16 kids and counting...

[thatisall]

I genuinely don't know what I think, have no strong opinions about their lifestyle, life choices etc etc.....my first thoughts were that it was just too many but they seem very nice and happy lol

Am I being unreasonable to want to chat about the show on here anyway?

No I'm not a jour no trying to get a MN quote before someone suggests it....

....just sat at home alone thinking 16....? 16!? :-O

For those of you that are commenting that this family is a drain on government resources please bear in mind that they are not a large family popping little ones out for the sake of getting more benefits, if this was the case I would fully empathise with your views.

So please stop being so judgemental, as has been said before the children appear to be in a good stable home with parents that have wanted each and every one of them and I think that they will be able to contribute to society in a good positive way.

owl I agree.

I'm simply pointing out the liklihood of what will happen in answer to those implying the family are doing the world a favour by producing so many potential tax payers.

To be honest, I really can't see how any child with so little parental attention can reach their full potential. Kids need time, no?

It's awful to think that you're not contributing if you don't work - there are different ways of contributing.

The advent of mothers working was fairly recent. I bet there's many an unhappy, neglected child whose parents both have well-paid jobs.

There are many ways to contribute - it was not I that brought up the issue of tax! I am simply answering that point. And I cannot see that saying other DC are neglected as being any defence. Are we in a race to the bottom?

Apologies wordfactory, that was directed at flatpack.

My point was that in "fiscal" terms the high-earning parents are contributing to society, but in SOME instances which will ususally go unmeasured and un-recorded they may also cause problems or offer nothing else to society (eg, if they're anti-social)

To put it more positively, a non-working parent who is a good role model, enriches the lives of other people by their behaviour and personality and brings up their children to be responsible is surely making a valuable contribution to society.

chocoluvva

My point was that in "fiscal" terms the high-earning parents are contributing to society, but in SOME instances which will ususally go unmeasured and un-recorded they may also cause problems or offer nothing else to society (eg, if they're anti-social)

To put it more positively, a non-working parent who is a good role model, enriches the lives of other people by their behaviour and personality and brings up their children to be responsible is surely making a valuable contribution to society.

And how exactly do we quantify that? Are there values of loveliness and superness that we can use?

Perhaps we should have a "Mary Poppins Scale" where someone's loveliness can be measured?

"How exactly do we quantify that?"

Why waste money on measuring?

Unmeasurable does not equal having no worth.

You can buy time, I saved so I could spend time off work with each baby. I worked from home in the evenings to spend faux with the toddlers and I get up at 5am to do chores so my weekends are free when I work full time.

Was I watching a different programme .

Yes they generally seemed well cared for but we are making them sound like saints.

Consider the responses you would give to the following AIBU

I can't get my 4 little ones to sleep so I've stuck them all in an attic room and removed the handle to let them scream/beat each order/ destroy things in peace. That's Ok Yes?

My DD (3/4yrs) spends all day with her dummy or a bottle of juice in her mouth but I'm too busy to sort it out. AIBU?

I have to walk 4 DCs at once, I do have reins but forget to hold them and they have run along the roads few times, no ones perfect right?

Granted they did a far better job than I could but there is no way that there weren't cracks showing caused by the strain of too many kids for the time they have to give.

Im 17 and got my 13 year old gf pregnant WIU

Last two paragraphs are oddly out of order!

chocoluvva

Why waste money on measuring?

Unmeasurable does not equal having no worth.

I would have liked to continue this conversation. However, my previous, detailed post has been deleted. The reason for its deletion was that it offended the pompous morality of a self-appointed left-wing clique who consider themselves the arbiters of all that is decent. This might be tolerable if they weren't both pig-ignorant and quite, quite thick.

Obviously I recognise that their primary motive is to stifle all dissent but I really cannot be bothered to fight them today.

I advise you to read this quickly, because no doubt it will be deleted in jig time by The Thought Police. It's OK to accuse people of ThoughtCrime here, but not OK to tell people they're imbeciles.

16 Kids and Counting:

On watching this program, I was appalled at this pair of families. Their morals, standards, values and respect to their community as a whole are sorely lacking. Not to mention the utter disrespect for the over-crowded planet which we are living in.
It is absolutely and perfectly clear that having children is simply a game to these families - maybe not each partner involved, but definitely one of the two. It is so wrong, so deeply WRONG to bring more children into this world than is necessary for one to fullfil their own natural instinct of having a child.
These people are playing a game, and we are paying the price of it many-fold.
Firstly, these selfish jokers are reducing the NHS care available to other families over several lifetimes - by this I mean LIFETIME CARE by the NHS. This includes taking away money which could be otherwise used for IVF, for couples who can't pop a kid out on a Sunday afternoon. Secondly, they are reducing places in schools for other smaller families. These people are equating to over five average families in one. Thirdly, they are sucking away several families-worth of CHB and some are taking up huge amounts of government provided housing. On a final point, it's highly unlikely that they will have the strength, money, or ability to help their children into further education, or leave any inheritance of worth, and setting a bad example of to their children of a something-for-nothing lifestyle.

What stupid, deluded people they are. I wish them them the worst. I leave you with a quote from one of the families:

(The Father reacts to one of his children being bullied for neither of his parents working):

"They are very resilient because I've brainwashed them (his children) into believing that the other kids are jealous of our family."

Brainwashed. I don't need to say any more...

I think you missed where the family with 16 children have their own business.

I did. He's a baker right? Well he'll have step-up his baking hours, expand his business radically and employ more people, or turn into Jesus to feed all the 5000 people he and his wife want to put on this planet.

I did. He's a baker right? Well he'll have step-up his baking hours, expand his business radically and employ more people, or turn into Jesus to feed all the 5000 people he and his wife want to put on this planet.

He seems to be providing enough for them just now.

"It is so wrong, so deeply WRONG to bring more children into this world than is necessary for one to fullfil their own natural instinct of having a child. "

How many children would you consider to be sufficient to fulfil natural instincts for having a child?
While 1 might be enough for some parents, it would appear not to be for others.

If these mothers love tiny babies so much, why don't they breastfeed? Oh yeah, that would get in the way of their breeding prerogative.

There. I said it.

Flatpackhamster you are entirely wrong that:

" Access to specialist schooling is a privilege and it's good for the children that get that schooling. But never forget that it remains a privilege."

The SEN Code of Practice says:

"Parents may express a preference for the maintained school ( but not a PRU or hospital special school) they wish their child to attend, or make representations for a placement in any other school. LEAs must comply with a parental preference unless the school is unsuitable to the child?s age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs, or the placement would be incompatible with the efficient education of the other children with whom the child would be educated, or with the efficient use of resources. LEAs must consider parental
representations and arrange any meeting(s) with LEA advisers or officers the
parents seek, before issuing the final statement.
See Schedule 27, Education Act 1996

One - that should fulfil the natural instincts of the parents to have a child, as they have had a child, no?. I think any couple who go beyond 2 are just selfish and a quite ignorant of the pressure they are putting on the planet. Wake up and smell the coffee (that will run out soon). If you think I'm being dramatic, you will think back to this message in about 10 years time and reconsider it, believe me.

AndrewJ Completely agree with you.

I can't understand why programmes like this are shown. Publicising irresponsible, selfish behaviour.

And for those who the natural instinct for a child doesn't go away once they've had one child, what would you recommend for them Andrewj?

Oh there are so few families of this size in the UK and I doubt anyone is going to suddenly get the idea to have 15 kids cos some wifey on the telly did.

Their effect on overpopulation, which isn't the problem people make it out to be anyway, is imperceptible.

And it's hardly as if the reason everyone who doesn't have 15 kids doesn't is because they are curbing their selfish desire and so are better people. Most people would not want anything like that many.

David Attenborough has described humans as a "plague on Earth" that need to slow down breeding to stop the world's population being reduced by more brutal means.

Speaking to the Radio Times, the beloved naturalist said the impact of the rapidly increasing population "will come home to roost over the next 50 years or so."

Finding food for the human 'hordes' is as just big a threat to survival as global warming, he said.

?It?s not just climate change; it?s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde," he told the magazine.

?Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us. The natural world is doing it for us right now.

I don't speak for David, but I think I have a very good idea of what he is trying to say:

Firstly: It is that overpopulation by this planet from human animals will lead to nature culling the unsustainable increase in human population through one or two certain ways: Nature will create a new, and as then, incurable disease new to man that will kill billions of people in a very fast, acute way, well before we even get even a small idea of the workings of the virus or bacteria that is our enemy.

Secondly: Day by day, we are taking up incredibly valuable space for a whole delicate ecosystem of wildlife, the world has been carefully balanced, but humans are tipping this great relationship into disaster. If ridiculous numbers of people are over-breeding, then it will tip this balance on earth, as 1 species alone cannot sustain the almost infinite natural interactions that go on within this great earth.

Think about it and your children's future, how ever many you have, and think hard, as Sir David Attenborough said his watch is counting down 50 years. Starting now.

I would set my watch to 10 years personally. I truly fear for my daughters future on this planet.

I hope this opens peoples eyes to unnecessary big families. If you love the children you already have, then don't have any more.

You will be doing so much more for their future by not overcrowding the planet.