Now THIS is trashy. Isn't this basically how the Ayatollah took over Iran?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102005062

This will look good on the welfare rolls in a few more years.

I must have a smaller quiver. Two kids is enough for us.

Same here Chris.

One of each model!

>>And You Thought the Woman Who Had Eight Kids Was Bad
apples and oranges here...

Apples or oranges, they're both rotten to the core.

Utterly Irresponsible behaviour.

Utterly Irresponsible behaviour.

No it's not.

As long as they can raise the kids in a healthy environment and support their needs, and stay off the welfare roles, they can have as many kids as they want.

This is America. Not China or India.

Consider the alternative...the demise of humanity. The key here is responciblity to their "offspring". Most large families are healthy environments...not perfect, but under Godly/Biblical principles do well to produce good citizens our country needs.

These people are scum of the earth and are a burdon to society, taxpayers, and mother earth. Having many children simply to increase the number of like minded people is the most selfish thing I can think of. Yes this is America, and that's why we can and should shun them.

I thought that the story was fairly clear in making the point that people who have large families like this are forced to live in much the same way that similarly-sized families lived some 100 years ago. They have to live in a rural setting where they can grow most of their own food because it would be too expensive to feed families of that size with food purchased at supermarkets or restaurants. The kids have to accept a simpler lifestyle that includes wearing hand-me-downs and working to keep the family farm going.

From an economic standpoint, I would have a problem with people like this is if they tried to make their idea of family structure work in an urban or a suburban setting. There, they would find that housing and food would be prohibitively expensive, and there wouldn't be enough money to meet some of the cultural "demands" of suburbanite child raising.

The idea of raising children specifically for the purpose of creating more like-minded members of society, I find to be kooky, immature, and demonstrative of a lack of confidence in one's ideas. No matter what the belief system or ideology, I think that if the ideas had merits, one could get other adults to agree with them; there would be no need to indoctrinate children from birth.

Gee, I have to agree Skybill here. This is America and as long these couples bring up their kids responsibly, I have no problem with it.

As long as this movement is very small, so be it. There is nothing you can do about it, so live and let live. Move along.

You are also dealing with an interpretation of scripture that is actually quite ambiguous. For Skybill and myself the quiver is full at 2 kids. (like you sky got one of each)

Nowhere does the passage put a number on what it means when your quiver is full. So you are now doing some biblical assumptions. Not always good.

The other idea that I do find most troubling is this concept that having more kids means you can "change the world for Christ." Or as it was put in the article, to change the halls of justice and congress. Pretty idealistic idea considering there will probably be a percentage of these kids who will rebel against how they were raised.

My point is, they've taken scripture too simplistically and completely out of context. Which has always been my biggest gripe with the fundamentalist movement within the church.

Large families, I have no problem with particularly if they can create sustainable practices teaching their kids some good environmental farming techniques.

I was impressed of the fact that if one family didn't grow their own food they'd have to pay $1000 a month on groceries. Our monthly food budget for a family of 4 is around $1500. Then again we do buy lots of organic foods.