Comments on: Canadian Mom Gives Birth To 18th Child

44-Year-Old Romanian Immigrant The Most Prolific Mom In British Columbia In 20 Years

[nojoy01]

Maybe we should apply such a law retroactively? After all, if it makes sense going forward then it would make sense to ''adjust'' the population to reflect the reasoning behind the new law.

[nojoy01]

involuntary vasectomy??? Who are to decide the number of the children of other couples?

Posted by Husein_Pasha at 12:58 PM : Jul 27, 2008

Wrong question, Husein_Pasha. The correct question would have been ''Why do I wish the law was already in effect & cbsfan73 already had Two older siblings?''

[husein_pasha]

involuntary vasectomy??? Who are to decide the number of the children of other couples?

[cbsfan73]

There should be tax penalties for more than two children per couple. The more children they have beyond two, the stiffer the penalties get. If the couple breeds more than four children, they would automatically participate in an involuntary vasectomy and tubal ligation.

[nojoy01]

Posted by jbright9 at 11:40 AM : Jul 27, 2008

Well, jbright9, and all others who feel as he does, Let''s just take this to it''s logical conclusion. The logic being that A) The world is overpopulated already. B) Two people are plenty for any couple/person to have. C) Something should be done to stop the dangerous, unnecessary, and irrational overpopulation of the planet Earth. Be it resolved therefore: A)That people (women) are allowed to get pregnant as many times as they wish. (after all, just the act of becoming pregnant in not an immediate danger) B) A pregnant woman is allowed to carry the fetus/child to birth (the mere fact of being pregnant is not an immediate danger) C) Upon live birth the ''Government Birth Enforcement Agency'' steps in to determine if there are Two older children born to the same woman who are still alive. (if you are allowing 2 children per woman then it seems reasonable to allow ''replacement'' births for dead siblings) Upon determination that the mother already has Two living children the baby is euthanized on the spot. (killed)
No birth control, no abortions, and zero population growth.

[husein_pasha]

the contraceptives are sold i the pharmacies

[husein_pasha]

while the abortions are illegal in my country

[husein_pasha]

But of course the birth control is wide-spread here, too

[nojoy01]

Husein_Pasha. Thank you for the information.

[husein_pasha]

The birth control is haram (banned)

[jbright9]

There should be a limit of how many children people have as the earth is in jeopardy because of the large human population - all wanting to live with proper shelter, food, water etc. It is totally irresponsible for anyone to have a large family today. Two children are plenty. You cannot tell me that God wanted us to be fruitful and multiply until there was no room for any of his other creatures to survive.

I really resent the press glamorizing this irresponsible, ignorant couple.

[nojoy01]

Please pardon my lack of knowledge on the subject but does anyone know what the Quran, or Koran, or Alcoran or AlQuran (all names for the same book, as I understand it, just depending on when/where it was transliterated) has to say on the subject of fertility, birth control, and abortion? Thank You.

[linfinster]

I wonder if they are self supporting ....

[family2007-2009]

If a couple decides to have a large family, knowing they do not have the means to support all of the children in the way they need to be supported -- and especially if the children were born out of wedlock, I would have negative comment. I agree that such would be irresponsible.

But I strongly disagree with the proposition that any family that is larger than [x], where [x] is some arbitrary number, is per se wrong. Organizations like ZPG tend to view a family''s offspring is nothing more than an unnecessary consumption of resources, and the number of plastic diapers that go into the landfill. The reality is that a child has an inherent worth that far exceeds any level of consumption that could be imputed to him or her.

[keithle1]

The Catholic Church doesn''t want people to use birth control. That makes zero sense. Find me a doctor anywhere in the world who would say that birth control is bad.

It really is criminal when you think about the nonsense that the Catholic Church feeds to their poor parishioners.

"Don''t use birth control of any kind. It''s a sin. If your wife gets pregnant, that''s God''s will & she MUST have the baby. No abortion! How you afford to take care of multiple babies is your business. That''s your problem. Don''t come crying to us. Bless you, my son.
Go forth & multiply. Make us proud."

[keithle1]

Give her uterus a break. I bet she''s a very, very intelligent woman. Three Phd''s.

"It''s God''s will. When God tells me to use a condom or my wife to tie her tubes then she will. Until then we''ll carry on. It doesn''t cost any more to raise 18 kids than it does to raise two. God will provide. He always has. Money will float down magically from the sky. I''m so proud of my wife. It takes a lot of skill to have 18 kids. Not everyone can do it."

[barbaraf4]

"So, for those that are proposing that there should be a limit on how many children a woman should have -- how many children should that number be? Who do you think should determine that?" Posted by boffo1962
~~~~~~~~~
It has been a lot of years, but if I remember correctly, the Catholic Church''s position is that a healthy woman, in her lifetime, can have 19 children.

This nonsense dates back to when the Priests would go out and convert the unwashed masses. Since it is a rule that if you are born to a Catholic parent (either or both), then you are automatically Catholic - and so on through the generations, the way the third world was populated by Catholics was the rule about no birth control. Lots of Catholics having lots more Catholics.

[nojoy01]

''So, for those that are proposing that there should be a limit on how many children a woman should have -- how many children should that number be? Who do you think should determine that?''

Posted by boffo1962 at 10:36 AM : Jul 27, 2008

My suggestion, boffo1962, is to let them establish a committee, tell the committee members that whatever recommendation they make will be enacted into law. We will include one each of every race, every religion, and every socio-economic class, close the door, and let them start deliberation. I betcha we never hear from them again. :))

[nojoy01]

''I have seen this many times. A woman who reaches maturity with no personal goals, meets a man who thinks the measure of his sperm is the measure of his self-worth. They get married and start having kids. Soon the woman is addicted to the attention she gets while pregnant and the attention she gets for being the mother of such a hugn brood. Soon the older kids are raising the younger kids and mom and dad are free to perpetuate their hobby.

This is a textbook dysfunctional family. Everyone is being affected by mom''''s addiction just as surely as if she were an alcoholic.''

Posted by barbaraf4 at 09:24 AM : Jul 27, 2008

And you as a modern, ''liberated'', woman are automatically ruling out that this couple just may be good practicing Catholics who love, cherish, and adore each & everyone of their children. I''m not saying that this couple is catholic or even that you''re wrong. what I am saying is that you''re practicing armchair psychological horse manure with no contact & no insight into this family''s dynamics. Now, if you had said that it was a possibility or even a probability that such was the case, I wouldn''t have any reason/complaint to comment. But don''t sit there on your self constructed throne of moral superiorty & claim to know the answer w/o any information other than the number of children they have.

[boffo1962]

I can''t imagine the toll a pregnancy at 44 is on the body-- let alone that this is her 18th!

Well, at least this woman is married and has someone to help-- what I have a problem with is single women allowing themselves to be pregnated over and over and over and then expect the government to subsidize their situation. THAT''s irresponsible!

So, for those that are proposing that there should be a limit on how many children a woman should have -- how many children should that number be? Who do you think should determine that?