Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have an acquaintance who's wife is child #13 - yes, 12 boys before her and yes, they were trying for a girl.
I think that's sad. If you want to have 12 children, then have 12 children, but don't do it because you are hoping for a boy, girl, redhead, tall kid, artist, twins, etc.
You assume that they are buying school supplies and are going to pay for college....
I'm trying to figure out how she is keeping the babies from falling out at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by germaine2626
My very first thought was how in the world could they possibly afford 12 children?
Even something as simple as keeping everyone in shoes that fit and buying school supplies. And, I shudder to think about college (or other post high school education) expenses.
Yikes!
OTOH At least they aren't paying for a dozen weddings.
I don't understand the desire to have a family of this size at all, but that's their right. However, to me, when someone does anything to an extreme degree, I tend to wonder what void they're trying to fill. And probably because I'm an only child, I kind of tend to feel that once you hit a certain number of kids, it starts being more about the parents than it is about the kids, if that makes any sense at all. But like I said, this is a foreign concept to me for the most part, so I'm not making any assumptions.
I have said this before, I don't know why we have laws that limit the amount of dogs and cats people can own, but no limit on the amount of children people can have.
Does anyone think that there is a disconnect with this?
I have said this before, I don't know why we have laws that limit the amount of dogs and cats people can own, but no limit on the amount of children people can have.
Does anyone think that there is a disconnect with this?
You do realize that the cruelty to animal laws preceded the abuse of children laws by quite a good amount of time and that the first parents (adoptive as rather than biological parents) who were charged with child abuse were charged under animal abuse laws, right?
“Mamma has been in the habit of whipping and beating me almost every day,” the little girl testified. “She used to whip me with a twisted whip — a rawhide.
Enlarge This Image
“I have now on my head two black-and-blue marks which were made by Mamma with the whip, and a cut on the left side of my forehead which was made by a pair of scissors in Mamma’s hand; she struck me with the scissors and cut me. ... I never dared speak to anybody, because if I did I would get whipped.”
Quote:
Tellingly, the case was brought by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In 1874, there were no laws protecting children from physical abuse from their parents. It was an era of “spare the rod and spoil the child,” and parents routinely meted out painful and damaging punishment without comment or penalty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
