can't. No socialist states ever 'withered away'. They just got bigger and bigger.
In fact, communism is a purely utopian small government philosophy that only works in cultures that are so small everyone knows everyone else by name. It works fine on Pitcairn's Island, I understand, and I've seen it works among the Bunlap of South Pentecost Island, but these are small societies that regulate their numbers and have good natural resources available.
The other utopian 'small government' philosophy is not social but economic - libertarianism, which is unregulated capitalism, and capitalism is private ownership and distribution of wealth by ability to bargain or fortune to inherit.
Under severely underregulated capitalism in this country as it's been since 1980, as could be predicted, corporations merge to the size that they effectively govern by controlling election and agenda of both political parties.
We have that now and have had it for some time.
This private corporate control of government is one of the components of classic Fascism and it has arisen here in the US since 1980 from infiltration of government by corporatists and other oligarchists and elitists who have literally taken steps to sabotage Federal agencies like FEMA and the FDA.
Meanwhile, to complete the Mussolini doctrine, civil rights are abridged, eminent domain is privatized and the media is controlled by monopolistic hence corporate interests.
Add a merger of church and state, torture and the doctrine of expansionism and preemptive strike, and you can start picking the shirt color for your private mercenary armies.
It helps to have a group your party can persecute and it also helps to denounce non party members as traitors and play your citizens off one another by ethnic or religious differences.
In the black-white worlds of the likes of this Winston (smith?)poster, there exist only fascism (naziism) and socialism (marxism or communism)
This is of course absurd and has nothing whatsoever do do with the past seventy years of the day to day reality of living under American government. Rather it is boilerplate revisionism. That it is boilerplate is evidenced by the identical talking points using the same cliches, and even hurling the same dimwitticisms and laying the same 'traps' of illogic based presumably on projection, all as a collective effort to distract from any salient point of argument.
No, between the right wing despotism of corporatist government under a dictator or imperial president and the seizure of private industry by the government under a dictator or imperialist president lies the option of constitutional government.
Barack Obama will restore it. Expect regulation of lending and banking, probably enforcement of long dormant anti trust and collusion legislation and a crackdown on the oil speculation that's been causing the gas price hike. Obama has also mentioned a windfall profits tax and rebate to gas users with the revenue.
If you want more corporate government, you're going to get it in spades unless you vote for Obama.
Clif Kuplen at 9:08PM on Aug 2nd 2008