Too many children?
What's your opinion on the mothers who have 8+ kids? Should they be able to have that many?
If you answered yes, how about if they can't support them, and need a TV channel to sponsor them to bring in the cash. How about then?
I'm asking this because it seems to be getting more and more common(still uncommon).
So, should they be able to have that many kids?
Here's an on topic article: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2...n-is-too-many/
How Many Children is Too Many?</H2>
By Lisa BelkinNadya Suleman has told her side of her story to Ann Curry, and I don’t feel the outrage I’d expected to feel. With her doctors, yes, but not with Suleman. For her I just feel sad. What I saw on the Today Show this morning was a woman with Angelina Jolie’s lips, and, one might extrapolate, her dream of a sprawling family. Her reason, Suleman told Curry, was she’d felt lonely and unloved as a child, and wanted to fill that void.
As she tells the story, six embryos were transferred with each of her previous pregnancies. Four of those transfers resulted in a single baby. One resulted in twins. This final time though, the six embryos led to eight newborns, meaning she was never trying to have 14 children, she was trying to have seven, with a slight risk of eight, but knew going in that she would not selectively reduce should there be more.
So let’s just talk about the seven or eight anticipated children. Eight children? When you have no income and just one pair of hands? When your goal in the first place was to give your kids the time and attention you didn’t get as a child? How do you give enough time and attention to eight — never mind 14?
The question at the core of all this is how many is too many? It was a question explored by Kate Zernike yesterday in the Style section, in an article about the stigma parents of large families feel — the stares from strangers, the assumptions that they are some sort of “religious freaks.” A few of the families in the story had as many as a dozen kids, but most were feeling judged with five or six.
So, public opinion, as judged from the talk shows and the blogosphere, says 14 is too many. And it feels like Nadya Suleman’s quest for her seventh was also too many. But five? How about four? Is there such a difference between four and five? Or five and six? Or the jump to seven? What’s one more, really? Then why do we feel so strongly?
The “line” when you start examining it, is arbitrary. In China, where the law limits most families to one, a poll shows that 70 percent of women want two or more. (The fact that Chinese authorities released that poll earlier this year is seen as a hint that the law might change. Perhaps that has something to do with stories like this.)
The “right” number seems to lie somewhere between China and Nadya Suleman. And each of us believes we know it when we reach it (and we know that it’s been crossed by someone else.) But on what do we base that belief? The ability to pay for the children? The limits on the attention they will receive? Is Suleman right when she tells Curry that people are judging her not because of the size of her brood but because she chose to have them as a single Mom? How many is too many, and who gets to decide?
Reply With Quote
?! Proof that every woman should be hit once by a man.
Originally Posted by Carl Jung was right
