Children: What's the deal with them?

[Crimson King]

So, starting a new topic here, but who wants kids, doesn't want kids, etc. I want an open discussion here as opposed to a formal debate. (this relates to natural birth)

My primary ammunition against naturally birth is the number of orphaned children. Why have 19 kids (like the Duggar *******s who are my primary target) when you could adopt 10 orphaned children who crave love and attention?

Well, opinions?

 

[pockyD]

There's something different when it's your own flesh and blood

 

[GoldShadow]

I may not have any myself, but I'm going to go with what pockyD said.

 

[Crimson King]

There's something different when it's your own flesh and blood

Perhaps, but it's still a stupid reason to have children.

Just because a child is not your own flesh and blood does not mean they need less love. Adoption is a great alternative since every child adds a burden to the world around us. By simply curbing our procreation rate, we would reduce a huge burden. I want my standard of life to increase, not decrease.

 

[Dodongo]

Perhaps, but it's still a stupid reason to have 19 children.

fixed it for you

I understand why people want to pass on their genetic material, but it's even better when you can give those kids meaningful lives. It's hard to develop a good sense of individuality if you have a ton of siblings and your parents don't have time to get to know you.

 

[Crimson King]

Or want to. The Duggars assign older siblings a younger "buddy." They help them with things like cleaning, dressing, etc. You know, what parents usually do.

If the Duggars hit 24 kids, you realize each child will only have a max of an hour a day attention from each parent.

 

[Overload]

The Duggar family makes me sick. It doesn't seem like they plan to stop either. Currently, I don't really plan to have any children later in life, but who knows what could happen. I could see myself with an adopted child. Sure, it's not quite the same thing, but I wouldn't put any less effort into it.

Pretty soon the Duggar family is going to run out of names for their kids and just start calling them by what number they are.

"39! Put that cookie down! You haven't eaten your dinner yet!"

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I'm not really sure if I want kids. I'm only 14 so it's not on my list of priorities to think about right now.

The Duggar family is ridiculous. They're pumping out kids for attention, and I personally think it's sick.

I agree wholeheartedly with Dodongo, he brings up a great point. You're supposed to have a bond with your kids, and I don't see how that's possible when you have 19 of them. Jeez, I wouldn't be surprised if they forgot some of their kids' names occasionally.

 

[Deleted member]

Perhaps, but it's still a stupid reason to have children.

Just because a child is not your own flesh and blood does not mean they need less love.

We're quantifying love now? Anyway. Your argument is silly. People want to see their own children. It's a natural instinct to pass on your own genetic material, and having a child that shares that DNA with you has an immediate bond.

Adoption is a great alternative since every child adds a burden to the world around us. By simply curbing our procreation rate, we would reduce a huge burden. I want my standard of life to increase, not decrease.

Yeah, I get it. Adoption is great. But it doesn't work for me if I want my own kids.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

So you only classify your "own kid" as someone who shares your DNA?

In my opinion that's a stupid argument. I would much rather better the life of another child who could potentially grow up in a bad situation through adoption than have my own kid solely because I want to pass on my genetic material. That's just selfish.

 

[Crimson King]

We're quantifying love now? Anyway. Your argument is silly. People want to see their own children. It's a natural instinct to pass on your own genetic material, and having a child that shares that DNA with you has an immediate bond.



Yeah, I get it. Adoption is great. But it doesn't work for me if I want my own kids.

Keep that argument in mind should you or your wife end up sterile.

This argument that natural instinct is to pass on genetic material is pretty bunk because a lot of people do not want natural children. I do not. I am not going against any instincts, but I simply have no desire to have any children naturally.

Also, look up many infanticide cases as well as post-partum depression cases to disprove your assertion that "having a child that shares that DNA with you has an immediate bond."

 

[pockyD]

it may be selfish, but it's also how we've evolved as a species

i have no comment on the 20 children family or whatever though, as I obviously have no idea how that dynamic plays out

edit: and the vast majority of us here aren't female... but I can easily understand how having the living being grow within you for 9 months can provide a different form of natural attachment than picking a child out based on their photo and some strangely rigid interviews

 

[GoldShadow]

This argument that natural instinct is to pass on genetic material is pretty bunk because a lot of people do not want natural children. I do not. I am not going against any instincts, but I simply have no desire to have any children naturally.

Also, look up many infanticide cases as well as post-partum depression cases to disprove your assertion that "having a child that shares that DNA with you has an immediate bond."

CK, a few cases of people that don't want children or a few people that have killed their children does not disprove the well-known ideas that it is biological instinct to care for and love one's own children, and the idea (which I can't attest to personally but millions of others will) that having one's own children is different from adopted children.

If anything, you've mentioned the exceptions that prove the rule.

It makes sense from a biological perspective as well. The reason there are people that might not want to children, or people that adopt children, is that humans have evolved the capacity to think and make decisions based on things other than instinct alone. But this does not change the general evolutionary, psychological, or emotional responses that people exhibit. Yes, some people will choose not to have children or will choose to adopt; but the general biological human trend is for people to care for their own children.

Adoption isn't the same as having your own child.

 

[KrazyGlue]

It depends on the person's preferences. Let's just leave it at that. If you want to adopt a child or think you have a social responsibility to, go ahead. If you want to have your own kids, go ahead. Either way, it's up to each individual couple to decide what to do.

As for the family with ~20 kids, they obviously don't think too much before they act. And I do find that immoral.

 

[Mic_128]

Just because a child is not your own flesh and blood does not mean they need less love. Adoption is a great alternative since every child adds a burden to the world around us. By simply curbing our procreation rate, we would reduce a huge burden. I want my standard of life to increase, not decrease.

One could use that exact argument for people who let their cats/dogs breed for no real reason. If you want to have puppies/kittens, go adopt them from the RSPCA.

Personally I do want to eventually have kids, but I don't simply want "a child", I want the whole experience. I want the surprise of finding my wife pregnant. I want to be there laughing and helping deal with the random cravings through the pregnancy. I want to be able to put my head to my wife's stomach and hear the kid move around, feel it kick. I want to be there at the birth (whatever that entails) and hopefully remain conscious during it.

I want more than just "a child."

 

[Deleted member]

The argument is selfish, but in the case of having children, I'm afraid you're fully allowed to be selfish.

Frankly, kids that are not mine are not my problem. I don't feel it's my responsibility to do anything other than pay taxes, which funds their education, health care, and other social systems. If I want to adopt, I'll do that. If I want my own progeny, I'll have them. This argument is ridiculous.

I'd also like to say that anyone who criticizes the Duggar family for having too many kids needs to back off. They're free to have as many as they like, and clearly they love having kids. Who are you to say they can't? Eugenics comes to mind...

 

[Crimson King]

I'd also like to say that anyone who criticizes the Duggar family for having too many kids needs to back off. They're free to have as many as they like, and clearly they love having kids. Who are you to say they can't? Eugenics comes to mind...

No, they don't love their kids - they love their religion. Quiverfull members believe that every child is a gift from god, and birth control is evil. The Duggars barely even raise their kids anymore. They assign older siblings to younger siblings as "buddies" who they help dress, clean-up, and feed... you know, the job of PARENTS. With 19 children, in a normal 12-hour day, each child will only be able to see each parent 37 minutes a day. That's not a family.

Also, in response to selfishness, it's the same reason I don't want to have kids: I think kids are leeches, and I am much happier without them. I just think families that CAN provide and want a large number of children should adopt over having a litter of kids.

 

[Deleted member]

No, they don't love their kids - they love their religion.

How ****ing dare you, dude? Is this serious or is this a joke?

Quiverfull members believe that every child is a gift from god, and birth control is evil. The Duggars barely even raise their kids anymore. They assign older siblings to younger siblings as "buddies" who they help dress, clean-up, and feed... you know, the job of PARENTS. With 19 children, in a normal 12-hour day, each child will only be able to see each parent 37 minutes a day. That's not a family.

They only get 37 minutes a day with the moronic assumption that every kid gets 1 on 1 time equally. That doesn't even happen every day with a family of 5. I don't know the Duggar's life, but they're a family, and if they're all spending time together, then they're getting more than 37 minutes a day of parental guidance and love.

Assigning jobs to siblings is common in TINY families. I've had to babysit my sister on countless occasions. I've had to babysit OTHER families on many other countless occasions. That's just helping out - contributing to the team. They love each other, they love God, that's why they pull together to help out. I don't see anything wrong with that, especially in a free country with no limit to how many kids you can have.

Also, in response to selfishness, it's the same reason I don't want to have kids: I think kids are leeches, and I am much happier without them. I just think families that CAN provide and want a large number of children should adopt over having a litter of kids.

I think you're just being preachy. Adopt if you want to, not because you should have to. That is ridiculous.

 

[GoldShadow]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on the Duggars, Delorted.

The welfare and best interests of the children must also be considered when having children. You should not be having children just because you "can" or "want to". Another aspect is being able to properly care for the children and giving them a reasonable home life.

I find it hard to believe this is possible with 19 children. Can you imagine growing up in that household?

 

[Aesir]

Accordingly they live debt free. But I think any average family that has that many kids will live off assistance from the state and that's where I draw the line. Plus the children's well being is a factor too.

Over all the family is pretty odd, it's a very strict puritan family.

 

[Mic_128]

Accordingly they live debt free.

I would imagine they get a fair bit form various magazines/news articles

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Assigning jobs to siblings is common in TINY families. I've had to babysit my sister on countless occasions. I've had to babysit OTHER families on many other countless occasions. That's just helping out - contributing to the team. They love each other, they love God, that's why they pull together to help out.

Babysitting your younger siblings is completely different than being their mini-parent, like with the Duggars.

Helping out once in a while and doing the job that a parent does on a daily basis are completely different things.

I don't see anything wrong with that, especially in a free country with no limit to how many kids you can have.

You're saying that you don't see anything wrong with having 19 children? Think about that for a minute. Put yourself in the shoes of one of the children. How would you feel with 18 siblings? How would you ever get to see your parents? How would they know what you're interested in? How would you ever get to do what you wanted to do?

You're supposed to have a real relationship with your children.

 

[Deleted member]

I imagine being in that family would be pretty exciting, actually. These people are doing extremely well for themselves. They've got their own TV show and have been published. These kids are not living under poor conditions. Yes, that's an assumption, but a rather safe one.

 

[GoldShadow]

There's more to a good family environment than just "not being poor".

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I imagine being in that family would be pretty exciting, actually. These people are doing extremely well for themselves. They've got their own TV show and have been published. These kids are not living under poor conditions. Yes, that's an assumption, but a rather safe one.

I agree with GoldShadow. Sure, you can have money but that wasn't my point at all. I wasn't talking about their financial well-being at all.

 

[Deleted member]

When have I ever mentioned money specifically?

Regardless, we don't live in that family.

Here's what we do know:

1. The mother won "Young Mother of the Year" in 2004

and 2: The parents have not been arrested for child abuse, neglect, or any other charge related to a lack of parenting.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

When you say that someone isn't living under poor conditions, it's assumed that you're referring to them being well-enough off to afford good living conditions, which would require a good amount of money.

Anyway.

OK, that award is pretty impressive, I'll admit.

But the fact that they haven't been arrested for neglect just means that their kids aren't maltreated. The thing is, the "buddies" are probably the ones making sure that the kids are taken care for adequately.

The thing is, nothing they're doing is illegal, I don't think anyone in this discussion was implying that. I posted this above:

You're saying that you don't see anything wrong with having 19 children? Think about that for a minute. Put yourself in the shoes of one of the children. How would you feel with 18 siblings? How would you ever get to see your parents? How would your parents know what you're interested in?

You're supposed to have a real relationship with your children.

I can only speak for myself, but this is what I think everyone was trying to say, not that they illegally neglect their children.

 

[Crimson King]

When have I ever mentioned money specifically?

Regardless, we don't live in that family.

Here's what we do know:

1. The mother won "Young Mother of the Year" in 2004

and 2: The parents have not been arrested for child abuse, neglect, or any other charge related to a lack of parenting.

Oh wow, she won some bull**** award that most mothers don't even get nominated for? I could probably list 10 women I know, who are single, working, and going to college AND providing for their kids who deserve it more than she does.

 

[Deleted member]

Oh wow, she won some bull**** award that most mothers don't even get nominated for? I could probably list 10 women I know, who are single, working, and going to college AND providing for their kids who deserve it more than she does.

Congrat-u-****ing-lations. So far in this thread you've only proved your pathetic bitterness and bias against a benign religious practice.

 

[AltF4]

bias against a benign religious practice.

Forgive me if I misinterpreted this, but are you calling the vilification of condoms benign?

 

[Overload]

I do remember an interview where they stated that because of their religious beliefs, they don't use any measures to prevent pregnancy. They view each child as a "gift from god" and that they were meant to be born.

My problem with them is they don't appear to have intentions of stopping. When it gets to the point where the parents can't take care of all the kids on their own, it's time to stop.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Overload, I'm pretty sure they've reached that point already.

I'm not saying the kids aren't being cared for, but it isn't really the parents doing the caring. And the fact that they're going to keep going is ridiculous.

 

[Deleted member]

Overload, I'm pretty sure they've reached that point already.

I'm not saying the kids aren't being cared for, but it isn't really the parents doing the caring. And the fact that they're going to keep going is ridiculous.

Okay, please enlighten me. What are you basing this off of? The amount of kids they have? You are only speculating. No good.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Okay, please enlighten me. What are you basing this off of? The amount of kids they have? You are only speculating. No good.

Speculating?

The Duggars barely even raise their kids anymore. They assign older siblings to younger siblings as "buddies" who they help dress, clean-up, and feed... you know, the job of PARENTS.

Reading helps.

 

[Crimson King]

Forgive me if I misinterpreted this, but are you calling the vilification of condoms benign?

Del, you never commented on this.

On the buddy system:

M. DUGGAR: You assign everybody chores, right, Michelle and Jim Bob? And I know that you've assigned, like, buddies; you've got a buddy system going. Tell me about that. That seems pretty smart.

M. DUGGAR: Yes, it is great, the buddy system. This house would not work if we didn't have the buddy system. The older children mentor the younger ones. They help them with their little phonics lessons and games during the day, help them practice their music lessons. They will play with them or help them pick out the color of their outfit that they want to wear that day, and just all of those types of things.

S. O'BRIEN: It seems to be running very smoothly. We should mention that we are looking at this videotape from the Discovery Health Channel that is doing a story on you. Right, you are in a pretty small house. You only have two bathrooms.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/14/ltm.02.html

 

[KrazyGlue]

Moreover, from reading that transcript, it seemed that the parents were rather impersonal with their children. When young children were out of line, an older buddy dealt with them. When they spoke about family relations, they spoke of relationships between buddies. It appeared they were more like overseers than parents. They seemed to be more concerned with "running the system" then getting to know their children.