Inspired by the polygamist thread - How many kids are acceptable

[Freyja]

It seem that many people feel very strongly about how many children a person should have. I must admit, I am quite surprised.

I can not see that it is any of my business how many children someone put into this world, unless that someone can not provide for them, and the State (aka ME) has to do it.

If people can provite for their children, emotionally as well as financially, I can´t see anything wrong with people having as many children as they like.

So, what´s your opinion on the subject?

 

[DaisyD]

How ever many you can provide emotionally AND physically for. Having a lot of money just doesn't cut it. You also have to be able to take care of their emotional needs. The Duggars can't do that. They have a kid and palm it off to an older kid. If mom and dad can't attend to all their needs then they shouldn't have that many.

 

[Tigger&Belle]

How ever many you can provide emotionally AND physically for. Having a lot of money just doesn't cut it. You also have to be able to take care of their emotional needs. The Duggars can't do that. They have a kid and palm it off to an older kid. If mom and dad can't attend to all their needs then they shouldn't have that many.

I totally agree. There is nothing wrong with the older kids helping out, as mine have to do, but they shouldn't be raising them.

If I had of been younger I could have probably handled one more emotionally and physically (not financially as I'm beginning to realize now that we're paying for college ), but the 4 I have is plenty. And the kids I have is not the business of anyone else. They are well taken care of, loved, provided well for, and given lots of attention.

If they are going to judge, judge for the 4 cats and 2 dogs that we have!

 

[DVCLiz]

I don't agree that the Duggars have a kid and palm it off to an older kid. I've seen that discussed on these boards before, and I'm not willing to believe that based on one snippet of a one hour show. With any large family, there are lots of responsibilities for helping with younger siblings, chores, etc. that families with fewer children just don't have to deal with.

The Duggars are creepy to me for lots of reasons, but I just don't agree with the idea that their younger children are neglected by Mom and Dad. All of the Duggar kids look well fed, are clean and have decent clothing, are respectful and obviously schooled in their religion as well as normal schooling, and seem to be nice clean-cut kids. I don't see any reason to rag on them because they use the buddy system. They obviously have enough money to hire help if they wanted it - would it be any differnet if we saw that a team of nannies had been hired?

As far as the OP, I think most people fall into a one, two or three child scenario. I know several families with four children, and a couple with five, but none with six or more. I agree that it's all about how many you can take emotional and financial care of. I don't have any real opinion about "the population" or anything like that.

 

[kdibattista]

As many as you can support. I don't have a problem as long as I don't have to foot the bill

 

[gina2000]

I've grown up with a different mentality than alot of people. I feel that I should send and pay for my children to go to college. I also believe that a child should have a ton of individual attention in a household. To me, and this is purely subjective, I feel that if I had more than two, I wouldn't be able to accomplish those goals.

I also am concerned about population growth. I believe that we all have a resonsibility to maintain zero population growth in a world that is already exploding with people.

Although I have no statistics on this, younger families seem to be having many more children than people did from my generation. I guess everything goes in cycles.

 

[golfgal]

I also agree that if you can support your family it isn't my business how many you have. I DO think there should be a limit as to how many children you can have or a cut off of aid if you are on welfare, say no extra money after a second child. When you expect the state to pay your bills it becomes MY business since it is coming out of my pocket to raise your family.

I also think there is a responsibility to the environment and having large families does strain natural resources more then a small family.

 

[chobie]

I think the Duggars go beyond just having the siblings help each other out. On that show they had the girls from like ages 8-14 doing all the cooking for the entire family and they made that oldest son build the mansion for the younger siblings even though he will be an adult once its built. That's bordering on slave labor IMO.

 

[goofygirl]

It ticks me off that if you have a whole bunch of kids that society sees you as some kind of hero, that they think all you made all these "miracles" (NO they are not. All you did was have sex, not walk on water), and the media puts you on a pedestal for simply reproducing a lot. But if you have a lot of cats, you are deemed as a "crazy cat lady" even in this day and age. There's still that message being played out: "Lots of kids are GOOD. Lots of cats (dogs, birds, etc) are WEIRD."

I really can't understand why anyone would want a kid at all, let alone a lot of them. I just can't relate. BUT I think people have a right to have kids, as long as they are responsible about it.
But to me, having more than 3 or 4 in this day and age just seems antiquated, and I have to wonder if the woman sees herself as more than a "baby machine."

 

[chobie]

It ticks me off that if you have a whole bunch of kids that society sees you as some kind of hero, that they think all you made all these "miracles" (NO they are not. All you did was have sex, not walk on water), and the media puts you on a pedestal for simply reproducing a lot. antiquated, and I have to wonder if the woman sees herself as more than a "baby machine."

Amen to that! I'm also nauseated by the making of women who take fertility pills to pop out litters of children as being heros too. People who adopt children with serious disabilties, have AIDS or who are otherwise "unadoptable" for a variety of reasons, now those people are heros to me.

 

[Freyja]

But to me, having more than 3 or 4 in this day and age just seems antiquated, and I have to wonder if the woman sees herself as more than a "baby machine."

I must admit the last sentence ticked me off. I have 4 kids, might even have more in the future and certainly do NOT see myself as a "baby machine".
Although my children are definately the most important thing in my life, they are not everything in my life. Furthermore, they are well taken care of bye every means, both emotionally and financially.

I have educated myself well and I run a successful business. I have by no means "lost" myself in babystuff.

 

[SetzKitten]

I also am concerned about population growth. I believe that we all have a resonsibility to maintain zero population growth in a world that is already exploding with people.

This is my concern, too. But I also believe that Mother Nature has a way of taking care of herself, and sooner or later the population will be reduced. I don't believe it will be pretty either.

Here's a question. If the world were underpopulated and the human race were in danger of dying out, would it be everyone's responsibility to populate it?

 

[chobie]

This is my concern, too. But I also believe that Mother Nature has a way of taking care of herself, and sooner or later the population will be reduced. I don't believe it will be pretty either.

Here's a question. If the world were underpopulated and the human race were in danger of dying out, would it be everyone's responsibility to populate it?

I think we have a responsiblity to the people that already exist, not the ones that might or could exist. So, no I don't think we would have a responsibility to each other to populate the earth, but I do think we have a responsiblity to each other to not overpopulate it.

 

[DVCLiz]

I think the Duggars go beyond just having the siblings help each other out. On that show they had the girls from like ages 8-14 doing all the cooking for the entire family and they made that oldest son build the mansion for the younger siblings even though he will be an adult once its built. That's bordering on slave labor IMO.

See, this is my issue. From your post, it sounds as though the oldest son built an entire "mansion" by himself. If you've watched the show at all, you've seen that process described - the older boys helped their dad, they thought they would hire professionals but realized they could do most of it themselves, etc. It sems to have taken a long time - weren't they doing most of it on the weekends? In other words, there's more to the story. But if someone read your post and didn't know any of that, they'd say, "Gosh, that's awful - that poor boy, having to build a whole house by himself that he wouldn't even get to live in." I just think it's inaccurate to draw these kinds of conclusions from what we see on that show. And the girls cooking - again, if they were making filet mignon and creme brulee, I could see your point, but didn't their menu rely on things like Tater Tot casserole?? Not too much of a stretch.

If the Duggars have chosen to have a larger family and assume that everyone will play a role in getting the work fo the family done, I don't think that qualifies as "slave labor."

PS - Don't forget to watch tonight at 9pm on TLC for the "new" Duggar family special. There's moving into the new house, and who knows, after I see it, I may very well have a different opinion!!!!!

 

[lulugirl]

As long as I'm not footing the bill I don't care how many children you have.

 

[chobie]

See, this is my issue. From your post, it sounds as though the oldest son built an entire "mansion" by himself. If you've watched the show at all, you've seen that process described - the older boys helped their dad, they thought they would hire professionals but realized they could do most of it themselves, etc. It sems to have taken a long time - weren't they doing most of it on the weekends? In other words, there's more to the story. But if someone read your post and didn't know any of that, they'd say, "Gosh, that's awful - that poor boy, having to build a whole house by himself that he wouldn't even get to live in." I just think it's inaccurate to draw these kinds of conclusions from what we see on that show. And the girls cooking - again, if they were making filet mignon and creme brulee, I could see your point, but didn't their menu rely on things like Tater Tot casserole?? Not too much of a stretch.

If the Duggars have chosen to have a larger family and assume that everyone will play a role in getting the work fo the family done, I don't think that qualifies as "slave labor."

PS - Don't forget to watch tonight at 9pm on TLC for the "new" Duggar family special. There's moving into the new house, and who knows, after I see it, I may very well have a different opinion!!!!!

The girls also have to make their own clothes, among other things And though they may not be making 6 course gourmet dinners that is still way too much responsibility for little girls to have to be putting out three meals a day for 18 people, along with all the other chores they have to. The division of labor along archaic gender lines is also doing the children a disservice IMO.

And if this family is going to be media *****s and put their lives on tv for the world to see, then I will base my opinions of them based on what they choose to show us.

 

[DaisyD]

The girls also have to make their own clothes, among other things And though they may not be making 6 course gourmet dinners that is still way too much responsibility for little girls to have to be putting out three meals a day for 18 people, along with all the other chores they have to. The division of labor along archaic gender lines is also doing the children a disservice IMO.

And if this family is going to be media *****s and put their lives on tv for the world to see, then I will base my opinions of them based on what they choose to show us.

I agree. To me, if you want to ask an older child to babysit a younger sibling once in a while, then that is fine. To continue to blindly pump out babies and assign them to an older sibling is just sick. These older kids are responsible for bathing and dressing the little ones and just about all the other caretaking. On top of that they are doing major household chores. Sorry but the Duggar parents are the ones that CHOSE to have such a large family and obviously they cannot handle them. It wasn't the other childrens choice for mom to keep putting babies out for them to raise. I have an older DD who occasional will be asked to watch her little sisiter if DH and I want to go to a movie and dinner. I ask DD if she is busy and would she mind doing it. If she didn't want to then that is her choice. My kids, my reponsibilty.

 

[Free4Life11]

I also think there is a responsibility to the environment and having large families does strain natural resources more then a small family.

Totally disagree. Large families in the third world far less more resources than most American families.

I think it's acceptable to have as many kids as you can financially afford.

 

[chobie]

Totally disagree. Large families in the third world far less more resources than most American families.

I think it's acceptable to have as many kids as you can financially afford.

Does that mean you should not take the tax credits for children? Since people without children don't get that tax credit, are not they in essance subsidizing people with children who take the credit?

 

[RobinMarie]

I can't believe people think they aren't footing the bill for others. I don't care how many children people have but I think it's naive to think taxpayers do not subsidize children's well being.