Octuplets

[lifeisbeautiful]

See–here’s the rub—who is to judge who is using NFP correctly, who is using it “selfishly” and claim that someone who uses NFP to avoid a pregancy or space children is not “Catholic” enough? That was what I felt these couples did at these conferences–they made determinations about families with two or three children and decided that if they were avoiding pregnancy, they must be “selfish”. It’s like–unless you had a serious illness, or had major life constraints (like job loss, etc.), or some other OBVIOUS reason why you didn’t have more children that THEY (meaning the large family groups) thought was an acceptable reason not to have more children–well, then–you were “selfish”.

Oh I absolutely agree, which is why we are called to discern in our particular circumstances, for our particular family, and have no business judging others by their family size. I did not mean to imply that would be ok, it is not ok, it can be harmful and hurtful. We are friends with one family that has been blessed with 2 children, one boy and one girl, about 10 years apart. They suffer of infertility and would have loved to have more children, but God’s plan for them was to have two. It is painful for them to hear comments (even if it is encouraging them) about having 2 kids, a boy and a girl, the “pair” how lucky they are they didn’t have to keep trying to get a girl, or how they should have more kids, etc etc. You never know what a couple is going through, you never know their reasons to avoid. The Church does say one has to have serious/just/grave reasons to avoid (those are the three words I have seen the most on different documents). There is nothing wrong in saying that. It also bothers me how people assume that “providentialists” (what exactly does that mean anyways?) are just out to have as many kids as they come, without taking into consideration the rest of the family, the mother’s health, etc. I like how my parish priest talked about what being prolife meant around the anniv. of Roe vs Wade. He said pro-life isn’t about being against abortion, or contraception etc for that matter, it is about giving life the value it deserves, realizing that children are blessings, marriage is ordered towards procreation, our richness isn’t in our economic wealth etc but in love, and in family.

 

[Lerin]

It also bothers me how people assume that “providentialists” (what exactly does that mean anyways?) are just out to have as many kids as they come, without taking into consideration the rest of the family, the mother’s health, etc.

Oops… I should have been more specific and deliberate in the wrods I chose. What I mean is, we are not part of the protestant “Quiverfull” movement. As Christians, we are all providentialists to a certain extent, are we not? Don’t we all believe that while following Him, He will provide for us? I love how Jesus taught that the birds of the air and the lilies of the valey have no worries about what tomorrow will bring… and we are infinitely more precious than they. My apologies.

I like how my parish priest talked about what being prolife meant around the anniv. of Roe vs Wade. He said pro-life isn’t about being against abortion, or contraception etc for that matter, it is about giving life the value it deserves, realizing that children are blessings, marriage is ordered towards procreation, our richness isn’t in our economic wealth etc but in love, and in family.

Wow. What a wonderful priest. I wish I could have heard that Homily.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Oops… I should have been more specific and deliberate in the wrods I chose. What I mean is, we are not part of the protestant “Quiverfull” movement. As Christians, we are all providentialists to a certain extent, are we not? Don’t we all believe that while following Him, He will provide for us? I love how Jesus taught that the birds of the air and the lilies of the valey have no worries about what tomorrow will bring… and we are infinitely more precious than they. My apologies.

Wow. What a wonderful priest. I wish I could have heard that Homily.

Oh ok, I agree. I like what you said about the birds and lilies and how we are more precious. I guess for me being a “providentialist” is trusting in God’s providence (divine guidance or care), knowing He will always outdo us in generosity, we give an inch, He gives a mile. It does not mean we go and stick our neck under a guillotine, trigger the mechanism and ask God to save us, but it does mean we don’t have to have 20 safety nets, leave nothing up to God/ have everything perfectly under “our control” to responsibly bring one child to the world. Aaanyways, I just read a couple of your posts and we seem to be in the same position (lol, and I am also 27 expecting my 4th , a SAHM ).

 

[Arwen037]

Lerin, you have no right to dismiss my opinion because I have seen the downside of multiple siblings or because I am young. I have just as much right as you to make spiritual pronouncements.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Lerin, you have no right to dismiss my opinion because I have seen the downside of multiple siblings or because I am young. I have just as much right as you to make spiritual pronouncements.

sure she can.

just because you have the right to an opinion does not mean others have to accept it. they are just as within their right to dismiss it.

this is doubly true in the case of making a spiritual pronouncement. if it does not agree with Church teachings, then one not only has the right to dismiss it, one has a christian duty to denounce it.

and frankly I think she did so in a kinder manner than you displayed towards those who have more than the average 2.5 children.

 

[Arwen037]

She can dismiss it if it does contradict the Church teachings (which it doesn’t) but not because I am young, unmarried or any of the reasons she gave. And I have not condemned anyone who has more than the “average 2.5 children.” I have said that these large families are irresponsible and cruel. Will anyone here argue that if you have 10 children, each child gets as much attention as if you had 3? And you as the parent may be willing to sacrifice to have another child, but have you asked your children what they are willing to sacrifice to have another sibling? Are they willing to give up their time? I’d say that paying enough attention to each child is a just reason to practice NFP.

 

[Col40]

She can dismiss it if it does contradict the Church teachings (which it doesn’t) but not because I am young, unmarried or any of the reasons she gave. And I have not condemned anyone who has more than the “average 2.5 children.” I have said that these large families are irresponsible and cruel. Will anyone here argue that if you have 10 children, each child gets as much attention as if you had 3? And you as the parent may be willing to sacrifice to have another child, but have you asked your children what they are willing to sacrifice to have another sibling? Are they willing to give up their time? I’d say that paying enough attention to each child is a just reason to practice NFP.

First, I don’t disagree with you that you need to take into consideration the children you already have and their needs before adding to your family. Two kids is a perfect size for our family for a number of reasons I feel are just, but other people may say aren’t. Again, no right size fits all.

I think what you’re reading from Lerin, Rob’s wife and some other posters is that in their experience, they have been able to provide for and care for their multiple children as well as someone like me, who has 2, has been able to. It’s a different experience for sure for a big family as it is for a smaller group of siblings–it depends on the parenting as to how those kids feel. I have a friend who was one of 8 and really loved her big family experience. My husband was the youngest of four and felt somewhat like he was invisible–still does–and I see some of that in the way he parents, especially with our youngest child. I’ll think if you re-read the posts, none of these moms of big families find the Duggars to be a stellar example of parenting–two structures, gender based roles, and they all question the sanity of Octomom–not because she had a lot of kids, but because in her interviews, her motives for having such a large family indicate some serious mental health issues. And as they’ve kindly confirmed for me, they look to God for guidance as to when they’ve reached their family size, but they don’t feel it yet.

You sound like you aren’t feeling a lot of the love when it comes to family. …use those feelings later in life to be the parent to your children that you wish your parents were to you. And let that be your guide to you big you grow your family–the calling is different for us. . .as are our abilities to parent. meanwhile.:hug3:

 

[seekerz]

Family size is a personal decision which in my mind has nothing to do with this woman’s situation. In most large families the children are at different stages of development and the older ones can at least fend for themselves to some extent.

How many people from centuries past till now, have had to mother 14 children under the age of, what eight, more than half of them tiny infants? I am pretty sure the answer is nobody, ever. There is just no comparison…

 

[Sarabande]

She can dismiss it if it does contradict the Church teachings (which it doesn’t) but not because I am young, unmarried or any of the reasons she gave. And I have not condemned anyone who has more than the “average 2.5 children.” I have said that these large families are irresponsible and cruel.

But Arwen (I love LOTR btw), what appears in your posts is that you are making general, sweeping statements that all people who have large families are irresponsible and cruel, which I believe and know is not the case. It’s the same as people who say that all couples who have no children at all are selfish, self-centered and egotistical just because they know childless couples who are truly selfish and egotistical. That doesn’t make all of them that way, especially if we don’t know each individual situation and circumstance. It’s also the same as saying that all children of divorce have horrible lives. Granted I know a number of people who were psychologically messed up because of their parents’ divorce. They go through years of therapy or suffer through their mental problems without special help. But I also know others who actually were better off - especially if one parent was abusive, for instance.

Basically, although there are irresponsible parents (no matter what size) there are also plenty of parents with large families who give incredible amounts of love and care to their children. Their children grow up experiencing wonderful memories, warmth, love and strong family bonds. These children never felt neglected. I’ve given enough examples of that and could give more, but it isn’t needed. For any of us to make an assumption that they were neglected because they came from large families, when they, themselves, know otherwise because of their experience with that family, would be wrong.

Will anyone here argue that if you have 10 children, each child gets as much attention as if you had 3?

Some parents can do it. Others can’t. Again, it depends on each individual situation. Your parents couldn’t, unfortunately, and I can see this has caused a lot of pain for you based on the passion you place in your posts, but that doesn’t mean that all other parents are like yours.

And you as the parent may be willing to sacrifice to have another child, but have you asked your children what they are willing to sacrifice to have another sibling? Are they willing to give up their time?

But that same argument can be made for a family with just one child wanting only one more. Some very young children don’t ever want to share their mother with any potential additional sibling, but once that new sibling arrives, they absolutely adore that child and would never want to go back to being an only child. Or some of these only children grow up wishing that their parents had more children.

I believe it all boils down to how the parents love and nourish their children in all aspects of life. A child, no matter how many or how little siblings they have, will never feel neglected or unloved if their parents are mentally healthy and stable and make them their top priority.

Of course there will always be situations of parents who have large or small families for very selfish reasons, but that doesn’t make all people in those categories cookie cut-outs of each other.

 

[Lerin]

Well, I logged on before bed to check on everyone… and I would respond to Arwen’s response to me, but find that Rob’s Wife, Col40, and Sarabande have all said it better than I would have. So rather than repeat them, I will simply agree and thank you!

Aaanyways, I just read a couple of your posts and we seem to be in the same position (lol, and I am also 27 expecting my 4th , a SAHM ).

Nice to meet you!!! When is baby four due? Too bad we don’t live in the same area, I would love to meet you.

 

[Col40]

How many people from centuries past till now, have had to mother 14 children under the age of, what eight, more than half of them tiny infants? I am pretty sure the answer is nobody, ever. There is just no comparison…

Yep—exactly. . . it’s not the way our bodies are designed.

 

[Lerin]

She can dismiss it if it does contradict the Church teachings (which it doesn’t) but not because I am young, unmarried or any of the reasons she gave.

I thought about you this morning, and thought it was only right that I clarify something.

Arwen, I didn’t “dismiss” your opinion BECAUSE you are young. I categorically dimiss your opinion that large families are “irrepsonsible, selfish, cruel, and negligent” for the precise reason that your opinion on Church teaching in this matter are dead wrong. You have no scriptural, theological, historical, or Traditional basis for this opinion. Your reasoning for this sweeping generalization is limited to your own limited life experience with your family of origin.

Yes, this opinion actually DOES contradict Church teaching. You stated that a family could only handle three, plus “a couple more” if they had a stay at home parent, but that’s about it." This is not consistent with church teaching but with the common attitude of modern society. If you are interested in reading more about what the Church does and doesn’t teach about family size, I can link you to some Papal encyclicals, Catechism, and respected church writers.

The reason I brought up your age and your hurtful childhood is that it gave me an ability to understand where you were coming from. I gave those reasons as a justification for not being hurt or offended by you, but understand in charity that you have neither the life experience nor the positive family experience to know any better. As I said before, I think your position comes from genuine ignorance about large families who are faithful Catholics and loving parents, rather than a malicious streak in you.

God bless you! I hope that helps you uinderstand my objections a bit more, and not take offense that I pointed out your age and family of origin.

 

[Col40]

vatican.edu/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_19831022_family-rights_en.html

The above link is with regard to The Charter of the Rights of the Family, as presented by the Holy See to all persons, institutions and authorities concerned with the mission of the family in today’s world October 22, 1983.

Article 3 specifically talks about family size:

"The spouses have the inalienable right to found a family and to decide on the spacing of births and the number of children to be born, taking into full consideration their duties towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society, in a just hierarchy of values and in accordance with the objective moral order which excludes recourse to contraception, sterilization and abortion. "

Arwen–I do understand what you’re trying to say…the thing is–no matter what size family, you’re going to see dysfunction. There is dysfunction in EVERY family, big or small. And what’s dysfunctional to some isn’t to others—that goes for kids of the same family. My brother and I are the only two—we’re four years apart—we have different memories of childhood. I remember taking some really interesting car vacations where we’d just drive and see where we landed. My brother seems to remember we never took a decent vacation. (my parents didn’t have a lot of money when we were kids, but we never went without). He seems to think I got everything–I seem to remember he got away with stuff I NEVER did. It’s all based on your perception–that’s a two kid family.

My husband was the youngest of four rhythm babies–the first three a year a part and my hubby was 2 years after that. His father had problems that impacted all their childhoods and ruined his marriage (he died before they divorced). While I don’t discuss this much with my husband, his mother has made some comments over the years that indicate she was willing to stop after her third–her only girl and the VERY obvious apple of her eye. Now I’m VERY glad she didn’t because my husband is a wonderful man, husband and father–and a lot of that comes from his learning to be his own person–his siblings are cliquey and while his mother tries to show she loves all of her children “equally”, I know my husband gets treated by both his mom and siblings as sort of the “afterthought”. There are a few things important things she overlooked with my husband–some quality of life issues (he has hearing aids now–and learned as an adult that she knew he had a problem as a kid but thought he’d “outgrow” it). Also, she refused to allow teasing, fighting, and tattling between siblings–and my husband has MAJOR issues now with anyone getting near his neck or tickling him because his older siblings and their friends would hold him down and tickle him and then “remind” him that their mom “didn’t like tattles”. His mother never learned about that until a few years ago–I brought it up. He probably should have had counseling as an adult–he has some issues with defiance when confronted with bully bosses which he directs at memories of his father–he always seems to give his mom a pass because of his dad. But overall–his experience made him stronger, and determined to be something better (we have some conversations about cocky vs. confident. ) Meanwhile, his sibs seem to have these fabulous memories of their childhood with their mother (there is consensus on their dad, sadly. I never met him as he died before I started dating my husband). They try to recreate family reunions as siblings with their own children based on memories they had of being with their cousins. My husband doesn’t have any real recollection of that. On another note–all three boys pretty much notice the mother’s obvious ability to move heaven and earth for their sister, when she can barely make the time to visit them.

Meanwhile, my mother-in-law remarried many years ago, just after my husband was done with college, and my husband’s family gained a step-brother in adulthood—an only child of a SAHM. At 50, he is still the most totally messed up, self-serving BRAT I have ever met. And that is not a statement about only children—it’s about THIS guy. He is constantly in need of his father’s attention…constant. Honestly, I don’t know if my father-in-law didn’t pay enough attention to him, or if it was his parent’s marriage (his parents split up when he was an adult), or what…he’s never really talked about his childhood–but his first wife with whom I was friends, seemed to be willing to share some dynamics that made me feel like perhaps he was looking for something from his parents he never got.

Conversely–I have a friend whose son was raised as only child (not by choice–she had high risk pregnancies, plus lost one son in toddlerhood to a longterm illness). This son is an amazing person, smart, generous, good Catholic. She and her husband did a great job of balancing being there for him, but also being hands off enough to let him become who he was going to be.

My daughter is in class with some kids who are the oldest of four siblings–one is the most polite sweet child, the other needs counseling for anger issues–badly. The siblings are all very different in how they respond, what they need in terms of attention, etc. . you can see it when they’re with their parents. One is independent, one is craving attention…

I have another friend who is one of 8–she has a great relationship with all of her siblings and she’s the youngest. She talks about how her parents raised them to be friends. She’s happy that she had a great experience that taught her frugality, etc. because it’s become an important skill in her adult life–she values family. When she talks more about her siblings, though–you can see some family strife.

I shared a lot here–but I did it because size isn’t an indicator to memories of a happy childhood.

 

[JCnMe]

Getting back to the original premise of discussion…it’s one thing to be opinionated about the process- but ultimately the children are here-they all survived very difficult circumstances to be here-and not just the six that were implanted but two more souls decided to join them!-They are ALL miracles and should be treated as such-and although the mother’s intelligence, emotional stability and sanity have all been questioned…the fact remains that God could easily have intervened in the process and stopped it- but instead chose to add two more…now if HE feels she is adequate to be the mother-then who are we to judge…she should be given all the benefits and attention that many multiple births have been afforded(I believe hers are the ONLY surviving octuplets)-and perhaps the children and their siblings will be able to enjoy at least a comfortable life instead of a tragic one…God’s lessons need to be recognized as such- these little ones should not be held accountable-but cherished- and from their birth perhaps the procedures and expectations of IVF will be revised and have more stringent oversight imposed…this has shone a “light”-in an area that science needs to step back a little and let God be God…

 

[rachah]

The problem is not particularly the number of children, although it would be impossible to have that number of children in that short a period of time by natural means.

And the problem is not that she implanted all the embryos instead of destroying them.

And the problem is not that she refused selective reduction to kill off some of the children in utero.

The problem is IVF. It turns children into commodities and denies them a natural father.

IVF does not denie children of their natural fathers. Many infertile married couples use IVF to have a family. I see nothing wrong with it at all if a married couple want to use their egg and sperm. A priest told my cousin that he personally was not against IVF for a couple wanting to have a family and gave them his blessings. Now they have four beautiful healthy children and they are such great loving parents. I also know many great loving couples at our church who has children thru IVF and our church community support them completely. IVF is not the problem. It’s people like everything else.

Catholic church was once against dismemberment of a human body at death and now it’s okay for transplantation to save a human life. The priest my cousin spoke with thought that IVF stance will also change with time.

So all of you with such judgemental-rightous stance should think before throwing the first stone. Life is always precious.

 

[rachah]

Here is a thought.

If a women cannot concieve naturally, then nature may telling them something, like don’t? This women has three (3) children out of the first 6 that are mentally challenged. I would listen to mother nature.

How about all the babies born to drug addicted mothers? Nature sure told them to be pregnant so that makes it right? PLEASE!!!

 

[seekerz]

How about all the babies born to drug addicted mothers? Nature sure told them to be pregnant so that makes it right? PLEASE!!!

I don’t interpret that post as implying that an infertile woman isn’t fit to be a mom. Some women who repeatedly miscarry are found to have hidden health disorders that would make carrying a baby beyond early pregnancy risky or complicated for them. Also, a significant proportion of miscarried babies have been found to suffer from genetic conditions that are not are not compatible with life beyond the earliest weeks.

In those cases maybe nature is saying, there is a reason some women cannot (mind you, I’m no saying should not) be mothers.

 

[Col40]

IVF does not deny children of their natural fathers. Many infertile married couples use IVF to have a family.

First–the church’s official stance on IVF is that it’s not allowed–primarily because it creates multiple embroyos that are often discarded. A priest’s “personal” opinion is not a church-sanctioned OK. That being said–your cousin’s experience in IVF—a loving couple unit who suffered from infertility and opted for this procedure to have a family is much different from the Octuplets mother. I’m sure your cousin did not tell the doctor to implant her will as many embryos as possible at once. Nadya Suleman’s interviews indicate that she suffers from some mental disorders—and while it is never up to anyone to decide–especially in a natural case–who should have children, who shouldn’t, how many they should have, etc…this is one situation in which I question the doctor’s ethics as well as the mother’s mental health. This was not a natural pregnancy–no doctor is obligated to do anything just because the patient “wants it”—especially if it puts the patient or other lives in danger. Multiple births are extremely dangerous to the mother’s health and almost always result in at least some of the children suffering from some sort of physical or mental development issues because of the inability to fully develop in an overcrowded womb. My question is–what doctor, in their right mind, would put a mother and her children in that position–just because the mother wanted him/her to? It was not in either’s best interest. And it’s not a comparable situation even to a couple who acheived 8 simultaneous pregnancies using fertility drugs (which are OKd by the church). This was a willful situation. . most of the multiple births are resultant of fertility drugs, not multiple IVF implants.

Yes–we can say all we want—They here, let’s give them love and support…no one is denying that. But the bigger argument has to be about medical ethics going forward…should doctors be allowed to implant multiple embroyos into a woman thus willfully putting her life and those of her children at serious risk? Let’s remember–this story could have had a much different outcome…

 

[Antrim]

I would not be troubeled in the least about this woman and her fourteen kids. It is really none of our business. I V F is wrong. Only the people involved has to deal with it.
There is a lot of people all bent out of shape about what it is going to cost to raise these kids. WE are our brothers keeper.
There are Millions of Dollars wasted on some of the polititions pet projects. For instance research on the sex of a Fly while millions of people go hungry.
Whatever it costs to raise these children will be money well spent not going to some worthless project that is a total waste of time and money.

Antrim

 

[Col40]

I would not be troubeled in the least about this woman and her fourteen kids. It is really none of our business. I V F is wrong. Only the people involved has to deal with it.
There is a lot of people all bent out of shape about what it is going to cost to raise these kids. WE are our brothers keeper.
There are Millions of Dollars wasted on some of the polititions pet projects. For instance research on the sex of a Fly while millions of people go hungry.
Whatever it costs to raise these children will be money well spent not going to some worthless project that is a total waste of time and money.

Antrim

While you make salient points about pork barrel spending. . .and how that money could be used to feed the poor, that’s not the issue. . the bigger picture is we have doctors who are catering to the whims of mentally-disordered individuals in artificially creating life. Science is going too far. This is a perfect example. .This falls into some seriously medical ethics gray areas and it’s opening a lot of discussion.

And yes, we’re supposed to help the poor–but It’s one thing to help a large family who is struggling to provide for their family through no fault of their own (like job loss, illness), and it’s another to keep bringing children into the world, because the mother wants to feel love she was denied as a child, with no visible means to support her family and expecting that the government will provide for them or, in this crackpot’s case–hoping to get some sort of TV deal out of it–I haven’t exactly seen her avoiding the spotlight. And this wasn’t God’s will for her to conceive all these children–this was a very clear-cut case of doctors playing God. It’s by GOD’s GRACE, not His WILL that those children have all survived this far.

Go look at my link on the Charter of the Rights of the Family. The answers are there.