How many kids are too many?

[hyphenate]

I know that it often depends on situations, such as being rural or urban setting, whether you have enough money to raise them and so on, but for the ordinary human being, does there come a point where it becomes difficult to care about all the kids in the same fashion?

Let's say you have enough money to raise a bunch, but would you love them all equally, in the same way?

Are there different levels parents have their kids on, in terms of "love?" I never had kids, but I have seen some parents favor one child over another.

I ask because I was watching something last night and there was a couple who had two kids, and then their third turned out to be a special needs kid, and all the attention turned to that one, and it seemed, even though it was only segments of their lives, that attention went less to the older two children as a result of the third one's need for more care and attention.

I was first in a family of four kids, and it seemed to me that my brother and I might have gotten more attention simply because we were around longer, but my two younger siblings seemed to have more--well, issues. My sister of course abused (and continues to abuse) alcohol and drugs, and my younger brother was arrogant and nasty (even though he suffered brain trauma in a car accident and requires care, he still has that nastiness right under the surface, and begins to strike out at everyone if he doesn't get his way).

I know some people shouldn't have any at all, but should a family realize their limitations and stop after a couple?

[BoWanZi]

1. I love my kids but sometimes I wonder how my life would have ended up if I never had any kids

As for how many someone should be allowed to have? I dunno. 3 1/2? If you go over 3 1/2 kids, then your pecker is cut off.

[The Straight Story]

2. 5 for me and 3 grand kids

Think I am done for now though...

As to how many is too many - that, like choosing which bar someone goes to, is not really my business

[marasinghe]

3. look at it from the Kids' point of view: is this a frikkin world you'd wanna be born & live in?

[The Straight Story]

5. I was born in 1965, and the world didn't look too great then

Cold war, turmoil here at home, vietnam war, no cell phones or internet....

[REP]

10. In 1965, could your parents afford to buy a house?

In 2011, can you or any of your kids?

That's one huge change in 47 years.

[quakerboy]

26. Probably

A house in 2011 is pretty cheap. Now, keeping a house you got in 2007, that might be a challenge. But affording a house in 2011 is easy. If the market drops any further, you will be able to buy one for less than an affordable car.

[REP]

33. If you're lucky enough to have a job

[RC]

55. A Living-Wage-Job.

Just a job ain't good enough.

[quakerboy]

78. Even if you are not

What I see right now is that outside of the high price markets (NY, SF, etc) you can actually buy a house with a lower monthly payment than rent for an equivalent space. Which means if you can afford rent, you can afford a home.

That is assuming you can afford rent in the first place, and get credit to buy a home. Which is not universally true.

But, in direct contradiction to your premise, I am not lucky enough to have a job right now, and owning is helping me. A year ago I went from a 1 bedroom apartment (Lowest price single bedroom apt in a 10 mile radius when I rented it, and never raised because the owner liked us) to buying a 3 bedroom place. My total monthly costs went down, even after all utilities and services and insurance. Plus I have 2 extra bedrooms which I am considering renting out, which would be a huge help to the budget while I look for work. I had been thinking about that anyway, to help pay it off quicker, but never got around to it, because I had a job, and there was no need.

I look at nearby places that sold later for even less. If we had held off until this year, we could theoretically be making money on our residence. The most recent one to sell on my block, with the same floor plan, would actually be a net + to own, including all utilities, and internet, if you rented out 2 rooms at current market rates. You could live there and make money doing it.

In fact, Ive been trying to figure out how to do exactly that, sans the extra money. The direct neighbors place was for sale, and If I could have rented out all three bedrooms of my current home, it would have paid the mortgage and utilities for both places. It sold before I could figure out how to get the process started, though.

[dkf]

37. I wish.

[jwirr]

61. Yes, I was born in 1941. We were just coming out of a depression. However I do understand the

question from observing my grandkids. Affording kids cannot be used as situations change over the years. You can be single and making a great wage when you are young and end up not being able to support even yourself any time after that. Just ask today's unemployed.

Can you give each child enough attention? That is a good question. Many families in my day had 5 or more children and did just fine but times have changed. Today both Mom and
Dad come home tired after a long day at work. When I was growing up many of the Moms were at home all day long getting ready for the family to come home and taking care of the children 24/7. I think the difference is in what we call "attention". One to one or making sure that the children have everything they need. I am trying to initiate a change in my family to something we had back then - extended family. We are all responsible for the children. Those of us who are older often help economically. We also baby sit for the parents who are going off to work and just need a break. I am proposing that each family member including the children as they grow older take an active role in caring for the other members. That tends to help in giving the needed attention. I have 5 little great grandchildren and my biggest problem is having a big enough lap. 5 year old Keegan solved the problem - come on grandma sit in the middle of the couch. Then he crawled up on the back of the couch to look over my shoulder.

[DesertFlower]

21. absolutely not. nt

[yewberry]

4. I don't really think that can be answered.

Too many for who? Too few for who?

That's for parents to decide.

[bluestateguy]

6. Under most circumstances I would say 4 should be the max

But then you have some families where two or even one is too many: as in they have children they cannot financially afford.

I oppose any government law that would impose a China-like policy on the US. That would be the height of big government in the bedroom.

[The Straight Story]

8. Is that 4 per male or female? My 5 were with 3 different people

And how would you enforce the max?

[hyphenate]

15. I'm not really asking the government to interfere

only that in each person's own opinion, if people should realize their own ability to raise x number of children, should they stop having more than they think they can handle--not in terms of finances, but in terms of life and love.

I grew up with a part Irish-Catholic sensibility, and know that a lot of them want nothing to do with birth control, and big families happen more often. As long as they are capable of loving each child equally, that's great, but being human, do we have the nature to love each child totally and unconditionally, or is there always going to be one or two children who are favored over others?

I saw my sister-in-law always favor her younger son, praising him continuously, and always criticizing her older son. My brother tried to love them both equally, but he wasn't the primary parent in the equation. I've seen it elsewhere, too, where "Johnny" is such a good boy, and "Jimmy" is always picked on.

So the question, I guess, boils down to should parents make a committment to treating all their children as equally as they can, and stop having children when they realize that they can't love all of their children with the same amount of attention and affection.

[bluestateguy]

7. Under most circumstances I would say 4 should be the max

But then you have some families where two or even one is too many: as in they have children they cannot financially afford.

I oppose any government law that would impose a China-like policy on the US. That would be the height of big government in the bedroom.

[Zalatix]

32. Why have China do it? Capitalism is enforcing its own population control.

It's literally STARVING people out of existence.

[CoffeeCat]

9. It depends on the parents...

Some people shouldn't even have ONE child. Some parents have many children, and the
parents are terrific people who raise their children well. That doesn't mean that they children turn out perfect, but at least the parents give it their all and are devoted to the kids.

The problem is--you can't control idiots. People are going to have as many kids as they feel like. My husband was
the youngest of twelve children. His parents were complete jerks. His father was an alcoholic and his mother
was neglectful. She slept all day and she was so neglectful that one of her children died while she was sleeping. One of
her toddlers pulled boiling water on herself, because the kids were making their own lunches as mom slept. It was
really a sad, pathetic upbringing.

Then you have the large family that was in my high school. They had 16 kids. They were a happy, fun family
and everyone liked the kids. They were so sweet. They all grew up to be well-adjusted adults.

It's not the number. It's the parents and the quality of parents. Unfortunately, bad parents are most often
bad people who don't make the right decision to not be parents. That ends up being lifelong pain for their
children.

[hyphenate]

18. Yeah, the essence, I guess of what I'm thinking

I know that in the past, there were almost always more children being born in families because the mortality rate was so high, and even if a woman had ten kids, maybe half of them would grow to adulthood.

But you're right--trying to tell idiots that it's hard enough for any familiy nowadays to feed, clothe and equip 4 kids, it would be madness to have a large amount of them. And with more households, there is almost always two parents working, and the kids might be more neglected as a result.

I'm not advocating SAHMs everywhere, because most women I know want to make some money of their own, and it's also not realistic to expect a mom to be the main caregiver in a nuclear family anymore. But there should be a joint effort to pass the love and attention to every one of the kids as equally as possible.

Sometimes I wonder what happens when there is one child of many that ends up being perhaps a prodigy, or whatever, and suddenly the other kids are on the back burner while that one child is singled out for more affection or whatever. How can a normal group of kids understand that kind of lack if they're in a vulnerable age group?

[Luminous Animal]

11. I'm going with more than 1 is too many. Solely on replacement levels in order to sustain

our ecological footprint.

I am the oldest of 3 and we are close in age and have all gotten along well through 51 years of knowing each other.

[joeglow3]

17. Replacement rate is between 2.1 and 2.2 kids.

Go below that and watch government programs begin to implode in a generation or 2.

[Luminous Animal]

23. In order to sustain the environment. Zero to one is enough.

And it always makes me laugh when people claim we need a booming population to sustain social programs. How in the world did our grandparents and great grandparents manage to sustain the boomer generation?

[joeglow3]

27. I think I missing the point of your question.

The main reason our grandparents and great grandparents had no problems is because the following populations were much greater. There was something like 16 workers for every person on social security. We are down to something like 4. Imagine how the program would hold together if there was 1 worker for every 2 retirees.

[Luminous Animal]

28. How many children did they have to educate?

[joeglow3]

56. My great grandparents - 18. My grandparents - 7.

And?

[penguin7]

91. You are assuming that older folks cannot take

care of themselves. I do not think that is true.

[joeglow3]

92. Evidence seems to say otherwise

As our expected life expectancy increases, so too does our medical costs. Unless, you advocate people working until they are 80.

[Gregorian]

12. The individual family isn't important. The collective is what is.

If everyone had 2 kids, we'd see an increase in population that would decline once the parents die. But in the meantime, the planet obviously cannot afford to see more people than it already has.

It seems weird to most people, but I would like to see zero children per couple until the population stabilizes at a much smaller number. Give it a couple of decades.

I know, all completely crazy ideas. How would we fund social security. And how it would kill economies.

The answer is, we probably destroyed the real beauty and diversity of the planet, doomed a billion people to a horrible way of life and death, and people are going to reproduce just how they want without any intervention. And my prediction is things will slow down too slowly. Look at the world now. It's already too late for many facets of life and ecology.

So my answer is 1. That pretty much fulfills all criteria for reasonable future life on the planet.

[hyphenate]

24. The main thing I disagree with you on

is a decline in population in developed countries. One of the major problems is overpopulation in third world countries which are far more vulnerable in terms of mortality, starvation, lack of industry and other such problems.

I think the main solution is not to cut down population in countries where education and nedicine are kept apace with the population, but find ways of distributing contraception and cutting down the population in countries where while families are homeless, starving, abused and killed. Once those groups have managed to stabilize their population, gain educations and the tools to survive, then we can find more ways to help all the billions of people in the world. But by then, the number of developing countries will subside, and there will be a healthier world population where further solutions can be decided.

But that's not really the question I had in mind--I'm afraid I was trying to be more esoteric than pragmatic!

BTW, I read an article recently on China, which has had the "one child" law for years, and they only recently found out that they would be underpopulated within a given number of years if that policy continued! So now the laws are being relaxed in order to keep the general numbers in population.

[primavera]

48. "Underpopulated"?

Underpopulated according to whom? I'm sure that the pandas and other species driven to the brink of extinction and beyond by habitat displacement would disagree that China is in any imminent danger of being underpopulated by human beings.

[antigone382]

63. The only issue with that analysis is the number of resources used by those in developed countries.

A commonly quoted statistic is that, over the course of his or her lifetime, one baby born in a developed country will use the same amount of resources (oil, gas, water, food, and raw materials) as 20 babies born in an undeveloped country--the frightening part is that a good deal of those resources go towards the things that provide a good quality of life; an advanced medical system, cheap and easy transportation, education, industry, and a surplus of a wide variety of foods. Even if global population stabilizes, equitable development can only go so far, as there is no way we can extend that resource use to every person on the planet--yet the idea of preventing people in the developing world from accessing the same quality of life enhancers we enjoy is monstrous. Thus, to have a sustainable population, it isn't enough to stabilize the birth rate in the third world. We have to figure out ways to use resources much more effectively, starting with those of us who are using the most, here in the developing world. Until drastic improvements are made, I think that it would be better for the population of the developed world to stay where it is, or even decline a bit.

[Gregorian]

65. These discussions we're having are valuable. I'd like to see much more of this.

Sorry, I sound like a 4th grader here. I can't put it any other way. It is important, and it is very basic.

I agree with the sentiment in both posts. A larger number of people are at risk of serious suffering. And a smaller number of us are using magnitudes more resources.

It may be moot, since I fear several things. One, that we're already way too late. In just 50,000 days, we went from a relatively pristine planet, to one that is gasping for life. And two, no one is going to enforce any changes that relate to reproduction. At least not until the symptoms are already visible, by which time it will be very much too late. Like right now.

At any rate, I would love to spend more time discussing this topic. Preferably in it's own forum. But that doesn't seem to be a possibility here. I'd love to be wrong. Maybe we could push the owner of this forum to give us that. After all, isn't there a greatful dead forum? I've asked, and they say it belongs in Environment/science/

Alright, I'm going back to my recovery espressos....

[NickB79]

68. Underpopulation is only a problem because we've based our economies on the idea of infinite growth

In a world with finite resources.

The question we should be asking isn't "How do we keep our population growing to keep this economic system going?" but rather "How do we implement an economic system that isn't ultimately doomed to horrendous failure when we run out of resources?"

[MH1]

98. ^^^ THIS! ^^^

And what Gregorian said above, about how we're pretty much past the point of destroying much of the ecology already.

[Posteritatis]

67. 2 kids per set of parents would actually reduce the population

Replacement level's around 2.3, with the 0.3 taking into account people who die without having kids, or who adopt, or who simply don't have kids, etc.

[Dreamer Tatum]

76. All that social engineering and with zero data to back it up. nt

[MH1]

99. What 'social engineering'?

the link says you are replying to Gregorian's post, but I see no relevance of your post to Gregorian's.

[MADem]

13. Sometimes, you don't have a choice, really...

If you've got nieces/nephews who find themselves parentless through illness/accident, what are ya gonna do?

Everyone, move over and make room!

Then, you've got the Madonna/Angelina types who adopt from all around the world--some call it compassion, others call it collecting.

It's an individual decision, at least here in the USA--not so much in China, where you have to be very rich to be able to afford the tax on more than one kid.

There's the whole "burden on the environment" issue, but that's another thing entirely. Your question is more about how well parents can manage giving appropriate care to children--I'd have to say it depends on the family dynamic, and how much effort the parents put into raising the kids. I think parents who aren't prepared to be parents can screw up raising one or two kids, and those that put some energy into it can provide for a half dozen or more, if need be. I do think that the Duggar family has taken it too far, but it's not illegal to have poor judgment.

[hyphenate]

31. yeah, pretty much!

We used to make jokes about Michelle Duggar, saying her life was obviously spent on her back, in one way or another!

I actually think Octomommy is worse--14 kids now, and she couldn't take care of the 6 she already had when she had the octuplets. Someone should have shot that ob/gyn allowing that woman to carry 8 to term.

But I digress!

[HipChick]

14. 1 is 1 too many..

and kids are not hanging around to look after elder parents so much..

[slay]

41. +1 ... er wait... +1 doesn't sound right here

heheh... but yeah i was gonna say the same thing.

[blueamy66]

16. As many as you can feed, clothe and love

And if you're on welfare.....stop popping them out. It's not that hard.

My nieces each have 3....sometimes I wonder how they do it. They are great Moms and sometimes struggle, but are raising awesome kiddos!

Me, I have stuffed animals.

[noamnety]

50. I'm disappointed that you made the edit to your post.

It read so much better before you decided to include a gratuitous nod to welfare queen stereotypes.

[blueamy66]

79. sorry.....I'm allowed to have my opinion

If you are on welfare with one kid, why have more?

Now, if you already have kids and then need assistance, that's another story.

[noamnety]

85. Yes, you're allowed to have your opinion

Last edited Fri Dec 30, 2011, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)

And I didn't dispute that. I was just expressing my reaction to your opinion that poor people shouldn't reproduce.

As for why poor people have children, I imagine it's much the same as why the 1% have children.

[blueamy66]

86. fair enough

It's more like.....if you cannot afford to feed one child, why do you have more? Is having children a right?

There are a few reasons that I don't have children....one of them is because we are still paying for a stepson....another is that I am not responsible enough to raise a child....

I, myself, wouldn't want to bring a child into this world...especially if I had to skrimp to buy groceries to feed that child. And then bring another one into the world?

I understand that some people cannot afford birth control...but I would like to somehow know the #s of those that cannot afford the BC vs. those that just want kids at any "cost".

I just wish that people would think before they make these life-changing choices.

[noamnety]

87. "Is having children a right?"

Yes, in this country it is. That's why we refer to it as reproductive rights. The alternative is worse.

When I first had my daughter, I was living in poverty and was on WIC coupons. She's grown, she has a college degree (and no loans, we paid as we went for what her scholarships didn't cover).

Now, I personally provide lunches for ANY student at the school where I teach, at no cost to them, daily - even if they aren't my student personally and I don't know their name. That's one of my missions, to make sure none of our students are going hungry, at least while they are in our building. As many free meals as I got for her when she was a toddler, I've given back FAR more.

Do you find it offensive that I had a child?
Is it somehow less offensive because I'm no longer in poverty?

[blueamy66]

89. Um, why did you need WIC?

Could you not afford milk or cereal for you child?

[noamnety]

96. Depends what you count as "afford"

Last edited Sat Dec 31, 2011, 12:21 PM - Edit history (1)

We could technically pay for milk and cereal, but the thing about being poor is that each decision to buy one thing comes at the expense of another. Maybe you've never been in that situation, or had to forage for much of your food. If you haven't, you've had a privileged life. Heck, I lived like that for years, but still consider myself to have a privileged life.

So yeah, we could pay for that without WIC, but then other things most people would consider a necessity we'd be doing without.

The financial situation was the result of trying to support the family for a few years on an E4's pay (just above a private in the army), then returning to the states and trying to use the GI bill - which required Senator Levin's office to interfene! The state university wouldn't give the husband in state tuition rates even though he was born and raised here and ONLY lived out of the state/country because of active duty orders. At that point he was a full time student, I was recalled against my will into the reserves. I couldn't go back to school full time because I lost all my VA benefits - I got out 2 months early to have my daughter, and even though they put me back in afterwards, once I made the decision to get out to avoid two parents on active duty with an infant, the GI bill and what I paid into it was forfeited. I paid more cash into the GI bill than I ever got in WIC coupons.

It's awesome to be told you can get a discharge to raise a child, give up your benefits in the process, and then involuntarily be put right back in with no benefits. It's even more awesome when you are still serving, and then some jackass in line wants to start judging you as a drain on society because you're using a coupon for a freaking box of cereal.

[blueamy66]

102. I apologize.

If you are serving our Country you shouldn't have to go through this.

[The Straight Story]

93. By that reasoning, poor people should not have kids

And yet, throughout all of history they have had them, found a way to support them, etc.

It behooves the human race to help each other out so that we can propagate - and so far it seems to be working just fine.

Most cannot afford a car/house for cash, we as a society in general are able to loan such people money and get a payback, and with kids we get a pay back like scientists, future workers, etc and so on.

[blueamy66]

95. No, by that reasoning, poor people shouldn't have a BUNCH of kids

Yeah, "it's" working just fine......ya really think so?

[SoCalDem]

19. No more than you can hope to successfully support n/t

[DesertFlower]

20. i had one. that was enough for me.

he was born in '61. my grandmother, a devout catholic who had 8 said to me "child -- don't have any more children -- the world is not a nice place anymore". well i thought the 60s were pretty good -- what would grandma think today?

[Warren DeMontague]

22. I come from a large family, too, and the older ones are the ones who are more fucked up.

Sort of a goofy set of generalizations you're making in your OP.

As for your question, I'm pro-choice. I wouldn't take it upon myself to make that call for anyone else. Personally, I think 4 kids would be a lot, but YMMV.

[T S Justly]

25. Ironically, there may not be enough children to sustain Humankind ...

Should we continue down our perilous path.

[Kablooie]

29. You should put that question to Nadya Suleman. She might know.

[jmowreader]

30. Somewhere between 5 and 20

Five because that's how many my parents had, and of all our relatives ours is the smallest family.

Twenty because that's what Michelle Duggar is shooting for, assuming it doesn't kill her first.

[Ichingcarpenter]

34. three is too many

if you want equilibrium on the planet, but
that's just academic. I had two, my other brothers had 4 and one respectively. So our genetic pool increased 2.3.

When I was born in 1951 the population world population was 2.5 billion, the US population was 154,877,880.

The question is what is sustainable population given the technology, political system, and environment, when is too many, too many? .... I don't know

[boppers]

35. 0.25-0.5

We need a huge population reduction, now.

Some families should never even start, and if they do, should stop after one.

[saras]

36. If you have too many to care about, the results should show. Judge the results, not the numbers.

I was one of four kids, each of whom got a distinctly different set of inappropriateness, due to our birth order. In some ways the first got the worst of it, though, the ignorance and rigidity, so more is better there. The rest of us benefited from NOT being the first. Having too many older siblings wasn't good either, as we didn't get along that well. And so on. I'm sure that every dysfunctional family has their own completely distinct version.

But I think the only realistic criteria compatible with liberty and diversity is actual misbehavior or dysfunction on the part of the children, or the parents. I think that if you have thirteen kids, there's probably a lot of 'normal kid experiences' you can't, or don't provide them. How much right to parents have to do that, independent of how many kids they have? How does it affect them?

You can have two, and the second one be so demanding that the first gets neglected. Hell, you can have one, and have a parent get so sick that the kid gets neglected.

I don't get why it's always so tempting to try to prohibit a whole class of people instead of isolating what in that class is the actual problem. Bicycles ride too fast for pedestrians? Don't slow them down, ban them. A few people abusing a drug? Ban it for everyone. A few crazies use a certain kind of gun? Ban the gun. Why not just ban assholicity and be done with it?

[rucky]

38. Any more than 2 and you're growing the world population.

We don't need to grow the world population.

[treestar]

39. With how busy the parents are nowadays

More than three would tough.

Though the kids have each other to play with. I know of well adjusted people who grew up in huge families. There might be less individual attention, but there is a "club" you sort of belong to. Or you have plenty of company - always someone to play with. But that was in prior generations, when parents had more time to start with.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. I stopped after one...

The reason why? All those well-meaning stories I got when I was pregnant about how bad giving birth is were true, but they all lied about how you forget it real quick. I remember every agonising minute and vowed never to go through it again. If I'd had a second, I would have loved them both equally and given them both the same attention, but it never happened...

[liberal N proud]

42. 3 would be too many because then we would need a mini van

I hate mini vans

[fasttense]

43. Statistics show that the more educated the mother, the fewer (yes, fewer) the children she has.

So I say, educate the hell out of all women and let them determine how many children to have.

[MedicalAdmin]

46. It's also the single biggest detirminant...

In changing the level of poverty and education of any following generation, especially in the developing world.

This is why, to me, the biggest problem facing the planet is a lack of education and rights for women world wide.

[tularetom]

44. We had two and we both wish we'd had at least one more

We did a lot better by the second child than the first.

[Odin2005]

45. 2

[Maine-ah]

47. personal choice

I have one, and that was enough for me. I have three siblings, two brothers, one sister and I am the youngest. I have no relationship with my sister and one brother. Nor do they have any relationship with our mother, who is dying. Heh, my sister is such a (insert word not allowed to use here) she had the nerve to send our dying mother a self help book.

Anyway, this was our choice to only have one, but if (and that's a big IF) I should happen to get preggers again, we would welcome another into our little family, and I'm sure I would love that child just as much as our first born. Hopefully that won't happen, I'm pushing forty and don't want to have to go through it again.

[ThomThom]

49. one per person

there are too many people in the world soon we will not be able to feed them all

[gkhouston]

51. However many I have is perfect and everyone else is wrong.

[yella_dawg]

52. Four

I know this for damned sure.

[LanternWaste]

53. I don't pretend to know...

I don't pretend to know... there are many other people who are far better than I at pretending to know.

[LibDemAlways]

54. In my case one was enough. That said, I think it's a matter of

individual choice. However, people should go into parenthood with eyes wide open. It isn't for the feint of heart.

[FiggyJay]

57. Good Question

My hubby and I pondered this question after we married. After much thought, we decided that the last thing this planet needed was another human being. So we adopted a lovely young girl from India and lived happily ever after

[Iggo]

58. However many the Duggars have.

:

[Eliminator]

59. Between 3 and 5 is ideal

Anything more than that is too much.

[slackmaster]

60. More than you want is too many

HTH

[Nye Bevan]

62. Her body. Their family. Their lives. Their choice. None of my business (nt)

[HappyMe]

81. Agreed.

Nobody else has any right to decide how many should be in a family.

[Lyric]

64. I always wanted 5 or 6 kids. I have only had one.

I probably wouldn't have given birth to more than 3, though--I'd have adopted more beyond that. I just love children and being a parent. I always have, even when I was a child myself.

If I won the lottery tomorrow and could financially qualify, I'd adopt 5 kids without blinking an eye--and maybe more once those kids were grown up, assuming my health was still good.

[mike_c]

66. one is too many....

The public portion of the debate about having children usually centers on the freedom of individuals to choose how many children they'll have based on criteria that are immediate for them-- social norms in their circumstances, individual reproductive instinct, income and living conditions, etc.

Too often though, we don't even mention the social burden that human population pressure places on the Earth, and the consequences of that for future generations as well as ourselves. There are simply too many people for the planet to support sustainably. The result is increasing famine, poverty, disease, and conflict as we deplete resources further and further, fight over them, control them, and destroy them in the name of short term profits.

Mass suicide isn't a realistic means of reducing population, although it's close cousins-- genocide, murder, and famine-- are the traditional approaches to restoring balance when human populations outstrip their resource base, so rational people need to step back and reconsider their notions about universal freedom to breed. Garrett Hardin was right, I think, just 50 years too soon. It's a shame that we had that warning 40 years ago and have largely ignored it, taking us 40 years further down the road to human ruin.

We need a few generations in which most people do not breed, and those who do have only one child.

[PurityOfEssence]

74. Arrogance compels me to breed...

For me, having more than 2 children is a form of ecological terrorism. We wanted to bring sentient beings into the world and nurture them to be caretakers of the earth and honor-bound members of the biosphere. Doing such, I still maintain, is a fine thing: keeping the footprint small and feeding back into the gene pool while inculcating a sense of duty and social responsibility.

Accidentally, ten years after our fine and successful eugenics adventure, we had a charming little accident. He is being raised with more love than any damned little thing should ever have, but we are mercifully able financially and socially to sustain them all and prepare them for society. It is a duty to not just issue forth spawn, but to be able to provide for them in a way that is good for society.

As for incentives, I would say that the child deduction for taxes should only be for the first two, with the third or maybe fourth being dropped and any child after that being penalized by a tax.

We are drowning in people. The world doesn't need any more kids; it needs more parents. Those who provide material support for offspring not their own are godlike, and deserve all the love of the world.

As always, I fall back to my principal bigotry: blame religion. The primitive need to procreate was necessary once upon a time to keep the heathens beyond the gates, but now it's a throwback to times long past and the cynical political/religious need to out-breed competitors.

Sadly, I fall into this mindset myself: at least we're bringing forth some non-fundamentalist and sentient beings for the next generation. Hell, at my age, we're even jumping ahead a generation with the littlest one...

[Nikia]

69. My grandparents had 6 and did a good job of parenting

Or so say all 6 of their kids at least. My grandfather died several years ago, but all the children see their mother regularly.
My grandfather worked full time as a police officer. My grandmother worked full time as a clerical worker until she had her third child. She worked part time after that. My grandfather's mother did help out a lot with childcare.

[Neoma]

70. Nothing in the double digits.

If you want a large family and you can handle it, 9 is a good number. Not that I would personally have nine kids. But everyone's different.

[Rochester]

71. For me, one is too many. I dislike children intensely.

[PurityOfEssence]

75. As most parents would put it: you haven't met mine...

To not like kids is to not like people; they're all very different.

Don't take this as an insult, just as a nudge to the curmudgeonly.

Hell, I'm a bit W. C. Fields fan...

Whatever.

[renate]

77. I agree... not all children are charming, not by a long shot, but some are fantastic

(mine, for example )

Bratty kids are horrible, and it's hard to remember that their behavior is really the result of their parents' abdication of their responsibilities (in most cases--some kids are born with behavioral problems that their parents devote their lives to resolving, and I can't possibly say enough good things about them). But nice kids are an enormous pleasure. My kids' friends are so sweet and polite and a genuine pleasure to have around--there really are some fantastic kids out there.

[fishwax]

72. Depends on the family -- in Mr. and Mrs. Paul's case, for instance, Rand alone is one too many

[OhioBlue]

73. I only have one and my biological clock is running out

so he will probably be the only one. I would like for him to have a sibling... but nature determines that.

However for me - 3 would be max... I couldn't fit anymore car seats/boosters in my car!!!!

[B Calm]

80. I was the baby of three

children. I have an older brother and sister and we all got about the same amount of attention, which was very little compaired to our friends. In 1958 my mother left my dad for another man and he had to raise three little kids on his own. He had to go to work as laborer early in the morning at the local GM foundry and we were left on our own. I think it helped us to take our own personal responsibility very serious. We knew dad was doing the best he could and we did our best to help him. Dad had his problems with his nightmares of WW2 and hearing him waking up in the middle of the night screaming. I remember us three kids would run downstairs and climb into bed with him to comfort him. Sure we missed the love only a mother can give, but my father was someone really special.

[Vinca]

82. Watch the Duggars or whoever they are.

Or Octomom. Or anyone else who turns a uterus into a clown car. That's definitely too many. In my world, 1 is too many. Never wanted any kids. Your world may be different.

[lynne]

83. Not for us to decide. Her body - Her choice -

If we are willing to stand on the front lines to make sure that every woman has reproductive freedom and choice, it has to go both ways.

[Skidmore]

84. Thank you.

Sometimes the meaning of right to choose gets lost on DU.

[MH1]

100. Having a discussion about what is 'right' or 'best'

is not suggesting taking away anyone's choice.

If you see someone doing something you think is foolish and self-destructive, even if you don't intend to go so far as to stop them from doing it, doesn't mean you can't have a discussion about whether what they intend to do might be foolish and self-destructive.

[MH1]

101. But on the other hand,

there is a MASSIVE WALL of anti-choice that is promoting bigger families than people actually want. So I'm not completely opposed to counter-incentives. (By counter-incentives I don't mean force, I mean making the choice for a smaller family more attractive. But then people have to be able to act on that choice, which is getting more and more difficult.)

The reality is that forced reduction of population will eventually come, one way or another, unless people find a way to reduce population voluntarily. The current trend of anti-family-planning being pushed by republi-cons is NOT helpful. I just hope I'm not around (thankfully, I probably won't be) when reality bites back hard.

[Marrah_G]

88. It is a womans choice.

[toddaa]

90. Zero

If you have no children, you have too many.

[GobBluth]

94. hmm, I have 3, and one step-son

Life is what you make it. My Step-son was on only child until he was 7. Then I had two kids in two years. I feel he got the same attention he always did, if anything (and not complaining! just saying) my children got a little less when he stays with us.

Then I had my 3rd (Hubby's 4th) when my youngest (hubby's 3rd) was 7. My older two have missed out on much, as it wasn't feasible to bring an infant/toddler. Luckily I have great friends and family willing to help out, but never the less, they still missed out on some. But they have become little mini parents, and I see the love they have for their little brother. They may complain now sometimes, but I have no doubt they will cherish it later in life.

Then I look to my mother. She was 1 of 5 (4 girls and a boy). They were a farming family. Little time for anyone. The older girls helped raise the younger 3. Yet they are close, happy, smart, and cherish everything. I am pretty close with the 2 oldest children (My aunties!), and I have never heard them complain. Only funny stories about what my mom, uncle, or youngest aunt did while growing up. Oh and TONS of stories about working on a farm. They are amazing women, and whether they felt they had less attention (just using that word) or not, one has always said how it shaped her and she wouldn't trade it in for anything

Same can be said for my father's side. 4 kids, hard working parents, everyone needed to help each other out. Some got more attention than the others. My father was the oldest, his eldest sister and brother born soon after. His youngest sister born 19 years later. She was spoiled by them all, yet the glue that now holds that family together.

I guess I don't understand all the modern requirements for raising children. Seems like we are almost harming them, making them think they are the center of the world, instead of just a part of it. That's what family is. Sometimes it sucks, but hopefully it is more rewarding.

But I may be lucky. My paternal/maternal family, as my husband's, are very close and family oriented. But I'm all 100% positive there are horror stories from only children and children of 10 alike.

2nd glass of wine tonight, hope that was a little coherent!

[tabasco]

97. Overpopulation is our greatest problem. Everyone's greatest problem.

No more than two children.