Friday, January 30, 2009

Octuplets!?! A mini rant

In case you didn't hear, last week a woman in California gave birth to octuplets. Come to find out today, she already had SIX KIDS. SIX!!! And she felt the need to have one more!? I just do not understand that. And I am sure I will get some sort of had time for this - "you just don't understand" - "when you have kids you will understand" - "your not a parents, you just do not get it." Bite me. I might not be a parent, but I am a person who now has to share the already over crowded planet with these people, and an American tax payer. I do not feel that I should have to support someones choice to have 8 (or 7 whatever) babies because they are prolife and already have 6 kids. That is just BS!! Do not have kids if you can't support them!! We do not have the money to support a kid, so we CHOOSE to not have a baby. Its is not that hard of a choice to make. Birth control is free. You just have to put the effort into getting it. It is not that hard. Or heaven forbid you just not have sex! And now the dad of these 14 kids is off to Iraq. I am sure he would have been going regardless, but I think he is probably the most lucky one. He has 14 kids at home, say "bye I got to run" and off to Iraq he goes, missing all the messy stage of his new 8 buddles of joy's first months of life. WTF!?

My friend JJ pointed out a great blog post to me today that I encourage those who might be equally agitated by all of this to read. I think we live in a time where we are celebrating those who make the choice to have many many children. Just look at the shows on TLC like "Jon and Kate plus 8" and "17 Kids and Counting" (now changed to 18 because they have bred again). You all ways see (about every 9 months) these 18 kids folks on tv - "look, we did it again" - give me a break! They are from Arkansas near where I went to undergrad. If you can afford them, guess it a free world, but still! The planet is already over populated!

I have friends who have not been able to have kids and I feel bad for them. They would be great parents! And they have to see stories like this on the news about a family who already has 6 kids having 8 more - at once. It is ridiculous. It seems like the ones who can't have kids have to have a large amount of cash, and they they can get their baby. But the ones who don't, well, too bad, and they are often the ones who would be the best parents and have good kids. And then there is the other side of the coin, those that have kids and shouldn't. Either they can't feed them, or take care of them, or they just do not care about them what so ever. Yet these are the people who have 5 or 6 kids already. And my tax dollars get to pay for it instead of them just getting free birth control or not having sex. It really makes me mad! And makes me think of this classic movie clip that pretty much sums it up:

5 comments:

Rob Sternberg said...

What I'd like to know is: what did it cost the hospital and those 40-some doctors to facilitate this travesty of nature? From Rob, at http://shakingearth.blogspot.com

ReBecca Hunt-Foster said...

I agree! And now there is more to the story - she is single (according to Fix News), 33 (and already have 6 kids), living with her parents, and has a nanny!! I guess money really can buy anything.

Sean Craven said...

Hey, I hear you -- but even people who have a 'sensible' number of children are prone to avoiding the nature of their decision.

A Pal: "Well, me and Celeste aren't gonna have more than two children. We're just replacing ourselves."

The Oaf: "Uhhhh... so are you gonna freeze sperm and commit suicide before child one and Celeste is gonna kill herself immediately following the birth of child two?"

A Pal: "Dude..."

The Oaf: "Well, what's two plus one? What's two plus two?"

A pal: "... #@*& you."

The Oaf: "I'm just asking for your figures."

And that was when I realized that sense and parenthood have nothing to do with each other.

ReBecca Hunt-Foster said...

This is a good point Sean!

Rob Sternberg said...

I would agree with Sean that families should (but usually don't) consider the impacts of their planning (or lack thereof) on resource use. Yet I don't agree with his example, because by the time the two children were born, even if both parents were still alive, a grandmother and second cousin might have died in the meantime. Having two children is still below the replacement fertility rate. But yes, Sean's final realization is especially correct!