Too many children?

[VeryAlliegh]

There are lots of familys that have 6 to 20 children and i know a lot of people raised in these supersized familys and i wonder is this really good for the children involved?

I see the Duggars and and their system of child rearing and i cant help but think they give alot of their parenting respondsibily to their older children. it seems to me like the mother only takes care of the youngest, and only until the next one is born. The older children seem to do alot of the things that the parents should be doing, and it seems to me like they cant because there are just too many of them. A while back i went to my friends house, and as a visitor i was feeding babies and changing diapers.

So my question is: is there such a thing as too many children?
When do you think people should just stop having babies?

[Faithlove13xxx_SC]

I think it is totally rediculous to have so many kids, personally.
But if you want a lot of kids, I think you should adopt them.


There's a *serious* shortage of adopting parents, and the world is growing ever more populated by the second, which has already begun to have serious worldwide environmental and resource impact in a negative fashion.
People need to look at how their actions impact humanity at large, and stop being selfish.

[JacobEdward]

I think parents can draw the line for what they regard as 'too many children', but forcing parental responsibilities onto older children isn't right. I mean, older siblings should babysit and help around the house, but if it gets to the point where they're basically raising their younger sibling...Children need to be able to connect and be close to their parents to have 'healthy' families.

So if the parents can take care of 17 kids ages 0-20, with limited help from their older children (who also have their own lives to live!), I'm basically fine with it.

[longdaysend]

well with the Duggars, you have to understand they practice an off-shoot of christianity that believes that children are a gift from god and couples should accept every child as a blessing. this off-shoot is called 'quiverfull' as in a quiverfull of arrows. and as Michelle home-schools the kids they do get alot more time with mom than many kids in this country do on a daily basis.....however,that being said Michelle has also said that if the kids want to have one-on-one time with thier parents they have to 'sign up' on a sheet like seeing your RA in college. i think once it gets to the point that your kids have to shedule time with you you might have one too many kids.

i believe in the big family and i'm supportive of those who choose to have larger than average families. after 4 of our own and one pregnancy scare shortly after the birth of our last child that was twins (i miscarried at 10 weeks), we firmly believe that you should enjoy and love every gift you're given, but not at the expense of your other children. :) just my personal 2 cents on the subject.

[whiterider]

As JacobEdward said - if the parents are capable of raising and looking after that many children, then fair enough.
However, this would require a ridiculous amount of money, two unemployed parents, and for those parents to be bloody wonderful people... even if they can manage to keep the kids fed, clothed, and clean; there is a lot more to raising children than that. Kids need the opportunity to spend time with their parents, preferably alone, and this is nigh impossible with anything more than about five kids.
And if the parents do do it wrong - it can have devastating effects on the children; what if something happens which means one kid needs a lot more attention than usual? When one child is diagnosed with something serious - a learning disability, a physical illness like leukaemia - it's hard enough to cope in a family with two kids. What do you do if there are ten of them?? I'd never want to take that risk.

[kirti]

I've watched the Duggar shows as well (she's pregnant with number 18!) and I don't agree with what they do. Their "buddy" system takes the young children away from their parents. Who are those babies going to think of as their mother? Obviously the real mother will be called "mom" but who will they remember raising them?

Another issue I see with this family is the children don't seem to have individuality. They talked about this on one of their shows, and I think the oldest mentioned that they are very individual - he said some like chocolate ice cream and some don't. Is that their only idea of individuality? Their preference of ice cream flavors? They aren't given the right to dress in whatever they want, and they definitely don't seem to have much privacy, regardless of how large their newly built house is.

On the other hand, this is all the kids know. They don't know any other sort of life style. To them, this IS normal. Is it right for us to tell them it isn't?

I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't agree with how they raise their children, but at the same time, it's all the children know. For them to change their style now would confuse them too much, I think. Large families *can* be raised differently. Where I'm from, there is one specific family with twenty-seven children. While they all look very similar, sometimes it's hard to tell they're related. They're all so different. It all depends on the methods of parenting, I think.

[HystericalParoxysm]

The Duggar kids do seem quite polite, happy, and well-adjusted in spite of a strange upbringing. It wasn't too long ago that larger families were the norm, and I think it's perfectly normal in -any- family, not just a larger family, for the older kids to help out with taking care of the younger kids. The Duggar kids have a lot of chores and responsibilities, and while I'm sure it's not all peaches and sunshine in that house all the time, everyone seems to pitch in and do their share.

They've built their own home, including the kids helping out... and apparently the dad has made quite a lot of money off real estate. One thing I'd heard about them which I haven't been able to verify is that while they are pretty well off, they still can't cover all of their expenses, and much of what they use for day-to-day life is donations from their church and community.

A large family is one thing, and while I think having 17 (soon to be 18) kids is too many considering how many people there already are in the world, and how many children could use homes which don't have them... I think it's damn wrong to continue bringing children into the world if you can't even be self-sufficient with the ones you have.

[Lillubibi]

I don't agree with a system where 10 to 16 years old have to take care of cooking/laudring/babies...
I agree with every one, when you need your children to take care of their brothers and sisters as a mom and a dad should then, there is a problem. I am not talking about helping out at home like all children do.

[mornindew]

i didn't watch it but I can say from personal experience that I have a large family My husband, myself 9year old daughter, 7 year old daughter, 2 year old son and 3 month old son. Not to metion my step daughter who is 6 and my son who likes living with his dad who is 5. So every other weekend I have a total of 6 kids in my home and also in the summer. My children don't have to do anything but clean their rooms and messes if they make one. So yeah I think their is a huge problem when older children have to take care of the younger ones. I mean I know it is alot of work but I am more then willing to give up my time so my kids can be just that kids. To many families small or big put way to much stuff on the kids shoulders and I believe that this should stop. That's my two cents.

[HystericalParoxysm]

What's so bad about kids having chores and responsibilities, or caring for their younger siblings? Sure, it shouldn't be -all- they do, but I don't see a problem with having older kids cook, do laundry, or make sure the younger kids don't get into things they shouldn't, especially if you have a large family and everyone needs to pitch in. I think a lot of kids nowadays have too -little- responsibility in the home, and parents think they shouldn't give their kids chores or they'll get upset. Older kids can mow the lawn, do laundry, clean bathrooms, sweep the kitchen, etc., just like an adult can, and I see no reason why they shouldn't as long as the task is suited to their age and abilities - they enjoy having a clean house just as the rest of the family does, and it's not mum and dad's responsibility to be maid or janitor to the entire house.

There can certainly be a line where teaching and having kids start learning real life skills is crossed, and the kids aren't allowed to be kids anymore... but I don't see what's inherently wrong with the older kids caring for their younger siblings or pitching in around the house.

[Zavi]

Personally, I'm not a family person. I come from a small family (I'm an only child) and I don't think I get enough time to myself. If I had siblings (other than a half sister who doesn't live with me), I would absolutely die! I don't plan to have children, but I won't force my lifestyle on anyone else.

As long as you can give your children the best life you can give them, I suppose you should go for it. However, I think ALL parents need to consider adoption BEFORE they have any children. The world is populated enough already; we don't need any more people.

I like kids and all, but I couldn't imagine having them in my house 24/7. I don't understand anyone that would want to have a huge family, but that's just me. As long as you are a responsible parent, do what you want.

[davious]

150 years ago, Farmers had that many kids all the time. They needed as many kids as possible in order to have farmhands that were cheap. Having large families like that is not unheard of in this country.

I could never do what the Duggars do. Obviously, in order to support a family that large, they must have a very generous source of income. Some people no doubt donate food and clothing to them, out of some sense of charity, but they could not count on that by any means. They must do alright for themselves through Jim Bob Duggar's job.

I also don't see a particular problem with the older kids helping out. Isn't that something parents ask older siblings to do all the time? This is just a larger scale from something that is already perfectly normal parental behavior.

Further, all of the children appear well behaved, very well educated, and otherwise well-adjusted. Perhaps its not how you or I would choose to raise our kids, but, they are not violating any laws, they are not abusing their children, their children are getting proper educations, they find ways to put food on the table and clothes in the closets. They do things a little differently than mainstream Americans, but, for them, it works.

[longdaysend]

since the Duggars are the most well known family i thought i'd offer a link to an article that offers a brief over-view of thier life/family. it answers the money question allong with a few others regarding this particular family. :D




Meet the Duggars (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20134584/)

[AxelValentine]

That Dugger family scared me when I first saw them on Discovery Health. But to each their own I suppose.

I do think there is such a thing as too many children. Pregnancy is hard on the body and having too many can mess some things up. The internal organs are smushed together for months and not allowing them some time to rest...doesn't sound good to me.

[VeryAlliegh]

[QUOTE=kirti]......On the other hand, this is all the kids know. They don't know any other sort of life style. To them, this IS normal. Is it right for us to tell them it isn't?QUOTE]
That bothers me too. Im not trying to bash the duggars or their lifestyle but, shouldnt their kids be exposed to the rest of the world? sure, the kids are happy in their little bubble, but what happens after? what about when they grow up and move out? Maybe its just me, but i think if you shelter your kids too much it makes them very vulnerable to the rest of the world. im not saying that you should take your kids to the 'streets' and expose them to the ugly truths of society, but at like age 12-13, your kids need to see the rest of the world while your there with them to protect them from what they need protectiontion from, not when they are grown and they dont know what to do with themselves or how to handle the situation. its setting them up for faliure

[QUOTE=HystericalParoxysm]They've built their own home, including the kids helping out... and apparently the dad has made quite a lot of money off real estate. One thing I'd heard about them which I haven't been able to verify is that while they are pretty well off, they still can't cover all of their expenses, and much of what they use for day-to-day life is donations from their church and community.QUOTE]

Maybe if you can't financially support your family then you shouldn't be making it bigger. People shouldnt have to rely on others to help them raise their children.

[HystericalParoxysm]

VeryAlliegh - I didn't mean that they should rely on others to support their kids. I've heard that they rely on donations to do so (though they do have a lot of their own money, enough to have built their own house, for one), and I think that's wrong. It's one thing to have one child and get into a financial bind and need some help from others, but it's quite another to have 17 kids and continue breeding if you can't support the ones you have without other people helping you.

[crocobaura]

That's a lot of kids, but if they can provide equally for all of them I don't see the problem. And yes, older kids should help around the house not waste time at the mall or in front of the computer. I've met two such huge families, one with 22 kids, the other with 10 and they were tightly run institutions, if I may say so. They are financially independent, and I suppose they earn quite well from all those shows they've been on and as long as they can provide for their family, and don't make the kids beg for food or money from the community, people shouldn't judge them.


VeryAlliegh - I didn't mean that they should rely on others to support their kids. I've heard that they rely on donations to do so (though they do have a lot of their own money, enough to have built their own house, for one), and I think that's wrong. It's one thing to have one child and get into a financial bind and need some help from others, but it's quite another to have 17 kids and continue breeding if you can't support the ones you have without other people helping you.


Sometimes people just donate, you don't have to beg for donatins, but if people make them out of their own free will, why turn them down? With so many kids, help of any kind should be accepted. I most certainly would if I had 17 kids.

[Doddibot]

My views on this are expressed in my old thread titled: Earth is full, no more babies (http://forums.sims2community.com/showthread.php?t=48910)

Although I fully support the right for people to marry whomever they want, and have whatever sort of kids they want (designer babies, whatever), I think they have a responsibility to have only 2-3 children (just for replacement - so number of births equals number of deaths).

Basically for the same reason that people have a right to do what they want with their property, but still can't bury toxic waste on their land. It's too dangerous for other people, and the right to life ALWAYS trumps the right to have kids.

[spiderviveka_SC]

I am the youngest of five. I am pretty sure we were all accidents but...

I personally don't want that many kids. But as long as you can care for them as far as i am concerned, people can have as many as they like. *As long as they can adequately care for them.

[Peppermint_SC]

I think that as long as the parent's are able to provide the right amount of time and money for each child, then I'm in no position to criticize them if thats what makes them happy. Some people like having big familes. I can sortof see the advantage for the kids since they have alot of sibilings to play and bond with. It depends from family to family.

As for the older childern taking on parental responsiblities, that thing is already common in even alot of smaller familes depending on the age diffrence and the family's situation. There are many families where both parent's have to work and the older kid watches and takes core of his or her younger siblings. Or if a parent has a baby when the older child is a pre-teen or teen then they also do alot of work in caring for the baby. From what I've seen so far alot of what the older childern are assigned to do in the Dugger family isn't diffrent from what older childern in smaller families do. I have to help my siblings with their homework since they are learning things differently from when my parent's did. I make lunch for them if my mom's out, I make my sister's hair, and help them clean their rooms, ect. The Duggers seem to have a more organized way of doing it and it seems to be working for them.

[HCAC]

I have one and that is okay for us.

I have no problems with what people do in their personal lives (if they want 2, 4, 6, or whatever). However, if you can't give attention and love (without expecting the older ones to pull up the slack) to all your kids, don't have too many.

I don't think the older ones SHOULD have to be little moms or dads...let them decide on that when they get older.

[broo_SC]

I don't mind large families as long as both parents and kids are happy. As for children having to take parental responsibilities there are many much smaller families where one or two kids have to take care of the others as they are not very interested in parenting. My neighbour literally raised her two younger sisters.

[HCAC]

It's true it's not about numbers. I find it a little irritating that parents expect their older kids to 'parent.' Being a good role model and helping out is one thing but I know of cases of the parents just 'expecting' the older one(s) to drag the little ones around so Mum can take care of the baby. There is a fine line between helping out and shuffling off all responsibility.

There's a girl I met at the park (she's a friend of my son) and she has to watch her 4 and 5 year old siblings so mom can be home with the baby. This girl is desperate for adult attention! She is friendly (too friendly) and talks like a 30 year old mom instead of a 11 year old. She needs some parental attention.

[Dayni]

4 or 3 is fine, i dont let my son help me too much with the girls, hes just a kid, but i do ask him get me the diapers, bring the diaper bag pls, etc. In my country u see that alot, girls taking care of their siblings and they even learn how to cook at early age! I learned to cook when i was 11 to 12 yrs old. *sigh*

[Theory of Everything_SC]

I grew up in a family of 9. At the age of 8, I had to change diapers and help raise kids. When I become a parent, I want to make those 'parenting' experiences few as possible. Two would be great, three would be okay, but no more. After three kids, I'd opt for adoption of older children, not only as preference, but also, you'd think the older the get the less likely they'll get adopted. I've known orphans who are quite bitter being in an orphanage at an older age, my grandmother being one of them.

I know the Duggers have a right to have 18 children, however, I uphold the right to be terrified of them.

[Alissa888]

I know the Duggers have a right to have 18 children, however, I uphold the right to be terrified of them.

I completely second that.

I'm an only child, my parents were never really interested in large families at all, despite being born in large families themselves (nowhere near 18, though). I don't really like children, to be completely honest and I don't plan on having kids. However, if I ever did change my mind, I definitely would look into the adoption of an older child too.

[photo]

I've seen them on TV... Personally I think its odd but whatever floats your boat right? I had a few friends in middle & elementry school who came from large families (8 to somewhere around 12 at last count) and they didn't really seem weird to me. I think with the Dugger's, its a religion thing, as it was with most of the large families that I grew up with (the Duggers being a bit more radical than the Catholics that my friend's families were). Like most before me have said, 3 or 4 is fine for me personally, but if you can afford that many and you can give each enough attention (another big family, though not big, would be the Gosslings, another TV documentry family, they do a day for each child), then its fine. If I remember correctly, the Duggers aren't broke down poor, the dad served in the House or Senete (can't remember which one), and they did build a big house. They obviously have the means to take care of the children, its more these families that have 18 kids who don't have the money to take care of the kids that I'm irritated with. :)

Theory of Everything: That made my night! :lol:

[Ferret II]

I really don't care how many children people have. I've never heard of the Duggers until now.

But, I DO care when people have eleventy kids to get more council tax. As long as you can support your own family, have thirty kids, as long as I'm not paying for them to walk around in designer clothes.

[Nukeya]

I grew up in a blended family of 6 kids. When I was 16, (my youngest brother was then 13) my mom had a set of twins. I was then given the responsibility of having to help out with them, feeding them, bathing them, diapering, etc. I don't see a problem with parents expecting their older children to help out with the younger ones or to expect them to help out around the house or whathaveya. What better way to teach them necessary life skills? I can see where "helping out" goes to the extremes and it's quite obvious that the child is picking up the slack and it becomes unfair to them.

In the case of extensively large familes, such as the Duggars, I personally would have a huge problem. I've watched several shows about them and such and as someone else in this thread has said, the children seem to have no individuality. To the point that the family has a community closet where all of the clothes are stored and the kids go into there to get their clothes. Sure I can see hand-me-downs and such....but nothing of your own? To me, that family reminds me of a "factory-family". It seems like their days run on an assembly line...everything has to be planned out and go according to a schedule, or else it doesn't work. I also find it very wrong that the children have to schedule alone time with their parents? In my opinion, parents are to be there for their kids always, not just in a 30 minute session like one would expect at a doctor's office! I think that there's really no correct number of children for a family to have and say "Ok. That's all we can have. We've met our quota at 3." I think that for every family it depends on the parents and the circumstances. Some couples are capable of handling raising only one child and that's perfectly acceptable as long as they realize it. Other couples are capable of handling three or four and can provide them with a happy healthy upbringing.

Another thing that really gets me about the Duggars is that to me, it now seems like a game or that it's for show. They've gotten how much publicity now with the fact that they have 17 natural-birth children and another on the way? With their Discovery Channel series, I'm sure they receive a chunk of change, plus as HP said...I'm sure they get all kinds of donations and promotional things from companies. Look at how much the family that had the septuples was given.

I guess in the end, to me it doesn't matter how much money you make or whether or not you're in depth raising your family..the fact of the matter is, there are only so many hours in the day. It's apparent that as your family size increases, the amount of individual time you can spend with each member decreases. So then, you have to ask yourself, is it really fair to the children I have already?

[kirti]

(another big family, though not big, would be the Gosslings, another TV documentry family, they do a day for each child), then its fine.



I completely agree with that. When watching the two different shows, it's so easy to see the differences in how the children are raised. The Gosslin children are all very different - one of the boys pretends he's a different animal each day, and the parents also notice this. For his "day" they took him to a farm. One of the girls is attached to a toy allegator, and her "day" was spent at a place where she was able to pet a real allegator. The kids all are interested in different things, and the parents notice and act upon that.

Of course, the Gosslins have less than half of the amount of children the Duggars have, which would make these individual days easy. Who knows - maybe the Duggars *do* get individual time, on a much smaller scale. It's a lot more difficult to tell their personalities apart, though. While it's cute that they're one big happy family that does everything together, I think the Duggar kids need more alone time, and more time to grow as individuals.

I also agree with HP that asking other children to help out isn't out of the question. I was always asked to help with chores (I was the youngest of four, so no diaper duty for me!) when I was a kid, but I think the Duggars almost take it too far. Each older child is assigned a baby, while the baby is still young enough that it might be better with his/her mother. I heard a rumor that this is because she wants to stop nursing sooner in order to become fertile more quickly. Of course, this is only a rumor. I think that the older kids should have their own free time where they can spend time with friends, away from the family. They're home-schooled, their church is at home (atleast I think), and while they went on family vacations, we never really saw them leaving home to visit friends, unless going as a family. Maybe it's just me, but that'd make me miserable.

[jooxis84]

I personally prefer it when people adopt instead of create, for obvious reasons- but nonetheless people have their own private lives and its their own choice. You can't expect everyone's life to be dedicated to saving the world and thinking on a global level.

[Doddibot]

Yes, there are certain freedoms that we give on a limited basis. How limited depends on how bad the full use of that freedom could be.

For example, some things, like drug use, are highly regulated. Others, like smoking, only loosely regulated. Some, like overeating, are not regulated much at all but still discouraged.

I think that having more than 2-3 children should be like smoking - loosely restricted and highly taxed.

[romyhorse]

I'm a live and let live kind of person, I haven't heard of the Duggers but I don't think you can tell people they're not allowed to have more than X amount of children (unless you live in China p)). You have to remember these TV programs are heavily edited and the producers only let you see what they want you to, so it might not be a true representation of their lives.

In the UK parents are given Child Benefit for each child, about £75 a month for the first child and about £50 for every other child. There is a family in Scotland, last I heard they had over 20 children (can't remember the exact amount), their father is a strict Free Church of Scotland minister, they don't need to rely on handouts because they get so much from the government!

It's the logistics of having such a large family I don't get. How do you manage to prepare meals for 20 people 3 times a day? How many washing machines would you need?

[Lollipop_Girl]

I have five younger half brothers, three are my dad's kids and the youngest two are my mother's. I live with my mother and see my dad's family on weekends. Now, as much as I love my monster (aged 7) and squidgey (aged 1), I would not like to live in a house with tons of other siblings, I think I would have been unhappy growing up in such an environment.

1) Personal space. Unless you are from a very rich family it's likely you'll be sharing a bedroom with about two other siblings for your entire life at home, which means you either put up with it or you move out as soon as you hit 16.

2) Parent's attention. How often can a child in such a huge family get to spend some quality time alone with their parents? To feel properly connected with your parents many need to spend time withthem, otherwise wouldn't you just feel like a number? Every child needs one on one attention sometimes and I don't know how it'd work in such a big family.

3) Money. I know this sounds awful but if you are unemployed and so is your partner and you live solely off benefits then do you really think having fourteen kids or whatever is fair? On tv here in the UK we had a TV program about such families and the dad claimed that his job was producing children. If you want to have a big family, please make sure you are at least earning some money and not living off benefits as it's not fair on the rest of us.

4) Older children's lives. When it coems to my brothers, I am fine with helping my parents out when needed (mainly my mum as my dad's kids are old enough to not need too much looking after). What isn't fair though if the older children in such a big family are pretty much made to act as extra parents. These children deserve to have their own lives, it isn't fair to make them act as extra parents just because you want to have a huge family. It also is damaging for the younger ones if taken to the extreme as they grow up not knowing who their mother/father figures really are.

Personally I don't want any children, seeing my five younger brother's has put me off, even if I do love them :D I'll be happy to be an auntie some day but not a mum. I personally just don't think that *huge* families are really a good idea. if you can happily raise six children, well, good for you as long as you provide for them and remember that *you* are the parent. Having eighteen kids however...why do you need eighteen kids? If everyone had eighteen kids the population would go crazy!

[Zaggytiddies]

I flippin love the Duggars... and I don't know about you guys but I had to do the dishes and my own laundry and clean and watch my three younger siblings when I was growing up... and guess what guys... most of the time I didn't get paid either. The Duggars have no debt... which is more than I can say for myself. If the church wants to donate stuff to them they have every right to. Since Michelle stays at home and homeschools them she's around them more than most people with 2 kids working 50 hours a week and shuttling their kids to soccer, karate, band, and other after school activities. What about people who send their kids to boarding school? Does that make them bad parents? How is having your own children selfish? Just because their are children to adopt doesn't mean you have to. I think adoption is wonderful but people shouldn't be forced to do it just because they want more than 5 kids. I wouldn't be able to do it but the fact that they can/do is amazing. Of course they have to schedule things or else everything would be complete chaos. I think they pay more attention to their children then most parents do. More power to them :D ... and I'll certainly be watching for number 18.

[NightShaya]

The Duggars should adopt instead of having kid after kid.
At least then they would help some unwanted kids, and not just overpopulate the earth.

[mieley]

my family is small-ish in the kid department, i have 3 older brothers and then theres me, the only girl. i dont think i want to have more than 2 kids when im ready for baby making. but one of my friends is 1 of 14 and my dad is 1 of 7. i guess big families are for some people but not for everyone. it really depends on your own ideas.

who are the Duggars?

[Chelleypie]

-sigh- Here we are again at the debate about 'how many is too many'.

The Gosselins of Pennsylvania were mentioned again. Kate and Jon opted for IVF due to a low incidence of high order multiples. They had Maddy and Cara, identical twins. Then they wanted ONE more. They ended up with SIX, which is unusual in IVF patients. Their personal site URL: http://www.sixgosselins.com/Home.html

The Duggars are religiously opposed to birth control ala Catholic. If they want to have 20+, that's their business. They're debt free, they're self reliant, and they make the older kids help. I helped with little brother and the three others born within a month of one another that my mom had after the other moms went back to work.

I do see that the Duggars will have issues with socialization outside their own family. But other than that, I don't see whereas it hurts anyone.

[Doddibot]

But other than that, I don't see whereas it hurts anyone.
In the same way that increased oil consumption and energy usage hurts anyone. More people = more resources consumed = more pollution. Simple.

We see all sensible governments moving to cut greenhouse emissions and usage of non-renewable resources, and a key part of that should be reducing the growth of the population down to replacement levels i.e. an average of 2 children per couple (or just a bit higher than that).

[Chelleypie]

You will never be able to enforce that. Most women will have the same response I do: keep your laws off my body. If you won't regulate abortion because of a woman's right to choose, then you cannot regulate number of children for the same reason. It is MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Just like it's YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE to have an abortion, something I am adamantly opposed to.

[Doddibot]

You will never be able to enforce that. Most women will have the same response I do: keep your laws off my body. If you won't regulate abortion because of a woman's right to choose, then you cannot regulate number of children for the same reason. It is MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Just like it's YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE to have an abortion, something I am adamantly opposed to.
I don't want to enforce anything. I've said here that I consider having many children to be like smoking - something that I think citizens should be allowed to do, but should be heavily discouraged by government campaigns and certainly not rewarded.

[Chelleypie]

So you're going to try and punish people who have religious opposition to birth control. So much for freedom to practice religion with no fear of discrimination. For some of us, governmental incentive is the last reason we want more children. I want at least two more, and after my experiences with the family I'm about to start working for, at least one of those will come out of Care. But governmental incentives are few and far between in the US. The only 'reward' you get is a tax break. I want more children because I like kids, not because the government gives me money.

[Doddibot]

So you're going to try and punish people who have religious opposition to birth control. So much for freedom to practice religion with no fear of discrimination.
Special dispensation. Just like adherents to Native American religions can smoke drugs without being under the restrictions of the law, which would otherwise lock them up in prison.

For some of us, governmental incentive is the last reason we want more children. I want at least two more, and after my experiences with the family I'm about to start working for, at least one of those will come out of Care. But governmental incentives are few and far between in the US. The only 'reward' you get is a tax break. I want more children because I like kids, not because the government gives me money.
Yes, but here in Australia the government gives you a 'baby bonus' of AU$5000 just for giving birth. Of course, it is colloquially referred to as the 'plasma TV bonus'.

[Turning_Turning]

I believe that having large families is a great thing, as long as you can be there and support every kid. If you can't provide for, say, seven kids, a la the Weasleys (I know they're fiction ;)), then it's probably not a good idea to have so many. I plan on having no more than two; three at the absolute maximum. I will agree with the person that said that in the olden days large families WERE the norm: one couple in my family tree (Great-great grandpa) had 13 kids; two others had 11 and I think quite a few couples had about 6 or 7 or 8.

[The_Oceanborn]

I don't want any right now. I don't know if I want any in the future either but I think my maximum would be 2. I appreciate big families who use their time to raise them all well but I couldn't imagine having more than 3 myself.

[StarDeluxe]

It's kind of cruel to say how much children you would want because you never know how much you'll end up having. That child will just feel like an outcast then.

[Doddibot]

It's kind of cruel to say how much children you would want because you never know how much you'll end up having. That child will just feel like an outcast then.
Why don't you know how many children you'll have? It's not like the stork just shows up and makes you accept two more children.

If you don't want any more children, then you don't have any more children. This isn't the Middle Ages; we can control reproduction now with contraception, abortion and sterilisation. There need not be such thing as an 'accidental' child.

However, if you mean that you may only intend to have three kids, then change your mind and go for a fourth, then the fourth will have been intended, just as the other three, and thus should feel just as loved.

[The_Oceanborn]

It's kind of cruel to say how much children you would want because you never know how much you'll end up having. That child will just feel like an outcast then.

I don't find it cruel at all. Is it cruel to say that you don't want children then? That's how I feel right now. I would of course love all the children I had if I had any but if I could choose a number I think it would be 2. Right now I am focusing on my education and future career. Not all women and men want to have children and they should of course be respected for their choice. It does not mean that they don't care for other human beings or are egocentric. They are all just stereotypes.

[StarDeluxe]

Why don't you know how many children you'll have? It's not like the stork just shows up and makes you accept two more children.

If you don't want any more children, then you don't have any more children. This isn't the Middle Ages; we can control reproduction now with contraception, abortion and sterilisation. There need not be such thing as an 'accidental' child.

However, if you mean that you may only intend to have three kids, then change your mind and go for a fourth, then the fourth will have been intended, just as the other three, and thus should feel just as loved.


No, but it would be cruel to plan on three children then what if you get pregnant again accidentally?

[HystericalParoxysm]

No, but it would be cruel to plan on three children then what if you get pregnant again accidentally?

So you have the fourth kid (or not - if you want to abort and that's an option in your mind, then you can do that), raise it and love it, and afterward, get your tubes tied or have your hubby get a vasectomy. Just because it was an unplanned pregnancy doesn't mean it's got to live with a stigma of being the unwanted child all its life.

[StarDeluxe]

So you have the fourth kid (or not - if you want to abort and that's an option in your mind, then you can do that), raise it and love it, and afterward, get your tubes tied or have your hubby get a vasectomy. Just because it was an unplanned pregnancy doesn't mean it's got to live with a stigma of being the unwanted child all its life.
--
Yes, but then he/she will be told that they were not wanted since the parents only wanted 3 children.

But everybody does have a different opinion on everything. It's really up to the parents.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Why would you -ever- tell the kid they weren't wanted? Sure, they were unplanned, and the parents had originally planned 3 kids, but they had a fourth. That doesn't mean the child was unwanted - if the parents went ahead and had the child they can raise it and love it without ever making it feel unwanted. Plenty of pregnancies are unplanned - that doesn't mean those kids were unwanted.

What if you had always only wanted one or two children and your first pregnancy, you have triplets? That doesn't mean that one is "extra" and you have to pick the unwanted child... it's just how it worked out. Just as it would with an accidental, unplanned pregnancy.

My sister was told years ago that she couldn't have any more kids - and then she fell pregnant with twins. She went ahead and had them, and they're now four, and wonderful little boys. If anyone ever told them they were unwanted just because they were unplanned and she thought she couldn't have anymore, she'd smack whoever said that upside the head. Unplanned does not automatically equal unwanted.

[StarDeluxe]

Why would you -ever- tell the kid they weren't wanted? Sure, they were unplanned, and the parents had originally planned 3 kids, but they had a fourth. That doesn't mean the child was unwanted - if the parents went ahead and had the child they can raise it and love it without ever making it feel unwanted. Plenty of pregnancies are unplanned - that doesn't mean those kids were unwanted.

Of course the parents wouldn't tell the child and they would still love him/her (again depends on the parents) but it could be the brothers or sisters that tell.

[HystericalParoxysm]

And then the kid can ask the parents and the parents can explain that no, they weren't unwanted, they were just unplanned - sometimes pregnancies happen even when you don't want them to as sometimes birth control isn't foolproof. And punish the brothers and sisters for being cruel little brats telling lies to make their younger siblings feel bad.

[StarDeluxe]

And then the kid can ask the parents and the parents can explain that no, they weren't unwanted, they were just unplanned - sometimes pregnancies happen even when you don't want them to as sometimes birth control isn't foolproof. And punish the brothers and sisters for being cruel little brats telling lies to make their younger siblings feel bad.

True, but the child would still feel bad about themselves.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Unless you -tell- the older kids "We only want to have three kids" (which I can't see most parents doing - why would their reproductive planning be their kids' business?) the older kids aren't going to know it was an unplanned pregnancy.

Besides, they could just as easily go "Mom and dad didn't want you," without ever knowing one way or the other. Or they'll find something else to make fun of the younger kid for.

Kids are cruel little devils and will find something to be mean about even if you don't give them something to be mean about yourself - I'm an older sister - I know these things. ;)

[The_Oceanborn]

Of course the parents wouldn't tell the child and they would still love him/her (again depends on the parents) but it could be the brothers or sisters that tell.

OMG!
If the brothers and sisters see that the parents love their new sibling why on earth would a brother and sister say that he/she was unwanted? And I think HP has an excellent point. :) Unplanned and unwanted is not the same thing and you cannot decide how many kids you will have when it comes to twins and triplets. You can decide how many times you will get pregnant or abort but you cannot change the number of babies in your belly.
I was unplanned and my brother (half brother) was unplanned- but we were not unwanted!

[StarDeluxe]

Unless you -tell- the older kids "We only want to have three kids" (which I can't see most parents doing - why would their reproductive planning be their kids' business?) the older kids aren't going to know it was an unplanned pregnancy.

Besides, they could just as easily go "Mom and dad didn't want you," without ever knowing one way or the other. Or they'll find something else to make fun of the younger kid for.

Kids are cruel little devils and will find something to be mean about even if you don't give them something to be mean about yourself - I'm an older sister - I know these things. ;)

True, true.
I'm an only child, so I probably wouldn't know too much about this.
:P

[LHSFlute88_SC]

Unplanned does not automatically equal unwanted.

Exactly. I have four siblings and out of the five of us, only one of my younger brothers was planned. Did my parents love me and my unplanned siblings any less than my planned brother? Of course not. They weren't PLANNING on us, but when we came along they sure as hell wanted us.

For the record, I want to have quite a few kids (and I'd love to adopt, too), having come from a larger family (I loved having lots of siblings). I think how many kids you decide to have is a totally personal decision. Different family sizes are right for different people. Some people are happiest with a big family. Some people are happy with only one or two kids. Others are perfectly fine having no kids at all. As long as you can support and love all the kids you have, I don't see a problem with it.

[dertrimental1]

I have been a looky-loo for a while now here, but I cannot pass up this thread without saying something...

You should not have kids just because you "like kids", that's just horrible.

I believe that the Duggars will have children until it kills the mother (yes dramatic, i know, but true!) because they believe their children will carry on their message of god and blah blah blah. I'm atheist so I don't get any of this. It repulses me.

My biggest question is: how many kids are the Duggar's kids going to have!? Holy cow we will be overrun...

I think China has the right idea, albeit strange to we Americans who love to hide behind our Constitution even thought the government breaks their own rules every day.

I understand the aversion to contraception; but i think it's idiotic. If you are ready for children, financially AND emotianally, please, by all means, go for it...

This is getting me all worked up. I am sure I have offended and that is not my goal. I just had to say something to get it off my chest.

Oh, if you couldn't tell, I won't be having children. If/when I decide I am ready (I being my husband as well) I will adopt. Plain as that.

[ChihoSan]

Reading back to the first page and about the Dugger's depending on donations from the church, that honestly just disgusts me. If you want to pop out kid after kid, that's fine and dandy but if you can't afford them yourself, it's not fair to leech off your church to feed your kids. Other people need help too. What if something else happened in their community and "Oh, we can't help them after our monthly payment to the Dugger's and their 18 children." It seems selfish to me. Just because you don't believe in birth control and you're apparently fertile enough to have 18 children doesn't mean you should. They're not considering the impact people like them are having. 18 kids. Think of 18 kids hanging out at an adoption center. I'd respect them more if some of those kids were adopted.

[SilentPsycho]

You should not have kids just because you "like kids", that's just horrible.


So, you should only have kids if you despise the very sight of them? That being near a child makes you feel physically ill, and therefore should be considered perfect candidates for parenthood? What a wonderful life the children will have!

Loving children and wanting them is one of the most important requirements in a planned pregnancy. Please explain why you think this is horrible.

[Doddibot]

So, you should only have kids if you despite the very sight of them? That being near a child makes you feel physically ill, and therefore should be considered perfect candidates for parenthood? What a wonderful life the children will have!

Loving children and wanting them is one of the most important requirements in a planned pregnancy. Please explain why you think this is horrible.
I think you have misread detrimental's statement.

"You should not have kids just because you "like kids", that's just horrible."

That is to say that liking kids, by itself, is not a sufficient reason to have kids, not that it should never be one of the reasons for having kids.

[spiderviveka_SC]

Why does it matter why or how they have kids so long as they love them and take good care of them?

[Eva Aisling]

I believe that it is never "wrong" to have children, but to have so many is not the best thing for the country or the planet. Overpopulation is an ongoing problem. I'm not so vain as to think that we actually have the power to destroy the planet (yet), but I do know that our quality of life is dropping and we may, eventually, end up destroying ourselves. I just don't feel that anyone should have a right to tell another living being when they can and cannot reproduce.
Personally, I was going to stop at one child, but I became a statistic and birth control failed me. I don't know why. I didn't take any antibiotics or anything.
As far as being harmful to the children, I don't believe it. I do think it's a bit unfair for the older children to have to take care of their siblings, though. I think those children will be less selfish and more responsible when compared to the average child in a small family, but they should have the right to a childhood themselves. I guess it depends on how much time they actually have to devote.
I believe our children were better off when they were raised in a community setting. Parents used to have far too much to do to be spending time with their children all day. Children were allowed to run around outside and had plenty of others to keep them company. They didn't need their mommy to baby them all the time. They couldn't wait to get away from home. You learned values and responsibility from your parents and learned individualism and social skills from your friends. I do think that a little time with your parents each day is important.
I wish it were safe to let children play and explore outside, but it isn't anymore. Depressing. I'm glad I could as a child. My mom was always shooing me out of the house. I can't blame her, either. It's completely natural for an adult to not want a child under their feet all day. And, as a mother, I now know why that expression is so commonly used. Children, literally, like to hang around exactly where you need to step at every moment that they are following you. I am tripping over my 3-yr-old all the time.
I don't believe these children will suffer any psychological damage from this. People are highly resilient. If no one ever mentions it to them, they may never even consider that there is a reason for them to feel wronged. There are many things that can damage us, but I feel that society sometimes tells us to be hurt when we normally wouldn't be. There is much more potential for harm during these children's lives than this.
I will also add that there is no way that I could ever handle that many kids. I don't believe in abortion, either, but have they ever thought of trying Natural Family Planning? I didn't use birth control and lived with my husband for four years before we decided to have our first child. Is it really so wrong for them to avoid having a child in a natural way?

[HystericalParoxysm]

spiderviveka - Because there's a hell of a lot of humans on the planet already, and we don't need individual couples having tons of kids. For one family to do it is not that big a deal, but if everyone - or even more people - had large families like this, we would have serious issues with overcrowding. There are already major issues with overcrowding in many parts of the world. Each individual, especially those in more developed areas like the US (as the Duggar family lives in the US) uses up a heck of a lot of resources, and creating extra humans just because you can uses up a -lot- of resources. There are also plenty of children who need homes already - having a pile of children just because you can is irresponsible when you are in a financial situation to be able to adopt.

Eva Aisling - The Duggars don't avoid having children on purpose. They believe they should have as many children as God wants them to, and thus practice no forms of birth control - natural or artificial. If Mrs. Duggar gets pregnant, then she gets pregnant - they believe that's God's will - and if she didn't get pregnant, that would be God's will too. I believe she also breastfeeds for only 6 months - which is less than is recommended, and reduces her natural infertility that comes along with doing so. Natural birth control also isn't completely effective (nor is any method of birth control besides maybe a hysterectomy) but in this case, it's not something they have any interest in doing. I don't think many of us are saying they should be forced to stop having kids or anything - but the difference between "technically can" and "should and ought to" is a pretty vast one.

[Zaggytiddies]

I never wanted kids... I mean never. I got pregnant had my little Liam and I would never have it any other way. He's the coolest little dude I know. I will totally tell him that I never wanted children..... and that he changed my mind completely cause he's such a wonderful PERSON. Children don't stay children forever... you're not raising a doll... this is a human being.


Also, I'm sure everyone worried about population control wouldn't think the same way if their parents decided to have not to have them cause there were 'too many people on the planet' that's freakin ridiculous.


EDIT: Why is it irresponsible to not want to adopt and have your own children? Why should you be forced to pick up the slack for someone else's utter failure at life? Why if you want to have more than say 4 kids should you adopt them? I think adoption is a wonderful thing but no one should be forced to do it just because of the number of children you want to have. There are plenty of people all over the planet who can't have, don't want to have their own children.

[Daisie]

Also, I'm sure everyone worried about population control wouldn't think the same way if their parents decided to have not to have them cause there were 'too many people on the planet' that's freakin ridiculous.You're right. They wouldn't think at all because they wouldn't exist.

It's not ridiculous to think about population control. What seems ridiculous to me (not that it applies to you or even the Duggars) is wanting to have a huge family, and so deciding to have ten biological kids, while there are literally tens of thousands of babies and children in foster care and needing good homes.

EDIT: Of course people should be allowed to have their own children. No one should be forced to do anything (and actually, I wouldn't call giving up a kid for adoption "utter failure at life," but anyway...) but that doesn't mean that it's responsible to go and have huge numbers of children just because you can.

[Zaggytiddies]

How about just 'failure'... would that be better worded for you? and what I meant by that is the people that have child after child and continue to give them up for adoption/ use abortion as another birth control.

[Daisie]

That wording thing isn't really the point, but even if we're talking about people who give up child after child, it's not the fault of the kids. Right? So I don't see why you would think of adoption as picking up the slack for someone else. It's purely for the adoptive parents, and for the kids. It's not about anyone else.

Again, I don't think anyone should be prevented from having biological children or forced to adopt. Period! It just seems excessive to me to have child after child (to keep and raise) when there are kids bouncing around in foster care and all of that. The same way it seems excessive to spend thousands on a purebred pet when there are tons of animals in shelters without a home.

[Zaggytiddies]

Of course it's not the fault of the kids but if we're talking about what people 'should' do I think we should start there.

[Daisie]

So people shouldn't have to/want to adopt because giving up the kids was a mistake in the first place? And my point was not even that anyone should adopt. It was that having tons and tons of kids is irresponsible.

[spiderviveka_SC]

spiderviveka - Because there's a hell of a lot of humans on the planet already, and we don't need individual couples having tons of kids. For one family to do it is not that big a deal, but if everyone - or even more people - had large families like this, we would have serious issues with overcrowding. There are already major issues with overcrowding in many parts of the world. Each individual, especially those in more developed areas like the US (as the Duggar family lives in the US) uses up a heck of a lot of resources, and creating extra humans just because you can uses up a -lot- of resources. There are also plenty of children who need homes already - having a pile of children just because you can is irresponsible when you are in a financial situation to be able to adopt.


My parents had five kids. I love being from a big family, I feel like I am a better person for being raised that way. I want to have children of my own one day too and i do NOT want to adopt. Is it so wrong to indulge in the biological drive to reproduce and raise a family?


How about just 'failure'... would that be better worded for you? and what I meant by that is the people that have child after child and continue to give them up for adoption/ use abortion as another birth control.


I think abortion is a great way to prevent overpopulation. If you want kids and want to take care of them, have them, if not, abort! It would be much easier on the system.

[davious]

If you are going to use abortion as population control, wouldn't it simply be easier to have safe, responsible sex, or to have you or your sexual partner "fixed" to prevent the unwanted pregnancies from ever happening in the first place?

[spiderviveka_SC]

If you are going to use abortion as population control, wouldn't it simply be easier to have safe, responsible sex, or to have you or your sexual partner "fixed" to prevent the unwanted pregnancies from ever happening in the first place?


Of course that would be easier! Not to mention logical. But most humans can't seem to do things the safe and easy way, which is why abortion is both practical and necessary.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Zaggytiddies - It's a matter of quantity in this case. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your own biological children, or that you shouldn't breed at all - but having 18 biological kids just because you can is irresponsible. Sure, have a couple biological children. Have a few - but don't have 18 just because you're capable of doing so. And nobody's -forcing- anyone to do anything. But can and should are two different things.

spiderviveka - We're human beings, not mice. Yes, there is a biological drive to reproduce but it doesn't mean you -have- to. You have an advanced, intelligent brain that's capable of making bigger decisions than "my genes say I must, therefore I must!" It's fine to want children, to want biological children, and to want a big family, but to go and create many many more lives when there are already lots of children on the planet who could use a loving home is just plain selfish. Have a child. Have two - "replacements" for you and your husband/wife. Then consider adoption, if you still have the resources to take care of more children.

Also, the safe and easy way of preventing unwanted pregnancies is to use birth control in the first place. If sexual education were more widespread and individuals were taught how to use it properly, there would be no need for aborting unwanted pregnancies. It's safe, easy, and inexpensive to use spermicidal condoms during sex. It's not all that safe (usually not life threatening but it's not pleasant, and can mess up your ability to have children later), easy, or cheap to get an abortion.

[dertrimental1]

It's strange how people think this is a personal attack on how they themselves were brought up and how they wish to have or not have their new family. I am not saying "If you are 5th out of 9 your parents are crazy and you will be a screw up for the rest of your life PLUS screw your kids over!" It's not like that at all!! We all have very different view points, clearly, and I am about 99% positive there will NEVER be ANY restrictions (in most of the rest of the world) on birth like China has implemented (and retracted since the quakes). I personally cannot fathom pushing anything out of...well you know. Especially several...haha, great way to put "I would rather not have kids" I know, but still, it's my view on it. Adoption isn't just from the ladies who can't keep their legs closed. It's from the mother's who know that they cannot possibly raise the child properly, children that are taken away, children that are abandoned for one reason or another and children who are altogether orpahaned (and yes lots of kids from mom's that really like men...)
And a thanks shall be extended to <i>doddibot</i> (I am unpracticed in the art of html, excuse me if that isn't actually italicized) for stepping in when I could not personally respond. I most certainly did NOT mean crappy people are good parents! But I sure know A LOT of people who love kids but REALLY shouldn't procreate...and yet, sigh, they still do...

[davious]

HP, that is exactly what I was saying. Responsible decision making now, can prevent a lot of problems later. In fact, not only would adults making better sexual decisions lead to far less unwanted pregnancies, and thus eliminate the desire for an abortion (I refuse to call it a need, because it is not) it would reduce transmitted STDs down to almost zero, act as its own form of population control, and otherwise generally improve life.

Adults need to act like adults, and make responsible decisions now, so they don't have to worry about having to make a tough decision later. Guys, if you don't want any children, wear a condom. ALL THE TIME. Or, get a vasectomy. Gals, if you don't want to get pregnant, its entirely within your control. You don't have to have unprotected sex, its a choice, not a requirement. If he is horny, and doesn't have condoms available, or the sex would otherwise be unprotected, tell him tough shit. There are enough ways to achieve sexual gratification that don't involve risking pregnancy for people not to risk it if they aren't prepared to handle the potential consequences.

If everyone engaged in safe, responsible sex, and thought before they acted, we wouldn't need to have debates about abortions, adoptions, having too many children, AIDS, etc. These issues are directly related to people making bad choices. Stop making bad choices. I can live with the Duggars having 18 kids. They have far more children than I could ever want, but, they are prepared to live with as many kids as they end up having. They accept the responsibility of having such a large family. They understand that their sexual activity has clear consequences, and they are okay with them, and even embrace them. If they were having the 18 kids, and putting each up for adoption, or they get pregnant 18 times and abort them all, I would have a major problem with them. That kind of behavior would demonstrate complete irresponsibility. The Duggars however, accept each pregnancy in stride, love each child, and otherwise behave in a very responsible way. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, so to speak, and the Duggars have demonstrated that they clearly are capable of standing the heat.

[StarDeluxe]

So hold on, you guys are saying that just because kids are unplanned doesn't mean they are not unwanted, but when you say couples have 18 kids it's 'wrong'?

I'm confused on what side you guys are on. :P

[Zaggytiddies]

So people shouldn't have to/want to adopt because giving up the kids was a mistake in the first place? And my point was not even that anyone should adopt. It was that having tons and tons of kids is irresponsible.

I never said people shouldn't/ didn't want to adopt. I'm just saying that the fact that there are kids to adopt isn't enough reason to say 'If you want 'x' number of children, you should adopt them'. I still don't understand why it's irresponsible if you're taking care of them.

in other words... davious said it better than I did... lol

[Daisie]

It's irresponsible because, as I believe Doddi said earlier, you're using up more resources with each and every child, and you're contributing to population growth problems. Having one or two kids? Fine. But having an unreasonable number makes a big dent. Does that make sense? What you and davious are missing is that it may hurt the children themselves as long as you can manage to handle your ginormous family, but that it's irresponsible in a bigger sense.

[Zaggytiddies]

I don't know I just think there are way more things to blame using up resources on than a family... I just find it hard to believe that you're (not you Daisie but... you the greater whole) are this worried about your own carbon foot print.

[dertrimental1]

It's creepy! Irresponisbilty is not understanding what you're doing - most people DO understand...well, the Duggars anyway since we are revolving around them. I just personally think it's freaky, and again I draw you towards the cultist aspect of it. That's how it comes off to me, they are making a cult. Creepy! Yes, they love all their children; yes, each time the parents have sex they know exactly what could happen. She's crazy fertile, ha. It's just something I believe should be in check because more people is a just a problem in my book. And I think in Earth's book, too, but I can't speak for her.

[HystericalParoxysm]

StarDeluxe - Having 18 biological children just because you can, in this day and age, when you don't need them to plow your fields or whatever, I think is irresponsible. I don't think the two viewpoints are contradictory... I'm fine with people having a few, even several biological children, but I think it's irresponsible for a couple to have 18 biological children if they could adopt.

Zaggytiddies - Making 18 new people just because you can is irresponsible when the world is already overcrowded, when world hunger is a major issue, and when, if you have the means to support 18 children, you could adopt some of those. Having some biological children is fine, but having 18 biological children when there are already tons of children out there that could use a loving home which you could provide seems wildly selfish and irresponsible to me. It shouldn't be mandatory, but it would be nice to see people in general have a bit wider view than just themselves and their own family - if everyone reached out and did what they could to make the world a better place instead of going, "eh, not my problem" I think the world would be much better for it. It's not those orphaned/abandoned children's fault they were unwanted - but someone who wants a large family and has the means to care for that many children can give a child an opportunity they wouldn't have otherwise had - the unborn biological child does not exist yet, but the already-born child needing a loving home is still going to be there whether you breed or not. It's great if you love kids and want to care for many of them, but to just go, "eh, don't want someone else's kids, I want a big family so I'll have them myself" seems very irresponsible and selfish when you could so easily open your heart and your home.

My carbon footprint? I don't drive, I don't own a car, I walk or use public transportation, I recycle, I compost and garden whenever possible, and I currently have no children, but would not have more than 2 or 3 of my own. I probably use up more than some others, but I do try to be conscious of my impact.

[Alissa888]

Irresponsible and selfish, I agree, but you can't really force them to adopt, they'll go to the nearest half-assed magazine and sell their story about how the big bad government is trampling all over their human rights and then the UN has to jump in and frankly, I think Kerim has better things to deal with.

[Zaggytiddies]

Some people don't want someone else's kids... I also think she enjoys being pregnant... something you don't get when you adopt. Maybe it's not for everyone (I certainly couldn't do it) but I don't think it's irresponsible because there are other people in the world. It would be lovely if they did adopt but they don't want to and shouldn't be looked down upon because they don't.

[Alissa888]

God, can't she just take hormone supplements to mimic pregnancy? I mean, if she's going to screw up her body THAT much with 18 kids, then why not pump yourself up with synthetic hormones?

[HystericalParoxysm]

I'm not saying they should be forced to adopt - but I can still think it's irresponsible that they're two people adding 18 new people to the world which didn't need to be there. I'm not looking down on them - I've seen their documentaries and their family does look happy, but I still would think a heck of a lot more of a family that had the money and resources to care for 18 children and adopted the majority of them.

[Alissa888]

Personally, I think they should be forced to adopt. For every child they have from here on, they should be forced to adopt one. But that just isn't feasible. I'm not saying that in a 'that'll teach them' way, but frankly, it will and it solves a lot of problems. :shrug:

[Zaggytiddies]

You are looking down on them... You're saying it's irresponsible. They built their own house... don't have any debt.... if the church wants to give them donations that's up to them. Their kids are well behaved and all play piano and violin.... I think they're doing just fine with what is given to them.

[HystericalParoxysm]

I wouldn't call that looking down on them. I think their choice to have 18 children rather than have a few and adopt more is irresponsible and selfish. Doesn't mean I would force them to do otherwise - they're allowed to make that choice and I don't want to impose reproductive controls on people. Plenty of people do things that I don't agree with - doesn't mean I necessarily look down on them because of it, but I don't have to like their choices. I agree for having 18 kids they've done pretty well at it - their kids seem very nice, intelligent, articulate, and well-mannered, and they seem to be a pretty happy, nice family. But they still chose to create 18 new people when the world already has plenty of kids they could have loved and brought up just as well. That's their choice - I don't think it's the best one they could have made, but it's their choice to make.

[Zaggytiddies]

Calling someone irresponsible and selfish is looking down on them... Those aren't things I'd want to be called... lol

God, can't she just take hormone supplements to mimic pregnancy? I mean, if she's going to screw up her body THAT much with 18 kids, then why not pump yourself up with synthetic hormones?


She doesn't look that bad actually. I mean, I don't know what's going on under those moo moos she's wearing but she's not uber fat. Maybe she looks a little pale but... I would too :D

[Alissa888]

Okay, I am looking down on them, I'll admit. But just like they're entitled to have 18 kids, I'm entitled to my opinion of them.

And yup, she doesn't look terrible, fair enough, but think of her pelvic organs. Women usually screw-up their internal anatomy after childbirth (it's actually a fact that your insides get a little crazy after one child, but 18? She's brave), and that's proved by the fact that women have incontinence after delivery, they have excessive blood loss, all kinds of problems, really..

[spiderviveka_SC]

Okay, I am looking down on them, I'll admit. But just like they're entitled to have 18 kids, I'm entitled to my opinion of them.

And yup, she doesn't look terrible, fair enough, but think of her pelvic organs. Women usually screw-up their internal anatomy after childbirth (it's actually a fact that your insides get a little crazy after one child, but 18? She's brave), and that's proved by the fact that women have incontinence after delivery, they have excessive blood loss, all kinds of problems, really..


Why does it matter how many kids they have if they are all being cared for? We have way bigger problems than some crazy religious couple breeding like rabbits. There are way bigger strains (war) on our system that some overzealous breeding. I personally find their religious beliefs far more offensive than the size of their family anyway.

[Daisie]

There are way bigger strains (war) on our system that some overzealous breeding.Well, yeah, and one family of 18 kids isn't going to make a whole heck of a lot of difference. However, why not start with what we, personally, can do? Set a good example and encourage others to make a difference.

[Alissa888]

Why does it matter how many kids they have if they are all being cared for? We have way bigger problems than some crazy religious couple breeding like rabbits. There are way bigger strains (war) on our system that some overzealous breeding. I personally find their religious beliefs far more offensive than the size of their family anyway.

Okay, here's the thing, also what Daisie said about setting an example, if half those kids decide the want and equally big family (or at least half the size) and therefore 9 on them go on to have 9 kids, that's 81 new people. Maybe I'm being a bit cold about this, but it's true, given that people from big families generally tend to have big families themselves.

[davious]

so who is anyone else to tell the Duggars how many kids they can or can't have? Telling the Duggars they are only allowed X number of children is the exact same thing we accuse China of acting barbaric over. Do we really want to become more like China?

[Doddibot]

so who is anyone else to tell the Duggars how many kids they can or can't have? Telling the Duggars they are only allowed X number of children is the exact same thing we accuse China of acting barbaric over. Do we really want to become more like China?
Just because China is doing something, or not doing something, doesn't make it good or bad. Not everything the Chinese government does it bad.

[Alissa888]

I'm not completely in support over the Chinese 1-child system, it's harsh if anything, but come on, we're on the other end of the spectrum here. 18?!
Like it or not, we do need to face up to the fact that if everyone jumped on the bandwagon and turned to the Duggars idea of nuclear family, we'd all be in serious trouble.
Plus, you do have to wonder at which point 'family' turns into 'farm'.

[Daisie]

Also, no one is telling the Duggars that they can't have any more children. How many times do I have to repeat that? This isn't about forcing anyone to do anything.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Indeed, Daisie. Nobody's saying they can't. They're not being forced to not have more children. But again, there's a big difference between can and should.

Of course the Duggars having 18 children is not going to make that big of an impact. But they're merely an example for a larger point: it's fine to want to have a large family if you can support that many children, and it's fine to want to have your own biological children, but if you're going to want a very large family, be responsible and think past the end of your own nose and consider adopting some of those children to make up your large family. I would say the same for a family with 10 kids as the Duggars with 18 - nobody's going to force you to stop having kids, but damn, you're humans, not rabbits... use your big squishy brains to consider what you're doing and whether it's truly necessary. It's not like you need to singlehandedly repopulate the world. It's been said it takes a village to raise a child - but that doesn't mean you have to give birth to the whole village yourself. If you love children, wonderful - be part of your community volunteering as a mentor for kids. Adopt or foster parent children who wouldn't otherwise have a parent. If you have been blessed with the time, money, and resources available to care for many children, that's wonderful - spread your luck around to people who need it, rather than making a lot more human beings for our already overpopulated world.

[davious]

I'm not completely in support over the Chinese 1-child system, it's harsh if anything, but come on, we're on the other end of the spectrum here. 18?!
Like it or not, we do need to face up to the fact that if everyone jumped on the bandwagon and turned to the Duggars idea of nuclear family, we'd all be in serious trouble.
Plus, you do have to wonder at which point 'family' turns into 'farm'.

What is this "we" on the other end of the spectrum? The Duggars are ONE family, not all families. China dictates, by law, the legal size of their families. It is hardly the same situation. I combat your everyone jumping on the Duggar's bandwagon argument with one of my own...if everyone jumped on the Chinese idea, and adhered to 1 child per couple, the planet would be devoid of human life in only 33 generations, starting at a population of 6 billion people. We have survived for over 150,000 years, but the Chinese plan, if adopted everywhere, would see the end of humanity come in only another 660 years. (assuming generation = 20 years). Which policy is more dangerous, the one that allows people to reproduce as they will, that has maintained humanity so far, or the one that if adapted globally, would signal the end of the human race?

In fact, according the US Census, the average American family size is only 3.2 members. According to the 1940 Census, it was 3.76. American family sizes are actually going down, long term (to be fair, it did go up slightly from 3.14 to 3.20 between 2000 and 2006, but overall, its way down). Point is, even with the Duggars reproducing at an unbelievable rate, the size of American families has been going down overall since 1940. American reproductive freedom, such as the Duggars enjoy (a lot) hasn't really produced the "sky is falling" drain on the American economy.

Most people look at the Duggars, and go, holy crap, no way I could do that. That is population control right there. Some will look at the Duggars as inspiration to have huge families, which is what a lot people are fearful of here...but, they forget that other people will see the Duggars, and be appalled by it, and intentionally have small families. It all averages out.

[Theory of Everything_SC]

An adopted child is no less your child than your biological child. Some people don't seem to realize that. Some people think, 'Didn't come from here, so it ain't mine.' But in truth, by adopting, you're saying, 'You might as well come from here, because you're mine, baby.'

The Duggars may be one of those people. Who knows?

[himawara106]

I think it is totally rediculous to have so many kids, personally.
But if you want a lot of kids, I think you should adopt them.


There's a *serious* shortage of adopting parents, and the world is growing ever more populated by the second, which has already begun to have serious worldwide environmental and resource impact in a negative fashion.
People need to look at how their actions impact humanity at large, and stop being selfish.

Shortage of adopting parents? Where? I can tell from Austria and think Europe too that there is an absolut shortage of kids that can be adopted. I think the ratio is about 1000 couples - 1 child. And there are so many regulations and a high bureaucracy. A couple can wait for adopting a child many years and they have to fullfill many requirements for it.
There are possibilities to adopt foreign children from africa, but it costs a lot - money that can be spent for own children/adopted children for their education etc. The easiest way is to adopt a child illegally, but I think there are not so many people who take this risk.

So the argument it is better to adopt children before trying to get children by ownself is really hard to understand since you can wait for years to get the chance to even be accepted as couple who can adopt children.

In general I thought much about this topic. I can't give an answer though. I think everyone should have the right getting children. And poor people will do this before trying to adopt a child, because they are just not eligible for an adoption, because for that, they have to show, that they have a good income. That's very sad and one thing I can't understand about this freaking distorted world.

[Doddibot]

Shortage of adopting parents? Where? I can tell from Austria and think Europe too that there is an absolut shortage of kids that can be adopted. I think the ratio is about 1000 couples - 1 child. And there are so many regulations and a high bureaucracy. A couple can wait for adopting a child many years and they have to fullfill many requirements for it.
There are possibilities to adopt foreign children from africa, but it costs a lot - money that can be spent for own children/adopted children for their education etc. The easiest way is to adopt a child illegally, but I think there are not so many people who take this risk.
Not to mention that most third world countries actually don't allow foreigners to adopt children. China is the notable exception.

[spiderviveka_SC]

himawara is right. We tend to forget that a lot of the industrialized world does not share the same crisis with homeless children as the United States. In fact, countries like Austria and Germany are having a serious decline in reproduction.

[agent_icon]

You say that like its a bad thing, mister "punk rock EMT".

I think its great! The human race is completely disgusting and despicable. I would be overjoyed if they all died out. They are destroying the planet and torturing each other. Do we really need to bring more children into this world just to force them to suffer? To be abused and tormented and grow up to abuse and torment others? Its a never ending cycle.

[princelee]

agent
you do realize you would die with them


Please don't go all Sweeney on us with that whole "we all deserve to die" shite

[agent_icon]

I am NOT one of you. I may look human and sound human, but I am not human. I can't be. And even if I was, would it really be that much of a loss? I don't think it would.

And who is Sweeney? That was my kindergarten teachers last name.

[spiderviveka_SC]

Ummm... what?

Jeez, theres no need to get personal, dude.

Besides, i know the human race has its fault, but who are you to say that we should all die out?

People should be able to do whatever they like with their bodies. You may not want to have kids, but that doesn't make it the right decision for everyone.

[princelee]

Sweeney as in Todd.
Demon Barber... of Fleet street.

Said we all deserve to die
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xEt350tMJb0&feature=related

[agent_icon]

Really spider? Well at least I have the ability to actually stand for what I believe in. From what I've read of your posts, you seem to be too concerned with peoples personal freedom, and less so with social order.

We have no control anyway! No matter what we do, we never will thinks to the other beings that cohabitate with us. You can live an exemplary life and still be dragged from your bed and thrown in some distant prison for a crime you never committed. You can be an innocent child playing in the park and be kidnapped, raped, tortured, and mutilated before your carcass is dumped in the woods the next day. We have no control over anything, trust no one. That includes trusting no one in their ability to bring new lives into this world.

[Doddibot]

While I don't think there would be anything bad about the extinction of the human species, I do think it would be bad if we denied people freedom to reproduce in order to achieve that.

If you think life is so harsh that no other people should have to suffer it, then you are free not to have children. But I think life is good enough that I could have a child and they would enjoy life just like I have.

Death doesn't solve a lack of control any more than a hunger strike solves a famine - there is no freedom after death.

[agent_icon]

There is not any freedom before death either. Its not that I have anything against children, I actually like them. Its just that they eventually become adults.

[Doddibot]

There is not any freedom before death either.
Perhaps not, but there is happiness. Joy. Love. Even if we don't truly have free will, those emotions are nonetheless good. And impossible to experience after death.

[himawara106]

I have to agree to that, what Doddibot says.
Agent_icon I understand your arguments in the way, that I understand what you mean, although I am not your opinion. There is much cruelty on earth and humans are the rulers over everything and I believe that the nature including animals, is far more powerful than human beings, although humans think, that they are the best, what evolution created...
We need the earth and we ruin it, because we have high industrialized countries which "rely" on sucking everything out of this world. Overpopulation is a matter of fact and is related to the destruction of earth.

And yes, one can suffer a lot. One can have nearly nothing to eat or has been abused (many children do suffer a lot because the get abused in every possible way), there are environmental tragedies and they will increase every year. There is war in many countries and so on.

BUT there are other things too, which help enjoying life. The trick is to be happy with the little things. To be happy having enough to eat, that the sun is shining, that everyone we love is healthy and so on. Sure, things can change and you can ask people here on the forum how much the suffered in some life stages. No one is scarless. We live, love and suffer. The amount of suffering does count. And everyone has the right to decide having children and introducing them to this "everything is possible" world. ;)

[agent_icon]

But thats my point. EVERYONE suffers. Just to differing degrees, and the ones who suffer the least always seem to end up running everything while other idiots follow them like blind little sheep and breed themselves into oblivion.

And I hate sunshine, I burn easily and have a family history of skin cancer.

[himawara106]

And I hate sunshine, I burn easily and have a family history of skin cancer.

Oh, yeah - my father has also skin cancer (besides his severe alzheimer..)

So living must be much of a suffer for you. Is it only at some times or do you hate life in general? ;)

[princelee]

i know i have too many kids

...
not that i'd wish them gone or anything


i have a 3 year old and a 6 year old
done a lot in my 21 years, lol
*head desk*

[LadyBug_SC]

EVERYONE suffers. Just to differing degrees, and the ones who suffer the least always seem to end up running everything while other idiots follow them like blind little sheep and breed themselves into oblivion.

I agree. A strong case can be argued in favor of capitalism in association with various religions producing too many people worldwide. Earth resources are not limitless and people must eat a lot just to stay alive and keep the system running. So we are eating up the hand that feeds us... And this is just one case that can be argued. The problem always remains the same: we multiply unreasonably.
People, THIS is the real issue? How many more humans can this planet take?

[Alissa888]

Not much, unless you bring compulsary euthanasia for everyone over 75 or whatever to keep populations in check (it's a ridiculous idea, and I'm not condoning it, everyone deserves to live).

[Doddibot]

Well, if we can't kill people (and I agree with Alissa on this - people should be allowed to live as long as they want/can), then the only other option is to have less babies.

In other words, stop having babies or people will die! ;)

[xylune]

I'm reminded of the movie "Logan's Run" all the sudden. ;)

[WorkYourMagic]

I'm reminded of the movie "Logan's Run" all the sudden. ;)

sheesh, don't assume everyone saw or cares about the movie "logan's run" i don't give a **** about it...

anyway... if people want hundreds of children it's their choice; 100 extra kids won't eat the planet

[Alissa888]

No, but the eventual billion would. It's an exponential problem.

[WorkYourMagic]

nobody would make a billion children... lack of time

[Alissa888]

Okay, the idea of exponentiality is that if each of the 100 kids made another 100 each, you have 100x100.
So, that's 10,000 new kids. If those kids have 100 each, that's 10,000x100 = 1,000,000 etc

See the problem?

Now, I know no-one has 100 kids, but 20 poses the same problem, more or less.

[WorkYourMagic]

it takes a minimum 15 years or so for a newborn to make a child... until then a lot of new kewl technologies agansit <insert things that get smaller as there are more humans on earth> will arise

[Alissa888]

What?! So, you're gonna let the problem grow, hoping that there's a miraculous solution to be developed in the future?

Okay, then. Everyone, start chain-smoking, let's all hope there's a cure for lung cancer just around the corner, and hey, while we're at it, why not continue with the CFCs and destroy the Ozone layer, I'm sure scientists will come up with something for it later. And yeah, screw Greenpeace, free pollution and carbon emissions for all!

[WorkYourMagic]

ok... i assure you i will do all this things plus throw my garbage on the window... scientists are the future

look how much science evolved in the past few years

[LadyBug_SC]

it takes a minimum 15 years or so for a newborn to make a child... until then a lot of new kewl technologies agansit <insert things that get smaller as there are more humans on earth> will arise

I'm glad to see someone still has high ideas about humans progressing anywhere, except in their own apocalypse... I'm too cynical for that, I suppose. Maybe too old, too. Actually I'm not too old, but I've lived through one war already. And if anyone asks me about having children... somehow I ended up with this idea they'd be better of not being born at all. Lest they die in one such similar war (we have those here on the regular basis, at least 5-6 in a century, so it's likely), or be put into some newly rewamped version of a (rape) camp, etc.
No, thank you. I don't see that famous progress helping those already dying of hunger (and it could), AIDS, cancer etc. Billions of people are treated like they are expendable, and guess what: in the eyes of those controling our planets wealth they ARE. And the more people there is, the more expendable people, too.

[Alissa888]

How do you know there is a solution?
And science has it's limits.
And LadyBug, that is true, but in a world where we're trying to prevent wars, you're gonna wait for war to exert population control?

[WorkYourMagic]

back in 1900, the limits were communication between continents; today this is possible
today the limits are to stop global warming, overpopulation and pollution(and cancer, unhealthy foods, drugs, PETA, addictions, wow, etc.)

[Alissa888]

That was science with inanimate objects and concepts.
This is people, not so easy to control.

The world population was 1 billion in 1804, look at us now with 6.7. It's not gonna be easy, especially if we keep adding to the problem.

Meanwhile, you have people dying of starvation and famine in developing countries, so it's somehow okay to let uncontrolled proliferation of people to begin to drain the resources of one nation rather to collaborate as a planet to deal with the supply/demand problem?

EDIT for Below, Lady Bug: Ah, my mistake. Sorry about that.

[LadyBug_SC]

And LadyBug, that is true, but in a world where we're trying to prevent wars, you're gonna wait for war to exert population control?
I'm sorry, but you missed my point. THAT is something I'll NEVER conclude out of anything! I fear wars, I've seen one!
I only wanted to relate my own personal reasons for not having children. Yet. I want at least one child, but I guess I'm too worried a mother even before I ever gave birth to any child.

[davious]

Every day you get in your car, you take the risk of being killed in an accident. Do you therefore completely avoid cars? Problems in the world are there, they are going to be there, just like there were problems in the world when your parents had you...life is risk. If everyone decided not to have children because of the condition of the world, who is going to be left in future generations to try to fix it?

[Alissa888]

I never said no children. I think 18 is pretty excessive.

[davious]

I was reacting to Ladybug, Alissa888. I would agree that 18 is extremely excessive for my needs as well...however, the Duggars seem to manage it. Their children are not starving, they are clothed, and otherwise, seem to be in good health. In their specific case, I don't see the problem. That doesn't mean everyone should do it, most people couldn't do what the Duggars do.

Overall though, I think it works out...For every family with 18 kids, how many couples are completely childless? Average them, and we still end up with only what, 2.1 kids per home or something like that?

[LadyBug_SC]

Every day you get in your car, you take the risk of being killed in an accident. Do you therefore completely avoid cars? Problems in the world are there, they are going to be there, just like there were problems in the world when your parents had you...life is risk. If everyone decided not to have children because of the condition of the world, who is going to be left in future generations to try to fix it?

I'm not able to understand your way of reasoning, too.

[davious]

I'm glad to see someone still has high ideas about humans progressing anywhere, except in their own apocalypse... I'm too cynical for that, I suppose. Maybe too old, too. Actually I'm not too old, but I've lived through one war already. And if anyone asks me about having children... somehow I ended up with this idea they'd be better of not being born at all. Lest they die in one such similar war (we have those here on the regular basis, at least 5-6 in a century, so it's likely), or be put into some newly rewamped version of a (rape) camp, etc.
No, thank you. I don't see that famous progress helping those already dying of hunger (and it could), AIDS, cancer etc. Billions of people are treated like they are expendable, and guess what: in the eyes of those controling our planets wealth they ARE. And the more people there is, the more expendable people, too.

From this post, I gathered that you feel that because the world is in such bad shape, that it is better not to bring any children into it. Better not to have any children at all, than risk them dying in a war, dying of starvation, disease, etc. That the world is too harsh for children to deal with...However, this notion is hardly new. People have been thinking that way for a long time. And yet, somehow, humanity carries on, despite the pessimism that tells us there is no use in bringing new people into such a horrible world...You are afraid of what might happen to potential children, so you decide not to have any, for fear of something happening. You don't want to take the risk, basically. I brought up cars, because they too pose a risk, a potential deadly risk, every time you get into one. Yet, rather than spend your entire life at home, where you don't ever have to get into a car, you get into your car, carry about your business, despite the potential risk. Sure, children will grow up in a world that is potentially full of danger. But, that world is also filled with marvelous wonders, and might be worth taking the chance.

[princelee]

addressing the population issue:
Worry not. When we are too much of a burden for mother Earth, she will expel the overload.
Either through famine, or a global shift in climate causing massive catastrophes.
Or, we will do it ourselves when fighting for resources (massive wars).

Or you could wear a condom.

Whichever.

[HelloClarice]

There really, really, really should be a limit on how many children people can have. I don't care what country you live in - the UK, America, France, whatever - there should be a limit.

It might not hurt if I have six children, but if each of my six children have six children then that's already thirty six children from just me and my partner. It's a serious problem and we just can't support all those people.

People like the Duggars will destroy our planet eventually, as if each of Michelle Duggars's children has one child, there are still forty children from one woman, and it's not very likely they'll all stop at one, is it?

[xylune]

sheesh, don't assume everyone saw or cares about the movie "logan's run" i don't give a **** about it...

anyway... if people want hundreds of children it's their choice; 100 extra kids won't eat the planet

My, that was rude and uncalled for. The subject of getting rid of people once they live to a certain age is what reminded me of it. It's an old sci-fi movie I remember watching with my mother about a futuristic society in which everyone had trackers implanted in their hands. When they reached a certain age their time was up and the tracker would blink, and they'd be taken away and never seen again. The lead character in the story ends up running instead of going quietly with the authorities and he and others who have "expired" leave the safety of their city to search for a place to grow old.

You might want to work on that temper of yours.

*edit: Oh, and by the way, Google is your friend. If you don't get a reference do what most people do and look it up. Don't chew someone out because they mentioned something you didn't happen to read or watch. The world doesn't revolve around you.

[SilentPsycho]

I have to admit, I also thought about Logan's Run when I saw this thread. I remember reading the book as a kid and I ended up nearly freaking out about it. Even now I start backing off when I hear about preventative measures.

[princelee]

I have to admit, I also thought about Logan's Run when I saw this thread. I remember reading the book as a kid and I ended up nearly freaking out about it. Even now I start backing off when I hear about preventative measures.
There are two kinds of population control

Positive and Negative

Positive are things like War, Mass famine, Global warming

Negative are things like birth control



I like negative better. Let's all go for that, shall we?

[LadyBug_SC]

Sure, children will grow up in a world that is potentially full of danger. But, that world is also filled with marvelous wonders, and might be worth taking the chance.

Of course, who could disagree with this? There's always a chance. And wonders happen most often in the times of trouble. That's when people show their true faces, and people are mostly what we'd call "good". But with so many good people (and this is what worries me even more) the world continues in its "bad" ways... What to say about that? I'm neither pessimist nor optimist. I have my friends and family that give me enough reason to love my life, but I also know, and this is not merely my "idea", existing merely in my head, that there are people who are ready to destroy all our wonders, everything we ever built or made out of our sense of wonder and out of love for the world. I can't ignore that, I've seen it in action, and the memory won't go away. It's just like with animals: I must find a secret little place to hide and have my child, away from predators. Unfortunately, the only predators humans are in danger from are other humans. Even when they don't intend to be. Lots of things happen that are, even as we do them, beyond our control.

And unlike before, when people also worried about the coming end of world, we now have many good reasons to worry, for the first time in history. We and those earlier humans might be the same when it comes to our nature, but our historical and social circumstances are very different. Now is the time to do something, and I'm all for action to save our wonderous world, our beautiful and unique home. But my resources are limited: I'm only an ordinary person, I have no significant power of my own to turn the clock around. No one person, or even no one state can do anything on their own in this matter. More than ever before in history we need that fiction of "humankind" stop being a fiction. We must unite to solve these issues. Do you see that happening in the near future? And the near future is when we need it to happen.
And perhaps it's already too late, they say, at least when it comes to the climate changes.

[agent_icon]

Wow...

Yeah, humans probably are never going be any better. It almost seems like there have to be "predators" in the world to keep the rest of us as nice, damaged little followers, submissively hiding in the corner.

Its almost like its reinforced by the government and judicial system, where the predators are rewarded and the rest are pushed to the side.

[SilentPsycho]

There are two kinds of population control

Positive and Negative

Positive are things like War, Mass famine, Global warming

Negative are things like birth control



I like negative better. Let's all go for that, shall we?


I didn't mean what I said like that. What I meant was restrictions like stopping people from having children, stopping people from raising them within a family, and deciding that there is a specific age limit at which point people become worthless. All these are things that I feel a knee-jerk reaction to, which appears in the book.

[lockshockbarrel]

I think that in the US, most of Europe and other western/developed countries we're kinda balanced out. Some people have lots of kids, but others don't have any. Birth control and adoption processes make it easier to prevent excess children being born. It just sort of naturally evens out.

But in a lot of other countries/regions, say certain African or Asian countries, they don't know about or have access to birth control. I think that if that was more available to everyone we wouldn't have as much of a population crisis.

And that's about as comfortable as I can get with unnatural ways to prevent overpopulation.

[Doddibot]

But in a lot of other countries/regions, say certain African or Asian countries, they don't know about or have access to birth control. I think that if that was more available to everyone we wouldn't have as much of a population crisis.
Well, some of those nations are made up of mostly Catholic, so they are taught that contraception is wrong. Also, some of those are predominately Muslims, and the poor Muslim nations seem to put less emphasis on female education, which is known to correlate with low birth rates (i.e. more educated women have fewer children).

Finally, one less child in the US is (from a resource point of view) equivalent to nine less children in poor parts of Africa (like Ethiopia. Even up to about 10 in Somalia). In other words, one child in the US requires nine times the resources of a child in sub-saharan Africa. In my opinion, it is easier and more environmentally more effective to target overpopulation in the more prosperous nations than in the developing nations (not that it isn't a problem there too - it is one of the reasons there is so much poverty there). The solution has to be a reduction in population across the world, in areas with high resource consumption but low growth rates AND in areas with low consumption but high population growth.

[davious]

I find it amazing that everyone always says that the government has no business in the bedroom, yet, wouldn't population control be exactly that? The government telling you what you can or cannot do in the bedroom?

[himawara106]

I also think that nature will regulate many things. People come and go, the earth will stay, but the enviroment will it make difficult for living on this planet, after global warming and so on as it was before human lifes. There will be wars because of the ongoing unequality of ressources and everyone will want to keep their lifestyle. I don't think we can't change anything about this development, even if the overpopulation stops. Pollution is economically triggered, we can stop it, by not driving cars or take flights and many other things. But that just will not happen, because the economic system will collapse. There are so many things that are related to pollution. The nature will do the rest and we are just inhabitants of it, it's not something we can control.

To the overpopulation: In fact in europe birth rates are decreasing. You get paid here in Austria for every child you get, the family politics want to force more women getting children, but it's not so easy, everything gets more expensive every year, many don't want to be in traditional relationships and don't want to give up their freedom. It's a very stressful life here without children and with children it even get's more difficult and stressful. The society is not very "child-friendly" here I think. But on the other hand it's unsocial not having children.
But none of this matters, because nature rules us all. :D

[dragonfly]

Ok so I am so out of the loop, I didn't even know about the Duggers family and just took the time to read the articles.. First off in my opinion, I do not think your a good parent if your child has to sign up for one on one time with you! Your the parent, it is your responsibility to always be available for your child/children no matter if they have an appointment or not!!

I have three of my own, my oldest being almost 15, and my youngest almost 5. No I do not expect my oldest to take care of his brothers. That is their father's and my job, but if he can help out sometimes thats great!! If I need to run to the store and my 10 year old doesn't want to go, then yes his brother watches him.. Do they have chores? Yes.. Its our resposiblity as a parent to teach them responsibility no matter how young they are. My 5 year old doesn't have a lot, but if he brings out his toys in the living room, then he has to help pick them up.. My ten year olds chore is the garbage.. not hard, but it teaches him that he has to be resposible get it to the curb on garbage day and all that.. My oldests.. is mowing the lawn.. Other than those, I might ask for a little help here or there, but mostly that is my job as a homemaker and SAHM.. They have school and homework and their small chores, those are their "jobs" and my husband of coarse has his..

As for having your children cook dinner, help teach your other children school stuff everyday and all that stuff, no I don't think that is right. If you and your spouse cannot dedicate your time and energy to taking care of your own kids, then maybe you should think about cutting off having anymore.. There is a difference from teaching responsibility and downright having kids to take care of your other ones...

[lockshockbarrel]

Well, some of those nations are made up of mostly Catholic, so they are taught that contraception is wrong. Also, some of those are predominately Muslims, and the poor Muslim nations seem to put less emphasis on female education, which is known to correlate with low birth rates (i.e. more educated women have fewer children).

Finally, one less child in the US is (from a resource point of view) equivalent to nine less children in poor parts of Africa (like Ethiopia. Even up to about 10 in Somalia). In other words, one child in the US requires nine times the resources of a child in sub-saharan Africa. In my opinion, it is easier and more environmentally more effective to target overpopulation in the more prosperous nations than in the developing nations (not that it isn't a problem there too - it is one of the reasons there is so much poverty there). The solution has to be a reduction in population across the world, in areas with high resource consumption but low growth rates AND in areas with low consumption but high population growth.


Ah, I didn't think of that...

[LadyBug_SC]

I find it amazing that everyone always says that the government has no business in the bedroom, yet, wouldn't population control be exactly that? The government telling you what you can or cannot do in the bedroom?

In what way does what you do in your bedroom stay in your bedroom if what you do in there results with a child? Child gets out of the bedroom pretty soon and becomes a part of society, and nowdays unfortunately a problem of that society. So, what we do in the bedroom IS societal issue, esp. when it comes to this. Another example might be: wedlock rape, incest, .... etc. And societies have always managed this, not always through the government bodies.

And just for the fun of it: you too are right now giving advice what can or can't be done in the bedroom, which proves that bedroom is no private paradise as some liberal-minded people would like to think.

[davious]

I am not the government, Ladybug, so your point about giving advice is moot.

[LadyBug_SC]

I am not the government, Ladybug, so your point about giving advice is moot.
This is how I see it (but then again it's only me...): in a democratic society it is the people that has sovereignity, isn't it? So in a democratic soceity it is us, the people that give our government their power. Being conservative in USA I bet You did precisely that on the last elections. So you did, if you voted, naturally, give advice to your government what to do with these issues. You voted (whatever you voted for) and you gave the power to the party that holds certain views regarding people's behavior in the bedroom and governments prerogatives concerning this.
If you chose to vote for someone that thinks that bedrooms are sacred protected places of the "holy family", well - you did it against the will of those voters that think otherwise. Like those that think that this is a question up for public debate and democratic parliamnetary procedures, in a word: for government.

I know, I know... we merely "vote". That is no power...
But it is our way of life. So...

[SenkoTwiik_SC]

I don't know about all of this. The way I see it, have as many chidren as you can truly take care of, emotionally, mentally, financially, pysically. I don't see a problem with kids having to help yout, but there is no reason that children need to pretty much be parents. There's a time for them to help, like with making dinner, cleaning their rooms, laundry, regular chores. Maybe baysitting too, but having someone else raise your children, especially if it is your older children, is not cool.
Heck, I'm not even down with nannies. You know how in really rich families, the mom that doesn't work and has one kid has a nanny around all the time to pretty much raise her kid? That is just silly. If you can't handle one kid on your own especially if you are not a working parent, you don't need to be having kids. Again, babysitting is fine, every once in a while. I mean like on the new Omen movie where Julia Styles's character couldn't raise one kid when she didn't work.
Bottom line, if you can care for them, have them. If you need to rely on your other kids to be backup parents, you have had enough.

[LadyBug_SC]

SenkoTwiik, I back you up 100%.

[pinktights]

I have been a looky-loo for a while now here, but I cannot pass up this thread without saying something...

You should not have kids just because you "like kids", that's just horrible.

I believe that the Duggars will have children until it kills the mother (yes dramatic, i know, but true!) because they believe their children will carry on their message of god and blah blah blah. I'm atheist so I don't get any of this. It repulses me.

My biggest question is: how many kids are the Duggar's kids going to have!? Holy cow we will be overrun...

I think China has the right idea, albeit strange to we Americans who love to hide behind our Constitution even thought the government breaks their own rules every day.

I understand the aversion to contraception; but i think it's idiotic. If you are ready for children, financially AND emotianally, please, by all means, go for it...

This is getting me all worked up. I am sure I have offended and that is not my goal. I just had to say something to get it off my chest.

Oh, if you couldn't tell, I won't be having children. If/when I decide I am ready (I being my husband as well) I will adopt. Plain as that.

China has the right idea you say? CHINA? First of all, women have little rights there and when breaking the law, such as having a child out of wedlock FOR ONE EXAMPLE, the mother is FORCED to abort! Also in some cases where a woman has over 1 child, forced abortion is common... of course there are the other options of just LETTING NEWBORNS DIE or DUMPING GIRLS ALONG HIGHWAYS when it's their first child cause they want a boy instead (afterall, if you can only have one child, gotta be picky!) But then again, selective abortion is common where after the sex is determined, the girls are quickly aborted until a boy is conceived. The sexes are so disproportionate in china because of this! Is this your idea of evolving? Taking away womens rights? I'm sorry your notion of improvement is to bring us back into the barbaric dark ages. If you want to be treated like cattle, then fine, but hell no for me. I'm lucky to live in a FREE NATION where my rights are protected as a human being.

[Pistons0794]

because they believe their children will carry on their message of god and blah blah blah. I'm atheist so I don't get any of this. It repulses me.

(sorry, I could not figure out how to quote)
The fact that you say religion "repulses" you is HIGHLY offensive. I am religious and believe what I believe. I don't say being an athiest is repulsive, just because it is not what I believe in.

It seems to me that you need to rethink your morals.

-----------------------------------------

Anyways...
I think it all depends on the parents.

I know a family that has 9 kids, one who is paralyzed from the waist down, and has mental issues she is also the sweetest little girl you will ever meet). The parents are very responsible and take care of ALL of their kids. They all live a very happy life and have PLENTY of time to do the sports they do and be kids. Yes they have chores and house responsibilities, but the same is for any house. The parents also still have time to themselves.

So in a situation like this, having a lot of children is fine. But if the family is poor, and cannot take care of the children, or the parents are ALWAYS working, and never see their kids, then there is a problem.

[Rabid]

because they believe their children will carry on their message of god and blah blah blah. I'm atheist so I don't get any of this. It repulses me.

(sorry, I could not figure out how to quote)
The fact that you say religion "repulses" you is HIGHLY offensive.

The poster never said that religion repulsed him/her. He/she (sorry, I can't judge by the username) merely said that the practice of incessantly having children until the labor kills the mother repulsed him/her. I have to agree, in some sense- I'm an atheist and children are not a gift from God (heaven knows that no deity in its right mind would call half of the brats running around nowadays a gift). No matter how much you love kids, it's not worth driving yourself to the brink of death. Those children need you to be there to raise them more than you need another to join the brood at the risk of your life. I think the Duggars have got it all wrong- no child should have to sign up to spend one-on-one time with a parent. That's simply absurd. Has anyone seen The Nanny Diaries? Childhoods like that just aren't fair. I say have as many kids as you want so long as you can support them- not just financially, but emotionally. It's not fair to these kids to live like they're in boarding school.

[Pistons0794]

I just reread his/her post and I may have misunderstood them.

I agree with the fact that they should not have so many children it would kill them, that's just disgusting. But I do believe children are a gift a from god. Sure a lot of them are brats, but that doesn't mean they're bad people. Most of them will mature into wonderful people.

I don't know who the Duggars are, and have never heard of them, so I cannot speak for them. But I do believe that if their children have to sign up for time with their parents, then it's a problem. If you cannot spend quality time with all your children you have too many.

Also, when I said you should only have them if you suport them, I meant mentally AND emotionally. I guess I did not make myself clear on that.

I do believe 18 children, or however many you said this family has, is WAY to many. I would say more then 6 is outragous, if I did not know the family I spoke of earlier. They have 9 kids, they all get quality time with their parents, and have time to do the things they most enjoy. They have a wonderful life. I was merely saying if you can provide your children with the love and care this family has, then by all means have 9 kids. But I DO agree that 18 kids is out of the question, because there is just no possible way to spend quality time with that many children, and acre for them in a way that will set them up for a positive future.

[djslippyman]

I don't see how in this current economy that people can choose to have excess children. It's irresponsible if you can't afford to take care of them all (that includes planning on helping with college at some point).

While the US governement can't take the full China policy of allowing such a strict limit on childbearing we can certainly stop giving tax breaks on the third and up children. If you are poor and planning on the governement to support your brood of children then I think you need to rethink your attitudes.

I have 2 year old twins and can't imagine adding any more to the mix.

[Elyasis_SC]

It's alright with me. It's seems like they will grow up to be successful adults, and they all seemed fairly happy with their life. It's not really about numbers, it's about real people who choose that lifestyle and are comfortable with it. I'm sure the mother will stop soon, she's close to menopause I believe.

[Acey_SC]

I think it's the parent's choice as long as they have the resources to support however many kids they want. I get so angry when I hear about people that have ten kids and live in some random shack. It's cruel to the children to bring them into the world with no means to make their life comfortable and happy. There is no reason for this; one, maybe two kids can bring as much joy as ten to the parents but will be much better off.

[JanePstar]

I think 3 is enough. I'm in a family of 5 with 3 kids.

[SecretAgentZero]

I'm the first of six, yet the absolute most children I'll probably be able to put up with is 3.

[chaotess]

I checked out the Duggar's website. They seem to be involved parents who are devoted to their family. I don't really see the problem. I have several loser cousins who had a few kids each, and neglected or ignored them. My poor second cousin K. is actually in a group home - again. I'd rather see good, intelligent people have lots of kids, than abusive, ignorant nutjobs have any at all.

As for me, I'm looking forward to a family of two, maybe three kids. Although if for some freakish reason I had quintuplets (or more!), I'd work hard to be a good parent to them.

And no, I'm not a religious person, so I am not commending the Duggar's because I agree with their faith, I just respect thier involvment. I don't have anything against people of faith as long as they are respectful and intelligent, and they seem to be. At a glance.

[Doddibot]

First of all, women have little rights there and when breaking the law, such as having a child out of wedlock FOR ONE EXAMPLE, the mother is FORCED to abort!
I don't think it was that part that detrimental was saying was the right idea. It wouldn't be likely in America - it was (and is) enough of a battle just allowing women to have an abortion when they want to.

But then again, selective abortion is common where after the sex is determined, the girls are quickly aborted until a boy is conceived. The sexes are so disproportionate in china because of this!
In America, it is unlikely that families would be trying to have boys over girls. Indeed, most sex selection in America attempts to have girls rather than boys.

Is this your idea of evolving? Taking away womens rights? I'm sorry your notion of improvement is to bring us back into the barbaric dark ages. If you want to be treated like cattle, then fine, but hell no for me. I'm lucky to live in a FREE NATION where my rights are protected as a human being.
Ah, but you don't have the freedom to pour your toxic waste down the drain. You don't have the freedom to make very loud noises at 2am. Because that infringes upon other people's rights.

Given that overpopulation is a large environmental problem, and every child you have is less resources for everyone else, I don't think you can hide behind your rights.

That said, I'm not in favour (yet) of legally restricting number of births. Rather, I would go for strong encouragement of lowering population growth (such as no tax breaks for more than two children, educational campaigns warning against population growth). And even if I did want legal restrictions, the punishment would only be a fine, not mandatory abortion.

[Simply_Sims]

The world is overpopulated as is. Honestly, having children is selfish. Sure, providing and raising for them can be selfless, but the initial, "hey, I want a baby so I can have a purpose in life/that's what people do when they grow is" is idiotic and selfish. There are so very many unwanted children as is.

Personally, I never want children(I value my free time), but if I did, I would adopt.

[Pistons0794]

The world is overpopulated as is. Honestly, having children is selfish. Sure, providing and raising for them can be selfless, but the initial, "hey, I want a baby so I can have a purpose in life/that's what people do when they grow is" is idiotic and selfish. There are so very many unwanted children as is.

Personally, I never want children(I value my free time), but if I did, I would adopt.


Did you REALLY say having children is selfish? That is a joke. The fact that you say that is FUNNY to me. People ahve children because they love children, and they want to catre for one of their own. They want the feeling a parent gets when they ahve a kid. They want to see someone they love grow and develope. They do it because they want a family. I don't see this as selfish! I see it as human nature!

I bet you don't think your parents were selfish for having you, do you?

And if everyone agreed with you on that, and no one had kids, humans wouldn't exsist. I find it annoying and stupid that you owuld even say such a thing.

[Doddibot]

Did you REALLY say having children is selfish?
And then you answer your own question:

People ahve children because they love children, and they want to catre for one of their own. They want the feeling a parent gets when they ahve a kid. They want to see someone they love grow and develope. They do it because they want a family. I don't see this as selfish! I see it as human nature!
It's selfish, AND it's human nature.

I bet you don't think your parents were selfish for having you, do you?
I do. It just so happens that making me happy made my parents happy. It was fundamentally self-interested, but certainly doesn't exclusively benefit my parents.

And if everyone agreed with you on that, and no one had kids, humans wouldn't exsist. I find it annoying and stupid that you owuld even say such a thing.
Just because it is selfish to have children, it doesn't follow that nobody should have children. We can do some selfish things, just as long as it doesn't really negatively affect other people (as having a large family would).

[Pistons0794]

I can understand your point of view, really. I see where you're coming from, and the information you have to back it up makes a lot of sense.

It is just that I feel so differently, and will never agree with you on this. I guess the world would be boring if everyone felt the same way about everything :-)

I can see where you get your ideas and opinions from, but I respectfully disagree.

[Chelleypie]

Ok so I am so out of the loop, I didn't even know about the Duggers family and just took the time to read the articles.. First off in my opinion, I do not think your a good parent if your child has to sign up for one on one time with you! Your the parent, it is your responsibility to always be available for your child/children no matter if they have an appointment or not!!

I have three of my own, my oldest being almost 15, and my youngest almost 5. No I do not expect my oldest to take care of his brothers. That is their father's and my job, but if he can help out sometimes thats great!! If I need to run to the store and my 10 year old doesn't want to go, then yes his brother watches him.. Do they have chores? Yes.. Its our resposiblity as a parent to teach them responsibility no matter how young they are. My 5 year old doesn't have a lot, but if he brings out his toys in the living room, then he has to help pick them up.. My ten year olds chore is the garbage.. not hard, but it teaches him that he has to be resposible get it to the curb on garbage day and all that.. My oldests.. is mowing the lawn.. Other than those, I might ask for a little help here or there, but mostly that is my job as a homemaker and SAHM.. They have school and homework and their small chores, those are their "jobs" and my husband of coarse has his..

As for having your children cook dinner, help teach your other children school stuff everyday and all that stuff, no I don't think that is right. If you and your spouse cannot dedicate your time and energy to taking care of your own kids, then maybe you should think about cutting off having anymore.. There is a difference from teaching responsibility and downright having kids to take care of your other ones...

First off in my opinion, I do not think your a good parent if your child has to sign up for one on one time with you! Your the parent, it is your responsibility to always be available for your child/children no matter if they have an appointment or not!!
You've never been a Pastor's Kid, have you? I was. For a PK, an appointment is NEEDED, even if there's only one of you. A friend of mine's dad is an Anglican priest, and he's had to have appointments since he was 6. And those appointments are sometimes broken. But in order for a pastor to get time out for his kids, he has to make them an appointment. My parents were Salvation Army officers. During Christmas, I saw them only on weekends, and then it was iffy. The rest of the year, only one of them could show up at school events or take me places with friends. Were my parents bad parents too?

I have three of my own, my oldest being almost 15, and my youngest almost 5. No I do not expect my oldest to take care of his brothers. That is their father's and my job, but if he can help out sometimes thats great!!
Again, my parents must have been bad parents. I was EXPECTED to look after my little brother. By 14 (he was 10) we were staying by ourselves. Especially during Christmas.

Do they have chores? Yes.. Its our resposiblity as a parent to teach them responsibility no matter how young they are. My 5 year old doesn't have a lot, but if he brings out his toys in the living room, then he has to help pick them up.. My ten year olds chore is the garbage.. not hard, but it teaches him that he has to be resposible get it to the curb on garbage day and all that.. My oldests.. is mowing the lawn.. Other than those, I might ask for a little help here or there, but mostly that is my job as a homemaker and SAHM.. They have school and homework and their small chores, those are their "jobs" and my husband of coarse has his..
The Duggars have chores. If you'd read in depth, you'd see that none of their chores are age inappropriate. My three year old has chores. She is responsible for her toys, putting her laundry in the dirty clothes, and putting away the silverware. Some of us don't have the luxury of being a homemaker or SAHM. I'm one of those women who isn't that fortunate, as is my mother. My mother works outside the home. Even when she did stay at home, we all had responsibilities. So the Duggars aren't being unreasonable - they're being practical. Did you look at the size in square feet of their house? Mom can't do all that alone.

As for having your children cook dinner, help teach your other children school stuff everyday and all that stuff, no I don't think that is right.
Remind me to tell my mom when she gets home that she's a terrible mother and going about it all wrong. My brother and I both cook at least one meal a week. And some families do home school. And the older kids teach the younger ones all the time - didn't your boys teach one another in small ways? Like your oldest helping your youngest learn to walk, or how to play a game?

If you and your spouse cannot dedicate your time and energy to taking care of your own kids, then maybe you should think about cutting off having anymore.
I don't see it as the Duggars not taking care of their own kids. They do. But it IS a lot of kids. And the older ones are more capable of tending to themselves, and would probably prefer to do so. Not to mention the fact that theirs is a religious reasoning. Here's a website for you to go educate yourself: http://www.quiverfull.com/ . I don't hear people telling Catholics how terrible they are for not practicing birth control, why do people insist on stomping all over the Duggars' rights?

There is a difference from teaching responsibility and downright having kids to take care of your other ones...
The Duggars in particular have children because they believe God has given them to them. Not because they need someone to take care of their children. Please do some reading before you stomp all over the family. And don't assume that what's right for you is right for all. Some of us cannot be SAHMs. I am a working single mom. My mother worked from home when my brother was small, but when they felt called by God to become Salvation Army Officers, it meant long stretches of time away from her kids. Is she terrible because she answered God's call? No. Neither are Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar.

[SmilingSweetly]

I can understand your point of view, really. I see where you're coming from, and the information you have to back it up makes a lot of sense.

Frankly, I don't see any kind of "information" to back anything up whatsoever. They certainly didn't offer any proof or evidence that having a large family negatively affects them in any way. All Doddibot offered was personal opinion.

Just because it is selfish to have children, it doesn't follow that nobody should have children. We can do some selfish things, just as long as it doesn't really negatively affect other people (as having a large family would).

I am very interested in learning how did the Duggers' choice to have a large family negatively affect you? How does my choice to have children negatively affect you in any way? Where is the proof or evidence or even the "information?" Where is the proof that choosing to have children to share your life with is a selfish act?

What about people who don't necessarily *choose* to have children but it happens? I'm sure there are plenty unplanned pregnancies within marriages. By Doddibot's definition of what makes a person (ie parent) selfish, does this include the unplanned children?

[ltaylormoore]

I'd like an even number of kids, either 2 or 4. I want what I call a "Board Game Family". I want to be able to sit down and play games with my kids without the game sucking due to a lack of players.

However, on the subject of massive amounts of children this (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/89/249270409_664e6841fa.jpg) is all I have to say.

[Doddibot]

I am very interested in learning how did the Duggers' choice to have a large family negatively affect you? How does my choice to have children negatively affect you in any way? Where is the proof or evidence or even the "information?" Where is the proof that choosing to have children to share your life with is a selfish act?
It's obvious. Children require resources, and produce pollution. And those children grow up to have more children, who in turn use up resources and produce pollution.

Given that at least some of the resources used are globally limited, and that the pollution has a global effect (e.g. global warming), it is then obvious that any child born will detrimentally affect everybody else on the planet from now until the end of the human race (or until all resources consumption and pollution becomes sustainable).

The justification for brining a child into the world, despite the fact that they and their descendants will slowly and slightly starve and poison everybody else on the planet, is that the parents want to satisfy their innate urge to reproduce. It is no less selfish than wanting to live in a big house or eat a lot of really expensive food, when that expense could better benefit others. Sure, it benefits the children born as a result, but buying houses and food also benefits those who sell said houses and food. I am not convinced that the benefit of having a child outweighs the negative impact it has on the planet and its inhabitants.

What about people who don't necessarily *choose* to have children but it happens? I'm sure there are plenty unplanned pregnancies within marriages. By Doddibot's definition of what makes a person (ie parent) selfish, does this include the unplanned children?
Given that the choice exists of whether to continue a pregnancy or not (i.e. abortion), then there is still the decision to bring a child into the world to the detriment of everyone currently here or everyone who will be here throughout the millenia long impact of having that child. Only those for whom that choice is unavailable are excused from being responsible for their child's birth.

[Jetta_SC]

I think it is totally rediculous to have so many kids, personally.
But if you want a lot of kids, I think you should adopt them.


There's a *serious* shortage of adopting parents, and the world is growing ever more populated by the second, which has already begun to have serious worldwide environmental and resource impact in a negative fashion.
People need to look at how their actions impact humanity at large, and stop being selfish.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. 1, 2, 3 children that's alright. Maybe even 4 if they're spread out enough, but 5+ is just RIDICULOUS! It's human nature to want to spread your genes and get them out there, but it's also very selfish when you think of pro-life people that have a bunch of THEIR OWN children. It sickens me to think that somebody could tell a woman she should instead have an unwanted child and put it up for adoption, but won't adopt any children her/him-self, instead, s/he POLLUTES the world with her/his children (not meaning it in a bad way necessarily, but that s/he has an overflow of children.) That to me is the most selfish thing in the world! Not only is s/he condemning a child to an orphanage for however long, but s/he is also not looking to take care of any children but her/his own. However, I do have a GREAT amount of respect for people who DO adopt, especially those who adopt many and bring them all up well.
I don't know how families with a ridiculous amount of children ever get along. It's too chaotic! Do the kids EVER get alone time with their parents, and if they do it must be RARE! Back in the day when sickness killed off children it was necessary to have many kids, but now that isn't often the case.

ltaylormoore- that was so funny!

[SilentPsycho]

I agree wholeheartedly with this. 1, 2, 3 children that's alright. Maybe even 4 if they're spread out enough, but 5+ is just RIDICULOUS! It's human nature to want to spread your genes and get them out there, but it's also very selfish when you think of pro-life people that have a bunch of THEIR OWN children. It sickens me to think that somebody could tell a woman she should instead have an unwanted child and put it up for adoption, but won't adopt any children her/him-self, instead, s/he POLLUTES the world with her/his children (not meaning it in a bad way necessarily, but that s/he has an overflow of children.) That to me is the most selfish thing in the world! Not only is s/he condemning a child to an orphanage for however long, but s/he is also not looking to take care of any children but her/his own. However, I do have a GREAT amount of respect for people who DO adopt, especially those who adopt many and bring them all up well.
I don't know how families with a ridiculous amount of children ever get along. It's too chaotic! Do the kids EVER get alone time with their parents, and if they do it must be RARE! Back in the day when sickness killed off children it was necessary to have many kids, but now that isn't often the case.

ltaylormoore- that was so funny!

What about those who are genetically likely to have multiples? Is it selfish for them to decide to have a third child, only to find themselves having triplets and thus placed into your 'ridiculous' catagory. Or those who want four children but end up having twins? This is something I wonder about as twins runs in my family, and I've already been told I could possibly have twins in the future.

Maybe with the pro-lifers, they accept that the child is their fault and wants to care and love it throughout the child's life? While I am pro-choice, I know I could never get an abortion myself, it just goes directly against my personal ethics. Neither could I give up a child, because I get very attached to friends and family and it would destroy me if I was separated from any child I'll have. Instead, I would adapt my life to make it work for a better life for the kids.

Finally, as people have said, adoption is not for everyone. Some people only want to adopt, others want to go through the miracle of pregnancy themselves. Pregnancy has always fascinated me, and I'm broody to the point of dreaming that I'm pregnant, so getting a ready-made grown up child is not for me. In addition to that, as a bisexual woman, it's currently incredibly hard to get permission to adopt because of my sexual preference, which in an already hard to get adoption permission world, it's just too much. Ironic really, as a lot of the adoption crisis could be solved if it was actually an easier process and an unbiased one.

[Doddibot]

What about those who are genetically likely to have multiples?
That's probably excusable. Such occurrences would be offset by those who had very few or no children.

[Jetta_SC]

What about those who are genetically likely to have multiples? Is it selfish for them to decide to have a third child, only to find themselves having triplets and thus placed into your 'ridiculous' catagory. Or those who want four children but end up having twins? This is something I wonder about as twins runs in my family, and I've already been told I could possibly have twins in the future.

Maybe with the pro-lifers, they accept that the child is their fault and wants to care and love it throughout the child's life? While I am pro-choice, I know I could never get an abortion myself, it just goes directly against my personal ethics. Neither could I give up a child, because I get very attached to friends and family and it would destroy me if I was separated from any child I'll have. Instead, I would adapt my life to make it work for a better life for the kids.

Finally, as people have said, adoption is not for everyone. Some people only want to adopt, others want to go through the miracle of pregnancy themselves. Pregnancy has always fascinated me, and I'm broody to the point of dreaming that I'm pregnant, so getting a ready-made grown up child is not for me. In addition to that, as a bisexual woman, it's currently incredibly hard to get permission to adopt because of my sexual preference, which in an already hard to get adoption permission world, it's just too much. Ironic really, as a lot of the adoption crisis could be solved if it was actually an easier process and an unbiased one.

Well, if you have twins/trips/quads/whatever, you can't help that, there are always exceptions, and that's one (I actually would LOVE to have twins.) All I'm saying is it's EXTREMELY inconsiderate to KNOWINGLY have LOADS of children, and not even consider the poor children sitting in an orphanage, or the impoverished children from 3rd world countries sitting in a dump that you could give a home and happiness to.
Don't get me wrong, I would like to experience pregnancy and giving birth too. But only once or maybe twice. I prefer to keep the world population down, as it is rising at an alarming rate.

[ilc163]

As long as the family is able to sustain itself efficiently and functionally, it dosent matter how many members there are in a household.

I look at the Duggars and i dont see anything wrong with the size of their family. In fact, i really admire and am awed by how well the children seem to be raised and functioning in their family life.

If parents can raise their children well, regardless of the number of children, they should be free to have as many children as they like.

[RussaNodrey_SC]

I dislike childern with a passion. To put it lightly. I never want to have childern or get married; for that disision I was mocked and ridiculed. I can't imagine having 17 childern! That would just disturb me. It's terrible that the older childern have to take care of the little ones. The Duggar family needs to realize that they should had only a small family.

[xSimsAmour]

I Would Personally Have 3/4 Children. I Have this Whole.. Thing Of What I'd Have..

I Think People Can Have What They Feal Is right, But I Honestly Also Think that Like 20 Kids Is Rediculas. Because The Family's That Usually Do Have Like 19/20 Kids, Live In Small Home's With Like 3 Bedrooms And 1 Bathroom, There You Can See The Kid's Are Probably Sqeeazing Like 10 Kids In Each Room, As The Parents Have Their Own. It's Rediculas, But.. Its Also The Parents Choice. Unless They Are Complete Responsible Parents, I Think Its Tottally Okay. As Long As No One Is Neglecting The Children..

But In My Opinion, 4/5 :screwy: Is My Limit. Although I Want 3/4.

:).

Kalean.

[LostSaggatarius]

4 would be my max because three of my friends are very unhappy because one lives in a family of seven and she gets no attention at all she's really unhappy, only her youngest sister and her oldest get attention. My other friend has 4 brothers and 5 sisters and she is so annoyed because her parents don't even act like she's real and my other friend is unhappy constantly because she's emo, lol

[Lollipop_Girl]

I dislike childern with a passion. To put it lightly. I never want to have childern or get married; for that disision I was mocked and ridiculed. I can't imagine having 17 childern! That would just disturb me. It's terrible that the older childern have to take care of the little ones. The Duggar family needs to realize that they should had only a small family.

I semi agree, I don't want children*ever* either and everyone teases me "Oh you'll change your mind, I bet you'll have like seven!". I think these *huge* families are not a good idea for anyone because how can you spend one on one time with each child when you have 20 of them? They'll just feel like a number and will never have real quality time with their parents. Deviding attention between so many children is just too hard I'd imagine.

Also, you'd have to be quite rich to be able to afford a house where you could all live comfotably. People who live of the state for *no reason* and have tons and tons of kids are just being unfair IMO. I think if you want a big family, five is enough. The problem is, I don't think China's one child policy is a good idea either so I don't know how you'd stop people.

Btw I prefer Macbeth to Romeo and Julliet too ;) I'm too cynical for love stories, especially love stories between young teens where they get married almost straight after meeting!

[Dr. BaconStein]

Currently, I'm not really planning on having any... I have enough responsibility on my hands as it is, and I plan on keeping it that way. :\

But I don't really think there should be much of a limit to this when it comes to people in general. My mom has about 6 siblings, which leaves me with a lot of cousins, aunts, and uncles. It's really cool to visit them and share interests - without them, I'd get really lonely, really fast. It's nice to have family that can call you up at anytime and just talk.

[twigglebby_SC]

I've watched the Duggar shows as well (she's pregnant with number 18!) and I don't agree with what they do. Their "buddy" system takes the young children away from their parents. Who are those babies going to think of as their mother? Obviously the real mother will be called "mom" but who will they remember raising them?

Another issue I see with this family is the children don't seem to have individuality. They talked about this on one of their shows, and I think the oldest mentioned that they are very individual - he said some like chocolate ice cream and some don't. Is that their only idea of individuality? Their preference of ice cream flavors? They aren't given the right to dress in whatever they want, and they definitely don't seem to have much privacy, regardless of how large their newly built house is.


me and my mom wached the dugger speical a few nights ago and seriously they all remind me of clones of eachother.. they all where the same clothes they all seem to have the same views and oppions.. they kinda scare me a little bit. if they were in public or even private school i think they'd be a little more individual. do we know if any of them have any friends? they obv dont go to anysort of socical gatherings with out there parents.. and as much as i hate to say this... all the girls look and dress like someone i would talk shit about on a daily basis..

i think 7 kids would be a limit for me... i dont want any more then4 children but if i do happen to have more.. i would get my tubes tied after the seventh no doubt

[threehundred]

i think children are repulsive, pointless and an economic burden

[Nate2008]

If you and your husband/wife choose to have 1 or 2 kids of 10 or 12 is completely their choice. Who are we to say such a number is too many? As long as there is love and of course the means to take care of them.

[TRIriana]

i think children are repulsive, pointless and an economic burden


I understand that everyone is entitled to their opinion, however did you say this just to troll or to show your ignorance? Or do you think you, as a person, missed that life stage entirely?

[Charley-x]

i think children are repulsive, pointless and an economic burden

..You were a child once. I understand thats JUST your opinion though. And if someone can't afford to have a child, it's not hard to stop yourself getting pregnant. If someone thinks their replusive and pointless; don't have a baby, it's seriously not that hard, is it?. :/


Personally I think the parents have the right to choose how many children they want, whether it's 0 or 10. It's their children knowone else has to worry about them. Aslong as they take proper care of them and havn't abandoned them, they can have all the children they want.

[Synthesis]

Personally I think the parents have the right to choose how many children they want, whether it's 0 or 10. It's their children knowone else has to worry about them. Aslong as they take proper care of them and havn't abandoned them, they can have all the children they want.

While I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment, anyone who decides adamantly they're going to have ten children, and is absolutely certain they can provide for all ten of those into adulthood should probably have his or her head checked. I am, of course, speaking of actually giving birth to ten children, not adoption.

Giving that person the benefit of the doubt--that they certainly won't have a change of heart (which is entirely likely--unfortunately, they can't very well undo the children), what if they were to die? People die all the time. What about if they became incapacitated, through no fault of their own, or lost their job security otherwise? The burden of ten children is very much different than the burden of four or two.

Furthermore, while it might seem very honorable to one person specifically, having ten children is rather selfish in the grander scheme of things--the planet is overburdened. Freshwater, food, living space--these are all things that are not luxuries, and are very much in shortage. Having ten children will certainly make things worse--perhaps not just one person, but if a hundred or a million people should decide as much...

In short, anyone who wants to have ten children, and think they can adequately prepare for circumstances, is probably (but not certainly) delusional. They are being far more responsible in every respect if they endeavor to adopt ten children--and there are no shortages of orphans in this world, that much is readily apparent. But adding ten additional people is, unfortunately, a burden no one can fully grasp the total implications of, especially in a resource-gluttony society like much of the First World.

In short, I agree with Doddi--though I will concede, perhaps one or two children would be manageable (over the course of two parents' lifetimes anyway).

[Imcran]

Saying 'don't have kids because something bad might happen' is a pretty pointless statement. By that arguement, you should never go outside. Something bad might happen. In fact, by the arguement that bad things might happen later on, you'd never end up doing anything.

People do die all the time, but living as though you're going to drop dead at any second is a pretty poor way of living life. You can never prepare for every eventuality, and you'll drive yourself mad trying.

As for ten children, I personally know a couple who have precisely that amount of children. They are, to a kid, well adapted, well cared for and pleasent to be around. Both parents are incredibly sane, and affluent enough to support their family. I doubt very much that they are delusional, and they seem to be doing a damned good job of raising their family.

[Synthesis]

Saying 'don't have kids because something bad might happen' is a pretty pointless statement. By that arguement, you should never go outside. Something bad might happen. In fact, by the arguement that bad things might happen later on, you'd never end up doing anything.

People do die all the time, but living as though you're going to drop dead at any second is a pretty poor way of living life. You can never prepare for every eventuality, and you'll drive yourself mad trying.

As for ten children, I personally know a couple who have precisely that amount of children. They are, to a kid, well adapted, well cared for and pleasent to be around. Both parents are incredibly sane, and affluent enough to support their family. I doubt very much that they are delusional, and they seem to be doing a damned good job of raising their family.

To use the expression, "the exception that proves the rule". Even if they are fantastic parents, one can scientifically calculate the environmental and resource impact a family that large will make. It IS very much real, and nothing can change that--if they are willing to ignore it, that's well within their rights. I personally think that mindset is repugnant, since it's a willingness to deliberatly harm the environment and humans as a whole, but that's only my position. They might be the best parents who ever lived, but in sixty years, the total effect on the environment will be noticeable (unless they are taking extreme precautions--in which case, it'll still be more than if they had, say, only four children). If everyone decided to follow their example, it would be outright catastrophic.

Besides, arguing that something bad may happen in the future and that fear should affect your judgment isn't "pointless"--it's called "caution", and is the basis for almost as much human behavior as the sex drive. By that argument, telling someone, "You shouldn't consistently drive twenty miles (or in the case of ten children, sixty miles) over the speed limit, at all times," is a foolish argument, not because you'll incur a fine, but because there's the potential to kill yourself.

The notion that "you should reconsider having ten children" is not born out of some paranoid fear that the world is running out of space--it's born out of the accepted knowledge that human consumption of resources can be calculated base on their geographic origin, economic standing, and general habits. "You shouldn't go outside" is not, unless your in a violent hurricane or demilitarized zone.

Though I suppose personal responsibility shouldn't get in the way of happiness.

[Imcran]

There's a difference between driving 20 miles over the speed limit and having children. 20 miles over the speed limit and there's a very definite cause and effect factor in play. Having children, on the other hand, does not affect the likelihood of your dropping dead tomorrow. This is somewhat more like the decision to drive a car full stop. Everyone who drives a car contributes to environmental pollution. There are however, better solutions than banning all cars.

I never at any point said 'Everyone should have 10 children'. I was however, refuting your point that everyone who has 10 children is necessarily insane by providing an example of people who I can guarantee, are not insane. People are allowed to have children.

As for environmental impact, you're right. There is an environmental impact. There's an environmental impact for everything, and if one family has 10 kids, it's far less of an impact than say, governments not passing legislation to control carbon emissions, the continued reliance on fossil fuels and so on. From an environmental perspective, there are much more efficient solutions than restricting the number of children born in developed nations. For that matter, what about developing nations, where the birth rate tends to be far higher and the controls on environmental factors far lower?


The fact is, the vast majority of developed nations have families with 1, 2 or 3 children. There are some that buck the trend, but the idea that this is somehow frequent is quite absurd. The impact of restricting family sizes, I think would be significantly less than you're assuming, unless it was done world wide, and even there, there are better battles to fight. There are better things for people in general to fight for to ensure the survival of the human race and this planet.

[Hinoemasim]

There's a difference between driving 20 miles over the speed limit and having children. 20 miles over the speed limit and there's a very definite cause and effect factor in play. Having children, on the other hand, does not affect the likelihood of your dropping dead tomorrow.

The more children a woman has, the older she is, the greater the risk of infant mortality, miscarriage or death of the mother in childbirth.

[Synthesis]

The fact is, the vast majority of developed nations have families with 1, 2 or 3 children. There are some that buck the trend, but the idea that this is somehow frequent is quite absurd. The impact of restricting family sizes, I think would be significantly less than you're assuming, unless it was done world wide, and even there, there are better battles to fight. There are better things for people in general to fight for to ensure the survival of the human race and this planet.

You're right--except I'm not worried so much about one family. The harsh reality is that the individual (or individual family) really doesn't amount to much more than part of a statistical effect. I'm worried about a thousand families, or a hundred thousand families--in which case, the effect can be just as damning as a government's failure to implement tighter regulations, if not more.

This is especially true in the First World, and to a lesser extent what was considered the Second World. The idea of a mother having ten children in Tibet is sad, in my opinion, but the environmental impact can't compare to a mother having four children in the United States or Canada. Ten is, I'm sorry, just catastrophic by comparison. And it only gets worse when we consider it on the practical scale--a community of families or a population of them. The simple reality is that we (myself included) consume a ridiculously disproportionate share of the world's limited resources.

Now, obviously, there are other ways to reduce this. I own a car, but I only drive it twice a month at most, and last fueled it up back in July. I've slightly less than a half a tank left. In retrospect, I could very easily do without it. I try and recycle. I don't have a lawn to water, because I live in an apartment. I do my best to keep my utility costs down, both for practical reasons and because I'm aware of how much electricity Americans consume. But the impact of a large families in the United States just dwarfs anything else--even if they do their best to reduce that impact. It's the very nature of the material way of life in the First World that we all experience. I can say with some confidence that a large, middle-class American family consumes more resources than any of its counterpart in the world by a large margin (here, I am not including cases such as royalty, for the same reason I'm not including the American high-class).

There's also the issue of women's health--something I'm not qualified to explain, but I don't think it takes a genius to realize the sort of health implications that can come from having ten children, back to back (as though there's another option, given the age when most women have their first child in North America), versus having two or having no children. There are medical, not environmental, reason doctors recommend against women having a very high number of children, or having a child at a certain age. This brings up a deeper, more complex issue of responsibility (the risk of the child at birth), that I'll let someone else delve into.

[lauratje86]

Personally, I want 3 children. But if I have more, or less, that's fine too. I would like to have my (and my boyfriend's) biological children, but if we can't we would certainly try to adopt some. But that is just my decision (and of course, at some point I might change my mind - I don't plan on having children for about 5-10 years yet). But then again, if I got pregnant tomorrow, I would keep the baby, and he/she would be wanted, just unplanned.
If people want 18, or more, children, fine, so long as they can support them. In the UK, as far as I can make out, the main worry about overpopulation comes from people immigrating into the UK, not from high birth rates. In fact, as the population is aging (ie a higher proportion of the population are older people) from an economic point of view, people having plenty of babies would be helpful! As then, in years to come, there will be more people around to support retired people (through taxes etc), as currently people are prediciting that a lack of people of working age in the future may cause financial problems for the country as a whole.

But as I said, all this is just my opinion (with the odd bit of socio-economics thrown in for good measure - without any statistics to back it up though!). :-D

[thatsfancy]

I think a person should only have as many kids as they can support and actually raise.

The OP mentioned the Duggers. They can support their 18 kids...or 17 with 1 on the way. Idk I lose track. Plus they do basically everything as a family. I dont think the older kids are having to play mommy and daddy. All the kids are learning responsibility, which I think generally lacks in kids in America.

[Phoeberg]

I don't have a problem with people having a lot of kids, IF they can support them both financially and emotionally. I don't really see how a family can have so many children and be working to support them financially, and have enough time for every single child. But if they can they can then I don't see a reason why they shouldn't have that many.
I remember reading about a family (quite possibly it was the Duggers) who had so many children they had to schedule time on a rota in the kitchen to be able to spend time with their parents, and I think that's wrong. I have to say, I'd hate having to try to get the bathroom in the morning in that house!
I personally want two or three children.

[Kokoro-Akita]

I think its up to the person. Some people have a lot of children because they simply love kids and want to be surrounded by them. Some people have lots of children for all the wrong reasons. Tax benefits etc. Personally i only want 2 but i say that now i am pregnant with my first so i could change my mind and want more.

[littbrat5]

It's a fact that if women (and men) keep having 2+ children, our 6+ billion people in the world will fly up to 9+ billion by 2050. That'll be certainly more production of fields for food and suburbs and destruction of wildlife. It's nice to have children, they are our legacy.

If every woman from here on out were to have one child in all of the world, the population would remarkably go down by at least half in 2050. The world pumps out 80 MILLION babies every year, 10 MILLION of those in China alone. In America, it's roughly 400,000.

If you don't believe me, read The World Without Us, or google it.

*Edit:

As for us, the elderly are not dying. With technology and medicine expanding lives, by 2030 there'll be an estimated 1 in 5 would be elderly. Not only that, but growing.

[Annique]

I think one shouldn't have more children than they can not only finance, but also lavish attention on, educate, and basically take good care of. Wether that is one child or one dozen children. Although I don't understand why one would want to have so many children. What are the reasons? Surely we passed the age where you needed plenty of (grand)children to provide for you when you become old?