I mean I could understand towards the beginning of civilization but... with life expectancy what it is now and the fact our rescources are shrinking quickly... I dunno... doesnt it seem like it would be a bad thing?
2007-11-09 20:12:50 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
JUMPIN JEBUS ON A POGO STICK GOOD FACE!!!
Your poor aunt... I would think she woulda beat the man away wit a stick after 6... I'm just sayin'
2007-11-09 20:20:46 · update #1
Don't preach to me about it!.......I've got one.....
Talk to those durn Osmonds......they need guidance in that area!
:-)
2007-11-09 20:22:53 · answer #1 · answered by kenny p 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Ask my mom. She was the 7th of 10. If her parents hadn't kept having kids, I wouldn't have my mom. A new child is a blessing (usually) although sometimes that child is supposed to be a blessing in the lives of a family that can't have children of their own. It isn't about numbers, it's about the kids. It sounds almost like you're forgetting that Amy isn't number 8, she's a person.
2007-11-09 20:22:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
you ought to be careful the way you're making this argument. you do no longer want to sound such as you're all in want of inhabitants administration. it rather is eugenics which became developed by utilising those with an apprehension of being overcrowded and competitively overtaken by utilising a becoming inhabitants of people(s) unlike themselves. base line is that if a husband and spouse is prepared to have a huge kin and the kin can sustain itself so be it. usually our judgment is clouded by utilising the factors of civilization. There are human beings in this international that have huge families and stay strictly of the land. the youngsters are taught to make a contribution to the kin at an early age. They try this gladly. it is form of like while babies are small (in line with threat very small) they see the kin doing chores and that they want to become in touch. Now this does not ensue with all babies each and all the time. although those that show this trait of desirous to be to blame early on in existence have superb character and those features ought to be developed. families the place the youngsters discover ways to seek, fish, farm and build with the grownup are extra close knit and nicely developed. mothers and dads comprehend their babies can no longer merely look after themselves yet others are extra probably to stay with much less rigidity. they do no longer look to be confronted with situation their grown babies ought to be able the cope with themselves. regarding this woman she has to evaluate the desires of her husband and their financial status. it is not any longer honest to hold babies into the international that they can not have the money for to look after and no it is not any longer the older infant's duty to be the care givers of those babies. just to fulfill a dream of having x quantity of youngsters even along with her situation of what undue hardships she places on the kin is egocentric. nevertheless she has to get pregnant. as a result the different duty falls on the husband additionally.
2016-10-02 00:41:36 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you aware that the newspaper headings in the 1870's were basically making the same claims: of over-population of the world, just as they are today??!!
Not many people know that.
They were just as certain about there statements and evidences as they are today.
You see, either God is your God, or He is not!
The very 1st words to fall from His lips were:
"Be fruitful and Multiply..."
He has never rescinded them - not with any prophet.
I'm glad you didn't say 7 kids.
That's how many we were able to have.
Every one is loveable - and I'm so glad we had our last.
Did you know Benjamin Franklin was the 15th of 17?!
Just think where we'd be w/o him!
Hospitals, libraries, electricity, street lighting, American war saved ... etc., etc.
2007-11-09 22:14:08 · answer #4 · answered by dr c 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
having families of 8 to 12 kids , that is fine , and Grace of God ,
The assumption that ,
" our resources are shrinking quickly" and "our needs are many",
IS A FAKE ASSUMPTION ,
Where the fact is , " We humans have very limited needs But We got un-limited opportunities" ,
2007-11-09 20:35:59 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, I think it's hard but not ridiculous. I think people are used to being so materialistic now that they can't imagine sharing things and not being able to give each kid a ton of their own things, or having them share a room. I think THAT is ridiculous.
2007-11-10 01:49:24 · answer #6 · answered by Sassafrass 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, I think it's weird. But to each their own, some want a big family. Personally my worst nightmare is a minivan and kids everywhere. Not to say I hate children, I like them and plan to have 1, maybe 2 one day.
2007-11-09 20:24:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
~not at all. if someone has the means, and the love for their children, then what business is it of ours to pass judgment? i personally wouldnt want that many, because the thought of child bearing that many..yikes. but could i love 8 kids...sure.
2007-11-09 20:20:50 · answer #8 · answered by evanlah 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
According to the Bible, God said be fruitful and multiply. I think we managed to do that task.
Hey God! What's next on your to-do list?
2007-11-09 20:22:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
That's kind of defeatist - how do you know one of those kids won't be the one to build a rocketship that can help us colonize other planets.
So pessimistic people are getting these days...
2007-11-09 20:16:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
My Aunt Carol had 10!
Edit: Good Catholic and all...
2007-11-09 20:18:29 · answer #11 · answered by Loosid 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋