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 9 of 9)
121.
Winston, one last question.
What was the cause of the Articles of Confederation being scrapped?
JefFlyingV at 4:15AM on Aug 6th 2008
122. Winston - you have way too much time on your hands.
Reena at 12:28PM on Aug 6th 2008
123. Reena,
I don't think that it is your concern with how much time I have on my hands which bothers you as much as probably what I have to say.
I'll bet you have spent a substantial amount of time doing things much less valuable & maybe far more detrimental than sharing with other American citizens the intent of our civil government with the hope of dispensing valuable information that perhaps others are not aware of.
Why did you not make that same observation with the others that I am conversing with?
Do you routinely walk through a bar where people are getting blitzed or picking up on potential one night flings telling people the same thing? What, in your mind, is worth while, & what is not?
Just to let you know, it was Jefferson himself, along with Daniel Webster, who stated that the definition of an idiot is some one who does not take an interest in civics & does not think it a worthwhile topic, whether or not it is communicating it to others, or educating ones self & others concerning it.
That is, in part, the reason why so many are unaware of an accurate accounting of American history & the original purpose of our Union, it’s Constitution, & the intent of it’s Founders.
Winston at 12:40AM on Aug 7th 2008
124. Jet,
The Articles of Confederation favored states rights over any occasion for Federal authority, including law, taxation & representation due to state size & populous. This was a problematic form of government because, if it had been allowed, one state could conclude blacks or fetuses as living human beings, & another could conclude that blacks were animals & fetuses were a glob of tissue, among other things.
Unfortunately, ever under the later adopted Constitution, which implemented a more balanced perspective in finding that there are instances where things need to be uniform on a Federal level, it is not bullet-proof. While provisions were made for taxation to support a standing military & common institutions among other things, with the emergence of activist judiciaries, Dred / Scott found blacks to be nothing more than animals in order to justify slavery on a Federal level, & Roe / Wade stipulated a fetus (which literally means "little one/person" in the Greek) was nothing more than a glob of tissue, justifying abortion on a Federal level. These were instances where the Founders were entirely correct when they said the Constitution was not intended for a corrupt & vile people, but for a religious & virtuous people.
In other words, the Constitution would, in these instances, preserve the rights of all blacks in the Union as opposed to just those within certain states, under ideal circumstances of a non activist judiciary. The same is true with unborn babies. Or, the opposite could, & did happen in both cases under less ideal circumstances with activist judiciaries.
The Federal approach was also intended to guarantee that there were some indispensible institutions which had to be funded in order to insure our nations safety & success in accomplishing it's goals of liberty & equality, through taxation on a Federal level as opposed to a state level to fund a well armed military, education system, common institutions, etc.
Yes, Jefferson was not a deist & was a more committed Christian, along with all the rest of the Founders, than what we think of as being Christians by today’s standards.
Winston at 12:44AM on Aug 7th 2008