# 2 Children Per Family? Why Is This The Norm?



## BMG580 (Jun 19, 2007)

My husband and I were sure we were only going to have 2 children when I was pregnant with DS last year. We always said we wanted 2 and we had a DD and then a DS and we were content. We have changed our minds. You would think that we wanted to do something really radical by having more children based on what friends and family keep saying. And the comments are always off-hand jokes, which makes them seem like they are flippant and not to be taken seriously, yet I know they are. And the kicker is that I am not even pregnant again yet! I guess they are trying to talk us out of it?

What is the deal? If you have an only child you get questions about why not give the child a sibling and if you want more than 2 people think you are crazy. Why is this? I just can't imagine making some of the rude comments to other people that I've gotten about wanting at least one more child, possibly 2 more.


----------



## justice'smom (Jun 5, 2007)

I am pregnant with our third and I get those comments all the time too. I think most people think three or more is just hard to deal with. It's honestly made me a little scared. I also think people think there is no way you can afford more than two. What is easy about two is that you and your husband or partner can double team them, but when there's that extra one maybe it's a little harder. I'm excited about our third, but people do put fear in my head when they make their comments. I wish I had a better answer, but honestly I'm not sure other than those answers why someone would say that.


----------



## heidirk (Oct 19, 2007)

If each couple only has two children it equals zero population growth, the holy grail to some people. I think that this is what it ultimately comes down to, it's supposedly irresponsible to 'increase and multiply' anymore.









So we say, 'One of each' and that's supposed to be enough.


----------



## jmmom (Sep 11, 2007)

Actually, 2 per couple is less than zero growth - it will result in an overall pop decline, which causes lots of problems for things like social security, etc. Europe is in this predicament, and it's weird - it's the first time in history that a population has chosen not to replace itself.

Maybe it's because we come from Catholic families, but my mom came from 10, my dad from 5, my mil from 3, my fil from 6, me from 4, and my dh from 5. I have over 75 aunts, uncles, and cousins. We want at least 4, and would be happy to have more if there's time (we like a bit of spacing). If you only have 2, what if they don't get along? Who will they have for company? I love big families, and they're totally manageable, from what I've seen.


----------



## suprgrl (Sep 27, 2005)

I want to have more kiddos too, but it does feel a little strange to go past that somehow magical two number. Maybe we have an excuse to have another to "try for a girl"... although that is not our reasoning.. just the only reason others seem to have for having more than the standard two.
I have recently talked with my parents about having more than two kids (it was just me and my brother growing up, but both my parents have 4 siblings). Both of my parents (divorced) wish they had had more children. My dad said he didn't realize life would be so long, and feels like he rushed life in the beginning. My mom says she would have liked to have two more, but there was an rh factor issue and the doctor told her it could be unsafe to have any more babies...
I have been feeling recently like someone is missing from our family. I was playing with the kids today, and it felt like someone else was wanting to be there. I do get nervous about it. Three seems like a lot to me since I have a hard time handling two some days.


----------



## aprons_and_acorns (Sep 28, 2004)

It kind of does seem like a family with two kids is somehow the standard, and families with one child or three+ kids are forever hearing remarks about it. I wonder why that is.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

I'm from a big family. My mom says that the change in the amount of work going from one kid to two is exponential. After that it's just additive. I think with greater than two, you get economies of scale.

Most folks are from smaller families, so they might not understand the different dynamics in larger families.

That said, for us, two are a gracious plenty.


----------



## JennTheMomma (Jun 19, 2008)

I always thought 3 kids was norm, thats what most people have in my town and where I grew up. Most of mine and DH's family is large, so we want to have 4 kids. Haven't gotten any negative comments about it yet.


----------



## traceface (Feb 17, 2003)

I think it's just because kids are a ginormous amount of work and most people can't imagine taking on that much.

As joyous and satisfying as that work is, it still takes its toll on a person - I think it's just that most parents feel they can't give more of themselves to 3, 4 children - but with 2 they more or less manage,financially, time-wise, etc


----------



## mamatoakd (Jun 11, 2008)

It's interesting, in the area where we live, three seems to be the new two... We live in a very family oriented neighborhood, so that probably has a bit to do with it.

The odd thing is, the idea of four seems to be really strange to people... Having three, I can't imagine how one more will really tip the scale for us.


----------



## partymoo (Jul 13, 2005)

.


----------



## Authentic_Mother (Feb 25, 2007)

I think its mostly down here because of finances and people being strapped with two dont want to be in poverty with 3. I think a lot of people down here would have more children if they could afford it.
I know Im happy with my one and I constantly get pressured not only from strangers but from my own family to have another. Fortunatly Im having my hysterectomy on Nov 6th and it will be a non-issue








I try my best not to judge (something I am occasionally guilty of) but when I come across people in Grocery stores with several children buying their food on food stamps and they are pregnant - it irks me slightly. We stopped at one because we felt that financially we were comfy with one. We can afford to put her into dance, voice lessons or whatever her heart desires. We can go on family vacations without budgetting for an entire year first. We didn't want to have children if we couldn't afford to take care of them by ourselves.
I understand things happen - and who knows - maybe the family DID have a great job and really COULD afford those kids up until the market changed and they got laid off. I have no idea. But I think its a bigger factor here than the "stereotypical" family of "one girl, one boy = done" KWIM?


----------



## LaLaLaLa (Oct 29, 2007)

DH and I each have only one sibling, so our plan when we got married was to have two kids. We liked the way we grew up, and two seems easy to us. We had a few reasons.

We ended up with one boy and one girl, so that was nice, although we would have been happy with two of one gender and wouldn't have tried for the other gender.

We like two because when one of us is alone with them (usually me), that parent can get his or her hands on both kids at once. I can carry two tantruming children out of a store on my own. Three at a time would be a major challenge.

We felt that with two kids, their fights would be pretty evenly matched. One against one is okay, especially since our kids are only a year and a half apart. With one more child thrown into the mix, we'd be concerned that two would gang up on the third, which would be a bummer.

It was hard enough for us to find a house we could afford with three bedrooms; four bedrooms would have been out of our reach and we'd have to figure out who would share a room. College costs would also be much more difficult with more than two little ones.

DH and I like amusement parks. With our family of four, the two kids can ride together, or each parent can ride with one child. With three kids, the logistics would be more difficult.

I don't know.... maybe these reasons seem petty. But they, plus our gut feelings on the matter, meant that two kids was it for us. However, we are certainly supportive and delighted when others make a different decision and have more or less than two children.


----------



## Breeder (May 28, 2006)

I think we *may* have decided on only two kids, but for us it's because I have a uterine shape that causes my babies to be in the frank breech presentation (which I found out after DS2 turned just like his big bro and would NOT go back) and I don't think I could handle another c/s.

However DH is from a family of seven and I am from a family of six. People always make remarks about us being "catholic"







which neither of us are.


----------



## ~Megan~ (Nov 7, 2002)

There is a stigma to having an only child. Its generally thought that your child will be lonely and will grow up to be selfish.

But kids are more expensive now than they were generations ago. They "need" electronics, sports, lessons, activities, designer clothes, loads of toys, etc so more than 2 is too expensive for many families.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Beats me. For us, having three children was easier than having two. Four is definately more work, but I wouldn't go back to having less. I like that there are more kids to play with each other and hang out with.


----------



## Logan's mommy (Jan 19, 2007)

I had always said I didn't want kids at all, then I had ds and knew that I wanted at least one more. Right now we're sticking with just 2 because we can't really afford to add another one to our family at this time (nor do I want to be pregnant again so soon after giving birth







) but we are open to possibly having another in 5 years or so. My mom is the youngest of 3, my dad and his twin are the middle of 5, and dh is the middle of 3. My mom and dad just had me and my brother, but I think I would like to add on again at some point.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jmmom* 
Actually, 2 per couple is less than zero growth - it will result in an overall pop decline, which causes lots of problems for things like social security, etc. Europe is in this predicament, and it's weird - it's the first time in history that a population has chosen not to replace itself.

It's the first time in history people have had the choice.

Two seems natural to us. We can divide and conquer, plus we all fit in a sedan.


----------



## Alison's Mom (May 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LaLaLaLa* 
DH and I each have only one sibling, so our plan when we got married was to have two kids. We liked the way we grew up, and two seems easy to us. We had a few reasons.

We ended up with one boy and one girl, so that was nice, although we would have been happy with two of one gender and wouldn't have tried for the other gender.

We like two because when one of us is alone with them (usually me), that parent can get his or her hands on both kids at once. I can carry two tantruming children out of a store on my own. Three at a time would be a major challenge.

We felt that with two kids, their fights would be pretty evenly matched. One against one is okay, especially since our kids are only a year and a half apart. With one more child thrown into the mix, we'd be concerned that two would gang up on the third, which would be a bummer.

It was hard enough for us to find a house we could afford with three bedrooms; four bedrooms would have been out of our reach and we'd have to figure out who would share a room. College costs would also be much more difficult with more than two little ones.

DH and I like amusement parks. With our family of four, the two kids can ride together, or each parent can ride with one child. With three kids, the logistics would be more difficult.

I don't know.... maybe these reasons seem petty. But they, plus our gut feelings on the matter, meant that two kids was it for us. However, we are certainly supportive and delighted when others make a different decision and have more or less than two children.

This is our situation too, and I agree with all of these points, except for the amusement park. That never came up when we were thinking about it, LOL.

Also, the sharing of rooms issue for us was not a big deal. In fact, we've decided to put the two in the same room for the next few year until they can deal with being on a different floor from us parents.

But most of the above arguments ring true for me.

I'm 99% sure we're done at two, at least that's what I tell everyone who asks. DH sometimes jokes about having a 3rd, but I tell him where to go pretty quick. I do, however, get a little nostalgic holding someone else's newborn. . . .


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

We have 3 children and our family is complete now. 2 just didn't feel done to us. We got a lot of comment about why would we want to have another child when we already had one boy and one girl (we ended up with a second girl). I just told them because we want to and we are the ones raising the family so it's no concern of yours! 3 is more difficult in some ways. Vacation packages are priced for 4, most restaurants seat 4, etc. Do what your heart tells you. Sure, it would have been easier to stop at 2 but I honestly cannot imagine my life without DD2. I think when you get to the end of your life you are not going to regret the children you DID have but you may very well regret the ones you didn't.


----------



## widemouthedfrog (Mar 9, 2006)

I suspect that if you come from a 2 child family, you feel that two is fairly normal.

I also suspect that people choose not to have more because of lack of community and family assistance and due to social expectations about what kids and families need to have and do to be successful.

For example, I come from a three-child family, and I have always thought that four children would be good. However, my husband wants one because he feels that work demands a lot of his emotional energy. I'd be fine with two, because we live in a very expensive city, eat organic food, and we like to travel.

However, I always say that if I lived in a different place and with a different job situation, four would be great.


----------



## JeanneElle (Oct 28, 2008)

Ohhh... four would be heavenly!!! We stopped at two because of my age (41). My babies were big (dd 9'9" and ds 8'15") and I had two rough c-sections. No more scalples!!! lol. Still, if I was younger... even mid-thirties, we'd try for #3 & 4.

A friend of mine just had her fourth son, and people make comments all the time, like why so many kids, etc etc. I don't get it - I think if you have the time and resources, why not. Siblings are the greatest gift you can gift your kids, and big families are wonderful


----------



## seawind (Sep 28, 2007)

I think a few significant factors have influenced the change in the family size norm. Mainly, increase in the rate of divorce, later age of child-bearing, significant increase in the cost of raising children, lifestyles becoming more hectic, lack of familial support network, people choosing to marry late (as in age).


----------



## hellyaellen (Nov 8, 2005)

beats me as to why, but my mom always says i should be happy with two..........i always tell her its ok i'm just having the one my sister chooses not to have, my sis has an only child and plans to keep it that way i've got two but am going to ttc #3 in about a month......


----------



## OkiMom (Nov 21, 2007)

I have no idea why people would think it was the norm. I grew up in two way different cities. Until I was 10 my family lived in a town setting, one or two children was the norm. We were thought to have a large family with three. Then we moved to a more rural city where 5-10 was more the norm and we were the smallest of the families we knew.
DH comes from a family with 5 children, I have two brothers. We would love to have a large family. We both love children. We haven't set a certain number though. We have got a couple of questions about when DH's going to get snipped now that we are expecting our second. I just ignore them.


----------



## Learning_Mum (Jan 5, 2007)

I'm in the process of trying to sort out how I feel about this.

Logically two is good for us. It means that we don't need a bigger car or bigger house. There's one parent per child. One knee for each child. One hand for each child.

In my heart though I think I want more. Say three or four. I come from four and that seems normal to me.

I just worry about getting older, and wishing for more kids, but not having the option anymore. Financially I really don't think we could afford another child at this point in our life, but I'm scared that when we can it will just be too late.

What do you follow? Your heart or your brain?


----------



## BMG580 (Jun 19, 2007)

What is most frustrating about this to me is that friends and family who have had the nerve to weigh in on this very private decision are basically suggesting that we are either naive or stupid and have no real idea what it is going to be like to have more than 2 children. We are two reasonably intelligent adults, a self-supporting family, and I stay at home with the two we've already got - I think we have a clue.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I think zero population growth is a good idea as far as the environment goes, but on the other hand people should be free to have as many children as they want, and enough people never have children to balance things out in the US anyway.


----------



## hockeywoman (Nov 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *partymoo* 
I think maybe some people are only able to see what they themselves can handle (in my case, I bore one of each in only two tries and I was relieved that I was absolved of any obligation to keep trying for whichever gender we didn't have) and then they project that onto other people and assume others would be overwhelmed as they might be, or that others could easily handle as many as they could. And I imagine sometimes there's a discrepancy between partners as to how many children is enough and "one of each" seems like a fair enough compromise all around if it happens as easily as it did for us.

I know people who couldn't wait to get snipped after the one child they wanted, and others who have 5 and would welcome as many more as they can be blessed with, and others who want as many as they can have, plus foster kids to raise and possibly adopt, and still others who don't even see the sense in bringing new people into the world when there are already so many kids in existence who need parents. And I don't think it's anyone's business how many children anyone else feels is enough for their family or from whence these children originate.

So to summarize, my opinion is who cares whether anyone else approves of how many children you want to raise. Perhaps you could suggest that they mind their own and kiss your butt if they don't like it.







But then, I'm excited (to a ridiculously stupid degree) every time I hear there's another Duggar in the oven, so there ya go.

I totally agree with this! I think that large families are often easier than 2 child families, but it's totally dependent on the parents and their personalities. I know a lot of people who have 1-2 kids who have to have their children involved in every activity imaginable, and that's their choice. A lot of them also have every toy, gadget, trust/college fund, etc. for their kids, with little emphasis on family time (keep in mind we live in an upper class area where 2 working parents and nannies are the norm). Thus, the thought that more than 2 kids is somehow unaffordable (they think I'm crazy when I tell them our budget has room for many more kiddos).

We would love to have a very large family, and we'll see what God has in store for us. I respect my friends who have made the decision to only have 1-2 children, and they respect me for my choice to have more. Yes, my kiddos wear hand me downs and thrift store clothing, and have fewer toys than other kids, but they're very happy, love to go to the library to pick out new books and movies, and are waiting for more kiddos to love on.


----------



## Alyantavid (Sep 10, 2004)

We always wanted more until our second was born and now we both feel totally completely done. While we dealt with fertility issues ttc our second, I heard constantly how my oldest needed a sibling, how I couldn't wait too long, etc. Very helpful.

Now I have the whole problem of the fact that I have 2 boys. All the time I get comments about how I should try for a girl. It really doesn't help that he's got long hair and people think I want him to be a girl since I already had a boy. I'm very very happy with my 2 boys and can't imagine life any different.


----------



## Peony (Nov 27, 2003)

I've pg with #3 and have gotten a few comments, but mostly get other comments. We have two girls so often people think we are trying for a boy or then I get the weird comments of well, I guess you guys can afford another child.


----------



## Nolamom (Jan 29, 2008)

I've made "jokes" to my good friends with 3 or more out of admiration for them. Not to criticize their choice or to condemn them. I am happy and at times overwhelmed with my beautiful 2. I truly cannot imagine having more than 2. Maybe these comments are well meant and just a lighthearted way of saying "Wow! I'm impressed! You have the strength, stamina, available finances, patience, etc. to have 3 or more!" Try not to take them so personally. I respect anyone who can sucessfully manage a large family and believe that others do too. Heck, even with two I hear the jokes/comments from people with less than 2!


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

odd, three is the new two in my area. Having three kids - by choice - is extremely common among my friends and neighbors. Back when I was growing up, the only families I knew with three kids had two close together and then an "oops" later down the line - often 5-10 years after the last one.


----------



## willowsmom (Oct 28, 2004)

I'm the youngest of two, The Dude is the oldest of two. His brother has two kids, my mom was the oldest of two...

I had always wanted 3 kids when I was younger... but then I had Willow and said "Nope, one is enough for me."

But now I'm pregnant with number 2. lol

I figure...go with what works for you and your family and everyone else can make comments if they want...but it's not going to have an effect on what you do.


----------



## MamaJenese (Aug 14, 2006)

I am shocked at how often people say to me" oh you have a boy and girl, perfect family You guys must be all done!" then they are shocked when I tell them we plan one or two more! As if having one of each sex equals perfect. My parents thought 4 girls was pretty perfect!

and for the record they didn't keep going to four Trying for a boy, they were just trying for more babies!


----------



## njbeachgirl (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe* 
Two seems natural to us. We can divide and conquer, plus we all fit in a sedan.

LOL. Very true for us too. (although I bet when my little one hits 2 or so, i'll be all "DH! I WANT another babyyyyyy!")

I think it's wack though that people push their opinions on others of how many children is the "right" number to have. And the whole "are you going to try for a boy/girl" thing if you already have two of the other sex. Seriously? People have another kid for that reason?


----------



## serenityjewell (Oct 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~Megan~* 
But kids are more expensive now than they were generations ago. They "need" electronics, sports, lessons, activities, designer clothes, loads of toys, etc so more than 2 is too expensive for many families.

Do they really "need" all of that? My home is small enough that my different sex kids share a room. I think it makes they empathetic and flexible people. We plan on having more and figuring out where we will put them. We in this country have so much that I can't believe we would limit anything based on needing electronics and toys. I know that those items have to be a choice and I hope I continue to just say NO!


----------



## Teenytoona (Jun 13, 2005)

I have to say, DD is the only kid I've given birth to, and though she had 4 siblings (my steps) she in some ways is an only child. She's the only one from this mother (me). It makes me sad for her in some ways because I have 7 siblings. The bond we have is amazing and I wouldn't trade them for anything (now that is, if you had asked me when I was watching my younger sibs in my teen years my answer would have been very different). It makes me feel that she will miss out on the bond that you can only share with someone growing up entirely in the same house as you.

I don't know, just rambling. I just don't think it's fair to the other kids for me to have any more, but sometimes I wonder...


----------



## Staciemao (Feb 15, 2008)

Yup, we have one of each and people make the "Oh, you must be done!" comments to us all the time. Personally I think you know when you are done...and there's no "right" size for a family.


----------



## MoonJelly (Sep 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *seawind* 
I think a few significant factors have influenced the change in the family size norm. Mainly, increase in the rate of divorce, later age of child-bearing, significant increase in the cost of raising children, lifestyles becoming more hectic, lack of familial support network, people choosing to marry late (as in age).

Yeah, that.

And because in previous times, it was necessary to have larger famillies, for help in agrarian societies and also because more children often didn't live until adulthood.

It isn't really necessary to have so many, or even _any_, now. The reasons we have children have completely changed. It's much more equivalent to a hobby.

My comfort level is one or two. But, if it's your choice, then you just have to ignore what people say. They are entitled to their opinion just like no one can stop you from your choice in having more.


----------



## frontierpsych (Jun 11, 2006)

I used to want a lot of kids, but DH and I are considering having DS as an only child (time will tell-- he's pretty new so we've got time to decide) but I can imagine if we don't have more we'll be on the same boat with dumb comments about giving him a sibling... I'm one of 4, dad's one of 5, mom's one of 7... more kids is just expected, lol!


----------



## avivaelona (Jun 24, 2005)

I always wanted two because I grew up as part of a three and I just thought it would be easier if there were only two of us, three felt unbalanced and too big. My mom did say that it was hard going from two to three because she ran out of hands.

Now we will be raising two and I feel like I want to stop..I'm done (and the youngest isn't even born yet, I just know I'm done and he's my last (and at my age its pretty likely that would be true however I felt) however, if all three of my boys could be here I'd take that in a heartbeat...that feels like what is 'right' even if it can never be true. I don't know what would have happened if we hadn't had the loss, it seems really weird to think that we'd just have a totally different set of children probably.


----------



## Onemagicmummy (Jul 27, 2007)

i havent read all replys. i have 4 kids, i always wanted 4 kids, i am eldest of 3 DH is eldest of 3 and we both hated it. i swore i would never have only 3 kids if i had a 3rd then it was a given we were having a 4th. so we have 4 wonderful kids,
the looks, comments, and flipiant remarks i get, well if i had £1 for every "are they ALL yours" or " my you have your hands full" i would be pretty rich. and the looks when people ask "so, is that it for you" and i say no, my gosh you wold of thought i had just said something rude!! i ahve been told i am mad, crazy, stupid, people have said "well i couldnt do it" and equialy lame and annoying comments. and dont even mention the age gaps, i get google eyes and jaw drops when people find out there only 12 months between the middle 2.

Just because i have 2 of each people thing i should stop. when an old friend found out i want a bunch more (either 6/8 or 12 total depends of a whole slew of stuff) she asked
"and who is going to pay for them" well duh US, their parents, DH works, i care for the kids. she was not convinced. she made it sound like iw as going to be sitting around sponging off others just cos i have a lot of kids.

i found the transition from 1-2 was ok, 2-3 was nasty but thats cos i had a lot of stress and DS2 is a night needs child, 3-4 was a breeze, DD2 is a lovely easy most of the time, booby solves all problems baby.

Kiz


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"I think a few significant factors have influenced the change in the family size norm. Mainly, increase in the rate of divorce, later age of child-bearing, significant increase in the cost of raising children, lifestyles becoming more hectic, lack of familial support network, people choosing to marry late (as in age)."

Also, as has been shown in the developing world, once women have the ability to control their fertility they pretty consistently choose smaller families.

I do wonder if the pendulum is starting to swing backwards here in the States. In other words, once the "specialness/empowerment" of being able to control your fertility is no longer so novel, more women have been making the choice to have more kids. I definitely have been seeing larger families, than I remember growing up in the 80s.

I have also noted there is a certain new economic status thing at play. In the past it was more a choice to limit the # of kids so each has more. Now it seems there is kind of a "we have enough $ to have 5" AND "have my wife who holds a Ph.D. in X speciality stay at home to take care of them".


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

We have four. I have one sibling and so does dh and we are just stuck with them which is unfortunate as neither of us get a long with our sibs.

Our children have more than one sibling to be with or share with or understand them in different moments. I like the change and diversity that having more than two brings and the combinations that are possible. Those who say that 2 feels right because you can fit in x, y or z easily are missing a whole other dimension. We fit in all sorts of things too in all sorts of different combinations: no-one has to always sit next to the same person or always have to be with mum or dad!

This also brings more complication sometimes but when I see my family altogether I know that we didn't make a mistake choosing to have more than two and I don't regret it.

(I have to admit to wondering why those with three have stopped there and not just had four.....)


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

We are done. We have 2 girls. DH is one of 9 kids and I am one of 4.

We would have liked to have another but I have nightmare pregncies and Maggie spent 3 mos in the nicu. Also, I am pushing 37 and just now after an emergency c section 2 years ago can I even try to have one again. It could take forever plus as I get older, I have less energy and the chances of another premature birth are very good. I dont want to be doing the baby thing at 40.
So we are done and had DH fixed to make sure of it.

Funny, in my neighborhood I am almost the minority. Several of my friends have 3-5 kids. I have one neighbor who teases me- he says, you guys make too beautiful kids to stop!!

I think in times past, the kids could just play outside all day and come home at dark. Now we all put our kids in activities, tutoring, enrichment this and that, quality time, scheduled away. So with one its managable, with 2 or more, it can be very busy. Also it was mentioned having one child in their own bedroom. I shared a room until I was 18 at home. After my brother moved out, my sister took his room. It was sometimes a pain but it taught me how to get along w another person.
Having several siblings you learn not only how to deal with others but that its not always evensteven. With 2, it seems if one gets a nice sweater, you get the other one the same. With 3 or more, you realize you need to share or take turns on special things.


----------



## bscal (Feb 13, 2006)

I have 3 kids... 2 DDs and 1 DS. When we had our 3rd (DS) everyone thought we were done. Um, no. We are planning on at least 4. I'd like to have more but DH wants to stop at 4. We'll see if he changes his mind after the next one. I've always wanted a big family since I was little. I taught preschool for 10 years before having my first child and I truly love children. I preferred to teach 2 yr olds so I figure if I can handle 10 children all dealing with the "terrible 2's" at once then I can handle 4 kids of my own. (Well, maybe not if I had 4 5-yr olds at once... my oldest is killing me with her attitude).

Anyhow, I've gotten comments from everyone... perfect strangers, checkout lady at the grocery store, even family and friends. My favorite comeback ever was when my dad asked...
My dad (to DH) "Congrats man. But seriously, how did this happen?"
DH "Well, you know, I just can't keep my hands off her!"

This was said at my parents' house... in front of my mom, sister, and BIL too. No one in my immediate family ever said another word about us being pg with #3. This was in response to the news. I can understand the surprise, as he was a little oopsy. My younger DD was 9 mos old at the time.

Beth


----------



## OTMomma (Aug 12, 2003)

I think the idea that 2 children, one of each gender, is ideal has probably been around for the last 50 years at least. Somewhere along the line, having a large family became associated with poverty- perhaps it was because poorer families needed more children to work on their farms, I don't know. I think it is much more deeply rooted in our collective consiouness than most of us realize. I recently told my dad that I thought people (in general) were prejudice against large families, particularly having more than 4-5, and he said something implying he didn't believe people could afford to feed that many children







- I pointed out I appreciated him proving my point.

I do agree that it depends on where you live how many children are expected, and I think that is related to the economics of the area and social dynamics too. The town I used to live in is a very 1-2 kids kind of place now- but jobs are scarce and the economics do play a role in the decision. The area I live in now, lots of people choose to have 3-4, and I think it has to do with better paying jobs allowing people to feel more comfortable financially with more children.

Personally, we've been blessed with the "perfect 2", but I still get asked conversationally whether or not we'll choose to have another. I appreciate that most people don't assume- but actually the question still grates my nerves. I had a struggle to concieve my ds, and we've really not made the decision one way or the other about more kids. I actually find it irksome that peopel assume that planning or not planning children is easy- for some people its easy, for some of us, the Universe has its own plan and we just try to keep up.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

My ILs had one every two years or so until my BIL Paul was born- he was number 7. Then they thought they might be done. Fast forward 4 years, she Then they made him a friend, his younger brother number 9.

They talk about how in the 50s and 60s people would say some nasty things to them about having so many babies. Also, when she was prgnt w DH at age 40, her brother said some nasty things about the baby "being retarted since you're so old". My FIL would not really speak to him after that.







: Or they said a neighbor told them- "we are looking at quality not quantity in our family". Funny, they have an adult child in jail.

When my SIL and brother were expecting my niece after dd1 was born, I was estatic because- 2 cousins the same age!! I never had that, let alone a girl cousin. We were at my parents' house and the neighbor said to my SIL who was showing- Why are you having another one?? I almost lost my lunch on her saying such a horrible thing.

Also, when another SIL got prgnt after her first 2 were in school, her older sister didnt understand why she would do that after getting the 1st 2 into school. I think it was said in a pp, but my MIL pointed out then sometimes we only see things with our own situations in mind and not thinking that others may live their life different or choose a different path.


----------



## Mimi (Oct 8, 2008)

my grandmother kindly suggested to me that it is now time to stop having babies ( i have two ) , because i "don't need to populate england" . so there. i'll definitely have two more, though.


----------



## Nate'sMama (Jul 21, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Learning_Mum* 
I'm in the process of trying to sort out how I feel about this.

Logically two is good for us. It means that we don't need a bigger car or bigger house. There's one parent per child. One knee for each child. One hand for each child.

In my heart though I think I want more. Say three or four. I come from four and that seems normal to me.

I just worry about getting older, and wishing for more kids, but not having the option anymore. Financially I really don't think we could afford another child at this point in our life, but I'm scared that when we can it will just be too late.

What do you follow? Your heart or your brain?

I don't know but when you find out please let me know. I feel the same way!!


----------



## hollyvangogh (Feb 12, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jmmom* 
Actually, 2 per couple is less than zero growth - it will result in an overall pop decline, which causes lots of problems for things like social security, etc. Europe is in this predicament, and it's weird - it's the first time in history that a population has chosen not to replace itself.









:

I'm one of two (not including step-siblings who lived with their mom, not with us). DH is 7 of 8. I want a large family. That, admittedly, has a lot to do with religious beliefs (I'm LDS). But I also just want to have a large family. I always wanted more siblings growing up. I envy the relationship DH had with some of his siblings. And being a mom is what I've wanted to do since I was 15. I _personally_ have no desire to be anything other than a SAHM and homemaker.

I think some families have two because that's what youre "supposed to do." What I mean is that you're "supposed" to have kids and I think some (though not many) people choose to have kids as a status symbol but don't *really* want them so why would they ever choose to have more than 2, kwim? And I think some people haven't learned how to *appreciate* children. Our society seems to be getting more and more intolerant of children (can't tell you how many times I've seen conversations about how awful it is to be a on a flight with babies/children and how they shouldn't be *allowed* to fly). I think that hinders some people from learning to have fun with kids. Kids become a chore. And when that's how you think of children then you want to limit how many you're responsible for.

However, I'm not saying that all families are like that, or even that most are. But I do believe it's a factor for some.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

I'm the oldest of five - I have two brothers and two sisters.

Dh has one sister, younger than him.

One child has become the norm among our friends; although we're seeing a trend like us, having one and then having another years later.

We have two girls ourselves, ages almost six and almost one.

I will be having one more baby at some point in the next five years.

Dh and I are separating/divorcing/co-habiting as friends. It's a weird situation, but he may end up being the father of the next baby as well. If not, I'm totally going to do AI.

Three kids has always been in my heart. If I had someone to support me as a SAHM (financially and emotionally) I would love to have five kids like my parents.


----------



## mysticmomma (Feb 8, 2005)

This is an appropriately timed thread for me. We decided to take a break from baby having so I can finish some school work and both our parents said they were so glad we weren't going to have any more and that they were sleeping better. I didn't bother to tell them that we actually feel like five or more is the number for us, that it was a temporary hiatus.


----------



## Norasmomma (Feb 26, 2008)

It's not the norm in my DH's family ALL his brothers and sisters(except for 1 with no family) have at least 4 kids. He's one of 7 himself.

We'd be the oddballs if we had 2, and right now we only have 1.

Also where I live many families have 2 or more, there are tons of families I know with 3 or 4 kids. I guess it's the mountain air or something because there are a lot of families with more than 2







.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

DH and I like amusement parks. With our family of four, the two kids can ride together, or each parent can ride with one child. With three kids, the logistics would be more difficult.
We don't have children that are old enough to go to a big amusement park like Six Flags yet, but we've taken them to Dutch Wonderland every year and it hasn't been a problem.

Quote:

I just worry about getting older, and wishing for more kids, but not having the option anymore.
My dad had this happen. Years after they had my little brother, he told my mom they should have had more kids, but it was too late.


----------



## kijip (Jun 29, 2005)

Regardless of what is the norm, people should not be chiming in their 2 cents on the size of your family!

That said here are are some cultural forces that have reduced family size over time:

-Later marriage
-Shift from rural to urban life (going from farmhouses with ready access to food to small urban houses with need to buy all food at store for one, for two people don't need large families in urban areas like they needed them a century ago to help on the farm).
-Birth control. When it becomes available, women will statistically choose fewer pregnancies.
-Expectation (incorrect, IMO) that "good" parents will pay for enrichment and then also vastly expensive college educations.
-2 income families have become most typical. Childcare is expensive. Most people don't have to do the math to realize they can't afford 4 or more childcare bills.
-Lower rate of infant and child mortality has a psychological impact I think. People used to have large families in part because they simply could not take for granted that all or even most would live to adulthood. Maybe that is not a conscious reason for having a large family in the 19th century, but I think it was there in the background of the mind.

My grandmother thinks that families became smaller (closer to 3 kids than 8) after the Depression because people internalized a fear about not being able to feed all their children. And then all those post war homes went up with tiny rooms and small # of bedrooms. I think there is something to that, and subsequent generations made fewer children the norm due to a host of pressure listed by PP and above in my post.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

I am one of nine...I have six kids.....two of my sister's have one child, one of my sister's has two....two brother's have two kids, one brother has nine kids, and my other two brother's aren't old enough for kids as of yet.

I figure it is all about what is right for your family. I see no point in anyone other than you and your partner to be involved in deciding what works for your home.


----------



## Undercover Mama (Oct 14, 2008)

I have four children and one on the way. And I love my life. This is what I chose. They are ages 8 and younger. I have always been able to be a SAHM and I homeschool them. Does it get difficult? Of course.

Are we wealthy? Not even close. We practice frugal living, but don't feel deprived. Most of the clothes are free hand me downs, but you wouldn't think it if you saw them. I don't think kids "need" a lot of toys and junk to be happy.

We have never been on welfare.

On our yearly trip to Disney World, I smile as we find our seats on the jet for that cross country flight. The faces of the people around us are priceless, but I get compliments almost without fail about how well they did.

We value our time together and try not to over-schedule. Because we get our school work done much faster at home, we are able to fit in the extras without being consumed. My kids are currently in dance, horseback riding, karate and violin. We read together daily and play games, take walks, and spend a lot of time working together in our garden and orchard and taking care of animals.

Did it always make sense to have another? No, I think if I waited until it was logical, I wouldn't have had one yet. We do our best and trust that it will work out. Each one adds so much to our family.

Use logic to plan, but also listen to your heart!


----------



## guest9921 (Nov 3, 2005)

I think a lot of it has to do with our society becoming more self focused and self centered.

We have two, and with 'amusement park' ideal, one of our reasonings is along those lines but a bit different. Its canoe seats. Kids need to come in sets of two, so we fill all seats and there arent any duffers.


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"I think a lot of it has to do with our society becoming more self focused and self centered."

Or it could be the opposite -- that the standard expectation level of what people should do for their kids now (in terms of time, money, effort) has gotten to be so high, that many people feel they can't have more than a couple without being selfish and depriving the their kids of their due.

In other words, in a time where kids didn't cost more than the food in their stomachs and the clothes on their backs, and their labor was actually of value to the family (either in a factory bringing home a paycheck, doing the labor at home that is now mechanized, or on a farm) having more kids might have been the more selfish act.

I know my great grandmama had the very old-fashioned idea that a large family, especially with the children very closely spaced, was evidence of an inconsiderate or uncaring husband. In other words, the man pursued his sexual pleasure while endangering the health and/or life of his wife by frequent childbearing.


----------



## mysticmomma (Feb 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *njbeachgirl* 
People have another kid for that reason?

Yes they do. My friend had a boy at 16. She wanted a girl. Had another boy at 17. Wanted a girl. Had another boy at 18. Left the abusive UAV shortly there after and got pregnant and had a girl at 20. Thinks she may try for another girl or two to even them out. She's always wanted a big family, but in the beginning, she was really sad each time she found out she was having another boy.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bscal* 
My dad (to DH) "Congrats man. But seriously, how did this happen?" DH "Well, you know, I just can't keep my hands off her!"









Holy sh*t man. I could kiss your dh! That is an awesome response.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Undercover Mama* 
I have four children and one on the way. And I love my life. This is what I chose. They are ages 8 and younger. I have always been able to be a SAHM and I homeschool them. Does it get difficult? Of course.

Are we wealthy? Not even close. We practice frugal living, but don't feel deprived. Most of the clothes are free hand me downs, but you wouldn't think it if you saw them. I don't think kids "need" a lot of toys and junk to be happy.

We have never been on welfare.

On our yearly trip to Disney World, I smile as we find our seats on the jet for that cross country flight. The faces of the people around us are priceless, but I get compliments almost without fail about how well they did.

We value our time together and try not to over-schedule. Because we get our school work done much faster at home, we are able to fit in the extras without being consumed. My kids are currently in dance, horseback riding, karate and violin. We read together daily and play games, take walks, and spend a lot of time working together in our garden and orchard and taking care of animals.

Did it always make sense to have another? No, I think if I waited until it was logical, I wouldn't have had one yet. We do our best and trust that it will work out. Each one adds so much to our family.

Use logic to plan, but also listen to your heart!

yes to all of this!


----------



## Veronika01 (Apr 16, 2007)

I haven't read all the posts here, so forgive me if I say something that's already been posted. We have 3 children and we are by no means done. Oh yeah, that shocks most people. For me it has nothing to do with what other people think, so the theory about proving our socio-economic status by having a lot of children was just shot out of the water. And growing up I didn't want any children, so this has been a huge shift in beliefs for me.

My personal belief is that people have fewer children because they have been indoctrinated to believe that the world is vastly overpopulated and we all have to do our part to curb the population explosion. Most of the European and Asian countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand is experiencing negative population growth at this time. I also believe that people have been raised to be more selfish and self involved and also with the idea that good parenting is about how much you give to your kids. These days you aren't a good parent if your children don't come with a pre-paid college education and every material posession under the sun. Parents aren't successful if they don't live in a big house and drive expensive cars. Therefore there isn't enough money to take care of more than two kids. Large families are often slapped with a label of not being smart, educated or sophisticated enough. People just can't get past the idea of what society designates as acceptable, so there has to be something wrong with those who don't follow suit.

What is lost is not only large, loving families, but children who are independent and has a purpose in life. Instead of working for what they want, there is suddenly a huge sense of entitlement about what I deserve from my parents. My one friend once told me that her parents gave life to her so it was their responsibility to make sure that she could go to University. I wholeheartedly disagree. Her parents gave her life and their responsiblity was to make sure she was fed, clothed, well taken care of and loved. Anything else was a bonus.


----------



## Alyantavid (Sep 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Veronika01* 
I haven't read all the posts here, so forgive me if I say something that's already been posted. We have 3 children and we are by no means done. Oh yeah, that shocks most people. For me it has nothing to do with what other people think, so the theory about proving our socio-economic status by having a lot of children was just shot out of the water. And growing up I didn't want any children, so this has been a huge shift in beliefs for me.

My personal belief is that people have fewer children because they have been indoctrinated to believe that the world is vastly overpopulated and we all have to do our part to curb the population explosion. Most of the European and Asian countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand is experiencing negative population growth at this time. I also believe that people have been raised to be more selfish and self involved and also with the idea that good parenting is about how much you give to your kids. These days you aren't a good parent if your children don't come with a pre-paid college education and every material posession under the sun. Parents aren't successful if they don't live in a big house and drive expensive cars. Therefore there isn't enough money to take care of more than two kids. Large families are often slapped with a label of not being smart, educated or sophisticated enough. People just can't get past the idea of what society designates as acceptable, so there has to be something wrong with those who don't follow suit.

What is lost is not only large, loving families, but children who are independent and has a purpose in life. Instead of working for what they want, there is suddenly a huge sense of entitlement about what I deserve from my parents. My one friend once told me that her parents gave life to her so it was their responsibility to make sure that she could go to University. I wholeheartedly disagree. Her parents gave her life and their responsiblity was to make sure she was fed, clothed, well taken care of and loved. Anything else was a bonus.

Ok well in my case of 2 kids, its because thats what we feel we can handle emotionally. We both originally wanted more, then decided we felt complete at two. Had it happened at 1 kid or 3 kids, that's how big our family would be. My kids won't have college handed to them, along with anything else they just want.

Sometimes, family size is determined by the feelings of the parents, not just the financial aspect.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

I think the advent of reliable contraception had a lot to do with it. People no longer have to have as many children as nature decides, they have a choice. For most people, the choice is to have two children.

I'm a big believer in choice, having spent much of my formative years in a country where contraception was illegal and unavailable. I saw at first hand the damage that can be done when people have to choice but to continue reproducing beyong their emotional, physical and financial capacity.


----------



## Shahbazin (Aug 3, 2006)

I think that a lot of posters are pointing out valid reasons for this norm; we're in the "waited until later" to have kids; find "a parent/hand for each" to be a good idea; & find the "affording/fitting in average car/room in house" arguments to all be applicable. We're older (40's me-50's DH), introverts that find the noise & energy of small children exhausting (although we love them dearly), have no retirement savings & are living with DH's parents - partially because we can't afford housing, partially to help take care of them in their old age (80+ yrs old). I was an only child, & DH was the youngest of 3. We knew if we had kids, we wanted at least 2, but the reality is that we just can't handle more than that. We have 2 girls, & are thrilled with them (were hoping for 2 same), & think it's great that they have a sib of the same gender.


----------



## DandeCobb (Jul 20, 2006)

and God Forbid you have the 'holy grail' of families like we do. (at least in my area) had a son, 2 years later had a daughter. people don't ask if we are having more they just assume we MUST be done.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Veronika01* 
I haven't read all the posts here, so forgive me if I say something that's already been posted. We have 3 children and we are by no means done. Oh yeah, that shocks most people. For me it has nothing to do with what other people think, so the theory about proving our socio-economic status by having a lot of children was just shot out of the water. And growing up I didn't want any children, so this has been a huge shift in beliefs for me.

My personal belief is that people have fewer children because they have been indoctrinated to believe that the world is vastly overpopulated and we all have to do our part to curb the population explosion. Most of the European and Asian countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand is experiencing negative population growth at this time. I also believe that people have been raised to be more selfish and self involved and also with the idea that good parenting is about how much you give to your kids. These days you aren't a good parent if your children don't come with a pre-paid college education and every material posession under the sun. Parents aren't successful if they don't live in a big house and drive expensive cars. Therefore there isn't enough money to take care of more than two kids. Large families are often slapped with a label of not being smart, educated or sophisticated enough. People just can't get past the idea of what society designates as acceptable, so there has to be something wrong with those who don't follow suit.

What is lost is not only large, loving families, but children who are independent and has a purpose in life. Instead of working for what they want, there is suddenly a huge sense of entitlement about what I deserve from my parents. My one friend once told me that her parents gave life to her so it was their responsibility to make sure that she could go to University. I wholeheartedly disagree. Her parents gave her life and their responsiblity was to make sure she was fed, clothed, well taken care of and loved. Anything else was a bonus.

I appreciate your perspective, and I am happy to see large families. Please, though, don't assume that children from small families have a huge sense of entitlement, or aren't independent, or don't have a purpose in life.


----------



## Toolip (Mar 7, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jmmom* 
Actually, 2 per couple is less than zero growth - it will result in an overall pop decline, which causes lots of problems for things like social security, etc. Europe is in this predicament, and it's weird - it's the first time in history that a population has chosen not to replace itself.

How is 2 per couple less than zero growth? Do you mean because some people don't have any or only one?

While it is a predicament for countries when the population goes down, I do not think that people should have kids just to keep the population growing. Government security is not a good reason to have more kids









Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I think zero population growth is a good idea as far as the environment goes, but on the other hand people should be free to have as many children as they want, and enough people never have children to balance things out in the US anyway.

There is positive population growth in the US. I agree with your point that people should be free to have as many children as they want but there are more people having more than 2 than are having less so it isn't really balanced at this point.

I think it is very interesting that some people have mentioned that people are more selfish and so having less children. I think it is just as easy to justify that people who have large families are being selfish.

I don't mean to say that people who have large families _are_ selfish, just that the same logic could be used to say they are... that might not be coming across right.

People have different numbers of kids (including zero) for all kinds of reasons. I just hope that people are only having kids because they want to.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I can't promise to be right about this, but what I'd heard is that here in the US, population growth is more about immigration than about how many babies people are having. So our population is growing, but most of that isn't because people are having more than 2 kids each.

But I heard that in college in the late 80s/early 90s so I can't promise that's still accurate.


----------



## Toolip (Mar 7, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I can't promise to be right about this, but what I'd heard is that here in the US, population growth is more about immigration than about how many babies people are having. So our population is growing, but most of that isn't because people are having more than 2 kids each.

But I heard that in college in the late 80s/early 90s so I can't promise that's still accurate.

I've heard that too but the way that I understand it is that a lot of the growth is from immigration but there is also growth from people having kids. The average number of kids per family is still 2.something. (meaning more than 2).


----------



## Kappa (Oct 15, 2007)

Toolip said:


> How is 2 per couple less than zero growth? Do you mean because some people don't have any or only one?
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> No, it leads to less than zero growth because, inevitably, a certain # of children will die before they reach adulthood and have kids themselves. So replacement isn't 2/couple, it's 2 + however many children it takes to account for the angels that don't make it + the others that don't have kids because they physically can't.


----------



## Toolip (Mar 7, 2008)

Kappa said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Toolip*
> ...


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Toolip* 
I've heard that too but the way that I understand it is that a lot of the growth is from immigration but there is also growth from people having kids. The average number of kids per family is still 2.something. (meaning more than 2).

That's why I think immigration is a good thing.


----------



## Toolip (Mar 7, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
That's why I think immigration is a good thing.

Yeah, I agree. I was wondering why European countries that are having negative population issues don't do more to encourage immigration rather than giving incentives for people to have more kids. I know that I probably don't understand all the pieces but is seems win-win to me! Kids are expensive to a government and then they could essentially hand-pick the people that come in to the country. I would love to understand more about this.


----------



## MoonJelly (Sep 10, 2004)

Even if we had zero population growth in N. America, which we don't, I don't think that necessarily justifies having more kids. There are also things like natural resources to consider.


----------



## Toolip (Mar 7, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MoonJelly* 
Even if we had zero population growth in N. America, which we don't, I don't think that necessarily justifies having more kids. There are also things like natural resources to consider.

absolutely! especially at the rate that north americans consume resources.


----------



## fechera (Dec 31, 2007)

I have very personal reasons for limiting my family to 1 child.
I grew up in a family with 4 kids. There were a lot of "alliances" and favoritism. Looking back, it seems petty, but my emotions are still pretty raw over how my parents dealt with inter-sibling issues. This is very personal, and I don't expect others to empathize with my experience, but it is just one reason I only want one child.
Also, in my area especially, families have a lot, lot, lot of children that they honestly can't afford. These are people who are already in the welfare system, but keep having children. My mother is a schoolteacher and sees it so many times. We're talking kids without food, proper attire (socks, jackets, etc.) My feeling and guess is that these families are not really "planned". I don't want to see myself in that situation, though, if true economic hardship presented itself, more children would add to that burden. I worry about feeding, clothing, and educating my child. I'm not talking about violin lessons, dance, designer jeans, ipods. This is the flavor left in my mouth about large families that has helped me make my _personal_ decision. I have no judgement to pass on anyone that responsibly plans their family size, be it 1, 2, 3, or 20.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fechera* 
I have very personal reasons for limiting my family to 1 child.
I grew up in a family with 4 kids. There were a lot of "alliances" and favoritism. Looking back, it seems petty, but my emotions are still pretty raw over how my parents dealt with inter-sibling issues. This is very personal, and I don't expect others to empathize with my experience, but it is just one reason I only want one child.

I have 3 siblings, and I my experience was very similar. A lot of rivalry, and my mother tended to play the kids off each other, do a lot of comparing, favoring, etc. There was a lot of ganging up and backstabbing, and like you, I feel that it was badly handled. There was one scapegoat, one golden girl, one boy favored for being the only boy, and one who was always babied.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
I have 3 siblings, and I my experience was very similar. A lot of rivalry, and my mother tended to play the kids off each other, do a lot of comparing, favoring, etc. There was a lot of ganging up and backstabbing, and like you, I feel that it was badly handled. There was one scapegoat, one golden girl, one boy favored for being the only boy, and one who was always babied.

I don't know if there's any addiction or other dysfunction in your family, but those roles are very typical of that kind of situation. You sound like you could have come out of al-anon. We had some of that in my family as well, but I don't know if it's about a larger family or if it's about dysfunction, which can happen in any size family. Though I don't know how a family dealing with addiction would deal out roles if there were only one child.


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DandeCobb* 
and God Forbid you have the 'holy grail' of families like we do. (at least in my area) had a son, 2 years later had a daughter. people don't ask if we are having more they just assume we MUST be done.

We have two boys and people still assume we're done. *Occasionally* someone will ask if we're going to try for a girl. And then I get to tell them that we're going to try for another boy. (I really would be happy with either sex, but the reactions are funnier this way).


----------



## smellyann82 (Feb 6, 2006)

intriguing, subbing to read later


----------



## hollyvangogh (Feb 12, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prothyraia* 
And then I get to tell them that we're going to try for another boy. (I really would be happy with either sex, but the reactions are funnier this way).









You're awesome!


----------



## Fujiko (Nov 11, 2006)

I certainly hope that most people don't automatically see large family and think poor/welfare. Especially families that don't dress "fashionably"/newest styles or drive used cars, etc.

For my family, we wear mostly second-hand clothes (and I hope to one day say that all of my clothes are second-hand) and buy used because of frugality and to be easier on the earth's resources, not because we can't afford it. We are planning to have a large-ish family (I'm hoping for four), and for the way we live, we can easily afford this. No, we won't be able to clothe everyone in 100% new clothes, or give them everything they want, or sign them up for all the activities they want. But we are used to living this way. But I can see someone with a more "mainstream" POV (we live in storybook suburbia) looking at our family someday and thinking that we had overextended ourselves.


----------



## Stackpole92 (Jun 28, 2007)

This has been a very interesting topic. I know of several families with more than two children. For the last few years, I have thought to myself, I wonder how they do it. Actually, I even remembering remarking to one of the moms about how I don't know how she does it with three children. For quite some time, I have not forgotten making that comment and worrying that she was offended by it. While I had no intent to offend, I was more making a statement about myself...thinking that I could not handle three children. My two have tested everything about me! Now that my children are almost 5 and 2.5, I can finally see where I could handle more children. It's only as I progress along my journey that I can understand how others may be handling their own. More children is not in the cards for us; however, I have always yearned for the dynamics of a larger family.


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

As the oldest of 11 kids, I wanted to put it out there that those comments don't just frustrate the parents....IMO I think they can really hurt the kids, too. I remember hearing quite a few inappropriate remarks as a young child, either ones with sexual innuendo or just plain means ones. Maybe an adult can deal with it rationally, but kids can pick up on implications and emotions and misconstrue them, KWIM?

Anyways, I've really struggled with the topic of family size. My parents encouraged me to go as far as I could go in my studies and my social/peer group assumed I was going to be the next bigshot, single, female doctor. It's taken a few years to slowly assert that I don't care about college, or med school, or a prestigious career (although I don't mind finishing grad school, I think it's important to finish what you start). I actually would like to just SAH and have kids. I like them and I enjoy being in a motherly role. And it's taken awhile to be able to say, hey! Back off, it's not a terrible travesty to enjoy pregnancy and babies and kids.... (although teens might be another story







)

SO DH and I think that we will just let things happen and see where it goes. We've decided we won't pick a number. The only thing I would like is to make sure they are a bit spaced out, at least 15 months to 2yrs apart. Will we end up with a dozen kids? Hmmm, I dunno.


----------



## Greenmama2AJ (Jan 10, 2008)

Quote:

I was wondering why European countries that are having negative population issues don't do more to encourage immigration rather than giving incentives for people to have more kids.
Although it might seem like immigration brings in an immediate workforce they do infact require a large amount of support and resources. Encouraging an established family to have another baby theoretically means that the new baby 'citizen' already has a home, family etc to support it.

I don't mind immigration though, I think the multinational and diverse ethnicities of Europe are why it seems so much more socialistic and open minded than the US.

I like your response Claddaghmom


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

IMO, the media really pushes the image of the Perfect Family being mom, dad, one boy, one girl. A third child is usually an afterthought or a mistake or an attempt to get the "right" gender. That is what I ahve noticed, at least.

Of course, we're supposed to be able to make sure we get "one of each", and something's "odd" if we don't.







I got so much unwanted sympathy when my second turned out to be another boy. And when my third was another boy, people assumed we had tried for a girl and that we were "done" since we'd failed.

I think it would be awsome to have a girl next, and then 6 or 8 more boys, just to see the jaws drop.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Quote:

Somewhere along the line, having a large family became associated with poverty
Interesting note: this was not a random happening. It was a deliberate association, spread in posters, public talks, etc by the birth control and eugenics movements. I studied the history of birth control last year (personal interest, not for school) and it was fascinating the way this was done. Many of the posters (in several different countries) were split images. A poor family with 4 or 5 children crammed into a dirty room everybody looking miserable. Then a happy family with one toddler and one baby, everybody with a big grin on their face and obviously materially well off. Another lovely one done in India was an advertisement for sterilization camps--a miserable hut set up on a truck bed with a large, poor family (real people) on display. "Avoid this. Get sterilized".


----------



## vegmamadeb (Oct 30, 2008)

My thoughts are simple, I think you should have as many as you wish, as long as you can provide for them. I only have one child right now, and I may or may not have another, it depends on when we're ready to try again, but I certainly know that it will be a choice that me and my husband make, not anyone else.


----------



## suprgrl (Sep 27, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom* 
Interesting note: this was not a random happening. It was a deliberate association, spread in posters, public talks, etc by the birth control and eugenics movements. I studied the history of birth control last year (personal interest, not for school) and it was fascinating the way this was done. Many of the posters (in several different countries) were split images. A poor family with 4 or 5 children crammed into a dirty room everybody looking miserable. Then a happy family with one toddler and one baby, everybody with a big grin on their face and obviously materially well off. Another lovely one done in India was an advertisement for sterilization camps--a miserable hut set up on a truck bed with a large, poor family (real people) on display. "Avoid this. Get sterilized".

This would be fascinating to study! Our local university used to be a women's college and I am sure has lots of great books in the library about this subject. I have found great books about many other issues surrounding motherhood, birth, breastfeeding/formula history etc.







Hopeful that I will find time to run by the library to check out lots of interesting books... and then find the time to read them between keeping my climbing obsessed toddler safe from himself!


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

bczmama;12494621
I know my great grandmama had the very old-fashioned idea that a large family said:


> My grandmother (I guess I am more up there in age LOL) was born in 1909 in rural PA. Her mother (my great grandmother) had 4 children in Poland and 2 died there and 2 died on the way here. She had 7 more live births here plus a stillborn. My grandmother saw her deliver babies, saw their life, saw her father and the way he treated everyone and said- no way! She ran away to the big city (New York) at age 15. She met my grandfather- the urban living Sicilian who was several years older. After he met her family, her mother said no way. They eloped, had fun for 14 years before having my Aunt at age 35 and my Dad at almost 40. That was it.
> 
> I think she didnt want to worry about not being able to provide for her family because of how she grew up. Who knows? If she was still alive she would be 100 next year. She was 91 as it was when she died.


----------



## Veronika01 (Apr 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Alyantavid* 
Sometimes, family size is determined by the feelings of the parents, not just the financial aspect.

Oh, I agree with you 100%! Each person should decide what they want for their families without fear of judgement. My one friend has decided that she is not emotionally capable of having another child after giving birth to her 3rd and I support her completely. My best friend decided she was done after 1 and I never once suggested to her that she had to have more, it was up to her since she is the one raising her child and any other children she might have. Then I have other friends who say they would like more children, but they can't because to them it's important that their children must have a private school education. Unfortunately it's the friends who are financially motivated who judge us harshly for choosing a bigger family.


----------



## Kappa (Oct 15, 2007)

I'm writing a paper about coerced sterilization of Black women in the US (states and particularly Puerto Rico), and whoa, if some people only knew! Entire Native tribes have been sterilized with our taxpayer dollars, 1/3 of the island women in puerto rico, pregnant women (such as "illegal" mexican immigrant women" are still being coerced into sterilization being told "get your tubes tied if you want us to deliver your babe" at county hospitals. It's a crazy world out there.

My sis is a doc, and she told me she would insist that young teenage girls get the depo shot after they delivered when she did her ob rotation. Intentions seem good, but oh what an abusive way to go about population control.


----------



## Veronika01 (Apr 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I appreciate your perspective, and I am happy to see large families. Please, though, don't assume that children from small families have a huge sense of entitlement, or aren't independent, or don't have a purpose in life.

That's not what I meant at all, sorry if it got lost in translation. I meant that people are so consumed by giving, giving and giving to their children (which can obviously happen in any family) that the children never learn to work towards anything for themselves. I myself grew up with only one sister and we never got everything we wanted. It might not have felt fair as a child, but in the long run it does teach you to have goals and reaching those goals does a heck of a lot to build self esteem. It is interesting to me that the suicide numbers among children in wealthy families are much higher than in middle class or poorer families. To me it says a lot about children who might seem to have everything, but not necessarily feeling like there is a purpose in their lives. But that's just my opinion about it. My niece is an only child and my SIL, though not well off, gives her every little thing her heart desires. I can promise you that she is not a very nice child to be around because everything always has to be about her. At the age of 8 she is still completely incapable of thinking of anyone else or sharing with anyone else. To boot she treats my SIL and MIL like her own personal slaves and gets away with it.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
I'm from a big family. My mom says that the change in the amount of work going from one kid to two is exponential. After that it's just additive. I think with greater than two, you get economies of scale.

Ooh, I love this!

Quote:

That said, for us, two are a gracious plenty.
And this as well!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe* 
Two seems natural to us. We can divide and conquer, plus we all fit in a sedan.









After we had three, DH said "now we have to switch from a man-to-man to a zone defense!"

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bscal* 
Anyhow, I've gotten comments from everyone... perfect strangers, checkout lady at the grocery store, even family and friends. My favorite comeback ever was when my dad asked...
My dad (to DH) "Congrats man. But seriously, how did this happen?"
DH "Well, you know, I just can't keep my hands off her!"

My DH is a pastor and we have four. With the last one, church members would say things like "Don't you know what causes that?" It was awkward to say the least.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DandeCobb* 
and God Forbid you have the 'holy grail' of families like we do. (at least in my area) had a son, 2 years later had a daughter. people don't ask if we are having more they just assume we MUST be done.

Yeah, we had a son and then a daughter and got a lot of "Oh, now you have the perfect family" comments. Then I had to go and screw it up by getting all knocked up again.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vegmamadeb* 
My thoughts are simple, I think you should have as many as you wish, as long as you can provide for them. I only have one child right now, and I may or may not have another, it depends on when we're ready to try again, but I certainly know that it will be a choice that me and my husband make, not anyone else.

Amen. I think that's lovely.


----------



## Veronika01 (Apr 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom* 
Interesting note: this was not a random happening. It was a deliberate association, spread in posters, public talks, etc by the birth control and eugenics movements. I studied the history of birth control last year (personal interest, not for school) and it was fascinating the way this was done. Many of the posters (in several different countries) were split images. A poor family with 4 or 5 children crammed into a dirty room everybody looking miserable. Then a happy family with one toddler and one baby, everybody with a big grin on their face and obviously materially well off. Another lovely one done in India was an advertisement for sterilization camps--a miserable hut set up on a truck bed with a large, poor family (real people) on display. "Avoid this. Get sterilized".

That is so interesting! Would you be willing to share some of the links for someone who wants to go and read up about it? Interesting too, is that most women of my mother's generation thought the logical next step was to get a hysterectomy. My own mother got one at 27, two years younger than I am now!







:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom* 
I think it would be awsome to have a girl next, and then 6 or 8 more boys, just to see the jaws drop.









Funny! My MIL is VERY worried that we'll have more children, not knowing that her son is fully on board with a bigger family. I told my dh that I'm gonna tell the next person who asks us if we're done that we're gonna keep trying for another boy. If we have a boy, I'm going to tell them that we're determined to have quads and we'll keep trying 'till we succeed! LOL

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vegmamadeb* 
My thoughts are simple, I think you should have as many as you wish, as long as you can provide for them.

Yes, yes, yes. It irks me when someone says "Who do you think are going to take care of all these kids you keep having?", when the answer is so obvious. Duh! Who's taking care of them now??


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~Megan~* 
But kids are more expensive now than they were generations ago. They "need" electronics, sports, lessons, activities, designer clothes, loads of toys, etc so more than 2 is too expensive for many families.

We all know they don't really "need" those things...most definitely kids can do without these things and there are loads of activities and things you can do to enrich children that are free and low cost.

Maybe I'm weird though because I grew up in a "wealthy" area and lived "comfortably" yet we always lived thrifty....clipped coupons, went to thrift stores/garage sales, etc....

That must be how a typical american thinks of it though...that is how my brother's family lives. Keepin' up with the Jones....though my DH has multimillionaires in the family that live in 200,000 homes and are frugal.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I don't know if there's any addiction or other dysfunction in your family, but those roles are very typical of that kind of situation. You sound like you could have come out of al-anon. We had some of that in my family as well, but I don't know if it's about a larger family or if it's about dysfunction, which can happen in any size family. Though I don't know how a family dealing with addiction would deal out roles if there were only one child.

There were no addiction problems in my family. These problems mainly manifested after my father died, leaving my mother with 4 kids 12 and under. She was a very different parent when my father was alive.

I think she just found it very difficult to parent on her own, and took out her frustrations on the kids to some extent.

I have two kids, and each of my siblings have two kids. We all are mindful that sudden tragedy can strike, and have plans, insurance, etc in place to ensure that we or our spouses would be able to cope as a single parent.


----------



## Romana (Mar 3, 2006)

We have a girl and a boy and are very happy, but know that at least two more little people are missing from our family. Dh and I can both feel the emptiness and anticipation. Our family is not complete yet.

Of course I understand that most families are complete at one or two and I see nothing odd about that. Just that, for us, we know there are more people waiting to be born to us. That sounds a bit odd but there ya go. We know that we would have a lot of disappointment and regret if we didn't have more dc.

My parents and MIL are putting a lot of pressure on us to be done. I'm in my late twenties and I see no reason to be done. None whatsoever. We love and care for our children; we make sure they have what they need and most importantly we're warm and open to them. I know there will be a lot of criticism if/when that 3rd pregnancy occurs. I'm considering not announcing it at all.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Quote:

That is so interesting! Would you be willing to share some of the links for someone who wants to go and read up about it?
Well, I was reading solid books, so I don't ahve links. The most recent book was _Fatal Misconception_, which also points out the ties between the birth control and eugenics movements (as forced/deceptive sterilization was mentioned in the thread here)

I knew a missionary doctor who would give depo to African women under false or deceptive circumstances. It's bad stuff anyway. But to take advantage of their trust and lack of education is just inexcuseable.


----------



## Masel (Apr 14, 2008)

Is two the norm or the average. Looking through my friends and family I see a lot of 1s and 3s. Hardly any twos.

For myself I don't get a lot of say in the numbers. This month it has been ten years since I used any sort of birth control. I have one adopted daughter and am leaving for an IUI in about 10 minutes. We'll see how that goes. Getting to actually choose how many children you have is so alien to me!


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

I suspect that many of the rude comments are coming from people who are insecure in their own decisions to stop at 2 kids. Hearing that somebody else is planning something different is threatening to them, makes them think 'gee, maybe I made the wrong decision" and they're not sure how to handle that.


----------



## OTMomma (Aug 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Masel* 
For myself I don't get a lot of say in the numbers. This month it has been ten years since I used any sort of birth control. I have one adopted daughter and am leaving for an IUI in about 10 minutes. We'll see how that goes. Getting to actually choose how many children you have is so alien to me!

Good Luck!!


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Masel* 
Is two the norm or the average. Looking through my friends and family I see a lot of 1s and 3s. Hardly any twos.

If you see 1s and 3s, then wouldn't the average be two?


----------



## hollyvangogh (Feb 12, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
If you see 1s and 3s, then wouldn't the average be two?









I _think_ that was her point. Two is the _average_, not the _mode_ (or "norm").


----------



## momz3 (May 1, 2006)

It annoys me, too. We are in the adoption process of our 4th (3rd was stillborn) and everyone assumes "well I guess this is it?".Even when I was pregnant with my second and wefound out we were having a girl everyone assumed "well you have your boy and girl, I guess you are done!" It may or may not be it.

Don't feel the need to justify your decisions for your family to others. It will drive you crazy.


----------



## channelofpeace (Jul 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Undercover Mama* 
I have four children and one on the way. And I love my life. This is what I chose. They are ages 8 and younger. I have always been able to be a SAHM and I homeschool them. Does it get difficult? Of course.

Are we wealthy? Not even close. We practice frugal living, but don't feel deprived. Most of the clothes are free hand me downs, but you wouldn't think it if you saw them. I don't think kids "need" a lot of toys and junk to be happy.

We have never been on welfare.

On our yearly trip to Disney World, I smile as we find our seats on the jet for that cross country flight. The faces of the people around us are priceless, but I get compliments almost without fail about how well they did.

We value our time together and try not to over-schedule. Because we get our school work done much faster at home, we are able to fit in the extras without being consumed. My kids are currently in dance, horseback riding, karate and violin. We read together daily and play games, take walks, and spend a lot of time working together in our garden and orchard and taking care of animals.

*Did it always make sense to have another? No, I think if I waited until it was logical, I wouldn't have had one yet. We do our best and trust that it will work out. Each one adds so much to our family.*

Use logic to plan, but also listen to your heart!

Thank you for saying this, it is very wise. There is rarely a "perfect" time to have a child. If I had waited until it was an ideal time, I would still be waiting and I wouldn't have the three (plus one on the way) that I have. They add so much to life, I can't imagine it without them







:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DandeCobb* 
and God Forbid you have the 'holy grail' of families like we do. (at least in my area) had a son, 2 years later had a daughter. people don't ask if we are having more they just assume we MUST be done.

Sigh, yes. Our first two were a boy and girl and people were baffled when we decided to have a third (and even more flummoxed that we are having a *gasp* fourth) They are all wildly unique, especially my boys, so I guess I don't really get the "one boy, one girl" argument.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kappa* 
I'm writing a paper about coerced sterilization of Black women in the US (states and particularly Puerto Rico), and whoa, if some people only knew! Entire Native tribes have been sterilized with our taxpayer dollars, 1/3 of the island women in puerto rico, pregnant women (such as "illegal" mexican immigrant women" are still being coerced into sterilization being told "get your tubes tied if you want us to deliver your babe" at county hospitals. It's a crazy world out there.

My sis is a doc, and she told me she would insist that young teenage girls get the depo shot after they delivered when she did her ob rotation. Intentions seem good, but oh what an abusive way to go about population control.

That is not surprising, but very sad. When I went in for my c-section with my second child, they asked _twice_ if I wanted my tubes tied. I told them to absolutely leave my tubes alone. It was a little disturbing.

I think there is this idea, at least in part, that since birth control is available, there is a duty to use it, and people that have larger families aren't doing their "duty" and are irresponsible.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Romana9+2* 
My parents and MIL are putting a lot of pressure on us to be done. I'm in my late twenties and I see no reason to be done. None whatsoever. We love and care for our children; we make sure they have what they need and most importantly we're warm and open to them. I know there will be a lot of criticism if/when that 3rd pregnancy occurs. I'm considering not announcing it at all.









Yuck. I am pregnant with my fourth and I don't really want to tell my family. Dh's family will be fine, but my Dad will probably shake his head and say, "Oh, Erin" like he did last time. We live out of state now, though, so I am considering not telling him until I have to










Quote:


Originally Posted by *momz3* 
It annoys me, too. We are in the adoption process of our 4th (3rd was stillborn) and everyone assumes "well I guess this is it?".Even when I was pregnant with my second and we found out we were having a girl everyone assumed "well you have your boy and girl, I guess you are done!" It may or may not be it.
*
Don't feel the need to justify your decisions for your family to others. It will drive you crazy.*

So true, thanks.


----------



## jennert (Oct 22, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Romana9+2* 
Of course I understand that most families are complete at one or two and I see nothing odd about that. Just that, for us, we know there are more people waiting to be born to us.

I love that thought. We have one and I'm pregnant with our second. I'm not sure how many we'll end up with but know that each will be a gift.


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Veronika01* 
That's not what I meant at all, sorry if it got lost in translation. I meant that people are so consumed by giving, giving and giving to their children (which can obviously happen in any family) that the children never learn to work towards anything for themselves. I myself grew up with only one sister and we never got everything we wanted. It might not have felt fair as a child, but in the long run it does teach you to have goals and reaching those goals does a heck of a lot to build self esteem. It is interesting to me that the suicide numbers among children in wealthy families are much higher than in middle class or poorer families. To me it says a lot about children who might seem to have everything, but not necessarily feeling like there is a purpose in their lives. But that's just my opinion about it. My niece is an only child and my SIL, though not well off, gives her every little thing her heart desires. I can promise you that she is not a very nice child to be around because everything always has to be about her. At the age of 8 she is still completely incapable of thinking of anyone else or sharing with anyone else. To boot she treats my SIL and MIL like her own personal slaves and gets away with it.

And that, to me, says more about the parenting than the family size.

I have an only. Although we have the financial resources to give her just about anything she'd want right now (she's two, so, her desires aren't very grand), we don't. On principle. We occasionally say "Yes" to buying something small that wasn't planned (nowadays, it tends to be a special piece of fruit at the grocery store), but, we much more often say "No". She takes "No" well about 80% of the time (she's a toddler, so, of course there are times she doesn't - but she doesn't get her way). Like I said, she's 28 months, and she knows (most of the time) how to share and take turns. I make a point of ensuring that she knows this. She waits her turn for the swings and the slides and her chance to play with Toy X. And if she doesn't, I step in. She says please and thank you (So cute last night - "Twick o Tweat, pease. Tank oo - Happy Ween"). She knows to put her dish in the sink, and her dirty clothes in the laundry, and to pick up her toys when she's done playing with them. If Mama's busy, and she's hungry, she knows there is food on the lower shelf of the fridge/pantry that she can help herself to.

I know kids who are "brats" from every size of family. I don't think being an only, being in an "average" family, or being in a larger family dictates that.


----------



## SweetPotato (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla* 
I suspect that many of the rude comments are coming from people who are insecure in their own decisions to stop at 2 kids. Hearing that somebody else is planning something different is threatening to them, makes them think 'gee, maybe I made the wrong decision" and they're not sure how to handle that.

This statement is just as rude as those that people on this thread are complaining about. Don't think that everyone wants to be just like you.

I will say that we will probably have only one, and that we will definitely not plan for more than two. I am a geologist/environmental scientist, and I have studied climate change (modern and geological, with associated extinction patterns, etc.) I am VERY concerned about global warming and what sort of world our children and grandchildren will live in. I would not choose to have more than two children because, given my education and the energy consumption and emmissions associated with every single individual in the United States, to have more than two would be hypocritical and irresponsible of me. I love children, I love my own child more than myself, I think that large families on tv do look like fun







but I also know that, regardless of decisions to use cloth diapers, buy local food, etc., choosing to add a whole other person to this world (with all the consumption on down the line, through their own furture households and offspring, etc.) puts an enormous strain on this planet. People can smile and say that it's their decision that only affects their family -- but the fact is that is DOES affect more than your family-- the number of people on this earth will greatly affect the quality of life for all of our children and grandchildren (and for all the other species who live here as well!)


----------



## MaterPrimaePuellae (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SweetPotato* 
I will say that we will probably have only one, and that we will definitely not plan for more than two. I am a geologist/environmental scientist, and I have studied climate change (modern and geological, with associated extinction patterns, etc.) I am VERY concerned about global warming and what sort of world our children and grandchildren will live in. I would not choose to have more than two children because, given my education and the energy consumption and emmissions associated with every single individual in the United States, to have more than two would be hypocritical and irresponsible of me. I love children, I love my own child more than myself, I think that large families on tv do look like fun







but I also know that, regardless of decisions to use cloth diapers, buy local food, etc., choosing to add a whole other person to this world (with all the consumption on down the line, through their own furture households and offspring, etc.) puts an enormous strain on this planet. People can smile and say that it's their decision that only affects their family -- but the fact is that is DOES affect more than your family-- the number of people on this earth will greatly affect the quality of life for all of our children and grandchildren.

People have been saying this since Malthus, and not always with pure motives. There are always people using scare tactics to stop people having more children. Personally, I find it mildly offensive that you would imply that being "educated" entails deciding to only have one child. Yes, I think there are huge problems with the way that we consume energy and how much we waste/take for granted in this country--- reproducing in such a way as to eventually become extinct (2 or fewer is not replacement rate) does not sound like a good solution to me. If one is having few children to compensate for "overpopulation" in the rest of the world, then, IMO, that is also not a good plan. We control how we raise our children, not how anyone else raises theirs. Our friends with 7 kids are far and away the best parents I know. I wish *more* of the world would be populated with their children.

I like Martha Sears' response: "The world needs my children." They have manychildren, and I know that at least the 3 eldest are doing a world of good. Without Robert Sears' vaccine books I don't know how I would have found a good ped, for example. Maybe your 5th child is the one who would find the best solution for energy independence? or write the next great American novel?

IMO, raising 6 morally upright children with a sense of responsibility, conservation, and a good education in ways to protect our environment in the future is _better_ than raising 1.5 children who feel entitled to a house full of their own toys, a new car when they turn 16, new cars every 3 years their whole lives, every other meal at McDonalds, etc, etc.

Not _at all_ saying this is anyone here-- I'm sure it's not-- but so many kids out there are being raised this way. I don't want my children to be all alone in the crazy world.


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MaterPrimaePuellae* 

IMO, raising 6 morally upright children with a sense of responsibility, conservation, and a good education in ways to protect our environment in the future is _better_ than raising 1.5 children who feel entitled to a house full of their own toys, a new car when they turn 16, new cars every 3 years their whole lives, every other meal at McDonalds, etc, etc.

.

And you can just as easily raise 1.5 morally upright children who don't feel entitled to a house full of their own toys, a new car when they turn 16, new cars every 3 years of their lives, and every other meal at McDonalds.

My daughter certainly is not and will not be raised that way. To imply that people who have 1 or 2 kids are raising spoiled, selfish, irresponsible children with no regard for the environment or other people is very unfair and misinformed.


----------



## SweetPotato (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MaterPrimaePuellae* 
Personally, I find it mildly offensive that you would imply that being "educated" entails deciding to only have one child.

Yes, I think there are huge problems with the way that we consume energy and how much we waste/take for granted in this country--- reproducing in such a way as to eventually become extinct (2 or fewer is not replacement rate) does not sound like a good solution to me. If one is having few children to compensate for "overpopulation" in the rest of the world, then, IMO, that is also not a good plan.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I was stating that MY personal education in the environmental field forces me to make my decisions with that in mind. If I did not have that specific education, then I might make less informed choices.

I also must clarify that enormous families in third world countires are not NEARLY as detrimental to the planet as are even small, thrifty, conscientious, and, yes, morally upright, families in the United States. Given scientific knowledge on the subject, the current rate of overpopulation, specifically in the west, is what will drive us to extinction. Limiting family size is the only thing that will keep this planet habitable for humans in the future.


----------



## USAmma (Nov 29, 2001)

Coming in really late here, but we chose to have only 2 kids for many reasons.

Emotionally and physically I know my limits. Pregnancy was not easy for me the second time around, not to mention PPD.

Financially we are not struggling but not doing great either. I want to fit them both in our car without buying a new one. I want to be able to afford plane tickets when we need to (dh's family is in India and that's about $1200 per ticket!), or all share a room at a hotel. It's just more convenient in practical terms. Any more people in our sq. footage of house would get crowded. Kids need to be clothed and fed. They need to be taken the doctor (ours more than most). So all of that together means having another would be really hard financially.

We try to not impact the earth. I know it's a hot button issue and I won't judge people for having more, but I just know we want zero growth in our family. In the past disease, death in childbirth and accidents, etc kept the population in check. I would never wish for this to be the case again in our history the way it was in the old days. Someone said we have never had the option to control family size before and it's strange. I think it's strange and terrifying to think that that 100 years ago *most* families lost at least one child, usually more, to illness, accidents, or childbirth complications. People also didn't live that long. Now we are living longer and more children are surviving to adulthood and we need to compensate by having less children.

We would probably have had only one child, but I wanted to give my children the benefit of a sibling (I did not have that and I wish I did, especially as an adult with an aging father).


----------



## MaterPrimaePuellae (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katheek77* 
And you can just as easily raise 1.5 morally upright children who don't feel entitled to a house full of their own toys, a new car when they turn 16, new cars every 3 years of their lives, and every other meal at McDonalds.

My daughter certainly is not and will not be raised that way. To imply that people who have 1 or 2 kids are raising spoiled, selfish, irresponsible children with no regard for the environment or other people is very unfair and misinformed.


I didn't mean to imply that at all-- I probably should have been more clear (though I did say at the end of my post that I didn't think people posting here probably fit into that category). My _point_ was that the problem is not the number of people but the way that people act. I'd rather populate the world with people who are going to do good/hopefully lead others to do good, too, rather than let my family die out because we don't replace ourselves on the earth. Which _is_ what will happen if we all have 2 kids or fewer.


----------



## MaterPrimaePuellae (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SweetPotato* 
I also must clarify that enormous families in third world countires are not NEARLY as detrimental to the planet as are even small, thrifty, conscientious, and, yes, morally upright, families in the United States. Given scientific knowledge on the subject, the current rate of overpopulation, specifically in the west, is what will drive us to extinction. Limiting family size is the only thing that will keep this planet habitable for humans in the future.

But I have heard exactly the opposite argument from people who are also very well educated in the field. Two kids or fewer is not even population replacement, so you must be feeling the need to compensate for overpopulation elsewhere?


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

To put it bluntly, the population is not decreasing.

The population is growing at a rapid rate. There are more people on earth today than there were yesterday, and there will be more people tomorrow than there are today.

I don't think underpopulation is an issue we need to worry about.


----------



## MaterPrimaePuellae (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katheek77* 
To put it bluntly, the population is not decreasing.

The population is growing at a rapid rate. There are more people on earth today than there were yesterday, and there will be more people tomorrow than there are today.

I don't think underpopulation is an issue we need to worry about.

Underpopulation generally, no; underpopulation in developed countries, if people keep aiming at zero (or less than zero) growth, yes.
I know this is a hotly contested topic, but there are intelligent and well-educated people on _both_ sides of this argument.


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MaterPrimaePuellae* 
Underpopulation generally, no; underpopulation in developed countries, if people keep aiming at zero (or less than zero) growth, yes.
I know this is a hotly contested topic, but there are intelligent and well-educated people on _both_ sides of this argument.


Why do we need more people in developed countries? I'm being serious. I haven't heard this before, so, I'd like to know the theories/arguments.


----------



## MaterPrimaePuellae (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katheek77* 
Why do we need more people in developed countries? I'm being serious. I haven't heard this before, so, I'd like to know the theories/arguments.

I guess I would probably phrase this more like, "Why do we need to maintain the populations of developed countries." The answer is pretty basic,and I really don't know if it will be popular here or not. Basically, it's just because I want my culture to survive. I think that is a pretty basic human desire.

I don't want to become hyperbolic or effusive, but developed countries produce art and literature and technological advances and medical advances and (if they do the right thing) stop genocide and educate their children; because the position/health/safety of women and children are FAR better in the average developed country than otherwise.

I am proud of my history and culture. I love the English language. I love Restoration and Victorian British Literature. I love Virgil and Horace and Milton and Shakespeare and Dickens and Trollope and Jane Austen. So... the idea of my culture eventually just _disappearing_ because we don't replace ourselves is very upsetting to me.

I'm becoming effusive, so... I'll stop.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

The chance of our culture disappearing anytime soon is non-existent. Even if people had only 2 kids each, it would take centuries for the population to decline much, and it would still never disappear.


----------



## MaterPrimaePuellae (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
The chance of our culture disappearing anytime soon is non-existent. Even if people had only 2 kids each, it would take centuries for the population to decline much, and it would still never disappear.









As I said, this is hotly debated and there are arguments/educated opinions on both side. IMO, it seems just as unlikely that we would starve to death anytime soon because everyone has more than two children. Malthus was saying this (mass death by starvation) was an _imminent_ threat when he wrote his treatises beginning in 1798.

I don't think anyone on either side thinks that this is going to happen _soon_. If we're talking about long-term predictions of doom, though, I don't see why mine is any less relevant or possible.


----------



## kokonutmama (Feb 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katheek77* 
Why do we need more people in developed countries? I'm being serious. I haven't heard this before, so, I'd like to know the theories/arguments.

me too.


----------



## whalemilk (Jul 11, 2008)

I seriously doubt most people are having 2 kids because of Malthus. Seriously. Doubt.

Fortunately I also seriously doubt that most people who have more than two kids are doing it because they believe they have to keep outnumbering people in other parts of the world.


----------



## lah7 (Dec 31, 2006)

Concerns over negative population growth within single, developed nations aren't really just about preserving culture. In fact, this is the first time I've heard that argument.

What is a real concern, and is already happening in some parts of Europe, is the lack of young people available to help take care of the infrastructure as well as the needs of the aging population. The same problem is being seen in China. We are seeing it in a small part in North America, and it will be getting worse. Even as a small-scale example, the fundamentals of things like Social Security are based on a pyramidal base. When SS was set up, it was with the idea that 15 young people would be paying into the system for each retiree taking out. Within the next few years (sorry, don't remember the date), those numbers will have declined to 2 paying in for each 1 pulling out. That's just a concrete example of what is happening to the social infrastructure of more developed nations as we see population replacement growth or negative population growth. Immigration could be one solution but that isn't without huge costs, both for immigrants and the receiving country.

This isn't meant to be an argument for or against a 2 child household, just an explanation of one reason some people are opposed to it.


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MaterPrimaePuellae* 
I don't want to become hyperbolic or effusive, but developed countries produce art and literature and technological advances and medical advances and (if they do the right thing) stop genocide and educate their children; because the position/health/safety of women and children are FAR better in the average developed country than otherwise.



I would argue that many of the less developed countries produce art and literature; we're just not exposed to them very often in the West.

I also believe the US is listed near the top of human rights violators in the world. Ahead of many less developed countries.


----------



## seawind (Sep 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MaterPrimaePuellae* 
Basically, it's just because I want my culture to survive. I think that is a pretty basic human desire.

This makes sense.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MaterPrimaePuellae* 
I don't want to become hyperbolic or effusive, but developed countries produce art and literature and technological advances and medical advances and (if they do the right thing) stop genocide and educate their children; because the position/health/safety of women and children are FAR better in the average developed country than otherwise.

This does not make sense. There is a wealth of art and literature to be found in the "under-developed" and "developing" countries. It just so happens that history ( and the present) is dominated by those who are powerful. There is a lot of strife and unrest in many areas of the world and tracing their past histories might show not just a little 'involvement' of currently 'developed' countries/cultures. We do need to keep that in mind.

We ought to be more concerned about decline in culture than worrying about the unlikely possibility of it disappearing altogether.


----------



## seawind (Sep 28, 2007)

SweetPotato and USAmma make some pertinent points. Humans are placing a burden on the planet's resources and impacting the environment as never before. It is a sobering thought.


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"I like Martha Sears' response: "The world needs my children." They have manychildren, and I know that at least the 3 eldest are doing a world of good. Without Robert Sears' vaccine books I don't know how I would have found a good ped, for example. Maybe your 5th child is the one who would find the best solution for energy independence? or write the next great American novel?"

And maybe that 5th child could be the next Ted Stevens (or Ted Bundy) too.

The idea that people should have more kids simply because letting any egg go unfertilized is a loss of a potential "world changer" takes us to a ridiculous place. Just think of all those geniuses we're losing by letting a bunch of 14 yos not have kids right away!


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lah7* 
Concerns over negative population growth within single, developed nations aren't really just about preserving culture. In fact, this is the first time I've heard that argument.

What is a real concern, and is already happening in some parts of Europe, is the lack of young people available to help take care of the infrastructure as well as the needs of the aging population. The same problem is being seen in China. We are seeing it in a small part in North America, and it will be getting worse. Even as a small-scale example, the fundamentals of things like Social Security are based on a pyramidal base. When SS was set up, it was with the idea that 15 young people would be paying into the system for each retiree taking out. Within the next few years (sorry, don't remember the date), those numbers will have declined to 2 paying in for each 1 pulling out. That's just a concrete example of what is happening to the social infrastructure of more developed nations as we see population replacement growth or negative population growth. Immigration could be one solution but that isn't without huge costs, both for immigrants and the receiving country.

This isn't meant to be an argument for or against a 2 child household, just an explanation of one reason some people are opposed to it.


I've heard this argument before, and I agree with it to some extent. At the same time, if our culture wasn't so consumerist, perhaps it wouldn't be as much of an issue. So, then, I suppose it goes back to sustainability and standards of living, and whether or not our culture is truly "advanced" if we can't sustain it throughout a typical life span. And this, I realize, is a far more complex issue, with a LOT of cultural issues tied up into it.

I think it has to be one or the other. If we, as a culture, lived a radically less consumerist lifestyle, then, yes, having many children would make more sense. Look at the Amish, for example. Relatively simple lives compared to most of America, usually have many children, but also have the means to support the elderly DUE TO their simple lifestyle.

I think the problem, however, is that we're not even close to living that lifestyle. If a culture/community is living in a nearly self-sufficient way, then, yes, many children makes sense.

Additionally, some of the technological advance do go hand in hand with the rapid consumption of natural resources, as well as less need for more children. Most of us in the US are no longer agricultural workers; we don't need 8 children to run the farm. Additionally, medical advances ensure more infants/children survive until adulthood, so, we don't have eight children expecting that at least four will probably die before they are adults.

I think it's kind of one of those trade-offs. Yes, technological advances are great. For real - I'm not being snarky. But, in many cases, those advances result in greater consumption of natural resources, and just aren't sustainable for a large population over a long period of time. I think except for a very few people in the US, most of us aren't living a nearly subsistence lifestyle. What's that saying? With great power comes great responsiblity? And I'm not saying that if you have six children, you're irresponsible. I'm saying, however, that, as a culture, we're not very responsible, and to say that "oh, well, we're environmentally conscious" is great, but, it doesn't come near approximating the lack of consumption in less developed countries.

Where the balance between consumption and production (of ideas, art, advances, etc) is, I don't know, but, I don't think it's occuring here in the US. Just some thoughts. And now I'm going to start dinner.


----------



## MaterPrimaePuellae (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whalemilk* 
I seriously doubt most people are having 2 kids because of Malthus. Seriously. Doubt.
.

Well, I didn't mean to suggest _that_. People certainly were very much affected by him in his time, though. My point is that "Malthusian concerns" have been around for a long time. People really like to argue that many children= bad.

I would _never_ think, "I will have three children so that my babies will outnumber third world babies." But I also think that concluding, "Other parts of the world are producing 'too many" children, so I will have fewer to lessen overall impact" is the sort of thinking that will lead to our culture dwindling and perhaps eventually even dying out. That's what I don't want. Hooray for other cultures, seriously. But I want my own to stick around, too.


----------



## MaterPrimaePuellae (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *seawind* 
This makes sense.

This does not make sense. There is a wealth of art and literature to be found in the "under-developed" and "developing" countries. It just so happens that history ( and the present) is dominated by those who are powerful. There is a lot of strife and unrest in many areas of the world and tracing their past histories might show not just a little 'involvement' of currently 'developed' countries/cultures. We do need to keep that in mind.

We ought to be more concerned about decline in culture than worrying about the unlikely possibility of it disappearing altogether.

Right, I almost didn't post this because I assumed it would go in that direction. Some seriously underdeveloped countries do produce amazingly artistic and beautiful things. I get that. Also, the Western world has done lots of bad things. I get that, too. I really should have just left this entire issue out of my post, because it is so complex and it is difficult to discuss it without seeming to be bashing other cultures, which is not at all my aim.

The argument that "the West" is failing to reproduce at replacement rates, and that this is _bad_, is an argument I have only really heard from conservatives; I'm not _at all_ trying to be snarky-- honest!-- but it doesn't surprise me that many here are not familiar with and/or do not agree with those arguments.

Eta, I totally agree with almost everything Kathee said in her last post. We could be doing so much more; we have so much available to us, yet we take it for granted and are very wasteful. I struggle with this all the time. I just do not think that the solution is having fewer children; honestly, even suggesting it is scary, because the situation re: "birth control" in China is abombinable, IMO.


----------



## MaterPrimaePuellae (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 

And maybe that 5th child could be the next Ted Stevens (or Ted Bundy) too.

The idea that people should have more kids simply because letting any egg go unfertilized is a loss of a potential "world changer" takes us to a ridiculous place. Just think of all those geniuses we're losing by letting a bunch of 14 yos not have kids right away!

You're right, this was a pretty poor argument, and it was phrased badly, too. I don't at all mean, "Have as many children as possible, maybe you'll hit the jackpot." But I *do* think that if attached, loving parents, with the means of supporting many children, produce 5 or more children who are all also loving, attached, good people who are all working to make the world a better place.... then it seems like a worthwhile tradeoff that they're consuming a bit more energy.


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"But I *do* think that if attached, loving parents, with the means of supporting many children, produce 5 or more children who are all also loving, attached, good people who are all working to make the world a better place.... then it seems like a worthwhile tradeoff that they're consuming a bit more energy."

But its impossible to tell how the in utero children of loving, attached, financially secure parents will actually turn out. Statistically they are more likely to be functional adults than the children of people who don't meet that criteria, but there is no surety of functionality, much less making the world a better place. So the energy and resources are consumed regardless.

Additionally, this thought process starts running into the more dangerous territory of who is actually making the world a better place, and who has the right to have kids.

I mean, some people would argue that the Duggers are making the world a better place (by their example of a devout lifestyle) and others think that the last thing the world needs is more religious fundamentalists.


----------



## heidirk (Oct 19, 2007)

I'm not trying to make light of this at all, but the image I have in my head is that of Monty Python dancing around singing 'Every Sperm is Sacred'.

I'm also thinking of the part in 'The Hitchhiker's Guide' and 'Men in Black' where it's suggested that the English language is considred so aweful by the rest of the universe that it's been outlawed.

A PP said that it's unlikely that our culture would disappear very quickly, if at all. But through the courses of history, cultures have disappeared at an alarming rate, and under circumstances less marked or obvious than attempting zero growth of it's population. And laying Malthus aside, though I do think there are many closet adherents of his ideas, especially in the government, I do think that there are people who regard western culture as undeserving of perpetuation, and therefore feel good about limiting it's growth. I think this is demonstrated by the increasingly callous attitudes of the medical community surrounding pregnancy and birth, and the way many women who do not appear to be 'ideal' are treated when they attempt to procreate.

I think what we're all trying to get our heads wrapped around (and please correct me if I'm wrong







) is the huge complexity of the issue of limiting family size. There are many issues wrapped up in it and many beleifs about those issues. Still, these ideas have to have a very powerful hold over us in order to counter the extremely powerful biological urge to perpetuate our own species. If we still lived in caves, the death of our culture/language/family group meant personal death, and the death of our offspriing. We are programmed to create and maintain a complex structure of ideals, and languages, and lifestyle- in short, we are designed to create and maintain a culture for our own survival. We are programmed for survival itself.


----------



## MaterPrimaePuellae (Oct 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heidirk* 

I think what we're all trying to get our heads wrapped around (and please correct me if I'm wrong







) is the huge complexity of the issue of limiting family size. There are many issues wrapped up in it and many beleifs about those issues. Still, these ideas have to have a very powerful hold over us in order to counter the extremely powerful biological urge to perpetuate our own species. If we still lived in caves, the death of our culture/language/family group meant personal death, and the death of our offspriing. We are programmed to create and maintain a complex structure of ideals, and languages, and lifestyle- in short, we are designed to create and maintain a culture for our own survival. We are programmed for survival itself.

Thanks for this very balanced view








I think you are right, it is a very complex issue and one which will certainly not be settled here. It was probably somewhat foolish of me to enter into it at all, as my own thoughts on the matter are still somewhat amorphous


----------



## seawind (Sep 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heidirk* 
A PP said that it's unlikely that our culture would disappear very quickly, if at all. But through the courses of history, cultures have disappeared at an alarming rate, and *under circumstances less marked or obvious than attempting zero growth of it's population.*

Speaking, as we are, in the context of population growth/control with regards to culture, these parallels become redundant.

Is there really an earnest attempt being made to achieve zero population growth?


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"Is there really an earnest attempt being made to achieve zero population growth?"

I think some segments of the environmental movement are certainly pushing zpg. Our government most certainly is not - neither through our immigration policy or the emphasis on abstinence versus contraception.

I think the government certainly has an interest in promoting a larger family size -- its a little hard to have an army without young men (especially with China looming as our next potential world counterweight), or support social security and so on.


----------



## heidirk (Oct 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
"Is there really an earnest attempt being made to achieve zero population growth?"

I think some segments of the environmental movement are certainly pushing zpg. Our government most certainly is not - neither through our immigration policy or the emphasis on abstinence versus contraception.

I think the government certainly has an interest in promoting a larger family size -- its a little hard to have an army without young men (especially with China looming as our next potential world counterweight), or support social security and so on.


A very interesting, and thought provoking point.







:

(we could use a 'thinker' smiley, no?)


----------



## heidirk (Oct 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MaterPrimaePuellae* 
Thanks for this very balanced view








I think you are right, it is a very complex issue and one which will certainly not be settled here. It was probably somewhat foolish of me to enter into it at all, *as my own thoughts on the matter are still somewhat amorphous*










Which is why we participate in these discussions, right?









sorry, should have multiquoted!


----------



## traceface (Feb 17, 2003)

Why only 2?

As another poster said on a different thread,

"money, time and patience simply do not grow on trees"


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Charbeau* 
My husband and I were sure we were only going to have 2 children when I was pregnant with DS last year. We always said we wanted 2 and we had a DD and then a DS and we were content. We have changed our minds. You would think that we wanted to do something really radical by having more children based on what friends and family keep saying. And the comments are always off-hand jokes, which makes them seem like they are flippant and not to be taken seriously, yet I know they are. And the kicker is that I am not even pregnant again yet! I guess they are trying to talk us out of it?

What is the deal? If you have an only child you get questions about why not give the child a sibling and if you want more than 2 people think you are crazy. Why is this? I just can't imagine making some of the rude comments to other people that I've gotten about wanting at least one more child, possibly 2 more.

Two works for us for several reasons:

- I am a good mom to each of my kids - I can give them each adequate time & attention, and when DH is available, each child can get 100% adult focused attention. If we had more than two, that's less time each child has with each of us. That's not acceptable to either of us.

- We choose to send our children to a private Montessori school; this wouldn't be possible for us with more children.

- I choose to work with my husband, both in & out of the home, at our business which we built ourselves, and this wouldn't be practical with more children.

- I had two c sections, both medically necessary, one emergency, and I am unwilling to risk another one - either for myself or for future children.

- Both of my babies came early; my son a month early. I don't want to push our luck with an even earlier delivery.

All of these were factors in our decision making for our own family.

While I can admit when I see parents of many children, I do say to myself things like, "wow" or "where do they have the patience/time/money", I've never said these out loud, and I wouldn't assume my decisions would be or should be the same as others decisions.


----------



## jeteaa (Jan 23, 2007)

.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SweetPotato* 
This statement is just as rude as those that people on this thread are complaining about. Don't think that everyone wants to be just like you.

I will say that we will probably have only one, and that we will definitely not plan for more than two. I am a geologist/environmental scientist, and I have studied climate change (modern and geological, with associated extinction patterns, etc.) I am VERY concerned about global warming and what sort of world our children and grandchildren will live in. I would not choose to have more than two children because, given my education and the energy consumption and emmissions associated with every single individual in the United States, to have more than two would be hypocritical and irresponsible of me. I love children, I love my own child more than myself, I think that large families on tv do look like fun







but I also know that, regardless of decisions to use cloth diapers, buy local food, etc., choosing to add a whole other person to this world (with all the consumption on down the line, through their own furture households and offspring, etc.) puts an enormous strain on this planet. People can smile and say that it's their decision that only affects their family -- but the fact is that is DOES affect more than your family-- the number of people on this earth will greatly affect the quality of life for all of our children and grandchildren (and for all the other species who live here as well!)


----------



## jeteaa (Jan 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MaterPrimaePuellae* 
IMO, raising 6 morally upright children with a sense of responsibility, conservation, and a good education in ways to protect our environment in the future is _better_ than raising 1.5 children who feel entitled to a house full of their own toys, a new car when they turn 16, new cars every 3 years their whole lives, every other meal at McDonalds, etc, etc.

Not _at all_ saying this is anyone here-- I'm sure it's not-- but so many kids out there are being raised this way. I don't want my children to be all alone in the crazy world.

There is NO guarantee that you dc will be that adults you raise them to be.


----------



## crayon (Aug 24, 2002)

I have not read this whole tread- but to the OP:

I want 4 kids- and I am always being told by my family that I am nuts.

Funny thing is- I took a look at our homeschool group of about 30 families and we are the only ones that have 2 kids- there is one lady that has one and the rest have 3 or more- the average is 4-5. It is like I am the odd one out with only 2 kids. People in our group would be thrilled for us if we were going to have another- now my family on the other hand would freak out at us.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Why does it even matter how many children a couple wants to have? There are always going to be those who have a large number of children, there are always going to be those that have only one or two, and there are always going to be those that have none what so ever. As for culture dying out... it's inevitable. No culture can survive indeffinatly, people having more then two children won't stop that.


----------



## soxthecatrules (Oct 20, 2008)

I would LOVE to have a 3rd!! But, it seems that all signs are pointing to stopping w/2.

Here are our reasons for stopping at 2:

The whole "they're expensive" thing is just an excuse a lot of times (not always, I do realize some truly can afford just 1 or 2). We can afford a 3rd but I guess we're just choosing not to. DH comes from a large family (6) and he watched his parents struggle the whole time they were growing up. To me it sounds like they had an awesome childhood so I'm not so sure why he's so quick to stop. Unless it was the one Christmas where he saw his mom crying in the kitchen because they really couldn't afford presents. That may be burned in his psyche.

DH is getting older. Will soon be 45. I'll be 35 in December. We just had DD in late July and DS just turned 2 and we don't have time to space them out.

We're going to try and keep our children out of the public schools. If I don't like or can't homeschool and we have a 3rd then that's where they would go. Can afford private school for 2 but not 3.

My pregnancies are not exactly complication free. My problems always start at 28 weeks. pre-eclampsia, chronic HBP, gestational diabetes, anemia-- w/both. The only way I would want to try for a 3rd would be if I could do it all naturally w/minimal interventions if any at all. My care provider said he would support me in that endevour but would be really surprised if I could beat the HBP w/o medication. Especially with HBP at what point are you pushing your luck?? This is dangerous stuff. Had a co-worker who delivered first baby at 29 weeks and the second at 25 weeks, due to severe eclampsia. Both babies survived but the one will have issues her entire life.

We're changing health plans at the beginning of the year. Right now vasectomy's and tubals are either $40 or $100 depending on where the doctor does them. After the first of the year the cost will go up to over $500.


----------



## crunchymomofmany (May 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ks Mama* 
Two works for us for several reasons:

- I am a good mom to each of my kids - I can give them each adequate time & attention, and when DH is available, each child can get 100% adult focused attention. If we had more than two, that's less time each child has with each of us. That's not acceptable to either of us.

- We choose to send our children to a private Montessori school; this wouldn't be possible for us with more children.

- I choose to work with my husband, both in & out of the home, at our business which we built ourselves, and this wouldn't be practical with more children.

- I had two c sections, both medically necessary, one emergency, and I am unwilling to risk another one - either for myself or for future children.

- Both of my babies came early; my son a month early. I don't want to push our luck with an even earlier delivery.

All of these were factors in our decision making for our own family.

While I can admit when I see parents of many children, I do say to myself things like, "wow" or "where do they have the patience/time/money", I've never said these out loud, and I wouldn't assume my decisions would be or should be the same as others decisions.

Six (almost seven) works for us several reasons:

I am a good Mom to all of my kids! I give each one of them lots of attention and focus. Fortunately, they get a lot of attention from each other too!

-I choose to homeschool all of my children. This enables them to get a high quality classical education that costs us very little. It also enables them to make lots of friends of all ages in a variety of different places (basketball, music lessons, climbing class, homeschool group, etc.)

-I choose to work with my husband at our home office. Fortunately, we are very able to do this together, work hard and include our children occasionally in a variety of tasks (our 12 year old loves to design graphics - and our 10 year old loves to go on "calls" to clients' offices and fix computers).

-I was fortunate to have six completely natural, very normal pregnancies and births.

-All of my kids were late!

I can't imagine having fewer children. I can't imagine only having two again!
I love having a big family - a chaotic house and all that goes with it! I of course, also never say this out loud to parents of "just" one or two.

Not a critique - just the other side of the coin, as it were!


----------



## veganf (Dec 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamatoakd* 
The odd thing is, the idea of four seems to be really strange to people... Having three, I can't imagine how one more will really tip the scale for us.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
So funny you should say that. My SIL and her husband have 4 boys (plus 2 older boys from his first marriage). They were constantly warning us about 4, saying it broke them, etc. #2 is hard, but then #3 doesn't seem that much more difficult, and it tricks you into #4, which breaks you.
And it is sooo true.
Even if you talk to a family like the Duggars with 17 kids, she said the hardest was when she had just 4 or 5, because they're all young still and you don't have anyone to really help you.
Financially we noticed a difference with 1 or 2, but after that it's not made a huge difference for us after birth expenses. School tuition can be a bit much though.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
I think when you get to the end of your life you are not going to regret the children you DID have but you may very well regret the ones you didn't.

Beautiful!







:


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom* 
Interesting note: this was not a random happening. It was a deliberate association, spread in posters, public talks, etc by the birth control and eugenics movements. I studied the history of birth control last year (personal interest, not for school) and it was fascinating the way this was done. Many of the posters (in several different countries) were split images. A poor family with 4 or 5 children crammed into a dirty room everybody looking miserable. Then a happy family with one toddler and one baby, everybody with a big grin on their face and obviously materially well off. Another lovely one done in India was an advertisement for sterilization camps--a miserable hut set up on a truck bed with a large, poor family (real people) on display. "Avoid this. Get sterilized".


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kappa* 
I'm writing a paper about coerced sterilization of Black women in the US (states and particularly Puerto Rico), and whoa, if some people only knew! Entire Native tribes have been sterilized with our taxpayer dollars, 1/3 of the island women in puerto rico, pregnant women (such as "illegal" mexican immigrant women" are still being coerced into sterilization being told "get your tubes tied if you want us to deliver your babe" at county hospitals. It's a crazy world out there.

My sis is a doc, and she told me she would insist that young teenage girls get the depo shot after they delivered when she did her ob rotation. Intentions seem good, but oh what an abusive way to go about population control.

I would love a copy of your paper to read


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Masel* 
Is two the norm or the average. Looking through my friends and family I see a lot of 1s and 3s. Hardly any twos.

For myself I don't get a lot of say in the numbers. This month it has been ten years since I used any sort of birth control. I have one adopted daughter and am leaving for an IUI in about 10 minutes. We'll see how that goes. Getting to actually choose how many children you have is so alien to me!


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *channelofpeace* 

I think there is this idea, at least in part, that since birth control is available, there is a duty to use it, and people that have larger families aren't doing their "duty" and are irresponsible.


I totally agree that people have this view.

I am asked often if I have ever heard of birth control.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
"Is there really an earnest attempt being made to achieve zero population growth?"

I think some segments of the environmental movement are certainly pushing zpg. Our government most certainly is not - neither through our immigration policy or the emphasis on abstinence versus contraception.

I think the government certainly has an interest in promoting a larger family size -- its a little hard to have an army without young men (especially with China looming as our next potential world counterweight), or support social security and so on.


Yes, and when you are busy trying to support a larger family financially and practically, you have less time for activism, which suits the goverment very well.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Someone want to pm me and explain how to multi link?














:


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crunchymomofmany* 
Six (almost seven) works for us several reasons:

I am a good Mom to all of my kids! I give each one of them lots of attention and focus. Fortunately, they get a lot of attention from each other too!

-I choose to homeschool all of my children. This enables them to get a high quality classical education that costs us very little. It also enables them to make lots of friends of all ages in a variety of different places (basketball, music lessons, climbing class, homeschool group, etc.)

-I choose to work with my husband at our home office. Fortunately, we are very able to do this together, work hard and include our children occasionally in a variety of tasks (our 12 year old loves to design graphics - and our 10 year old loves to go on "calls" to clients' offices and fix computers).

-I was fortunate to have six completely natural, very normal pregnancies and births.

-All of my kids were late!

I can't imagine having fewer children. I can't imagine only having two again!
I love having a big family - a chaotic house and all that goes with it! I of course, also never say this out loud to parents of "just" one or two.

Not a critique - just the other side of the coin, as it were!

Oh I hear you, and I appreciate seeing the other side.

Honestly, the complications of my pregnancies/deliveries weighed much more heavily than other things when we were considering the number of children. Deciding to have 2 was difficult. But we really really wanted to have more than one child in our family. So the desire to have a more child-centered household & future - where our children would have each other, instead of just us or their friends or extended family - outweighed the risks of a second pregnancy for us. How we wanted natural, easy births. But "you can't always get what you want..."







I've come to terms with it; its a reality for me, and I have to be practical in my decisions when it comes to my body & the safety of pregnancy for myself & future children.

And the second most heavily weighted issue... both of our patience/tolerance levels. For noise, general mayhem, you know... kid stuff. You thrive in it... I like to have my "adult" work time; and I know DH does as well - our business is very important to us. I also value my rare moments of solitude & quiet. I appreciate my children more when I have this time, and with more children, you definitely get less alone time. And homeschooling, while I see some great merits to it, was not the path I'd ever choose - knowing myself, and my husband, and our needs; while also knowing our gifted childrens' needs for contientious, attentive, child-directed education. Montessori fits our life perfectly.

For us, the decision to have two wasn't spur of the moment, and it wasn't planned ahead of time either - it just evolved. But it was definitely the right choice for us.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

I strongly recommend everyone read Mother Nature by Dr Sarah Hrdy.

It is a sociobiological study of mothering behaviors - across cultures and across species - with a deep examination of human maternal behaviors.

To sum up one of her points, females of all species, including human, have always made very calculated decisions to optimize the ability of their offspring to survive to mate/reproduce.

What is surprising for us in our current wealthy environment is that this desire to optimize for their offspring does NOT mean that ALL children were prioritized - in fact, infanticide and abortion have been used throughout history as methods for women (and most species as well) to either protect themselves to survive (when having/caring for a child would be highly risky) or protect existing children. For example, the majority of the abandoned foundlings in Europe during the 17-19th centuries were by married women who already had three or so children.

Now, this is heartless, but then so is nature, and I think it is a hallmark of a society that women are not forced to make Sophie's choice. I think our society has much farther to go, but we are further down the road than many places in this world at this moment. And I think we can all agree that we want to work for a world where women are not forced to chose between their children or themselves.

The context of our society - the cost per child by the family to raise him/her combined with the cultural, physical and economic support for families - mixed with female empowerment over her body and individual circumstances per mother and per family - determinines family size.

And when we have a world with universal access to birth control (natural and artificial), we would see for the first time ever what family size women freely choose.

The glory is that there is no "one size fits all" answer -as pp's have said, there will be a range of family sizes - but we will see a few answers that are very popular for very similar reasons.

Please note, I am not saying that all women SHOULD use birth control - but rather that all women should be given the choice and access to use birth control - including limiting intercourse - because this is the core of female empowerment.

Okay, off my soapbox.


----------



## MOMYS (Nov 5, 2008)

I guess because it is their CHOICE and that is okay! I do feel a little irked when my choice to want more children is not respected....


----------



## LoveChild421 (Sep 10, 2004)

Very interesting thread...

Before I had my sons I always said I wanted 4 kids and my family and friends who already had kids would make snide remarks or just didn't take me seriously. Now I realize why.

I feel like in this fast paced world where both parents often have to work out of financial necessity, where there is so little time to give kids the full attention they want and need, where the mom often ends up pulling much more of the load of housework and childrearing than the man, and where everything is so expensive...people who have been there and had more than 2 kids or even just 2 project their own experiences (their own feeling of being overwhelmed, stetched too thin, the feeling of "what have I gotten myself into?") onto women who say they want a large family.

I used to resent it, but now I really get it. I don't know how I would handle any more kids at this point in time. I don't have the energy, money, time, or desire to have any more. Not to say I won't want to have just one more in 5 or 10 years, but at this point, I have moved over to the side of the fence where my mom and grandma are sitting saying "4 kids? are you nuts?" Not that I would ever say that to anyone.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Cuz being pregnant was no fun! I still can't listen to certain songs, because they remind me of morning sickness. (which I had all day)

My mother claims two kids are perfect, because cars come with four doors, tables come with four chairs, moms only have two hands.... (she had other reasons, those are all I can remember)

When I would ask her for a baby brother, she would say "We only have a volkswagon, there's no place for a baby to sit". (seemed to make sense at the time)


----------



## nolansmummy (Apr 19, 2005)

Before i actually had kids, i wanted a big family(like 5-6 kids). Then i actually had one. I was shocked at the amount of work he required. How much of myself i had to give , and i knew that i could not handle 5 kids. No way. (much kudos to those of you with big families!) I knew i didn't want to just have one though, so we had one more. We are done, i am done. I am maxed out.
My body can't handle more pregnancies, my mind can't handle more babies.
We can always afford the two we have. We can all fit in a one bedroom apt. if necessary, we fit into a small car, we can pay for the things they need, even when we have no money. It makes sense to us.
Other things which have been mentioned such as amusement park rides, and no one getting ganged up on, were also thought about. Plus, i knew i wanted to work, and there is no way we could afford daycare costs for a high number of kids.

I have 2 kids because that is how many i want, not because i think its the norm, or what is expected of me. I can't believe people (not at mdc) even feel they have the right to question others on their birth choices. I don't really care or think about others family sizes except in passing, more along the lines of "wow, i wish i was that patient, or i had the funds/desire/ablity to have a big family" rather than "geez, don't they know about birth control".
One thing i can't understand is people who have more only to try for the other sex. I think this is strange, i don't understand the urge, but then again i have one of each .


----------



## Cardinal (Feb 6, 2006)

I know that there are a myriad of reasons for why people are having 2 children, (or choosing to have 2, or just saying 2 is best). However, IMO, the number one reason people are having less kids is financial. I know DH is scared to death to have more because of $$$ and many people we talk to feel the same way. The second most common reason I hear is because of the amount of work each child requires. In today's day and age, everything is FASTFASTFAST and immediate and everything is go go go. Kids slow us down, I guess? We're more selfish than ever before. So many of our childless friends say that kids would hamper their fun, their partying, and their career aspirations.


----------



## Ks Mama (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cardinal* 
We're more selfish than ever before. So many of our childless friends say that kids would hamper their fun, their partying, and their career aspirations.

Which is true. And I think it takes a very self-aware person to aknowledge that & still choose not to have a child, amidst a culture which expects people to procreate. I'm not sure its selfish.


----------



## ckmannel (Oct 16, 2008)

We've just had our first, but I am already thinking to the future. It seems like I am tired all of the time, so I can't imagine having a toddler and still doing all of the breastfeeding/late nights. With more than two, I don't know if I could handle it. Any tips?

PS-much respect to those who can handle several kids at once, now that I am a parent, I appreciate how challenging that must be.


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"I'm not sure its selfish."

Yup. In fact, I think not wanting a kid and having one anyway to satisfy your parents, your friends, your spouse or your culture is far more selfish.


----------



## WC_hapamama (Sep 19, 2005)

My MIL was pushing DH to get a vasectomy and me to get a tubal ligation after our second son was born. She was annoyed when she found out we were expecting our third, continued to harass DH to get a vasectomy after our third was born, and came completely unglued when she found out I was pregnant with my fourth. She harasses my DH MONTHLY about getting a vasectomy.

I guess she hasn't quite figured out that harassing her son to do something doesn't work, and has finally figured out NOT to harass me about it.

I'm not going to try to coerce or harass DH into getting a vasectomy. It's his body, thus not my decision.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

I see an interesting contrast here... While most people can't understand having more then two kids and people who do get strangers and family commenting, there are people in the world who comment about not wanting more then one or not wanting any at all... and of course DH and I have had people express the idea that we shouldn't have kids at all...

People need to stop trying to control other families and care about their own families.


----------



## mommaduck (Sep 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
I'm from a big family. My mom says that the change in the amount of work going from one kid to two is exponential. After that it's just additive. I think with greater than two, you get economies of scale.


This is how it has been for us







Two was the most difficult adjustment for me. After that, it is just additive.

And someone said what if the two don't get along? Well, I only grew up with one of my siblings and it was cat & dog fights all the time. My children always have someone else to go to or a sibling to stick up for them


----------



## carmel23 (Jul 21, 2006)

OP, I have experienced the weird comments when we announced that we were expecting our third child. Even family members that grew up in families with four children, stated things like "Haven't you ever heard of birth control?" (and we are Catholic, and don't believe in chemical birth control, so it was especially strange... like you are surprised that a Catholic family is having more then two kids, when we welcome and celebrate life) and the like. It was really bothersome... and confusing. Three children didn't seem that radical, until we were expecting our third!

I haven't read the entire thread, but I look forward to it... because I've wondered this as well. It seems like now in many places having more then one child is weird...







What else would we do? Buy more stuff? Read another book? spend more time on the computer? I can't see how this stuff seems more desirable then having a lovely infinite human to love... And I do think that siblings are a gift for my children, and will benefit their lives more then a new toy or whatever else we would do instead of playing with our baby.

And as far as the environment, our family of five lives in a very environmentally friendly manner. We eat vegan 95 per cent of the time, don't consume the garbage, etc. We are just pro-human







:


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"What else would we do? Buy more stuff? Read another book? spend more time on the computer? I can't see how this stuff seems more desirable then having a lovely infinite human to love... "

But love is only part of the equation. Its also a lovely infinite human to be responsible for.

Everyone has different levels of responsibility that they feel comfortable with -- some people want to be firemen or police, and others would never want to be that responsible for other people's lives and safety. Some people have other areas of significant responsibility -- caring for elderly family, or a job with lots of responsibility that limit what they feel they can additionally take on.


----------



## BellaClaudia (Aug 1, 2008)

I don't have any simple answer but I agree that there is a stereotype going on. I am on the other side of the spectrum.. I have on kid and everyone else is asking about number two without even considering that we might be fulfilled and complete.. so much preassure.
we live in funny times in that regards.

other posters had such a deep and good coments that I stop here.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cardinal* 
I know that there are a myriad of reasons for why people are having 2 children, (or choosing to have 2, or just saying 2 is best). However, IMO, the number one reason people are having less kids is financial. I know DH is scared to death to have more because of $$$ and many people we talk to feel the same way. The second most common reason I hear is because of the amount of work each child requires. In today's day and age, everything is FASTFASTFAST and immediate and everything is go go go. Kids slow us down, I guess? *We're more selfish than ever before*. So many of our childless friends say that kids would hamper their fun, their partying, and their career aspirations.

More selfish or maybe more honest? We waited for a long while to have kids after we got married because we wanted time to just be a couple, have fun, party, travel, eat out and work. Got it out of our system in time to be parents and it was worth it. I would do it again if had to do over.

And yes, $$ is a big reason for stopping at 2. We are not trying for the boy and I realized while still carrying Maggie, this was it. But we count our blessings and just love the children we have each and everyday.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

I think people have touched on a number of reasons why "2 is best", as stated*.

1.) Financial constraints
2.) Time constraints
3.) Population issues

*I phrased my post in a way to respond to the OP. I was not stating I think two is best, etc.


----------



## freespirited (Jun 14, 2005)

I love having two girls and while dh said it would have been nice to have a son, he was thrilled to see our second dd on the ultrasound and finding out he was having another baby girl. We get asked a lot if we are going to try for a boy, as if that would somehow complete us. Frankly, I find same gender families more satisfying, probably because I came from one, and all my cousins are all girls, no boys so no one had any brothers. IME, their bonds are stronger. Why do people think that one boy and one girl are so ideal, and if you have two or three of the same, someone's missing? Maybe if I had had one boy, one girl I might have wanted a third more strongly, simply because I grew up with a sister and we had so much fun doing sisterly, girly things so I part of me would want to see that same-gender bond in my own kids. I don't think it would have mattered whether the third was a boy or girl. It's strange, but most of the couples I know that are on the fence about a third have one of each. It seems those with two of the same are more likely to be content with that. I also think a lot of people refrain from more kids because of budgetary constraints. I have dd in a bilingual preschool 2x a week. I would love to have her in there 3x a week. I cannot afford it. It is very important for us that our kids be bilingual, since dh's family members don't speak English. Dd has been begging for ballet lessons. Can't afford them. It breaks my heart that I cannot give her that, so why would I bring another child into the mix and further stress our finances? I would LOVE to have a third child, boy or girl, but finances, travel, and worry about my other kids getting enough attention top my list of reasons why not to, and also on the list are more dark reasons like I am not sure how like civilization as we know it is going to be around, America is no longer the land of opportunity, what will jobs be like in 20 years with the rest of the earth to compete with instead of just your fellow citizens? I am not sure college will bear many fruits if that is the case. It will be a requirement like high school is now, perhaps, but not necessarily a big advantage. I have a BA and it hasn't helped me at all except got me into a couple temporary gigs grading ISAT tests for $12 an hour. I know it sounds really sad, but I am really glad my daughters are beauties, because things are only going to get harder in life and maybe if they cannot compete career-wise, they can marry someone who can. Gosh that goes against everything I've always stood for, but life is getting so tough in this country and globalization is ensuring it is only going to get tougher. Dh's aunt has a daughter, their only child, and she has had great success because she is beautiful. She got right into TV journalism right out of college. Life is easier for her. She has a charmed life at 22! Btw, her parents spoiled her rotten and she turned out just fine, so I don't necessarily agree with ideas about bigger families turning out more grateful, appreciative, empathetic kids. My mom was one of four - three of them being extremely selfish and my mom being the only sweet, giving one. My grandma always said she regretted having so many kids, and 4 wasn't even so big in the 40s and 50s. She claimed up until she died that it ruined her marriage. I have to admit she scared me into thinking 3 or more kids would really hurt my marriage.







:


----------



## mokey4 (Nov 3, 2008)

I wish I had read this thread yesterday!! Last night I got into a discussion with my MIL about population growth & control, and she has some very strong views on the subject.

I agreed with her in some respects. I agree that it would be better for the environment, and for general human sustainability, if people didn't have so many children. As an economist working in public policy issues I understand the problems with social security and an aging population, but I don't think that necessarily trumps the environmental havoc being wrecked on our planet.

However, I think that most people make their decisions about having kids way outside of those macro public good issues. And I don't know if we should try to change this.

When we got into a discussion of the developing countries population growth, that's when I really had to bite my tongue. My MIL thinks that if you go around and ask women in India and Africa how many children is enough they would say 3 or 4, maybe 5. And she's right, some would. In fact, in some communities most would, some would even want fewer. Some are having fewer. But she refused to believe that there are women out there who really just want to keep having babies. Who enjoy having babies, even though they don't really have any money for them. She has never lived in a developing country, she doesn't realize that for some women, babies are the happy part of a pretty bleak life. NOT ALL WOMEN. And not all women in poor communities. But yes, many women really do feel that way.

That's why population control programs often focus on economically empowering women- because when they have something else to focus on, some other part of life to feel excited about and in control of, besides babies, they might have fewer babies. Not all women. We know that because there are women on this forum who are educated and do not live in poverty and still choose to have lots of babies. So that's not all it is. But I do believe that on average, the more educated & empowered the women are, the more choices they have, the fewer children they will choose to have. Statistically speaking.

And that's why I'm in favor of programs that work toward economic empowerment. That way, the number of children women decide to have is really a choice. If you're educated and have lots of options, but still choose the option of spending a great portion of your productive years taking care of your young, then yeah, go for it. But if you're just doing it because that's all you've got.. it's not a choice, and it's not good. It's slavery.

Personally, I'm thinking I'll have two. I'm pregnant with #1 right now. But a lot about the future is uncertain. I'm 33, DH is 46, and we're moving across country without jobs. If things are really hard for us, we might just stick with the one. But I don't think so.. we both had a sibling, and we both think siblings are important. I'd consider 3, maybe.. if we were younger I'd say it's a good possibility.


----------



## MOMYS (Nov 5, 2008)

The sad thing however is that some people DO think you are uneducated and downright stupid if you choose to have a larger family. For us, we have choosen to trust God with our family planning and we are really comfortable with this.... however, I have noticed people going from having a great intelligent conversation with me to looking at me like my brain has turned into yoghurt that has gone off, when they find out that I have 6 kids and one on the way!


----------



## Toolip (Mar 7, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mokey4* 
And that's why I'm in favor of programs that work toward economic empowerment. That way, the number of children women decide to have is really a choice.

I agree! I'm so glad you brought this up









Education is the best birth control! I forget the stats but it's something like a 4th grade education drops birth rates by 80%... or something dramatic like that. AND, that's just general education, not reproductive education. I really feel like womens education is the answer to this whole debate


----------

