Question 4

[Guest]

How many children is too many children?

http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/articlewow.aspx?cp-documentid=9299812&GT1=32001

 

[TheeGoatPig]

For me? One.

 

[jomar]

Depends on the parents and their resources, personal and financial.

 

[Munachi]

i'd say when you can't really fulfil your childrens needs anymore, or have to rely on the older kids to take care of the younger kids it's definitely too many. it's normal of course to have the older children do some chores, sometimes watch the younger ones, etc. - but if the older children become like a mother to the younger ones, because you are already busy taking care of yet the next younger child, it's too much.

 

[oggbashan]

My parents were both from families of 12.

Only 5 of each survived into adulthood.

The death of so many children is now rare thanks to developments in medical care.

Parents can now choose how many children they have. Until the 1920s any form of contraception was virtually unknown in the UK. Marie Stopes' books changed that.

Og

 

[TE999]

More to the point, on a global basis, why are those who are least equipped to provide even the basic necessities of life to their offspring persist in having so many?

 

[oggbashan]

More to the point, on a global basis, why are those who are least equipped to provide even the basic necessities of life to their offspring persist in having so many?

Because so many of their children die and those that survive are the parents and grandparents only hope of survival in a harsh environment when they become too old to work.

Og

 

[CWatson]

More to the point, on a global basis, why are those who are least equipped to provide even the basic necessities of life to their offspring persist in having so many?

Why do fish and insects over-saturate their environment with eggs? Because, as oggbashan said, most of them don't survive to adulthood. The same is true of humans. We like to think we're so advanced and distinguished from animals, but in a lot of ways we're still playing out the survival strategies of our four-legged ancestors. (Hell, the idea of marrying for love, instead of by matchmaking or whathaveyou, has only existed since around 2000 BC, meaning about, what... 5% of our lifespan as a species? And this is a value that we hold central to the idea of being civilized.)

 

[DesertPirate]

We had three, I would have liked more.
Wife wouldn't have been able to handle more.
Kept wife

 

[Varian P]

Apart from personal considerations as to how well a family can provide for their brood, there's a serious ethical consideration, as far as global population.

Sure, population density isn't as high in, for example, the U.S., as it is in other regions, but people in the U.S. tend to do more than their fair share of consumption and pollution.

If you believe that there is an environmental crisis, the best thing you can do to not to contribute to it, is not reproduce. Or, at the very least, restrain yourself to replacement-level reproduction, e.g. two kids per couple. No amount of recycling/conservation is going to make up for putting nineteen more car-driving, plastic toy-buying critters on the planet.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

If you believe that there is an environmental crisis, the best thing you can do to not to contribute to it, is not reproduce. Or, at the very least, restrain yourself to replacement-level reproduction, e.g. two kids per couple. No amount of recycling/conservation is going to make up for putting nineteen more car-driving, plastic toy-buying critters on the planet.

However, putting nineteen more conservationists on the planet isn't such a bad thing

And I'm sure my prolific nature when it comes to procreation is more than offset by the yuppies who decide to rescue poodles instead.

<---on green-baby number 5

 

[Boxlicker101]

As long as you are able to provide for the financial and emotional and other needs of all your children, you don't have too many. If you reach the point when you can no longer do that providing, stop, because you have reached the maximum.

 

[Varian P]

However, putting nineteen more conservationists on the planet isn't such a bad thing

And I'm sure my prolific nature when it comes to procreation is more than offset by the yuppies who decide to rescue poodles instead.

<---on green-baby number 5

Well, darlin', though I do try hard to do my part, you're way greener than I am, so to show my appreciation, I'll adopt the three or four kids we want, so you can keep making your little green cuties.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Well, darlin', though I do try hard to do my part, you're way greener than I am, so to show my appreciation, I'll adopt the three or four kids we want, so you can keep making your little green cuties.

See, it all balances out...

 

[amicus]

Apart from personal considerations as to how well a family can provide for their brood, there's a serious ethical consideration, as far as global population.

Sure, population density isn't as high in, for example, the U.S., as it is in other regions, but people in the U.S. tend to do more than their fair share of consumption and pollution.

If you believe that there is an environmental crisis, the best thing you can do to not to contribute to it, is not reproduce. Or, at the very least, restrain yourself to replacement-level reproduction, e.g. two kids per couple. No amount of recycling/conservation is going to make up for putting nineteen more car-driving, plastic toy-buying critters on the planet.

~~~~

That is a sick, sick, sick fucking philosophy of life, one that has ruined the life of many young couples since the 1969's.

One would have thought that obscene and incorrect Malthusian, Zero Population Group, ZPG. would have gone extinct by now, but the childless, aging hippies still hold the banner of protecting the fucking enviornment over human life and happiness.

There are many who read this forum who are in their twenties, college age, considering starting a family and I hope you face and fulfill your own desires instead of some left wing, eco freaks idea of preserving pristine nature for the sake of the fucking whales and the fucking spotted owls.

It is so very tragically sad and irreparable that so many of that fucking useless generation aborted their children, neuteured themselves and went with buttfucking and cocksucking instead of being real human beings.

Don't let these jaded, hedonist, bohemian left over hippies influence your life or the choice you make my young friends. They chose a sterile unproductive, useless existence just to give the snail darters and mosquitos a chance to live fuckem all!

If children please you, have as many as you wish and be happy. Forget how well you can support them, you will find a way if it is of supreme importance to you.

Get back to real life kids, leave these perverts to play with each other....they ain't got nuthin else to do, no kids, no grandkids, no future, no history to make; truly a lost and bewildered generation of abject losers.

Amicus...

 

[Varian P]

That is a sick, sick, sick fucking philosophy of life, one that has ruined the life of many young couples since the 1969's.

Just how many 1969's were there?

 

[desertslave]

Depends on the parents and their resources, personal and financial.

I agree.

 

[michchick98]

As long as you are able to provide for the financial and emotional and other needs of all your children, you don't have too many. If you reach the point when you can no longer do that providing, stop, because you have reached the maximum.

I agree with this. If you can afford it and give each child equal love, support, etc, then I say go for it.

I've seen so many stories on the news, not just here in the Detroit area, but big cities all around the country with these women who have four or five kids, all with different daddies and are pregnant with their next one, complaining about how hard it is to feed them, clothe them, etc.

In cases like that, wouldn't birth control of some sort be cheaper? Or perhaps abstinence? I mean, yeah sure, it's none of our business how many men this woman sleeps with, but doesn't it become our business when our tax dollars are funding her kids?

 

[sr71plt]

Apart from personal considerations as to how well a family can provide for their brood, there's a serious ethical consideration, as far as global population.

Sure, population density isn't as high in, for example, the U.S., as it is in other regions, but people in the U.S. tend to do more than their fair share of consumption and pollution.

If you believe that there is an environmental crisis, the best thing you can do to not to contribute to it, is not reproduce. Or, at the very least, restrain yourself to replacement-level reproduction, e.g. two kids per couple. No amount of recycling/conservation is going to make up for putting nineteen more car-driving, plastic toy-buying critters on the planet.

I agree that two is the responsible restraint for the stated reason. That's how many my wife and I had. One of each.

 

[Munachi]

As long as you are able to provide for the financial and emotional and other needs of all your children, you don't have too many. If you reach the point when you can no longer do that providing, stop, because you have reached the maximum.

the question is of course, do parents always realize when they don't provide for their children's emotional needs? i've seen children where i think they definitely need more time with mommy and daddy, but mommy and daddy are too busy with the other (smaller) kids, but don't even realize their older kid is actually still quite small too. on the other hand, of course, there are other parents that manage well with a bigger number of kids...


i guess another thing is though that the child's needs in a way vary according to culture. i am not really sure how to explain this... well your parents are supposed to prepare you for later life, and i guess in an environment where individualism, education, and all kinds of successes are valued that is different than in an environment where the main issue is survival, and a higher number of children seems to ensure that survival... that also to the question why the poor (in this case the poor in poor countries) have so many children - you actually need them. you need someone to watch the cows and pigs while you work on the field. you need someone to go fetch water while you are busy cooking on the open fire place. etc. and since there are no pensions or anything, you need several children to survive to adulthood, so that you don't in the end have an only child married to another only child having to take care of two sets of parents.

 

[Belegon]

I think this is a very subjective question, and the answer differs for every person.

I will say that it sometimes saddens me that we have so many intelligent and progressive thinking people who choose not to have children. If only because there are an awful lot of people on the other end of that scale who have made the opposite choice.

 

[Varian P]

I think this is a very subjective question, and the answer differs for every person.

I will say that it sometimes saddens me that we have so many intelligent and progressive thinking people who choose not to have children. If only because there are an awful lot of people on the other end of that scale who have made the opposite choice.

Hence my nefarious plan to adopt a brood, and give them a good brainwashing, I mean upbringing.

 

[amicus]

That '1969's was a typo, meant, '1960's', but it looked so cute and kinky I left it....but you already know that...chuckles...



ami

 

[Munachi]

I think this is a very subjective question, and the answer differs for every person.

I will say that it sometimes saddens me that we have so many intelligent and progressive thinking people who choose not to have children. If only because there are an awful lot of people on the other end of that scale who have made the opposite choice.

on the other hand, you don't have to have children of your own, to be a positive influence on the future of children. sure, if you don't have any, and go on complaining about your tax dollars paying for other people's children, forgetting that those children's tax dollars might very well one day pay for your care when you are too old to work... children aren't really anyone's, they are their own, and at the same time i'd say everyone's responsibility in a way... if you don't want children of your own, you can adopt, or be a foster parent, if you don't want that, you could get involved in a local school and support it, or support some afternoon care for kids that need it, or even help children in far away countries that even more need help.

 

[impressive]

Without reading the other posts, my answer is: one more than you can afford to support!