When is "too many?"

[Amiens]

I'm sure most of you have heard about the family in Arkansas who have 16 kids- http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1208456; and I will add they all have "J" names.

They currently live in a house with only 2 bathrooms, and spend $2000 a month on groceries. Oh 4 loaves a bread is enough to make sandwiches for everyone..

I was bowled over by how amazingly perky she was. I got to see Nellie (nmh) this past weekend and we talked about this.

Matt and I have talked about 4 children as a definite, and probably 6 would be my absolute limit. But I don't know if I would want or could handle 16 children. Plus she homeschools all of them!! I thought Jennifer (rapunzel) was a saint for homeschooling 5 children, can you imagine 16???!!!!

So my question is "when does it become too many?" I know for me I can't judge, because what may work or be the right thing for me may not necessarily be the right situation for another.

Just curious what other's opinions are.....

Crystal

I think too many is when you start calling the girls by the boys names and vice versa.

having been called Harold myself, :!

The 2 bathrooms is the part that gets me! Wow!

My first thought is....sounds like they are supporting themselves, they can do whatever they want.

I think that what I talked about with Crystal is that I thought it would be really tough to know all your kids and what is going on with them. I spent a little bit of time with a family of 12 and this was definitely the case (one parent travelled a lot) -- it was sort of crazy. But, a good friend of mine is the last of 9 and loves having had a big family (but doesn't want the same for herself and has no children of her own). Who knows? All I know is that I won't be having 16 kids because I can barely keep up with the 2 I have now!!

[SuzySunshine]

My initial reaction is the same as Nellie's, if they can support them they should have as many as they want. And they made a point of stating that they were not on any assistance when they were on the Today show last week.

But I do agree that how do you keep track of all of them, how do you really know what is going on with each of them? Is it really fair to them.

I think everyone has their personal limits. To me, six is a lot, but that may be because both my DH and I were raised with only one or two siblings each. I was also raised in a family with first cousins in families as large as nine children and my dad is one of nine.

I think the assistance factor would always be my sticking point with larger families.

[DCJenn]

Not for me, personally. But- I think there's a certain mindset that has to happen when you have that many kids- you have no room for individuality or opinion- in that case it's definitely got to be "what is the common good". All of the girls that they interviewed stated that they can't wait to get married and have their own families. I'd expect that because literally that's all they've been exposed to (and it's not a bad thing, necessarily).

My concern is actually for the mom, because she's clearly overweight when not pregnant (when exactly would she have had a chance to lose anything?) and I worry about complications from having that many children. (Sally, what is Travis' opinion on the toll of that many children.) I mean seriously, does this woman have bladder control? (I'm not being funny, either)

If something happens to her, that family is a goner.

Jenn

[Auspicious]

One of the things that strikes me is that their domestic life doesn't sound that domestic. Dormer bedrooms, industrial kitchen, driving your kids around in a small bus, an 8:1 kid-adult ratio . . . those are the hallmarks of institutional life like a boarding school or a summer camp. Not that people don't enjoy boarding school or summer camp--and really, these people seem happy enough--but it's not the home life I'd want for me and mine.

But I have no idea how many kids is the tipping point between the home life I want and the home life the Duggars want.

[Meenah]

I can't imagine the noise level. Her uterus must look like hamburger by now!! Joking aside, I am number 5 out of 6 and love having all of my siblings, but two was enough for me personally. When they become teenagers it is hard enough to know what is going on in their lives.
Luanne

[houseelf]

In the spirit of fair play, it is their life, their business, and it does appear that they are "taking care of business". I always say that kids' reality is whatever we make it to be. We could move to a hut in Africa and they would assimilate. Vive la difference.

As far me personally, Julie's remarks hit home. At some point, a slew of kids does take on an institutional flavor. My favorite part of parenting is that special one-on-one time with each kid--the intimacy. I'm still on the fence about number 3 because of this issue.

Further, each kid, while a wonderful blessing, creates more vulnerability. What if a parent dies or becomes sick, becomes unemployed, the schools go to hell in a hand basket, the child develops some special needs, etc. One or two children are easier to place in another's care, provide for financially in hard times, find alternate solutions which mesh with their best interests, etc. A large amount of kids could strain the available resources, especially in times of crisis.

Perhaps voicing this thought just belies my lack of self confidence about being able to meet my kids' needs while this woman has eternal optimism and faith--two characteristics which have never been my strong suit.

To each his or her own.

Kelly

[Rapunzel]

My husband has 8 kids in his family (three are now deceased from an auto accident) and I grew up knowing families with 12, 10, 8, and 6 kids in the families (a number of families with 6 or 8 and only one with 10 and one with 12).

My opinions:

1) A person's own definition of what constitutes a "large" family plays into their views of families this size. For instance, I consider a small family to be one with 0 to 3 children. A medium family in my view is 4 to 6 children. I consider a large family to be one with seven or more children. That's me. I know some people who consider less than six children a "small" family". Granted, society has definitely swung in the other direction (so now most of the people I know consider two kids a "large" family! ). Anyway, I think that personal viewpoint comes into play with this topic.

2) If a family does not require ME to take care of them (ie government assistance from my taxes) AND the parents feel that each of their children are getting adequate attention (emotional needs being met) then I think it's entirely up to the individual families as to how many kids they have.

I mention the emotional needs because in the families that I've seen with more than eight children there seems to be a big problem with this. My husband's family managed to all turn out OK (even though there was a tendency to forget children at gas stations on road trips ). But, of the two families I know with 10 and 12 children respectively I have to say that about half of their kids become kind of, well, screwed-up adults. By that I mean they get hooked on drugs, move away from home at rather young ages, and become the targets of sexual predators. I think that every child has a certain amount of parental vigilance which they need to grow up to fulfill their potential. Of course, I've seen plenty of families with only one or two children where the kid(s) don't get that needed emotional attention either. In fact, of all my friends and acquaintances who ended up on the "screwed-up adult" list most of them came from tiny families (ie less than four kids in the family).

Anway, the kids' physical AND emotional needs must be met.

3) I agree that a lot of women who have that many children destroy their bodies. I've got five at the moment and my goal all along is to have the same body (almost ) in the end as I did in the beginning. So, I do not consider myself fully "recovered" from my last pregnancy until I'm back down to the size I was to begin with - ten years ago. So far, so good. I'm four months out from the last birth and I have 20 lbs to go (I'm at 145 lbs at the moment). Ten of those pounds are from breast-feeding (ie I'll lose those as soon as I wean the baby) and I have ten to really work on.

It really isn't healthy to have baby after baby and not take care of yourself as a mother. That's a big reason so many mothers died early in life a century and more ago (and, still do in many developing nations!). They literally work themselves to death - partly through continually being pregnant and/or nursing. You have to give yourself time to recover. There's too much of a "martyr" complex in that regard among some moms who have 6+ kids in my view (among those I have known). They feel like losing their health and their figure is somehow a prerequisite to having that many kids and IT IS NOT!

4) Now the big question: Will I have another one?

Ask me in two or three years.

Wow! I'm really opinionated on this issue! I hope I didn't hurt any feelings. Everyone please realize this is my opinion based entirely on my own experience and nothing more.

Jennifer

[SueC]

I guess it's a personal decision, but I think whomever brought up the "what if" of a parent dieing had a good point. Maybe they have humongous life insurance policies to take care of everybody. Having only 3 kids, it's hard to imagine giving every child what they "need" in terms of attention when you have that many.
And I know this is just me being b**chy, but the "J" thing seems a little obnoxious with that many kids. What's their fascination with the letter "J"?

[mommax3]

I have mixed feelings on this one as well. I saw the family on the Today Show and had a schizophrenic response. While I initially recoiled from the "stepford-ness" of it all, it is certainly their right to have as many kids as they want, as long as they can take care of them....and it seems that they are. I agree with the Mrs. Dugger that children are a blessing. Frankly, I wish we had had ours a little closer together so that I would have felt comfortable having another little "blessing" running around here. However, since that would have meant having two babies during residency, that was out, since DH and I were running on fumes during much of that time. (We are both still shocked that I managed to get pregnant with our second one during intern year.) I often wonder how it might have been different if the 80 hour week rules had been in effect then.

I think that family background (as several people alluded to) plays a part in making this kind of decision. The thing I get hung up on is this.....if the daughters in this family do indeed go out and raise large families of their own, are they REALLY doing what they want to do, or only what they know? As jloreine pointed out, this lifestyle is all they have been exposed to, and it would kind of diminish their sense of who they are, I think, if they rejected that kind of family for themselves, at least early on. I really think that at some point, having an extremely large family MAY become about the parents' pride/sense of worth (wanting to prove a point, perhaps) instead of about the children themselves. I will be interested to see if the girls in that family go to college and really get a chance to CHOOSE a life for themselves from all that is available.

By the same token, though, I do think that families have gotten awfully small. We live on a long cul-de-sac with 16 houses on it. 12 of those houses have families with children, but my family of 5 is the largest family on the whole street! I think that is strange, particularly because we for sure have the smallest house on the cul-de-sac, with the homes averaging in the 400K dollar range. I can honestly say that finances had very little to do with our decision to stop having children. It had a lot more to do with the children we already have, the state of our marriage, DH's career, and my age. (I had a sister who was severely handicapped and have never wanted to push the envelope, age-wise, on child-bearing.) We have not ruled out adoption from our future.....I think it would be great for my kids to have more siblings from a sharing/responsibility standpoint.....but 6 (total) is as high as I would ever go. The industrial approach to child-rearing is not for me, and I don't see totally burying myself in child-rearing, laundry, cooking, etc. to the point that there is no "me" left anywhere. I would not be a good mother to that many children.....but I can't rule out that there are women out there who could handle it.

As for her pelvic health..... I know too many anecdotal stories about women who start having issues after their *second* baby, and have heard too many delivery stories about 4th+ babies where the mom didn't even have to push to get the baby born, it just *slid* out. Yikes! (no offense to anyone present meant....we ALL need to do our Kegels, right? )I don't even want to imagine what is going on after bearing 16 babies.

Sally

I mention the emotional needs because in the families that I've seen with more than eight children there seems to be a big problem with this. My husband's family managed to all turn out OK (even though there was a tendency to forget children at gas stations on road trips ). But, of the two families I know with 10 and 12 children respectively I have to say that about half of their kids become kind of, well, screwed-up adults.

Wow! I'm really opinionated on this issue! I hope I didn't hurt any feelings. Everyone please realize this is my opinion based entirely on my own experience and nothing more.

I'm glad that you, having a larger family, stated that opinion. Based on more limited observations, I thought the same but wouldn't want to come off sounding like I was against big families. I think big or small families can have kids with problems and in some cases that happens despite doing everything "right."

The family of 12 that I knew just seemed...too much to manage for one person and a spouse who travels for a living. Their teens and early college kids really took advantage of distracting and over-trusting parents. Not that teens from a small family wouldn't do this, but this mom was maxed out. I think that my friend who was the last of 9 had a lot more attention as the baby but after some snags (big ones for a few) most of her siblings turned out ok. I was thinking more about the parent's time and less about the mom's health but that totally makes sense.

I think the whole matter of family size and what other people think is interesting. DH and I come from a family of two kids, so for us thinking about having three sounds pretty wild and crazy. I'm saying that a little jokingly -- a few friends think it is just *crazy*. Crazy like some people would react to having 16 kids. I've just been surprised by people's reactions when I say that three isn't out of the question. Likewise, I am surprised when other people think we will have a third for the sole purpose of trying to have a boy. WTF?

[SueC]

Likewise, I am surprised when other people think we will have a third for the sole purpose of trying to have a boy. WTF?

We got that all the time! "You finally had your boy so now you can stop!" People assumed that was the whole reason we had another baby, but to be honest we initally wanted a third girl. I'm almost happy to have another baby just to prove them wrong!

[Amiens]

Likewise, I am surprised when other people think we will have a third for the sole purpose of trying to have a boy. WTF?

After Brigham was born we got "Oh now you have a boy and a girl so you can stop." So when we found out we were pregnant we waited to tell our friends who may not share the same umm family size issues as us, as we did get "You're having a third??!! Wow! I admire you that's a lot to handle. You're family is going be big." For me the having a third was bit to wrap my mind around as I am the oldest of 2, but I have always felt we would have four children, and in a perfect world it would be 2 girls and 2 boys- I always wanted a sister-- little did I know when I married Matt I would gain 3. Matt is the oldest of 6, so having a third didn't seem as much of a leap for him as it was for me.


I agree with everyone on this- at some point our bodies can only handle so much right? I know that I had problems with minor incontinence after Brigham was born- you know- sneeze and leak urine type of thing. But I buckled down and remembered to do Kegel exercises, and didn't have any problems. The other thing is at what age would you stop having children. For me it would be my late 30's early 40s because of the increased medical risk-- then again that's my personal preference, and I don't knock anyone in their late 30s, or in their 40s having children as my MIL had her 6th at 39; and know several other women who have given birth. Mrs. Dugger is 37 and still wants more children.

So, I do not consider myself fully "recovered" from my last pregnancy until I'm back down to the size I was to begin with - ten years ago.

I do this too, and I figure if I am not taking care of my body then I am doing a disservice to my family. I am not in peak performance then it shows in all areas of my life. I believe that the soul is connected to the physical body and how we treat one affects the other and vice versa.

By the same token, though, I do think that families have gotten awfully small. We live on a long cul-de-sac with 16 houses on it. 12 of those houses have families with children, but my family of 5 is the largest family on the whole street!

I agree with this too- when this baby is born we will have the second largest family on the street. The next largest has 4 children.

I agree with the Mrs. Dugger that children are a blessing.

Matt's grandmother always tells me that she never regrets the children that she had, she does regret the children she didn't have.

If the Duggers can support 16 children then all the more power to them, and kudos to them for not using state assistance. I know for me personally, I couldn't do it. It would mentally be too much for me. And again I can't say a specific number because it is unique for each individual.

Good points have been brought up about the "institutional" nature of the lifestyle. Matt and I have talked about this- worrying about being able to spend one on one quality time with each child so that you truly know them, and can tend to their unique personality traits. I am amazed at how well my inlaws know each one of their children well. Matt said as a child of 6, there does come a point where the older ones (ie-- him when he was growing up) would pitch in and help out with the younger ones. Matt's grandmother had 8 children, and has mentioned this as well.

Wow! I'm really opinionated on this issue! I hope I didn't hurt any feelings. Everyone please realize this is my opinion based entirely on my own experience and nothing more.

You didn't offend me.

Crystal[/quote]

People ask if we will try for a girl. My answer is Are you NUTS? I saw video of myself as a teen! No way in hell am I putting myself through that on purpose!