Is this disgusting?

Question

The other day with my friend, I watched this program with featured a woman who has 16 kids, and pregnant with her 17th. She had her first in her teens, and got pregnant very within a few weeks after each one was born, so she had all off them one after the other. It mainly focoused on the fact that she was living off benfits/welfare and they were debating on whether the goverment should stop giving out money so easily, ect... But what really got to me was a woman producing 17 babies. I find it a bit disgusting. I know why, I can't put it into words exactly... I think she's abusing her body in a way. My friend disagrees with me. But what do you guys think?

Answer 1

I agree with you. I can't imagine putting my body throught that much stress back to back. I'm still recovering from 1 birth over a year ago. If anyone wanted that many children, why not have some of your own and adopt some of the thousands of children who need a home now. And if she is living off of the government, that's a true crime in my opinion.

Answer 2

Who care what she is doing to her body, She is the one that keeps opening her legs....... What she is abusing is the system. She knows what is causing it, Why should tax payers have to pay for this just because she keeps having them. If she is living on welfare how is she affording diapers and clothes. Im sure she is getting those for free too....

The government will pay for birth control. Maybe they need to take the children, so that she can get a job and stop laying on her back so much having more babies, and try supporting herself.

And no she is not droducing 17 future tax payers, its a terrible circle, They will grow up having nothing, most wont finish school, the girls will all have babies in thier teens and all live on welfare....................... My ex sister in law has 5 kids and gets 800 in food stamps a month she must get over 2000.00 Thats bullshit Not to mention all the medical bills produced there No it does not stop going up after 5.......... They add on for each child !

Answer 3

This is not uncommon in poverty stricken areas. It has many medical pitfalls.

I can see how in normal 1st world society where 2.6 children is the average that 17 could be seen as odd/strange/out of the ordinary. But we live in a world where people put ink and metal through their skins, place bags of silicone or saline in various places on their bodies for cosmetic effect and are actually safer to have an abortion operation than to carry a baby to full term. It's a bit of a topsy turvy world.

In traditionally religious families where there is a ban on contraception, large numbers of children can be often found.

In the poverty situation, and this particularly relates to third world countries but is oddly applicable to people who live predominantly on social security benefits in Australia and the USA, it seems that there is a protective function of multiple children.

In third world countries it is a safety in numbers thing. Many of the children will have decreased life expectency, higher rates of mortality as infants and before adulthood, so it makes sense to have many children. This gives you many hands to work the farm or to build/mend whatever needs doing.

In social security situations, the government finds itself in an odd position of having to supply housing urgently for a large family >=6 children with a single mother who is otherwise unable to care for the children without the benefits given. This sort of learned helplessness is a weakness of modern society but it is difficult to know a humane way to solve this. Would it be good to give doctors the right to say "Enough is enough - now we tie your tubes!"? In Australia it is even worse, with the government giving a $4000-00 baby bonus to mothers who have babies, providing a financial incentive to have babies.

Personally, I don't find it any more disgusting than having 1 baby. I just can't understand the guys who would be interested in a girl like that.

Answer 4

I wouldn't say it's disgusting, but it's certainly very hard on her body. Still, if she wanted to do this (as opposed to not knowing how to use contraception), it's up to her - and I'm sure her doctor advised her, too.

And while i can see why people would think it's unfair for the taxpayer to pay for her, one should also consider that she's "producing" 17 future tax payers who will probably pay more into the system than she ever took out of it. (This is asuming that her kids will find jobs, of course - but kids form big families usually learn responsibility, team work and self-discipline early on, so I'd say the chances are good.)

Answer 5

if she can love and care for each one im ok with it. but if the kids were bing neglected and lacking essentials i wouldnt like it.
for example google the dugger family. im all for them, they amaze me. 16 kids and completely debt free! and they do not live off the governmant. their father is some sort of senator and the mom knows how to save tons of money by making all their own clothes and buying in bulk!!

as for living off the government my friend takes welfare when her bf left her. she was given cash for herself and daughter. she is now pregnant but the baby WILL NOT recieve anything cept some foodstamps. whatever kids you have when you sign up get help but any born after that will not! they will never get a bigger cash check even if they had 10 more kids....they call this family capping.

Answer 6

No it's wrong if you cannot afford a child you do not have a child...the government should stop paying for people like this...I wanted more than two children but now that i see how expensive it is to properly raise them I am glad I had a tubal...

Answer 7

I have seen that show. They even built a new house (supposedly by themselves) Where did they get the money to do that? If you have to use government funding to live and raise your children ( no matter how many you have) you shouldn't do that. She is teaching her children that it is okay for you to live off of the government. We as tax payers are paying for it. There are so many people out there that can not conceive. She needs to stop. She should have stopped at child #2.

Answer 8

there is nothing wrong with having 17 children, and claiming the benefits, if she feels that she needs more than 3 or 4 or 5 or more children then this is her choice, she may also have that many because some weher adopted and she was to caring to leave them.

Answer 9

If you are talking about the Duggar family, they are NOT receiving any type of government assistance. They are debt-free, and feed their famly for less than $2000 per month.

Answer 10

i dont think that would b disgusting as long as she doesnt have 17 different fathers. or if she was selling her body and got pregnant. some people actually love kids enough to have alot so i really dont think its disgusting