16 Kids and Counting

[Shinyfly]

So I've just watched this (recorded last night). AIBU to think that both of these couples just have stopped at one or two?

These were (just a couple) of the red flags for me.

1. The first family had 11 kids (number 12 made an appearance at the end of the programme). All of their children were home schooled and the only time they were permitted to mix with other children was once a week at boys/girls brigade. Mum Tania has a three year plan to have them living in the country and even more isolated from society very soon.

1. The second family were completely devoid of any rules/routines/boundaries, the house was complete chaos with children sleeping in their clothes and the older children being made to supervise the younger ones homework. Dad's clothes were always filthy.

Bth families seemed intent on having more children.

I think it's fine to have as many children as you can support both financially, physically and emotionally.

For some people that means no children at all and for others it could mean 7 or 8 (I'm not convinced more than that could ever be right for the children)

I have an aunt with 5 children. 2 are now doctors, two work in high salary finance jobs and the other one is happy if uncertain about career path (does have a good degree).

I have a cousin who comes here occasionally who has 7 children. She only intended 5 and had an accidental pair of twins but she and her family are happy. They have a huge income and privately educate.

I don't think you can generalise about large families.

How would you police that? What happens if they could afford it to start but couldn't later on?

FTR I'd love to magically prevent unsuitable people becoming parents. The national birth rate would drop by 99%! There would be plenty of affluent childless people as well as plenty of childless dreaded benefit claimants. I'd be very strict - which is probably a good reason why I should not have this power.

Plenty of people who pay lots of taxes are unable to emotionally support children. And what do you mean by physically support them? If someone has a disability are they excluded from becoming a parent? Or only allowed to become a parent if they are also rich enough to not need state help for things that enable them to support their children?

Or are people only allowed to have 5 children if they are going to be professionals? Do we not need hospital porters, or cleaners or factory workers? Are we to assume that if the parents aren't already professionals their children can't be?

what about the millions of kids with no families? those longing for a home and parents? in childrens homes and orphanages?

much as I cant stand the Pitts/Jolies I admire them for adopting as well as producing, and that they say they love all their kids the same.

if I could Id adopt but disabledDC takes up everything I have.

Meh, each to their own really. What if a thread was started about how selfish it was not to have children at all!!

It's personal choice. As long as the children are well fed, warm, happy and reasonably educated it's no one else's business really.

I'm not suggesting I have any answers billy

I actually do have suggestions but I am not going to turn this into a political argument.

I am, however, quite within my right to come on a discussion forum and discuss, on a thread about huge families, my opinion that large families are a pointless and unnecessary drain on our economy that only fulfil the needs of the two people who have continually bred to make them.

Whether you agree with my opinion or not, suggesting this is not the place to state it is ludicrous.

If a thread was started about it being selfish not to have children, then people would probably comment on that body this thread is about people having masses of children.

Oh do get over yourself. I've not said this isn't the place to state your opinion on large families but if you are going to cite resources as an issue then I point out there are other issues about resources.

• I can point out

And of course it is a political debate when you are talking about govt resources and how they are spent.

I don't think you've pointed anything out, you've merely stamped your feet about what I and others have pointed out.

Fact is it costs 9k a year to send a child to school, 3k to birth a child in a UK hospital and probably the same again in health visitors and after care until the child is 5. So even if you have no accidents, injuries, trips to the doctors or dentists, those 17 children are an enormous drain on resources that their mother has no intention of paying off because she keeping popping kids out and they will probably never pay off either.

That is assuming that they don't receive tax credits which is highly unlikely and not including the £160 in CB they receive every week.

how you can possibly state that the above is not a drain on society is beyond me, we are a growing nation not a dwindling one, there is no reason for one family to create this many lives that will need (regardless of whether you choose to admit it or not) an awful lot of resources to grow into adults.

How you can describe children as a drain on society is beyond me.

It probably is selfish to have no kids/1 kid as not enough to support you in old age. But about 1/7 couples cant have kids and then there are the secondary infertility who cant have second. So thats not always a choice unlike having say ten as nobody has that many accidents i hope.

OP Just wanted to put you straight quoting Victoria Climbie. She wasn't home educated.
Also, home educators are less likely to be abused than school children. There's some figures around somewhere to back this up (will try to find and pop back).

Nice attitude!

Home educated children, not home educators

"Actually SpocksThirdEar up until 2 years ago I worked in the department for homeschooling in my local council."

And you got away with calling it homeschooling? You do surprise me. I find it hard to believe given your lack of knowledge regarding home education.

Great debate there billy well done.

Children are the product of adults breeding, nothing more and nothing less.

We don't need millions more little people in the world, lets all try and be a bit less emotional and a bit more responsible.

If I disagree with you I'm emotional?

Seriously, read your posts. You know the price of everything but the value of nothing. The only thing that counts at the end of a human's life is if they are a net contributor to the state in financial terms?

A interesting letter about Victoria climbe

www.educationotherwise.net/attachments/article/151/NSPCC%2028%2004%2009%20Apology.pdf

No your lack of clear debate and emotive one liners make you emotional. If you were able to debate with me properly we would have a really good conversation but you don't seem to be able to move from the emotional.

You are now telling me what I know the worth of? That is insulting and emotional claptrap. I know the sort of world I want my children to live in and everyone elses children to live in and it doesn't involve the human race breeding so quickly that we are lowered to the level of rats or parasites. That is where this is going. We need to be aware of and in control of our own breeding in order to allow generations of children to have fulfilling and happy lives.

When I was a kid my friend was one of 10 and they lived on a farm. I used to be so jealous that she had lots of siblings and I was an only (adopted) child. Her Mum was a hippie type with long flowing dresses and long hair. I thought this woman was the bees knees and would try to spend as much time with my friend as poss. They were virtually self sufficient but they did go to school and all helped on the farm when they were big enough. My friend was a top bod and got glowing exam marks but she eventually went on to do dodgy model work. She always went home after her work and stayed with her parents until tragedy struck and she got cancer. So long story but she died aged 24. They were all so happy and neat tidy and I was very very jealous. Now they are spread all over the world some are married some single. The Mum died or I think they would all be still on that farm today

Lovely, if sad, story, sugar21.

I had a friend similarly with nine other siblings (Catholic family). They were all lovely children and all excelled at school and/or in sports. In the early years they were teased a little for hand me downs and hand knits, but they were quite popular all the same and especially later on at secondary.

I think you could manage 16 children if need be, but more than manage I'm really not sure.

Large families are not the norm nowadays. I think the 2.4 children number is now lower? Something like 1.8? I haven't looked it up, is just a guess.

esberj No I didn't "get away" with calling it homeschooling I was just using the vernacular used on here and not filling the thread with professional babble that a few people may not know. Or are you suggesting I'm lying?

Majority of UK home educators call it home education, and have corrected LAs who use the US style vernacular. It offends some as they say it is suggestive of school at home. I don't really think the term home education is professional babble, and it is the term Mumsnet use for the home ed. section on here.

No, not saying you're lying that you worked for an EHE dept within the LA . I just find it very surprising given your lack of knowledge on the subject as demonstrated on this thread.

And you didn't know Victoria Climbie wasn't home educated. Tut!