My point of view is that any child is inately precious and sacred. As is true for any of us, these children can be considered potentially as either great liabilities or great assets. It is only our perspective on the matter that counts. That said, I probably would have stopped at two.

And there is the hard truth. We would (or at least, I would) never dream of regecting a child with disabilities. Their worth is not in thier physical perfection. But I would still be concerned about having more.

i think the presevative in the vaccines is mercury

In May 2003 the AAP stated, "All routinely recommended infant vaccines currently sold in the U.S. are free of thimerosal (mercurey) as a preservative and have been for more than two years." Yet, because the FDA maintained it did not have enough evidence to justify a recall of thimerosal vaccines distributed prior to the introduction of thimerosal-free versions, they were allowed to remain on the market until they became outdated. That means that poisonous vaccines were still administered until November 2002.

Of course a Danish study in 2004 found no higher risk after studying a group of 467,000 children. 1/2 had vaccinations with thimerosal and half did not. They claim the rise in cases is simply better diagnosis.
So pick a side, you have plenty to back you up in either case.

I do have a problem with beggars, yes. That it was the community that sent in the letters DOES paint this in a different light, I will admit, but I see far too many people who do nothing more than beg for a handout. It's made me a little cynical, sure.

I apprciate your comments, gid. I have seen this as well, but I think this topic is best left for another day and another thread. I want to stay on this concept for a little longer...love ya anyway.

But food for thought...in a family where 4 or 5 previous children were developmentally challenged in various ways, the last child grew up to be Ludwig von Beethoven. What if his mom had stopped at two?

This is a great point. I would never tell someone to stop having kids simply becuase the odds were against them. It's not my decision. Although I suppose I should back up and admit that someone who was NOT caring for a child and was popping out more unwanted and uncared for children should be curtailed in some fashion. I empathise with the mother in this case. Someone mentioned that she told them she could not just choose one to give back. It's not easy, but she made a hard choice and she is sticking it out. You have to commend her for that. Our society doens't seem to appreciate the extraordinary effort that parenting sometimes takes.

But stopping at 2 or 3 would mean I never would have met Mamielady or Boogie. That would have been a more terrible hardship than caring for a disabled child.

Glad you didn't!

during the show they mentioned that the autism in this particular family was not genetic, making their situation extremely rare. i bet that every time they had another baby they were thinking "surely this one won't be autistic" after all the chances would be so slim.

And that is where this all started. If I was in their shoes, how would I have reacted? I can't imagine the weight of that decision or the fear as they waited to find out if their baby was going to be "normal".

Second, every episode I've seen the people that receive the new homes seem genuinely grateful

They have a pretty rigourous screening process. They don't want to throw away this grand gesture to someone who won't appreciate it or doesn't really deserve it. Every family has not only had a great need, but they have been extraordinary people....serving others when they had nothing, sacrificing something for others, or struggling against immense odds and helping others along their journey.

If it were Ryan and I, and if we KNEW about a potential problem, I guess we'd do some fairly intensive genetic counseling and decide what to from there. I wouldn't want to put a child through unnecessary hardship if I didn't have to, you know? Life is hard enough for people without any disabilities at the beginning.

And whatever you chose would be a hard desision.

I'll tell you, life, this was a good topic, but it hit a raw nerve. I have to tell you from personal experience, there's a LOT of prejudice against a family with six kids, even if they're all normal and healthy. At four kids, most people are asking you to stop. At five, they're TELLING you.

I would not trade one of my kids for all the money in the world, and I can't imagine that that family would, either. It's just a sore spot with me, personally.

On topic, here's a related story.

A friend of mine had a child who was diagnosed with Cri du Chat syndrome, a rare genetic defect. When they were looking for support groups, they met a lady with a large number of children (10 or 12, if memory serves me correctly) who had a daughter with the genetic defect. This daughter was their second child, and they asked the woman how she had had more knowing the genetic defect was in the family. The lady's response was priceless: just have five or six more and you'll understand.

We actually may wind up seeing one of our family members go through that very decision. Somewhere in either my DNA or my wife's, is the Cystic Fibrosis gene. My four year old daughter carries it. If she grows up and marries a man who also carries it, they will have to face the reality that any children would have a one in four chance of having the disease. If that decision is ever one she has to make, I intend to fully support her no matter what she decides.

I'll tell you, life, this was a good topic, but it hit a raw nerve. I have to tell you from personal experience, there's a LOT of prejudice against a family with six kids, even if they're all normal and healthy

And that is a well made point. I know that people would rather see someone dote on and spoil 1 or 2 than give more love than possessions to 7. I don't think a limit should be made in the size of a family except in extreme cases.....but those have nothing to do with this issue....they deal with abusers having kids.

If that decision is ever one she has to make, I intend to fully support her no matter what she decides.

As any good parent should.

At the Fort Ord Day Care facility a few (say about 30) years ago I was checking in our four little ones for the evening so Mrs Daddy and I could take a well earned evening out. A major (intentional lower case) looked us over and said "Haven't you figured out what causes that? You know you don't have to have one EVERY time." Being a lowly buck sergeant at the time, I played it off as a joke (tone of voice and imperious attitude not with standing) and did not grind his face into the floor. It did put a pall on the rest of the evening. The attitude toward large families hasn't improved over the years. We saw and heard alot of things like that. But...I feel like GidMac...wouldn't take a million bucks for any one of them...or give a nickel for another one like them.