I think, Cartell, that the general "irresponsible" argument, as Fable and Mah both stated, does not come based on the couple's sexual proclivites, or even their ablility to amass the necessary finances that raising so many kids would take, but rather, the sheer factor of time. Raising ANY number of kids is a hard, hard task, and even if these parents truly love, and truly want to care for, every single one of their 17 children, there simply aren't enough hours in a day to give every child the devoted attention that they all deserve. Like someone else stated, the older siblings probably serve more of a parental role to the younger, but that doesn't change the fundamental need of a child to have their parent around - a need that will be impossible to meet with 16 other kids present, all of whom need the same.Cartell wrote:What I can't understand is how you can call the couple that decides to have 17 children bad for the enviroment or irresposible. Nor can you having never met them, judge how well they can share attention or parental love to said children... Having 17 children is bad for the enviroment nor is it irresponsible.. They are simply a couple who loves children and is willing to deal with what comes of it... I was simply surprised at how judgemental you all were of them.. Apart from the few who cracked jokes of course.
Could you get that Deirdre?
- Tower_Master
- Posts: 2003
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 7:37 pm
- Location: The floor?
- Contact:
I sincerely wish we could re-consider this plan from a perspective that involved pants.