Uhh... I guarantee - if you have THAT many kids. you WILL stay in shape! Always doing stuff! ;0
So.. what should be the cut-off number?Originally Posted by TheClayTaurus
I don't think so at all - you should've seen the show.. how much they cared for each other and took care of things around the house.. it was very cool...
Well... not "love" as in "emotional attachment." I mean "love" as in "look after their needs, be willing to invest in him, be involved with them." Some people do not have the desire to do that, or the desire to let go of THAT much of their personal time & freedom to do it for that number of children. Those people should not have that many kids. But if a couple is willing to give that much of themselves, I say, they deserve PRAISE, not derision.
It's all priorities... ...
I think the reason it's beyond the imagination of most folks to grasp their arms around the idea of a large family is because they are too self-absorbed with their own "careers" - even under the dupe of "I'm working all these hours to provide for my family"...
News Flash - your kids do NOT need your money, they need your time, lkove and emotional support!
Large familes used to be the norm until we became more of an industrialized nation which ultimately let to folks seeking selfish ambitions over family...
Well, I think we're in the same place in terms of believing kids need your time and attentinon, hence my belief that it is impossible to provide such time and attention with that many children.
It isn't selfishness that keeps people from having large families. In the agrarian society, people needed more kids to work the family farm. They weren't having a family, they were having employees. Talk about selfish.
Then, there's also the question as to whether one can feed/clothe/educate a large brood.