Re: OT: 16 Children
- From: RaeMorrill <RaeMorrill@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:06:04 GMT
Yeah, you can't have more than a given # of horses per acre in some towns, but they don't limit kids on same basis. Well, I do recall hearing that first child abuse cases prosecuted had to be under animal welfare laws because there were none to protect children. How sad is that?
Barbara Carlson wrote:
I say those families with the acreage are preserving our open space--more power to them. I personally see overpopulation as probably the single most serious problem on this earth. Overpopulation I believe is responsible for many of the ills of our society, including wars and famine.
Barb C.
"Phyllis Nilsson" <phyllisnilsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:434F2A85.2020208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Would you feel the same about these people having too many children if the issue was one family having too much property when the cities are full of children living in cramped, uncomfortable housing when some families have acres and acres of land that these children would enjoy living on? What if the issue were families with lots of acreage being seen as selfish because "they don't need all that room"?
RaeMorrill wrote:
I personally believe that God doesn't generally (maybe occassionally) intervene in the natural sequence of biology set into being at the beginning of the world. Have sex, egg and sperm meet, conceive. It isn't God's will or not - it's biology. And God gave us brains to control our libidos, appetites, etc. Not to do so is just poor stewardship overall
Phyllis Nilsson wrote:
I believe they said "if" God chose to bless them with more they would welcome them.
RaeMorrill wrote:
Is this a case where they think God wants them to have as many as they can conceive? That's what makes me saddest. My MIL didn't believe in birth control apparently, or at least not in a tubal (religious but not Catholic). After #7, I guess she rethought it. It just sickens me to think of the poor women in times past were told they had no choice by their priest, even when he could see it was killing them.
Anne Vasquez wrote:
I have to agree with the over the top thing, even though it's not my choice to make. I can't imagine the physical effects of 16 pregnancies (or 14 or whatever it was with the twins), and it seems it would be just that much more important for both parents to have a reasonable expectation of living long enough to raise their kids when there are that many to consider!
Anne
Blupencl wrote:
She is a sweet woman, Cindy (even though you weren't talking to me).
What bugs me about it is her dern husband talking about all this "we"
stuff when he is not the one who has to carry them and ruin his body
with them.
She seems happy enough but I think they've gone over the top with this
thing. Only my opinion. And I know you have 6 kids and I think that is
FINE, by the way. Nobody's talking about you here, at all.
.
- References:
- Re: OT: 16 Children
- From: LizzieB.
- Re: OT: 16 Children
- From: Sandi
- Re: OT: 16 Children
- From: LizzieB.
- Re: OT: 16 Children
- From: Phyllis Nilsson
- Re: OT: 16 Children
- From: Sandi
- Re: OT: 16 Children
- From: CindyB
- Re: OT: 16 Children
- From: Blupencl
- Re: OT: 16 Children
- From: Anne Vasquez
- Re: OT: 16 Children
- From: RaeMorrill
- Re: OT: 16 Children
- From: Phyllis Nilsson
- Re: OT: 16 Children
- From: RaeMorrill
- Re: OT: 16 Children
- From: Phyllis Nilsson
- Re: OT: 16 Children
- From: Barbara Carlson
- Re: OT: 16 Children
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: 16 Children
- Next by Date: Any Excel experts?
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: 16 Children
- Next by thread: Re: OT: 16 Children
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|