Sarah Palin's threatening womb

Another non-traditional aspect of Palin's 5 children: They were born over a period of 18 years or so. Having 5 kids in, say, 8 or 10 years might not get quite as severe a reaction. (Still severe, though).

My wife and I have five, ranging from 16 years old down to not-quite-three. None are byblows from "previous relationships". Shoot, my wife and I are on our first marriage.

I've had quite a few people look at me like I'm a space alien when they find these things out.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

People often ask me and my wife how many kids we want to have, since we're a young couple. In the back of my mind I can only hear the voice of elder Paisios of Mt. Athos who repremanded a couple whom he counseled for actively inhibiting conception. He told that next time there were in church and it was time to say the "Our Father", that they should instead say: "Our Father who are in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, OUR will be done....".

Submiting to God's will is always a risky thing. Its quite frightening, actually. In the realm of reproduction is is down right scarey. But, in what other area of life can we, I mean Christians, trust the Lord to send us what is beneficial for our salvation? We can send our money to this or that charity and rest assured that it will be used appropriately. We can give our tithe to our churches and rest assured that the other 90% will more that adequately meet our basic needs. We, wisely, put money away in our 401Ks so that we can have a comfortable retirement. We have all our bases covered. No uncomfortable suprises.

It seems to me that reproduction is one of the last places where we can wholeheartedly submit to God's will. He may see it fit to bless us with one child, and no more. Then again, he may bless us with two children, one of whom has Down's syndrome. Or He may bless us with 5 or 6 children. I have no idea. The point is not to know in advance how all that will pan out. The point is to trust the Lord to provide "all things good and needful for our salvation" and that we wholeheartedly undertake the task of caring for and loving those children.

So, good for Palin. I just wish she wouldn't follow the dangerous idea that the U.S. should be the sole super-power in the world and that it alone is entitled to act according to its interests. Her stance towards Russia is unsettling, to say the least. I'm no politicians, so that's all I can say about that. But, it seems that the it would be in the best interest of the U.S. to try to work with Russia and form a friendly relationship, rather than antagonize it by effectively telling it it cannot have a sphere of influence, all the while exapanding the it's own sphere of influence well beyond its borders.

So, I'm still undecided.

Sigh. Sauce for the goose, really. The fact is, there have been some pretty nasty things said of Mrs. Palin, and many of them greatly undermine substantive criticisms of the policies she supports, and I'm frankly pretty disgusted by it. But, one need only watch fox news or Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes to come to the conclusions that conservatives hate Barack Obama for who he is as well, and in fact, they hate him so much that they're willing to spread lies about him (remember the muslim accusations that seem to keep resurfacing?)

Quite frankly, I'd like to see the rhetoric of hatred toned down by both sides. I know it's a pipe dream. Rod, you're not doing yourself any favors by agreeing with and spreading more of this garbage.

No, that's not why the term "breeder" was coined.

Breeder is a result of the love and honor Christians have shown to those children of God who are homosexuals.

There was a great picture in the Convention section of the WaPo the other day, showing all the McCain (7!) and Palin (5!) kids on the tarmac waiting to greet McCain. Palin's children are all her own and Todd's, but despite all the ugly-talk about McCain's first marriage, I find his family fascinating.

He adopted his first wife's 2 sons from her first marriage--and continued to raise them even after his divorce. In fact one of them runs part of Cindy's McCain's family business. Then he and first wife had a daughter. He and Cindy had 3 of their own before they adopted from Mother Teresa. That daughter had a severe cleft palate and they knew she'd have medical troubles when they agreed to adopt her. But what is so nice is how this entire mixed up family all gets along and are involved in each other's lives, instead of being separated off into warring factions.

So not including kids and grandkids (McCain's oldest son is older than Palin), that's 12. Can you imagine what Thanksgiving is going to be like at the White House if they all get together! LOL

Yes, Rod, I agree there is too much scrutiny of Palin's family size and how she takes care of them. Even though I am 35 and have not yet had any children of my own, I think big families can be great experiences for kids (I am the oldest of four). I would like to have had a big family but I didn't meet my husband until I was in my thirties so now I'm just hoping to have at least one. I do have older step kids whom I love, but things are always a little complicated when you are the so called "wicked step mom" so I don't get to enjoy them as much as I would like.

But for anyone who wants to have 4,6, or 8 kids...I say go for it!

Rod talks about taking guff from strangers but I think my wife and I took more guff from our own relatives (and we have "only" 4 kids). "Hey, haven't you all ever heard of birth control?" - stuff like that. Strangers will usually try to be at least superficially polite, but family members sometimes seem to think that being related gives them a license to be rude.

Large families and homeschooling - two things that are almost guaranteed to get somebody's goat.

Sorry, but I think this is just paranoia on your part. I am firmly among those who find Palin repulsive, but it has nothing to do with the size of her family. It has everything to do with her positions and actions, like attempting as Mayor to censor books at the public library.

I'd love to have more kids, but the reality is that if my family is to be economically self-sufficient--the Republican ideal, right?--then we have to limit the number of mouths to feed, bodies to clothe, and educations to pay for. I'm not worried about private colleges, cars, grad school, house down payments, or fancy trips in retirement--just basic survival now and after the Husband and I are to old and ill to work anymore.

The Sarah Palins of the world can have as many kids as they like--so long as I'm not expected to help support them and the government doesn't impose her values on all of us.

I just find it mind-boggling to take care of more than three at once. I've been a camp counselor, I know whereof I speak, and that was just for nine weeks at a time. But I suppose if they are spread out over 18 years so the older ones can help take care of the younger ones, or if you have nearby family to help out, it wouldn't be so bad. The only "breeders" who really sort of freak me out are the women who have ten or twelve, and who are their sole care provider, whose ONLY role is their care provider, particularly if they are the type who raise their daughters to take on the same role at a very young age. I've spoken with some girls from families like that...

I live in a blue-state town, but oddly enough large families are fairly unremarkable here. Even though we are populated with lots of "whitepeople," 3-5 kids seems to be the norm, with a couple mega-families (on my street, the people next door have seven and the people at the end of the street have eight). So my three are hardly an anomaly.

I think the large-ish families around here are a reflection of the fact that a) most of the people in town are "townies" from way back, and have extended family networks here and are strongly rooted in place, b) it is a small, compact, old-fashioned town where you can let your kids out to play without worrying overmuch, and where older kids can safely walk or ride their bikes to get where they need to go, cutting down on the "mommy chauffeur" thing that my city and suburb friends have to do, and c) it seems fairly normal because everyone else is doing it.

When I visit my friends back in the NYC suburbs, though, it's a different story. They are absolutely floored that I have three kids; and that I had them "so young" (sheesh, I was 31 with my first! hardly a spring chicken!). Because around there it is more socially acceptable to have a single child in your early to mid-forties, and then to hand said child over to a nanny so you can resume your career as an investment banker or whatever. "How on earth do you handle them all, by yourself?" they want to know.

For those of you freaked out by the logistics of large families; my mega-mom friends say that anything over three is a wash. In other words, if you can handle three, you can handle eight, and the biggest problem is finding a vehicle that they can all fit in. It also helps if you live in a safe, smallish town so the older ones can walk or ride their bikes to soccer practice or afterschool jobs or whatever; and of course the older ones help out with the younger ones. The youngest two of the 7 next door used to practically live at my house because they loved being "big brother and sister" to my kids, and I greatly appreciated the help they gave in terms of playing with my kids so I could get a few things done, taking them out and pushing them on the swing, helping them with crafts, etc.

I know it is fashionable to decry older siblings helping with younger ones (it's slave labor! it is unfair to expect big sisters to act like little mothers!), but most older siblings relish the chance to be "in charge" of a younger sibling, if only for a few minutes. My littlest one is the youngest child in the neighborhood, and I don't think her little feet touched the floor for the first eighteen months -- there were always big sisters and older neighbor girls (and boys!) who would hold her, play with her, read to her, etc.. It's how kids are wired; they really would rather play with each other than play Nintendo by themselves all day. This is how families have functioned from the beginning of time; it's how kids learn about sharing and responsibility. Don't get me wrong, they still fight and bicker but it often seems like the kids from big families are a lot better at getting along with others and working things out on their own than only children or children with just a few widely spaced siblings.

My oldest daughter LOVES it when I assign her to look after her 3-year-old sister while I do something; she practically glows with delight at being entrusted with a responsibility, even if it is just playing dolls or helping her color. I thought they would resent it, because I grew up as the younger of two siblings born 9 years apart and was used to doing my own thing all the time, but I found that each baby seemed to move the other ones up a notch in the hierarchy, which they welcomed.

It's not for everyone, but people need to realize that until fifty years or so ago, pretty much everyone had big families, and it was fine. I have a friend who grew up as one of eight, and another who grew up as one of fourteen, and both said they loved being part of a big family. "There was always something going on...never a dull moment!" and "Even if I had a terrible day at school, and felt like I didn't have a friend in the world, I could come home and there was a house packed full of people who loved me."

So I kind of wish we had gotten started earlier and had a couple more...I'm almost 40 now and don't quite have the energy to go down that road again, but from what I see it doesn't seem like a bad thing at all.

Who are these rude people who make comments to parents about the size of their family or their lack of children? Not midwestern-nice.

As the mother of four, I've been the recipient of nosey and offensive commentary from both sides of the fence. It's been hinted that I have too many, and more than hinted, by conservative Catholics, that I have too few! Recently a good friend, who is still in contact with people I knew back then, had to give one of them a reality check when he suggested she should be practicing NFP. She politely hinted he should back off, but he wouldn't leave it alone, and she finally had to tell him bluntly to shut up. She has three grown sons and recently had surgery, chemo and radiation for an aggressive breast cancer, for which she'll be on estrogen-suppressing drugs for the rest of her life. The crowning irony of this interaction is that the insistent NFP-er's wife is infertile, so he's never actually had to practice what he preaches. He just thinks other people should.

I think the commenters who have said that people on all sides of a question do this, that it's a matter of their own insecurity with other people's differences, are correct. And it's probably healthier and more practical to shrug off such comments as a reflection on the speaker, rather than to get excited and go "See! See! Everybody hates me!" As the target of much persecution throughout my life for being too this or too that--too different, in sum--it's taken me much time to come to this realization, and some effort to hang onto it!

BTW, re the title of this post . . . I've always felt it was rather rude to refer to parts of a woman's body as if they had a mind and personality of their own. I hereby register my objection to the image of Sarah Palin's brawny, pit-bull womb strutting around pugnaciously threatening people. If people are threatened, they are threatened not by a disembodied womb, but by the use which Sarah Palin, a complete human being, has made of her fertility. (I'm also wondering when Rod will have a post up entitled "Todd Palin's Threatening Balls!" I would guess the answer is "never" . . . .)