HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing

“Dad who gave up 9 kids “fell appart” when his wife died” (full article here)

The oldest child is 18, the youngest one; he says that he and his wife were together for 17 years, until she died shortly after childbirth. So. It was all fine and dandy as long as she kept popping one kid a year, but after her death he has to quit his job to take care of the kids, got into debt, etc. until the only solution was to abandon his kids at a hospital?

Seriously, this bullshit about “however many children the good Lord gives us” gotta stop already.


  • If God hadn’t wanted us to use birth control he wouldn’t have given us the means to invent it!


  • Emmy
    October 3
    2:09 pm

    LOLZ, Amie….that’s like arguing against vegetarianism by saying ‘If animals weren’t meant to be eaten, God wouldn’t have made them out of meat.’


  • Sparky
    October 3
    3:11 pm

    Sweet gods… Is it any surprise she died in childbirth? 9 kids in 17 years is going to take it out of anyone.

    I don’t know whether to be angry or to just pity them so much. Those poor kids. That many kids and you simply CANNOT have a safety net big enough in case of things going wrong – you simply have too many people to catch.

    And even in the best case scenario I pity the children – they had 9 and she died in childbirth? How many more were they planning on having? Even if they were rich beyond measure there’s a limit to how much your attention can be divided – you can love your kids to death but if you’ve got dozens of the little rug-rats they’re not going to get much in the way of parental attention and affection each.


  • Pure Wabash
    October 3
    3:12 pm

    You know, I used to date the eldest son of one of those insane no birth control families. he was the oldest of seven, and every single one of his siblings had something physically wrong with them. One brother has MS, another CP, a sister has autism, another doesn’t SPEAK at all, is 6 and has never uttered a word…

    And the father, he told his wife that if she ever died he would get married right away, because that’s gods plan. I fell out when I heard that one, and we broke up soon after, but seriously. If you have 7 children and most of them have something really wrong with them, don’t you think you should stop having them? People are weird.


  • To answer the post title: Well, yes, I have.

    if you’ve got dozens of the little rug-rats they’re not going to get much in the way of parental attention and affection each.

    To be fair, 9 isn’t dozens. Besides, I know a family with 9 kids (the mum had more pregancies besides) and they seem relatively happy. Truly, the best behaved kids I’ve ever seen (well, in public anyway). My parents come from large families and they seem to have done okay. Not everyone gets along all the time, but nothing unusual.

    The problem, I think, is not how many kids you have, but whether or not you’re ready to be a parent.

    As for this particular case, I’m not saying the dad couldn’t have tried harder or planned much better, but I’d factor in his personal grief, too. I’m sure there are parents with fewer kids who’ve not dealt with grief and change as well as we’d hope. I’d rather the kids were in a safe place than force the father to keep them when he obviously has no idea how to cope. Maybe he just needs someone to explain to him what other options he has. (Or maybe he really is a sad excuse for a human being, but I don’t feel the article gives me enough information to be sure.)


  • Well, he was irresponsible to begin with so nothing changed much.

    Why are we still allowing people to use kids as property to be collected like trophies of their manhood?


  • Emmy
    October 3
    4:10 pm

    Well, since he had the kids….I’d rather he dropped them off safely at a hospital rather than toss them in a lake or do whatever else parents are doing to kill off their kids lately.


  • hk
    October 3
    5:15 pm

    Well, according to the article, they had 10 kids, he just didn’t drop off the oldest (she was 18), but I think in this case, he would fallen apart had they only 1 child. The article stated he’d refused all help from relatives, and the kids ranged in age from 1 to 18, why did he have to quit his job? The older kids aren’t capable of helping out? Aren’t capable of making sure the younger ones are fed and clothed and sent to school on time?

    I know lots of families with lots of kids and the older ones (fair or not) end up raising or helping to raise the kids (depending on how together the family is – some have more problems than others). Some of those families do it with no state assistance and others need that help.

    To be fair, most of the adult kids have tiny families, but some have certainly gone the larger route. It all depends on temperment and their ability to cope with a variety of issues. (especially since I know a Mom in the PTA with no coping skills and they only have the one child. She’s a mess)


  • I don’t know that it’s so much an argument for better birth control as it is for personal responsibility. Also I have a feeling this man is going through a deep depression. That doesn’t excuse surrendering his children to the state but, as others have pointed out, it’s one of the better solutions. He could have done something violent in his desperation.


  • Throwmearope
    October 3
    7:52 pm

    Turns out the family is stepping up and they’re going to take the kids. They would have initially if they’d been asked. So as hat tricks go, this one was stupid. He just had to ask for help.


  • Ann Anymo
    October 4
    1:23 am

    Yay, Aztec! I’ll admit, this is a real hot-button issue with me.

    The arguments for birth control are simple ones . . . yet shockingly elusive for most people.

    First, thou shalt not reproduce indiscriminately if the State must support thine offspring and/or if thou or thine partner would have a negative impact on their proper upbringing.

    Second, thou must keepeth in mind the future of thy planet, which has severely limited resources and cannot sustain future explosions of human population.

    Does that sound harsh? I’m sorry, but there are such things as social and environmental responsibilities. Anybody who truly cares about his or her children’s futures will NOT keep pumping out kids out of some egotistical desire or religious dictum to continually replicate themselves.

    Hate to tell ya, but your collection of genes isn’t THAT special.


  • Maybe I’m just a tree-hugging hippie, but I believe that children are also future assets. (And don’t get me wrong, I do agree with birth control.) I don’t buy the ecological argument because, frankly, it’s not in the first world that population explosion is happening. In the third world, where the real problem is, while I think people do need to be educated about family planning, the primary social and environmental issues I would be concerned about would be reducing poverty (which, ironically, also leads to families having more children), and properly managing resources that are being sold off to big corporations.

    I live in a country that has a pretty decent welfare system (arguably). I’m quite happy to pay taxes that support families struggling to raise their children as long as I know that most of them are using the money in good faith. It’s the freeloaders that I have a problem with, not the ones who are truly in need and just need some breathing room to get back on their feet. And even if the parents are freeloaders, I’m happy to fund their children’s education in the hope that those kids have a decent future. (Freakonomics has an interesting theory on the effect of Roe v Wade on crime. For me, it’s not just a birth control issue but a social welfare issue. There are at least 10 years before those kids start their lives of crime–what are we as a society doing about it?)


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment