You know those scenes in movies where a heroic character jumps on a grenade to save his/her friends/family/fellow soldiers? It's a character trait that insures both respect and death for whoever is doing it. It shows the selfless nature of the character and gives them a brave and respectable way to die. 
     In the movies and TV, this is always the right thing to do. In real life, however, this is not always the case.
     A woman named Zurana Horton was shot to death in Brooklyn yesterday. She did so in the act of shielding her infant daughter from random gunfire coming from a nearby roof. Whoever started shooting from the roof was almost certainly not aiming for Zurana Horton or her daughter and remains at large. At first glance, this story appears to be a tragic tale of urban gun violence and Zurana Horton appears to have died in an exceedingly heroic manner, saving the life of her daughter.
     Like I said, thats how it appears at first glance. Let me give you a little more information. 
     Zurana Horton was 34 years old a the time of her death.
     She had 12 children.
     They ranged in age from almost 2 to 18 years old.
     3 of them have cerebral palsy.
     After examining these points, I have come to the conclusion that Zurana Horton's maternal instincts betrayed her and in saving the life of her daughter, she did the wrong thing.
     I have no children and there is a distinct possibility that I never will. I'm not saying that I have no interest, there are just too many variables at the moment for me to gauge. However, from what I've seen, maternal instincts are very powerful things and should not be trifled with. They seem to alter ones perception to the point where they transform women's children into that idol from the beginning of "Raiders of the Lost Ark". 

Can I get a shot of that?           

      My point being that most people with kids view them as something well worth dodging poison darts and outrunning mammoth boulders in order to protect. They are that precious.
     However, do you think Indy would have given quite as much effort if he already had eleven more of those idols at home? More importantly, should he have? If you ask me, this woman's maternal instinct kicked in at exactly the wrong time.
My point is this:
The world would be better with eleven kids being raised by their mother than twelve kids being raised without her.
When you factor in the fact that a full 25% of these kids have disabilities, it's even worse. I'm glad that I'm not bright enough to know even the  approximate dollar amount that these kids are going to cost the state of New York. 
     Besides, what's the point of having so many kids if you can't lose one every now and then? I know it's not the most pleasant way of looking at all of this, but if you wanted pleasant, you probably wouldn't be here, now would you? While I'm on the subject, twelve kids at age thirty-four is entirely too many kids. I understand that you should do what you're good at (Which is why I'm sitting here doing absolutely nothing), but come on. Twelve kids in eighteen years is statistically more time pregnant than not pregnant. A uterus should be more like a comfy hammock and less like the Holland Tunnel on a Friday afternoon. Plus, if three of your kids have the same disability, your vagina is trying to tell you something: You're not that great at making kids, either. Reproducing is about quality, not quantity. 
     Therefore, as a lesson to all of you, watch this spoiler-heavy clip from David Cronenberg's masterpiece "The Dead Zone". If both you and your child are being shot at and you have eleven more kids at home, take a page from evil politician Martin Sheen's book. He's a villain and all, but as I said at the beginning, being a hero isn't always the right thing to do.     
You can't save 'em all.