Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Wonderful or Selfish?

24

Comments

  • #32
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    Except its not what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom thats the issue at all is it ?

    You mean a heterosexual couple having unprotected sex? Well I can't say for sure but I'm guessing it mostly happened in the bedroom...


  • #33
    Menas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Menas


    30 posts so far. If the father was on welfare and not a hard working man then this thread would have 300 posts by now.


  • #34
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Pompey Magnus wrote: »
    You mean a heterosexual couple having unprotected sex? Well I can't say for sure but I'm guessing it mostly happened in the bedroom...

    The issue isnt with them having sex its with them having 13 kids. Pretty sure the entire ordeal over the last 15 years wasnt all confined to the bedroom...


  • #35
    Chattastrophe!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭Chattastrophe!


    I don't think it's necessarily selfish. Every family dynamic is different. Some parents could be overwhelmed by just two children and unable to cope well; others would be fine with twenty!

    I'm from a large family myself (second eldest of seven.) I wouldn't have that many kids myself, but I don't think that my siblings or I suffered any negative effects from being part of a bigger family.


  • #36
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    The issue isnt with them having sex its with them having 13 kids.

    So are we not here judging them for not using contraception / abstinence, which is exactly my point?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Lando Griffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,952 ✭✭✭Lando Griffin


    Would be a disaster if you brought them all shopping to Aldi; they would be tricked into opening another till thinking there was 13 people in the queue.
    Stay sway from Aldi big family.


  • #38
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Pompey Magnus wrote: »
    Nice to see though that it wasn't just Catholic Ireland that judged the morality of what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Modern, secular Ireland is keeping up the tradition it seems.
    That's one hell of a disingenuous comparison. Back in those days, contraception was condemned as sinful by the church - there wasn't a problem with people having procreation sex so long as they were married.

    Today, it's not about the sex whatsoever - it's about having too many children to look after properly, when there is availability of contraception.

    Weird comparison really.

    It's very irresponsible to have 13 children if you can't afford to provide for them. I don't mean that in the dumb "Can't afford children? Don't have them" sense that gets applied to people who have two or three children and have fallen on hard times.
    But this is another sphere entirely - and way too extreme.


  • #39
    Santa Cruz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Santa Cruz


    Trigger Happy wrote: »
    30 posts so far. If the father was on welfare and not a hard working man then this thread would have 300 posts by now.

    In due course he will be on Joe Duffy whinging that the government aren't providing employment for his brood in the town and they have to emigrate. In the interim the taxpayer will have subsidised him thousands of euro.
    Pay them nothing after three kids and we would see how they would like it.


  • #40
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Pompey Magnus wrote: »
    So are we not here judging them for not using contraception / abstinence, which is exactly my point?

    Your point is that is was a private thing between those two individuals in their own home and they shouldnt be judged for that. I'm saying it stopped being a private thing between those two individuals when they brought 13 more individuals into the world. This affects others so it is no longer their private business and nothing to do with anyone else.


  • #41
    theblaqueguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 401 ✭✭theblaqueguy


    Holy sh!t how much child benefit do they get a month so its
    €130 a month for the first 3 thats €390
    Add on 10 children at €140 a month thats €1400+€390= €1790 a month thats a nice chunk of change every month the oldest child is 15 so they should be getting €21,480 every year for the next 3 years
    Any women on boards wanna start making some babies seems like easy money maybe try for 15 kids hopefully have some twins or triplets to make the process easier we can expect
    €2,210 a month if we can reach the goal of 15


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    Today, it's not about the sex whatsoever - it's about having too many children to look after properly, when there is availability of contraception.

    How are these children not being looked after properly?


  • #43
    Electric Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭Electric Sheep


    theblaqueguy wrote: »
    Holy sh!t how much child benefit do they get a month so its
    €130 a month for the first 3 thats €390
    Add on 10 children at €140 a month thats €1400+€390= €1790 a month thats a nice chunk of change every month the oldest child is 15 so they should be getting €21,480 every year for the next 3 years
    Any women on boards wanna start making some babies seems like easy money maybe try for 15 kids hopefully have some twins or triplets to make the process easier we can expect
    €2,210 a month if we can reach the goal of 15

    You think taking care of 15 kids is easy money?!


  • #44
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    Your point is that is was a private thing between those two individuals in their own home and they shouldnt be judged for that. I'm saying it stopped being a private thing between those two individuals when they brought 13 more individuals into the world. This affects others so it is no longer their private business and nothing to do with anyone else.

    If that is your criteria then one child affects others also, does that mean any act of unprotected sex between a heterosexual couple should no longer be considered a private act?


  • #45
    oceanman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭oceanman


    Santa Cruz wrote: »
    In due course he will be on Joe Duffy whinging that the government aren't providing employment for his brood in the town and they have to emigrate. In the interim the taxpayer will have subsidised him thousands of euro.
    Pay them nothing after three kids and we would see how they would like it.
    would that not make us a bit like china?


  • #46
    my teapot is orange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭my teapot is orange


    €140 a month is €35 a week. You might just about cover the childs food out of that, never mind clothes and other expenses. They're hardly doing it for profit.


  • #47
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    NoCrackHaving wrote: »
    How do you actually afford that many kids? Most people from those huge Irish families grew up dirt poor.

    From my own experience that's not true, I'm the oldest of ten, and the house was organised like the army, we all had chores etc to make sure everything got done, but were all encouraged to do sports/hobbies and given lots of support from our parents.

    I can't say that I ever noticed a lack of money and it inhibiting what we did tbh and this was in the eighties. When we were 16/17 we were encouraged to go out and get part time work/babysitting etc but certainly there was no pressure to do so.


  • #48
    Teyla Emmagan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,638 ✭✭✭Teyla Emmagan


    They seem like a nice, happy family. Lovely kids who are certainly all well looked after and content, judging by the article anyway.

    And I for one am delighted to see 13 additional tax payers to look after me in my old age.


  • #49
    Dr Turk Turkelton
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Dr Turk Turkelton


    The Pheasant2 wrote: »
    How can yer man even get it in anymore? Must be like trying to do it with a black bin bag!

    Like throwing a sausage down O'Connell street!


  • #50
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    I wouldn't say it was either selfish or wonderful, they're just a couple that decided to have a big family. What's there to judge them for in all fairness?

    13 people in a world population of 7 billion people? Hardly overpopulation now is it? And the parents seem to be able to take care of them, so... ehh, yeah, whatever tbh.


  • #51
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Pompey Magnus wrote: »
    How are these children not being looked after properly?
    I meant in general, not these children specifically.
    I can't imagine it being easy to afford to financially support 13 children today, unless you're fairly well off. And I'm not one of the "Kids are so expensive" believers - you can find a way... but only to a point.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    I meant in general, not these children specifically.

    So can I take it, if you aren't referring to these children specifically, that you accept that it is possible for a couple to properly care for 13 children?
    I can't imagine it being easy to afford to financially support 13 children today, unless you're fairly well off. And I'm not one of the "Kids are so expensive" believers - you can find a way... but only to a point.

    I'm sure it isn't easy (since when was it ever supposed to be?) and I'm sure they are getting help from the State to do so, and I'm also sure the State will more than recoup this investment during the working lives of these children.


  • #53
    poundapunnet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭poundapunnet


    Pompey Magnus wrote: »
    So are we not here judging them for not using contraception / abstinence, which is exactly my point?

    But in this case those are actions with potentially serious consequences for other people.

    A married couple having protected sex, or an unmarried couple engaging in sexual acts, or two people of the same sex engaging in sexual acts either have no consequences for other people or ones that are much lesser than the consequences which could arise from those people having 13 kids.

    And crucially, nobody here is suggesting that the state or the law should have any say in what that couple get up to in their bedroom or how many children they should be allowed to have. Or for example taking the kids off them and putting them in institutional schools or having them adopted, possibly abroad, or institutionalising the parents themselves on the basis of their sex life. So shut up.

    As far as I'm concerned by the way they can have as many kids as they like, they must be wrecked, fair play!


  • #54
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Pompey Magnus wrote: »
    So can I take it, if you aren't referring to these children specifically, that you accept that it is possible for a couple to properly care for 13 children?
    Maybe, but it would be a struggle at times financially if you're not well off. The state assistance doesn't amount to that much overall.


  • #55
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭EoghanIRL


    The government should put A limit on the amount of kids one can have to reduce costs.
    I've heard about people on the dole having large families. The tax payer shouldn't have to support that.


  • #56
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    poundapunnet wrote: »
    But in this case those are actions with potentially serious consequences for other people.

    You mean the future consequence of this family helping to slightly alleviate the lowering ratio of worker to retiree we will see in a few decades and thus in their own small way helping to lessen the effects of the pension crisis we are going to experience?


  • #57
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    Maybe, but it would be a struggle at times financially if you're not well off. The state assistance doesn't amount to that much overall.

    Again though, who says raising a family should be easy? If a couple put in the extra work, sacrifices and struggle to care for their children then as far as I am concerned they can have as many children as they like.


  • #58
    poundapunnet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭poundapunnet


    Pompey Magnus wrote: »
    You mean the future consequence of this family helping to slightly alleviate the lowering ratio of worker to retiree we will see in a few decades and thus in their own small way helping to lessen the effects of the pension crisis we are going to experience?

    I mean the consequences for 13 people of growing up in that situation, like has been mentioned realistically college is going to be an issue and the older ones will probably be supporting the younger ones when they start working. I mean the consequences for other working people regarding child support. I mean the consequences for all of them if something happens to one parent. And yes I mean the consequences of the benefit to society they'll be when they're older. I didn't say good consequences or bad ones, I said consequences.

    Those actual, real, consequences is what makes it different from pre-marital, homosexual or protected sex, and society's reaction to it is what makes it different from the carry on of the Catholic church in days gone by. Like I said, more power to them, my point is your comparison is stupid.


  • #59
    poundapunnet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭poundapunnet


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    The government should put A limit on the amount of kids one can have to reduce costs.
    I've heard about people on the dole having large families. The tax payer shouldn't have to support that.

    Yeah that worked great in China :rolleyes:


  • #60
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    poundapunnet wrote: »
    I mean the consequences for 13 people of growing up in that situation, like has been mentioned realistically college is going to be an issue and the older ones will probably be supporting the younger ones when they start working.

    If the older ones wish to support their siblings with their own money then what has that got to do with any of us?
    I mean the consequences for other working people regarding child support.

    Child support is an investment that society makes, it is not a black hole.
    And yes I mean the consequences of the benefit to society they'll be when they're older. I didn't say good consequences or bad ones, I said consequences.

    The average child provides a net benefit to society during their life, unless you believe that this family is genetically predisposed to antisocial behaviour then the consequences need to be assumed to be mostly good.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    poundapunnet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭poundapunnet


    Pompey Magnus wrote: »
    If the older ones wish to support their siblings with their own money then what has that got to do with any of us?



    Child support is an investment that society makes, it is not a black hole.



    The average child provides a net benefit to society during their life, unless you believe that this family is genetically predisposed to antisocial behaviour then the consequences need to be assumed to be mostly good.

    If you'd like to stop picking and choosing from my posts and respond to them as a whole rather than misrepresenting what I'm saying I'll keep talking to you. I don't know where you're pulling these responses from but they're not based on what I've been saying.


Advertisement
Advertisement