Check out some similar questions!

mum2five · Jul 9, 2009, 01:52 PM

I started another thread in regards to a different topic but it came down to the discussion of the wrongs in having a large family.

Some stated that having a "large family" contributed to overcrowding the population of the world - causing shortage in food and causing more pollution.

Having more than 1-2 children would mean children did not get as much attention and guidance as needed and therefore the children were by statistics more likely to become involved in a life of crime and the daughters would be teenage mums !

Correct me if I am wrong but as a mum to 5 I find this rather a hard debate !

Justwantfair · Jul 9, 2009, 01:57 PM

You are probably opening a door that you won't like the answers you receive, but you made the choice for you and everyone else has to make the choice for themselves.

There are couples out there that are choosing to not have children at all.

Honestly I would err on the 1-2 children rule, while past generations had many children in their families and all of the children were raised appropriately. Huge families can put just as huge a strain on a dwindling environment.

Thankfully we are not where the chinese are in limiting the amount of children a family can have.

There are some mothers out there with multiple children out of carelessness and ignorance (not in anyway saying that is you) and then turning around and choosing to live off the government to raise their families that are too big for their income.

Don't be upset that others have an opinion, know how the opinion relates to you and if it doesn't then no need to take any offense.

simoneaugie · Jul 9, 2009, 02:07 PM

Before we had reliable birth control and the welfare system, a large family was the norm. So, how many children a couple chooses to have has become a political choice.

Loving and caring for children, elders and each other is not political, it's personal. Combining the two issues leads to an unending debate. That's why government should stay out of it.

mum2five · Jul 9, 2009, 02:08 PM

I will by no way take offense to others opinions in fact I am rather interested in others views.

I see it everyday the reactions alone when you are talking to others and they comment on my new baby 10 weeks and my daughter 13 months and they say "gosh you have your hands full". When I proudly say I have another 3 at home the reaction is very funny - some look on with envy while others look at me as if I am insane.

My dad is 1 of 14 children - my mum 1 of 5 - I am 1 of 4= so is my partner.
We are used to large families they are normal to us.

I find it very hard to understand the views of those that choose never to have children.

Justwantfair · Jul 9, 2009, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by mum2five

I find it very hard to understand the views of those that choose never to have children.

Well consider that viewpoint just opposite for those who don't understand large families.

My boss (an attorney) has six children, the final three being tripletts. I think she's nuts, at times she thinks she nuts.

It's a family's personal choice. For you a large family is what you want and it works, for you.

For some, who aren't tolerant, poor childhoods, no desire for children - never having children works for them. I respect either choice, if you are taking care of your own.

artlady · Jul 9, 2009, 02:33 PM

As long as you can support and nurture five kids , I say go for it.
I come from a family of five and I always felt sorry for my friends who were only children.

Regarding the thought about your leaving your carbon footprint,a conscientious family of five can be eco-educated and leave no carbon footprint depending on the choices they make.

No one has to walk in your shoes and if a large family is what you want,all the power to you!

Alyeska · Jul 9, 2009, 02:52 PM

Yes, the more children there is in the family, the less they get. For example, one child gets a big beautiful tasty icecream. 5 children each get smaller plain tiny popsicles.

mum2five · Jul 9, 2009, 03:03 PM

I find the above statement very untrue in my case.
I am fortunate to be able to be in a financial position that enables my children to have the same as if not more than others - once again this is a statistic merely and not a true fact.

artlady · Jul 9, 2009, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Alyeska

Yes, the more children there is in the family, the less they get. For example, one child gets a big beautiful tasty icecream. 5 children each get smaller plain tiny popsicles.

That is called Bad Parenting and has nothing to do with family size.
Decent parents treat all their children equally.

N0help4u · Jul 9, 2009, 03:07 PM

I see every family situation individually.
I have seen moms that can not and do not even care to bother with their kid. They will put a two year old out to play in the street after breakfast and call them in 8 hours later for dinner.
Then I have seen parents with 3 to 8 kids that do a fantastic job at raising them ALL.

I don't think we should be telling others how many kids they should have. Look at China and how they say only one child per family.
My Pastor literally got his adopted daughter out of a dumpster when he was in China.

Furthermore in your other post you are talking about adopting so the world overpopulated doesn't hold water because adopted babies are ALREADY on this planet unless you are waiting on an unborn baby that the mother decided to give up for adoption.

N0help4u · Jul 9, 2009, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Alyeska

Yes, the more children there is in the family, the less they get. For example, one child gets a big beautiful tasty icecream. 5 children each get smaller plain tiny popsicles.

Yeah that is bad parenting. I had four kids and under a thousand a month. I learned to make due and be resourceful with what I had. It wasn't by buying one better then the other 3. You can't afford ice cream for all the kids you juice your own fruit or you get a frozen can of juice and make popsicles. You want to take them out you go to a nice park and have a picnic and ride bikes, swim or whatever.

gigi1015 · Jul 9, 2009, 03:16 PM

Rolleyes: Having a large family is really a decision for the individuals who desire it.
A large family is not the end of the world nor is it wrong. Having a large family has its limitations for expenses and I believe that it is rewarding, does not complicate the economy,create more crime,cause a shortage in food(most large families grow their own food, mine did) and we did not turn into gansters, create a food shortage and etc.;)

Originally Posted by mum2five

I started another thread in regards to a different topic but it came down to the discussion of the wrongs in having a large family.

Some :rolleyes:stated that having a "large family" contributed to overcrowding the population of the world - causing shortage in food and causing more pollution.

Having more than 1-2 children would mean children did not get as much attention and guidance as needed and therefore the children were by statistics more likely to become involved in a life of crime and the daughters would be teenage mums !

Correct me if I am wrong but as a mum to 5 I find this rather a hard debate !

gigi1015 · Jul 9, 2009, 03:24 PM

Rolleyes: Having a large family is really a decision for the individuals who desire it.
A large family is not the end of the world nor is it wrong. Having a large family has its limitations for expenses and I believe that it is rewarding, does not complicate the economy,create more crime,cause a shortage in food(most large families grow their own food, mine did) and we did not turn into gansters, create a food shortage and etc.;)

It is a task and it can be handled without the hassels so many face if organization,planning, and learning to adjust to the prolific needs of each individual in the family circleare met and a budget is set and used effectively and efficiently. I cmae from a large family and none of my siblings ever had the need to want for anyhting.

Originally Posted by mum2five

I started another thread in regards to a different topic but it came down to the discussion of the wrongs in having a large family.

Some :rolleyes:stated that having a "large family" contributed to overcrowding the population of the world - causing shortage in food and causing more pollution.

Having more than 1-2 children would mean children did not get as much attention and guidance as needed and therefore the children were by statistics more likely to become involved in a life of crime and the daughters would be teenage mums !

Correct me if I am wrong but as a mum to 5 I find this rather a hard debate !

Justwantfair · Jul 9, 2009, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Alyeska

Yes, the more children there is in the family, the less they get. For example, one child gets a big beautiful tasty icecream. 5 children each get smaller plain tiny popsicles.

I don't think this was meant the way it was read, my understanding...

She is saying that if you have one child in your family, you can spoil them.

If you have five children, you have to spread that wealth between more mouths, so the spoiling isn't as elaborate.

That was my understanding.

Either way, that spoiled child has just as many disadvantages and advantages as children from large families... there are just different pros and cons to large v. single children families.

jenniepepsi · Jul 9, 2009, 07:33 PM

I'm sorry your feeling 'ganged up on'

I wanted a large family as well. I have one daughter, but as it turns out, my ovaries don't like producing eggs :P

If you can afford to care for many children, go for it! I don't think it 'over populates' or anything like that.

450donn · Jul 9, 2009, 07:52 PM

No matter what, the ultimate decision has to come down to this:
Can you afford to raise and feed the children you bring into the world without Government (my) support? When I was much much younger there was a family across the street that ended up with 11 children. All were well fed, had clean clothes and were healthy. The older ones helped take care of the younger ones. Dad worked as a salesman and brought home the money. All the kids went to Catholic school not public school. They did not rely on public assistance. Was it wrong for them to have so many kids? No. Now if a welfare mom pops out kids about 1 every couple of years each one by a different father to keep on welfare, then the answer has to be YES!

jenniepepsi · Jul 9, 2009, 08:07 PM

While you seem to have a harsh opinion on the public system 450donn, I certainly DO agree with you about the mothers who have several children, and are on welfare, and continue to have children they can't afford.
The welfare system is in place for familys who need it honestly. My husband is working at walmart making barely 9$ an hour, I can't work because of my bipolar (LONG story) and my daughter who is 5 needs food, clothing, school supplies, and so many other things that I could sit and list for hours. We get food stamps and medical through the state. I am, however, NOT trying to have more children. And as soon as we can aford life un assisted, we certianly will be getting OFF the assistance.

Wow. I certianly posted more than I inteded. :P

Much love :)

N0help4u · Jul 9, 2009, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by jenniepepsi

while you seem to have a harsh opinion on the public system 450donn, i certainly DO agree with you about the mothers who have several children, and are on welfare, and continue to have children they can't afford.
the welfare system is in place for familys who need it honestly. my husband is working at walmart making barely 9$ an hour, i can't work because of my bipolar (LONG story) and my daughter who is 5 needs food, clothing, school supplies, and so many other things that i could sit and list for hours. we get food stamps and medical thru the state. i am, however, NOT trying to have more children. and as soon as we can aford life un assisted, we certianly will be getting OFF the assistance.

wow. i certianly posted more than i inteded. :P

much love :)

Same here. I need food stamps on and off and needed them whenever my kids were still at home. I blame the sex education partly for a lot of the teens and young adults that keep having babies. They teach the kids that it is normal to have sex and then they end up wanting babies to be a result of the sex.
Then for one reason or another they do not want to have the father named on the birth certificate or the father is just a dead beat anyway. So then they end up on welfare.
It bothers me that many people do get the stereo type of lazy not willing to work as the image of people on welfare. Every time I have to go to welfare I see more and more middle aged men and women that you can tell got laid off and their unemployment ran out.

Justwantfair · Jul 9, 2009, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by jenniepepsi

while you seem to have a harsh opinion on the public system 450donn, i certainly DO agree with you about the mothers who have several children, and are on welfare, and continue to have children they can't afford.
the welfare system is in place for familys who need it honestly. my husband is working at walmart making barely 9$ an hour, i can't work because of my bipolar (LONG story) and my daughter who is 5 needs food, clothing, school supplies, and so many other things that i could sit and list for hours. we get food stamps and medical thru the state. i am, however, NOT trying to have more children. and as soon as we can aford life un assisted, we certianly will be getting OFF the assistance.

wow. i certianly posted more than i inteded. :P

much love :)

Seems more suitable to get Social Security Disablity for your inablity to work, due to BPD.

No intent to hijack, my fault.

There are people who use welfare as a crutch and there are those who use it as necessary and there are those who struggle harder to avoid using any assistance even when they could.

That happens in big and small families, but if you are opting for multiple children and large families you should be able to support them unassisted.

jenniepepsi · Jul 9, 2009, 08:25 PM

Hey justy, I have applied for ssd, but was turned down. :( I applied for SMI too (severe mental illness) which would at least get me the state medical insurance for life, regardless of finances. But I didn't qualify for that either :(