16 kids in 18 years
Author
Discussion

Mrs Fish

Original Poster:

30,018 posts

288 months

Thursday 13th October 2005
quotequote all
and they want more :yikes:

I think someone needs to buy a TV :D

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/parenting/10/12/sixteen.kids.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

ultimasimon

9,646 posts

288 months

Thursday 13th October 2005
quotequote all
That's shocking news. And we wonder where all the local government expenditure is going

wedg1e

27,038 posts

295 months

Thursday 13th October 2005
quotequote all
Minge like a wizard's sleeve? I wouldn't fancy it.

Highway Star

3,615 posts

261 months

Thursday 13th October 2005
quotequote all
cnn said:
Their children include two sets of twins, and each child has a name beginning with the letter "J": Joshua, 17; John David, 15; Janna, 15; Jill, 14; Jessa, 12; Jinger, 11; Joseph, 10; Josiah, 9; Joy-Anna, 8; Jeremiah, 6; Jedidiah, 6; Jason, 5; James, 4; Justin, 2; Jackson Levi, 1; and now Johannah


Jinger?! LMFAO!!!!

and poor little Jeremiah and Jedidiah must have been p*ssed off that the lads younger than them got normal names like James and Jason......

So Jim Bob didn't make the Senate then? I wonder why that would be....

So they are a gift from God then and they think the Lord wants to give them more children? Perhaps God can give the average American taxpayer extra wedge to pay for them....

UKbob

16,277 posts

295 months

Thursday 13th October 2005
quotequote all
wedg1e said:
Minge like a wizard's sleeve? I wouldn't fancy it.


Like a wellington boot

it said:
each child has a name beginning with the letter "J": Joshua, 17; John David, 15; Janna, 15; Jill, 14; Jessa, 12; Jinger, 11; Joseph, 10; Josiah, 9; Joy-Anna, 8; Jeremiah, 6; Jedidiah, 6; Jason, 5; James, 4; Justin, 2; Jackson Levi, 1; and now Johannah.


"Ooooooohhh, I have a very clever Idea! Lets grant each of our offspring a name beginning with the same letter of the alphabet. Its pure genius!"

UKbob

16,277 posts

295 months

Thursday 13th October 2005
quotequote all
beat me to it

What nutters!

SXS

3,065 posts

287 months

Thursday 13th October 2005
quotequote all
16

and still wants more?????

Me things a new bill should be passed very soon...

16 children max per household!

Bloody amazing though... I wander what the world record is???

tinman0

18,231 posts

270 months

Thursday 13th October 2005
quotequote all
SXS said:

16 children max per household!


why? if they can afford it, and obviously they can, then why shouldn't they have lots of kids? is it somehow costing you?

Rob_F

4,154 posts

294 months

Thursday 13th October 2005
quotequote all
I'm going to start a formal action plan to out-breed the thick useless DSS-sucking scumbags when i'm about 30. It would be nice to have a rugby teams worth of kids to take out any chavs/bullys/gingers that seem threatening.

Cheers,
Rob.

anhamgrimmar

1,025 posts

261 months

Thursday 13th October 2005
quotequote all
Rob_F said:
I'm going to start a formal action plan to out-breed the thick useless DSS-sucking scumbags when i'm about 30. It would be nice to have a rugby teams worth of kids to take out any chavs/bullys/gingers that seem threatening.

Cheers,
Rob.


Plotloss

67,280 posts

300 months

Thursday 13th October 2005
quotequote all
I take it they live in a shoe?

Or at the very least some sort of footwear, slipper perhaps?

Eric Mc

125,712 posts

295 months

Friday 14th October 2005
quotequote all
Wasn't very unusual in Ireland up until the mid 1960s. I went to school where some of the lads in my class were one of tweleve or one of eighteen.

However, that was then and this is now and the social and economic imperatives that caused these large families no longer operate, even in Ireland.

JagLover

46,789 posts

265 months

Friday 14th October 2005
quotequote all
Highway Star said:

So they are a gift from God then and they think the Lord wants to give them more children? Perhaps God can give the average American taxpayer extra wedge to pay for them....


They are not on benefits, but a working family.

That is the difference between America and here, only the Chav's can afford to have that size of family here.

Good luck to them I say, I bet most of their children turn out right.

Mrs Fish

Original Poster:

30,018 posts

288 months

Friday 14th October 2005
quotequote all
I'm finding it tough with one

Vipers

33,506 posts

258 months

Friday 14th October 2005
quotequote all
Thank god they dont live over hear, the local council would have to raise our community charge to keep the buggers.

Dakkon

7,833 posts

283 months

Friday 14th October 2005
quotequote all
Surely that is not good for the mum having that many children, I was led to believe that each child took something from the mother, I doubt she will live to a ripe old age.

blue 4.5

1,543 posts

267 months

Friday 14th October 2005
quotequote all
Sounds like the guy obviously earns a fair amount of money and is not sponging of the state. So what's the problem? If they were on a council estates (not sure you can get 10 bedroom houses) and claiming benefits I could see an issue. Hopefully they will bring their children up well. They look a lot nicer family than the most of the breeding population (kids for benefits) of this country.

dinger

579 posts

254 months

Friday 14th October 2005
quotequote all
Thats not a family.......thats a small conerbation

Mrs Fish

Original Poster:

30,018 posts

288 months

Friday 14th October 2005
quotequote all
dinger said:
Thats not a family.......thats a small conerbation



I'm not familiar with that word... as I am being lazy, what does it mean?

timmy30

9,325 posts

257 months

Friday 14th October 2005
quotequote all
JagLover said:


Highway Star said:

So they are a gift from God then and they think the Lord wants to give them more children? Perhaps God can give the average American taxpayer extra wedge to pay for them....




They are not on benefits, but a working family.

That is the difference between America and here, only the Chav's can afford to have that size of family here.

Good luck to them I say, I bet most of their children turn out right.



Here here I totally agree. There's no reason at all why a couple shouldn't have 5, 6 or as many children as they want. There's a lovely family in the town that my parents live in, they have 6 children......and before you scream..... 4 of them, yes 4, got into to Cambridge University.

However what there should be a limit on is the number of children that you can receive benefit for, 2 would seem reasonable.

>> Edited by timmy30 on Friday 14th October 09:10