sartresue wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, many women were pregnant 18 times, and even more. What was different was that only half of these children were born and lived to adulthood.
Exactly. As recently as 100 years ago, women did not usually have access to birth control. However, diseases, poor sanitation, poor nutrition, etc. killed off many infants and young children. Women gave birth to many babies, but often, only two or three reached an age at which they could have children of their own. The worse-off you were financially, the more children you tended to lose at a young age.
It is thought, too, that earlier in history, women breast-fed their children for about as long as possible. Breast milk is a convenient food source, and it decreases the likelihood of becoming pregnant (but is not exactly reliable as a birth control method!). This meant that a woman would typically have a new child every few years or so, and many died due to disease, poor nutrition, poor sanitation, hypothermia . . . the list goes on.
Other animals reproduce in large quantities for the same reason - in the wild, most offspring will die before they reach sexual maturity for a wide variety of reasons.
Now, all of a sudden, we have birth control, medications and vaccinations to prevent the spread of disease, an understanding of how diseases are spread and how to prevent common illnesses (
e. coli infection, for example) through proper hygiene, a good understanding of nutrition, the ability to heat and cool our houses through use of gas and / or electricity, etc.
But it takes time for society to adjust, especially in social classes that were (and still are) the most greatly affected by the factors described above, and also have always had the lowest rates of access to education and information of all kinds.
sartresue wrote:
Multiple births, physical challenges, and huge families such as this were virtually uncommon a century ago, apart from a few exceptions like the Dion Quints, Chang and Eng, and a South American family with 20 children, and a few people born with unusual physical occurrences- the latter usually ended up as sideshow spectacles (like Chang and Eng) and most did not marry and have families, if they lived so long.
So we have dispensed with viewing extreme situations/people as though they were "freaks" to be stared at--or have we?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a6af0/a6af0253fc47f52f9e58caa950ec8811f1975586" alt="Confused :?"
This is a money maker.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f9fc0/f9fc0a73dd57feae8f63e27df00fdad53bd734e7" alt="Rolling Eyes :roll:"
Until about 150 - 100 years ago (industrial revolution, development and advancement of modern science), it was common for children who were born "defective" in some way to be killed, abandoned, or neglected until they died. This was because a lot of people believed that to be given such a child was to be cursed by the devil, or that these children were "changelings" . . . There were multiple superstitious beliefs that made it socially taboo to even give birth to a "defective" child. On top of that, the children were feared, along with the curses that were thought to accompany them. So the parents would dispose of them and then claim that the child had been stillborn (also more common back then). And yes, some of those who got to live did not live long, depending on their exact disability.
But today, most children born with deformities are made to look as normal as possible as early as possible, and many formerly fatal disabilities (such as type I diabetes) are easily treated, so now a lot of these people go on to live normal lives and have children of their own. Doctors encourage genetic counseling so that people refrain from passing on genes that are considered problematic, but from this point on, the issue becomes ethically complicated and controversial.
And yes, many of these reality shows / documentaries / whatever on stations like TLC and Discovery Health are essentially freak shows; I have noticed this as well.