# Large Families



## pajamajes (Feb 1, 2008)

I didn't really know where to post this, but I hope here is alright. If I need to post this somewhere else someone please tell me and I will. Or someone can move it for me. Anyway, I have noticed that there are a lot of families on here that have more than the average 1.5 children. I have always wanted a big family. I have hated and still hate being an only child. And I love kids and I've just always wanted to be a momma. Anyway, are there any families with a bunch of kids on here. That's really interpretive I guess, but my definition would be families with 6 or more children. Everyone seems to have a strong opinion on big families, either totally for or totally against. What's your opinion? I personally would love to have 12 or so children. Also, I have noticed a lot of large families do not use birth control for religious reasons. Being agnostic, this really isn't a factor in my decision. WDYT? Let's discuss!


----------



## Jannah6 (Aug 29, 2007)

Well I only have 5, ages 10,6,5,3, and almost 6 months. I love having children and didn't decide that I was finished until my c-section Sept 07. For me I just felt like I was never through and didn't ever want to feel like that doorway was closed. I'm 33, since January. Who knows, if not fo the section I probably could have had 10


----------



## anne1140 (Apr 10, 2007)

Dh and I plan on having 4. (I know that's not big for you, but to a lot of people, it is.) We also plan on adopting 2 of those 4. Our reason is because we would like a larger family, but we also understand that there are children out there that need homes, and we are wanting to provide a family to those in need.


----------



## pajamajes (Feb 1, 2008)

Yeah, I totally agree with the PP on the adoption thing. I want to adopt some also.


----------



## saimeiyu (Aug 13, 2007)

My mom has 12 kids, 2 of which are adopted. The youngest will be 3 on the 18th. (I'm 24) I like having a bunch of brothers and sisters. My mom has always used natural family planning. in fact, I think almost all of the big families I know use NFP. There are those who call it BC and those who insist it isn't the same thing, because it doesn't screw with your body or override natural functions/consequences.
I personally think that NFP is the best way to go; half of that is for religious reasons; the other half is that it just makes sense. I don't like injecting or ingesting artificial anything, because I don't think there's been a lot of research or critical thinking put into most of it. Why would I make an exception for BC?
Also most of the big families I know practice what is called "ecological breastfeeding" as an aid to NFP, because when you breastfeed like that, then it's a natural way of stopping ovulation-- automatic baby spacing, basically. it usually works for about 14-24 months after baby's born, so it tends to space kids about 2-3 years apart with hardly any effort.
The only book I've seen about it, Natural Baby Spacing or something like that, has a lot of religious references in it in regards to why, but nevertheless, the actual science behind it is sound, and you can ignore all the "god's plan" this that and the other thing, and think of it instead as "nature's plan".

Also, one other thing that I notice is that most families with 6+ kids have a stay at home parent (mine was my dad, most of the others were either split sometimes mom sometimes dad, or moms)
Are you planning on being a SAHM?

My DH and I are planning on about 5, maybe 6 kids... Unless something catastrophic happens and the world as we know it ends, in which case, we may have as many as 10.


----------



## pajamajes (Feb 1, 2008)

I want to be a SAHM, but it's really whatever works out best for our family. Like if I have better work opportunities or a better salary, then I will work and DH will stay home. But I am selfish and want to be with my babies 24/7.







I would also like to use NFP. Pretty much anything with the word natural in it I like, lol. Drugs are chemicals, and putting chemicals into your body is always risky. Also, people say they have to take "the pill". People (well, some people) take pills when they are sick. Are you sick b/c you might get pregnant? Oh, wait that's the way your body is supposed to work! So, people take the pill so their body WON'T work correctly! Oh, that totally makes sense.







: And it also irks me how men with a vasectomy or women with their tubes tied are said to be "fixed". That irks me for two reasons. (1) It implies that a correctly functioning body is not that, but broken, with the need to be fixed. (2) Dogs and cats get "fixed". I am not a cat or a dog. I am a human being. Anyway, I rant. Sorry. Continue. I love hearing from you all.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

We have 4 and another due this month...we will have at LEAST one more beyond this. In a PERFECT world I'd just keep taking them as they come though.


----------



## mauimama5 (Apr 12, 2005)

Hello! We have six! We have 2 girls 20 months and almost 9. We have 4 boys 3,4,11,almost 15.

We have been thru some rough times but overall I feel very blessed by our choice to have this many kids.....


----------



## waldorfknitmama (Sep 16, 2007)

Oh Oh, Oh count me in!!!! Honestly, Honestly, I want to have as many kids as I can until I hit menopasue. I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE children and I LOVE my baby!! He's now 21 mo and we have been trying for #2 since he was a year. I want many mnay kids, like 15, 16? maybe even 17 or 18, I'm 22 so its plausable. Dakota brings me much joy, why wouldn't I want more joy in my life?


----------



## pajamajes (Feb 1, 2008)

Natural Momma of 1, you sound just like me. Don't you hate it when people say "Oh, you'll change your mind!" and laugh and kind of smirk. Like we're stupid. I hate that.


----------



## Down2Earth (Jan 23, 2008)

I grew up in a large family, 7 kids. I didn't have a great childhood. My brothers were abusive and my mom had mental problems and we seemed to have a single parent even before my parents divorced. It is very very hard to have that many children. You have to be completely committed and dedicated to being a good mom. You will need to live a completely selfless life for many decades. If you are ready and willing to support all your children in a healthy (physical and mental) way of life, then go for it! I'm not saying you shouldn't have a large family, just be aware of some of the drawbacks from someone who lived it and was always lost in the crowd.


----------



## aprilv (Aug 31, 2007)

i agree with the pp, the commitment of the parents really matter. i am the oldest of 5, and i really feel like our parents weren't prepared to have that many. there were many times when no one came to my school events, etc because there just weren't enough parents to go around and as you can see it still bothers me! even now, as a 29 year old, i still feel like i miss out sometimes. most of my friends' moms came to stay with them when they had their babies- not my mom. she couldn't because she had already missed several days of work due to my youngest brother being ill and didn't want to ask for more days off. that was hard for me.
at the same time, i do love having my siblings. we don't all hang out, but we get along well and all of us are very close to at least one sibling and that's a great thing. i plan to have 3 or 4 kids, but i have a very involved dh and i am very aware that i'll want to be more 'fair.'


----------



## jimblejamble (May 18, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pajamajes* 
Natural Momma of 1, you sound just like me. Don't you hate it when people say "Oh, you'll change your mind!" and laugh and kind of smirk. Like we're stupid. I hate that.

ME TOO! I don't have any kids and when I say I want 6 people tell me, "Yeah. Right. Just wait till you have ONE." Right, like I just picked that number out of a hat and gave it no real thought...


----------



## Ofwait (Feb 16, 2008)

I grew up in a family of 6, and I now have 4 of my own. There are benefits and draw backs to every size of family. I personally love four, and at the moment don't desire more, but give me another year.


----------



## sostinkinhappy (May 27, 2006)

My mom grew up as an only child and she always wanted 12 kids, which she had. There were 6 boy and 6 girls in my family growing up. It was tough as a child, but not because of my mom. She was awesome but bio-dad was...well, let's just say he went to jai for his lack of parenting skills. I love having so many siblings now that we are older too.

I would love to have a large family as well, but my body simply won't allow me to.


----------



## kriket (Nov 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anne1140* 
Dh and I plan on having 4. (I know that's not big for you, but to a lot of people, it is.) We also plan on adopting 2 of those 4. Our reason is because we would like a larger family, but we also understand that there are children out there that need homes, and we are wanting to provide a family to those in need.

WOAH! I think that there are a lot of people (especially on mothering) that have this same opinion, we are planning on ONLY having 2 and adopting the rest. I would like about 5. (who am i kidding _at least_ 5) but DH and I both fell that we cannot and will not contribute to this outrageous population explosion. Plus with all the crap that my body give me TTC #1 i will be lucky to have one bio-kid!







kudos to you anne1140!


----------



## thewaggonerfamily (Oct 13, 2003)

We qualify. We will probably adopt/foster when we can no longer have bio kids. Its like the army, the toughest job you'll ever love.







Every child makes our circle of love (and pile of laundry) larger. I thought the 2nd child was the hardest. I agree about getting "fixed" and find chemical and mechanical (IUDs) BC personally morally offensive (I'm not telling anyone else what to do...) bcause they are abortifacents. BTW google overpopulation myth. In about 50 yrs world population will probably be dropping like a stone. Suggesting overpopulation for fertility choices is rather like insisting the Earth is flat. It is based on the incorrect theory by Thomas Malthus that Food will increase mathematically while population will increase geometrically. Google Thomas Malthus or Mathusian Theory if you're bored.


----------



## mauimama5 (Apr 12, 2005)

:


----------



## Anglyn (Oct 25, 2004)

I originally wanted five. I have four and I had decided before the baby was concieved that I was done. And I meant that. Right up until about a week ago. I dont know why but I have baby lust again! Im even thinking, what the heck, maybe two more?

I agree about the population explosion myth. Fertility rates are actually falling off world wide. There was a book recently republished (original date in the fifties but his predictions have come true) about this. I also remember talking abou it in a class in college when we read "Children Of Men" which is based on already happening trends.


----------



## WeasleyMum (Feb 27, 2007)

The OP asked if there are any areas for larger families-- there is a thread in Finding Your Tribe for just about _everybody_ (moms with dreadlocks, moms with only children, big families, military mamas, women who aren't mothers yet, moms who play World of Warcraft, etc) in addition to the area-based threads.

Whatever you're looking for, there will be a thread for it in Tribe, and if there isn't, you can start one!


----------



## Mama~Love (Dec 8, 2003)

I have 6, and want as many as I can have LOL. I'm only 31 too. I have 3 boys & 3 girls in that order. I was in a family of 7 kids growing up, and LOVED it!

As far as birth control goes, I breastfeed, so I have no periods for about a year. My youngest is 14 months old, and no period yet. I hope soon though LOL. It's a GREAT spacing, I love having my kids about 2 years apart.


----------



## kriket (Nov 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thewaggonerfamily* 
BTW google overpopulation myth. In about 50 yrs world population will probably be dropping like a stone. Suggesting overpopulation for fertility choices is rather like insisting the Earth is flat. It is based on the incorrect theory by Thomas Malthus that Food will increase mathematically while population will increase geometrically. Google Thomas Malthus or Mathusian Theory if you're bored.

humm, I will do that. It's not my only reason of course. There are more then many many children that need homes, and my genetics aren't exactly stellar..
I'm not trying to start a fight (really) but you really don't think that population control of some form is needed? just debating really really not trying to start anything!


----------



## pajamajes (Feb 1, 2008)

I think full term breastfeeding is a great form of population control!







I haven't done any research on the overpopulation thing, but I don't see how families in the past before birth control had on average 6-12 kids and the earth was not overpopulated. But now that families are having 2-3 kids, we are overpopulated. Yeah, don't believe that. The problem is people not living lightly nowadays. That is why our earth is in such bad shape. It's not how many people, it's how those people live. IMO.


----------



## saimeiyu (Aug 13, 2007)

Quote:

humm, I will do that. It's not my only reason of course. There are more then many many children that need homes, and my genetics aren't exactly stellar..
I'm not trying to start a fight (really) but you really don't think that population control of some form is needed? just debating really really not trying to start anything!
I've done a fair bit of research on it, and I regularly take a look at the CIA World Factbook for the heck of it. I don't think overpopulation is a real problem In fact, the more I look into it, the more convinced I am that the overpopulation myth was started with a very specific political and socioeconomic agenda in mind. I'm fairly well convinced it was a eugenics thing-- the Birth Control Society of America, for example, was very heavily into eugenics. Some of the things they spouted would today be considered neo-nazi type white supremacism. They needed SOME rationale for convincing the men of America that we desperately needed birth control, though-- they weren't too keen on the whole feminism spin of BC.

That being said, I don't necessarily think that was the whole reason... but it does lead one to wonder.

I don't personally think that any kind of 'population controls' are either necessary or moral. Whenever I have any doubts on that score, all I have to do is look at China. I think *corporation* control and *government* control are more necessary. Most of the major problems I see are caused at least in large part by unscrupulous specimens of both varieties.

Of course, if you mean 'population control' in more of a groupthink-brainwashed mass media way...
well, no, I don't like that, either.









Also, as the PP said, full-term/ecological BFing is the best form of BC ever invented.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

We will be having a large family...God willing.

We have 4 children so far, are open to having more, do not use any birth control, and will be adopting in the future.


----------



## jmcqabigler (May 7, 2006)

I came from a family of 6 my dad a family of 10 and I loved being in a big family my mom was a sahm but was sick from when I was 1 and above but my parents still went to almost everything my sibling were a part of i was dragged to more wrestling matches and football games than I can count. But I still loved it and my family still gets together all the time although not as much with me because we are to far away







The best part is cousins for your kids even if you do not have that for your children your grandchildren will have cousins to play with every family get together. I still go to family reunion every year with my dad's family even thought my grandparents died years ago. Alas my hubby can only handle 4 kids even then he would be happy with just the 3 we have but I am not all done yet. So we compromised with 4 so my next will be my last. That is the catch you have to make sure your hubby is up to that many kids mine just can't handle all the chaos he hides half the time during family get togethers.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kriket* 
humm, I will do that. It's not my only reason of course. There are more then many many children that need homes, and my genetics aren't exactly stellar..
I'm not trying to start a fight (really) but you really don't think that population control of some form is needed? just debating really really not trying to start anything!









I don't believe in forced population control. I am, however, fully in support of breastfeeding past infancy and making formula a prescribed and controlled substance. Really, the problem we discussed in one of my enviro politics class is not too many births, but a lower death rate. More people are living longer and against the odds with artificial methods to keep people alive (something I saw a lot working in hospice and the hospital).

People are going to keep reproducing, that's a fact of life. We are animals and that is our instinct, in many ways, our purpose to perpetuate the species. Unfortunately we have gotten to the point of trying to trick nature and live beyond our means as far as resources go. I feel proud to have a large family that both respects and lives gently on the earth and I hope those values will be passed down.


----------



## berryblndgirl (Mar 21, 2008)

This is my first time posting on these boards, and I have to honestly say I am shocked by the number of people who've responded saying they believe overpopulation is a myth. I'd suggest that those who believe so check out http://www.overpopulation.org/ for starters. And I'd really like someone to explain why they think it's a myth.


----------



## saimeiyu (Aug 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *berryblndgirl* 
This is my first time posting on these boards, and I have to honestly say I am shocked by the number of people who've responded saying they believe overpopulation is a myth. I'd suggest that those who believe so check out http://www.overpopulation.org/ for starters. And I'd really like someone to explain why they think it's a myth.

Primarily, overpopulation is based on the assumption that natural resources are all basically finite-- meaning that at a certain point, humanity will outstrip its ability to grow food, and the ability to have potable water and there will be a dearth of food and water, resulting in mass starvation/death. The other assumption is that the energy requirements for all people would be impossible to meet.

That is a faulty assumption, in my view, because it's nearly always possible to grow more food-- even *without* arable land. (We do this to excess in the US. millions and billions of pounds of food go to waste.) The ways to purify and desalinate water exist, even if they are expensive. There are a myriad of ways to create/capture energy without needing to resort to nonrenewable resources like oil, coal, and natural gas. We just don't use them to anywhere near their full extent. Therefore the problem is not finite natural resources, but rather, distribution of resources. We in the US eat how many times what someone in Africa or China or the Middle east does? How much energy do we consume? And why? And how does it compare with the rest of the world?

It's true that it would be near impossible to provide every single person in the world with the ability and resources to consume the amount of energy and food that we do in the US. We shouldn't be trying to make it possible for everyone in the whole wide world to consume like the US, though. We should be trying to reduce US consumption. We should be striving for a sustainable future, for an environment that isn't poisoned, and air that won't give us cancer. That doesn't mean we need less people in the world. We need better management.

I did look at that page that you pointed out, briefly. It spouts the same party-line that the world's resources can't support more people; I disagree. We need more responsible use and distribution.

Additionally, deliberately creating a shrinking population, as that site advocates, is foolish. You would create a population which necessitates inhumane treatment of non-producing members of society-- the elderly and disabled-- because there will not be enough caretakers to give them humane treatment. Every generation would see more elderly in need of care, and less people to give them that care. Add to that the disabled, and... Yeah. Bad idea. Life expectancy is growing. People need care for longer terms of years, because medical technology is extending lives. THAT is the major reason that the population is even growing at all right now. Unfortunately, that longer life also equates more care for many, if not all. And that care has to come from human beings; it can't come from machines. Either that, or we just stop the care and they die of something preventable. Life expectancy shrinks, so does the population. Lovely thought, huh?

You ever hear of the 4-2-1 problem in China? That's one child financially and morally responsible for taking care of two aging parents, and four aging grandparents, and God forbid taking care of GREAT grandparents on top of that! It's not a good goal. It's a problem. 60 and 70 year old men and women shouldn't be required to work in a factory or at a wal-mart or McDonald's because they can't afford to stop working or they starve. Where's the humanity in that? Social security does not work with a mostly-aged population. The math just doesn't work.
That is happening, all over the nation, and all over the world. In China, they actually have to actively seek out the elderly to man factories. There aren't enough young people, and otherwise, the elderly starve because their grandchildren barely make enough to support themselves and their parents.
Sorry, but... That's not a future I would wish on ANYONE, let alone a relative.


----------



## saimeiyu (Aug 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kittywitty* 
I don't believe in forced population control. I am, however, fully in support of breastfeeding past infancy and making formula a prescribed and controlled substance. Really, the problem we discussed in one of my enviro politics class is not too many births, but a lower death rate. More people are living longer and against the odds with artificial methods to keep people alive (something I saw a lot working in hospice and the hospital).

ITA.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

When I was a teenager and a young adult, I wanted about 6 or 8 kids- but then life got in the way. I have 3 now, and a chronic health condition, and I just can't see myself having any more. I still don't know what the future will bring- I just may remarry before menopause and have another child or two or three- or these three might be it.

Obviously, I'm not worried about overpopulation or any ecological problems with large families!


----------



## berryblndgirl (Mar 21, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saimeiyu* 
Therefore the problem is not finite natural resources, but rather, distribution of resources. We in the US eat how many times what someone in Africa or China or the Middle east does? How much energy do we consume? And why? And how does it compare with the rest of the world?

I agree with this point. I think the problem is that is not realistic to think Americans will cut their consumption done to the levels of someone in the Middle East or Africa, so, to me, it doesn't make sense to produce more Americans than we already have.

I also don't believe that the goal of most people who believe overpopulation is a problem is to shrink population. I think it's more about maintaining a stable population.

As far as the 4-2-1 problem, I could see how that could be an issue, but as an only child (and grandchild) myself, I honestly don't see this as an extra burden. Granted, my mother and aunt supported my grandparents and I don't have a real relationship with my dad or his family, so I don't consider it my responsibility to take care of them, so maybe I'm getting off the hook a bit.

You do make good points, though. Thank you for explaining your point of view.


----------



## saimeiyu (Aug 13, 2007)

It's true that on their own, Americans on the whole will probably not cut down consumption-- but that's also because many can't afford alternative sources of energy-- I.E. I'd LOVE to get a solar panel for my water heater and the ceiling fans that we have running 24/7, but a basic system costs at least 5,000, and I don't have that right now. Maybe for next year's tax return we will.

The problem is actually American corporations and government, IMHO. I think we need new laws about energy production, and corporations need different incentive for switching power production modes, etc. It's a long and hard road, but I think it will eventually happen. I intend to do everything that I can to ensure that it happens no later than my children's lifetime. (Assuming, of course, the world doesn't end. )


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

I have 5 going on 6, but I'm not sure I'm the ideal mama to have had a large family. I probably shouldn't have any more... as for our reasons, I can't really say they were religious. I just love my kids, each one is so unique and amazing, and it's always irresistibly tempting to produce another. I also get pregnant VERY easily (as long as I'm not breastfeeding). 3 of my kids were conceived on the first try, after months (and in one case 2 years) of prolonged abstinence. Statistically this really goes against the odds, for this to have happened three times. 2 others were conceived after 3 or fewer tries. I'm getting pregnant as easily at age 34 as I did at age 22.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anne1140* 
Our reason is because we would like a larger family, but we also understand that there are children out there that need homes, and we are wanting to provide a family to those in need.

I would have loved to adopt instead of having all bio kids (though I looooove my bio kids!!), but DH was totally opposed...


----------



## zejh (Jan 15, 2008)

Hi! I'm also an only child, and growing up I was always begging my parents for a brother or sister--to the point of once telling my daycare teacher that my mom was pregnant with twins, including accurate details... all wishful thinking on my part.

Anyways, I'm also in the agnostic boat, and I'd love to have several children. I haven't been willing to give my fiance an exact number, though, but he doesn't seem to object to the idea of having a lot. I'll be at least 31 by the time we have just one, though, so we'll see...

Incidentally, did anybody else here read the whole Anne of Green Gables series when you were younger? (It kind of cemented the idea of having a lot of kids for me...)


----------



## pajamajes (Feb 1, 2008)

I only read one of them, but now that you mention it I should probably read the rest.


----------



## innle (Mar 16, 2007)

I would love a large family too; although I also would like to adopt at least a few. I can see myself having a family like my best friend's - her parents had two kids biologically, then about 15-20 years later they adopted two more, and now (15-20 years later) they are fostering children, and possibly adopting one.


----------



## ElkMtnsMama (Feb 26, 2008)

We only have one so far, but are looking forward to more! I came from a family of four (not big, but larger than average at the time) and would like to have at least that many. More would be great.

As far as overpopulation goes, just look at Italy and some of the other European nations that wholeheartedly bought into the "benefits" of birth control--they are not reproducing at a rate sufficient to keep up with deaths, and are seriously worried about their nations and cultures ceasing to exist.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zejh* 
Hi! I'm also an only child, and growing up I was always begging my parents for a brother or sister--to the point of once telling my daycare teacher that my mom was pregnant with twins, including accurate details... all wishful thinking on my part.

My niece does this!! It's hilarious but kinda sad at the same time.

I never read Annie but I came from a big family. And I'm pagan/pantheistic.


----------



## liz-hippymom (Jul 17, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saimeiyu* 

Additionally, deliberately creating a shrinking population, as that site advocates, is foolish. You would create a population which necessitates inhumane treatment of non-producing members of society-- the elderly and disabled-- because there will not be enough caretakers to give them humane treatment. Every generation would see more elderly in need of care, and less people to give them that care. Add to that the disabled, and... Yeah. Bad idea. Life expectancy is growing. People need care for longer terms of years, because medical technology is extending lives. THAT is the major reason that the population is even growing at all right now. Unfortunately, that longer life also equates more care for many, if not all. And that care has to come from human beings; it can't come from machines. Either that, or we just stop the care and they die of something preventable. Life expectancy shrinks, so does the population. Lovely thought, huh?

You ever hear of the 4-2-1 problem in China? That's one child financially and morally responsible for taking care of two aging parents, and four aging grandparents, and God forbid taking care of GREAT grandparents on top of that! It's not a good goal. It's a problem. 60 and 70 year old men and women shouldn't be required to work in a factory or at a wal-mart or McDonald's because they can't afford to stop working or they starve. Where's the humanity in that? Social security does not work with a mostly-aged population. The math just doesn't work.
That is happening, all over the nation, and all over the world. In China, they actually have to actively seek out the elderly to man factories. There aren't enough young people, and otherwise, the elderly starve because their grandchildren barely make enough to support themselves and their parents.
Sorry, but... That's not a future I would wish on ANYONE, let alone a relative.











well written post!


----------



## Kimmiepie (Dec 21, 2006)

We have 3 and do not plan on having anymore. However, I think that according to today's society, we have a "large" family. I'm always getting comments about that. Most people we know have no more than 2 children. BUT I did have a baby in high school that I gave up for adoption...so technically I have had 4 children.

I like the size of my family. I would have more if my body could handle it. I admire those with very large families, and I think it is natural to have lots of children....just doing what your body is made to do.

Quote:

You ever hear of the 4-2-1 problem in China? That's one child financially and morally responsible for taking care of two aging parents, and four aging grandparents, and God forbid taking care of GREAT grandparents on top of that! It's not a good goal. It's a problem. 60 and 70 year old men and women shouldn't be required to work in a factory or at a wal-mart or McDonald's because they can't afford to stop working or they starve. Where's the humanity in that? Social security does not work with a mostly-aged population. The math just doesn't work.
That is happening, all over the nation, and all over the world. In China, they actually have to actively seek out the elderly to man factories. There aren't enough young people, and otherwise, the elderly starve because their grandchildren barely make enough to support themselves and their parents.
Sorry, but... That's not a future I would wish on ANYONE, let alone a relative.
I think that having a large family is ideal for taking care of their elders, helping raise the other children etc. Unfortunately in our society we think of ourselves and cast our elders off to some nursing home. We also expect our children to have our attention all the time and never have to do any work/help with other siblings. IMO we've created a selfish society, and having large families in that society is not beneficial the way it used to be. I wish I could have lived in a time where this was not so.


----------



## saimeiyu (Aug 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kimmiepie* 

I think that having a large family is ideal for taking care of their elders, helping raise the other children etc. Unfortunately in our society we think of ourselves and cast our elders off to some nursing home. We also expect our children to have our attention all the time and never have to do any work/help with other siblings. IMO we've created a selfish society, and having large families in that society is not beneficial the way it used to be. I wish I could have lived in a time where this was not so.

In some respects I agree, but in my experience, it's still the children and grandchildren that end up footing the bill for the nursing home, especially once the retirement money's been all used up.

I suppose I also have a unique perspective on this-- my husband's father's family is shrinking rapidly. went from 7 kids to 3 kids to 4 kids total between all grandkids-- and my DH and I will be the only ones w/kids for this generation, looks like. Which means that our family will most likely be taking care of the loose ends for all the uncles and Gramma as well.


----------



## dmpmercury (Mar 31, 2008)

Quote:

It's true that on their own, Americans on the whole will probably not cut down consumption-- but that's also because many can't afford alternative sources of energy--
Renewable energy cannot meet all our needs unless we used much less energy. I don't see that happening in the US until it is neccassary. Most people are so unaware of the resources problem. Renewable energy can meet some of our needs not the way we are living now. Solar panels require a lot of manufacturing and renewable energy requires a lot of space. We can't live the way we do with just renewable energy we need to make sacrifices. We need to design cities more efficiently and stop factory farming, we need to live locally and consume a lot less.

Right now if everyone lived like the US we would need like 4 planets. So population in an industrialized nation like this is a problem while a high population in Africa isn't as big as a problem for resource use because they don't use much resources. We only have so many resources in this country because others are poor in the world. American cities are not designed for local living and to get by without cars. We have a lot to fix here.

I personally dream of a large family. I always wanted one and still do but I not sure I can justify it for myself in this country the way we are living right now. I really struggle with this. I don't believe in population control but I think it is a good thing that population in industrialized nations is stable right now and not growing at the rate it was during the baby boom days. Yes we have an problem with baby boomers aging that needs to be addressed but we also have huge resource problems coming up. Oil prices wll get higher and higher as prices peak and we are not prepared for that either. We will not always be a imperialistic nation wasting so much resources but I worry how unprepared we are for the fall and how individualistic our society developed. I don't think any one person's decision to have a large family will have a large impact because there are families that only have one or who adopt or won't have children.


----------



## katiedidbug (Dec 16, 2006)

I want at least five kids. For some reason, I've always wanted to have a large family. My mom had five kids, and was very present. She was always at all our events, etc, so we never felt neglected.
I practice NFP for religious reasons, and I hate the thought of ever thinking I'm "done" w/ having children.


----------



## so_blessed (Dec 24, 2007)

We love the idea of a large family. We don't control anything for religious reasons. We have four, with another on the way, but since I am 40+, this might be the last.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

Op - we have a monthly Moms of Many thread in Parenting Issues and it is usually easy to find on the first page of that forum.

I had two children with my first husband and now two more with my dh. We may or may not have more I don't yet know but our decision won't be based on world population size.

Our footprint on the earth is way smaller than most of our single friends and 'ordinary' size families despite our 2.3L Honda Odyssey.


----------



## robertandenith (Apr 1, 2008)

I only have 2 and preggy with our third, but I wanted to tell those that believe that with breastfeeding you may not get preggy, you guys be careful that's how my best friend got preggy herself







You may not bleed but you still ovulate!!!!


----------



## saimeiyu (Aug 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *robertandenith* 
I only have 2 and preggy with our third, but I wanted to tell those that believe that with breastfeeding you may not get preggy, you guys be careful that's how my best friend got preggy herself







You may not bleed but you still ovulate!!!!

If you do ovulate, you will bleed if the egg isn't fertilized. She probably got pg on her first fertile cycle. Only some women ovulate early (before 12-15 months) when bfing, usually when they don't follow what's called ecological bfing principles.


----------



## robertandenith (Apr 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saimeiyu* 
Only some women ovulate early (before 12-15 months) when bfing, usually when they don't follow what's called ecological bfing principles.

give me details cuz I need to know!!!! my last 2 babies where oopsies! yes my friend got preggy after 5 months of giving birth breastfeeding and all lol!!


----------



## saimeiyu (Aug 13, 2007)

Quote:

give me details cuz I need to know!!!! my last 2 babies where oopsies! yes my friend got preggy after 5 months of giving birth breastfeeding and all lol!!
OK. What you want to do is research something called the Lactation Amenorrhea Method. Also you can research what's called "ecological breastfeeding".

Basically, for the official LAM, which is at least 98% effective (which is just as effective as most modern forms of the pill):

(These can also be applied to pumping while at work, although generally a little less effective)

1. Your baby is fully or nearly fully breastfed. This means no more than 2 mouthfuls a day of juice, water, or other foods.
2. Your baby is not on a particular schedule.
3. Your baby does not go more than 4 hours between breastfeeding during the day.
4. Your baby does not go more than 6 hours between breastfeeding during the night.
(if you start official version of LAM sometime after delivery, like you find out when your baby is a few months old the principles)
5. Your monthly periods have not returned.
6. Your baby is under 6 months of age.

To extend infertility, you can additionally:
Sleep with the baby and BF at night
BF before supplemental feedings (like solids)
Don't use pacifiers-- baby's sucking needs are mostly met at the breast
Try to take a nap w/baby sometime during the day (hard, I know)
Avoid separations from baby as much as possible to enable and encourage short frequent and unscheduled nursing bouts, which increases infertility (also hard, I know).

(I personally think one of the keys is that unscheduled part. Also the part about not *ever* going longer than 6 hours w/out pumping or nursing, even at night.)

For resources on the Lactation Amenorrhea Method (first 6 months) promoted by La Leche League:
http://www.llli.org/ba/Aug93.html --statistics on the efficacy of LAM

http://www.llli.org/NB/NBSepOct06p196.html --another article about LAM and ecological BFing.

http://www.fhi.org/training/en/modules/LAM/tools.htm --LAM info page-- scroll down and find the "fact sheet" for a short overview, it's a very good one.

http://www.teachingsexualhealth.ca/media/pdf/BClam.pdf --another fact sheet

Also, try to find the book _Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing_, by Sheila Kippley. Although there's quite a lot of religious-type references in this book, and also I think a lot of working moms might not like it so much, the info in it is very good and does a very good job of explaining ecological bfing.

According to this book, as long as you follow the principles outlined, in the first 6 months, there is a basically 0% chance of getting pregnant in the first 3 months, a 1% chance in the second 3 months;
After the first 6 months, a 6% chance of getting pregnant before 1st menstruation (assuming no fertility awareness/other bc used) about 70% of moms get their first Af between 9 and 20 months PP, with the average being aprox. 14 months.


----------



## robertandenith (Apr 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saimeiyu* 
Sleep with the baby and BF at night
BF before supplemental feedings (like solids)
Don't use pacifiers-- baby's sucking needs are mostly met at the breast
(hard, I know)
Avoid separations from baby as much as possible to enable and encourage short frequent and unscheduled nursing bouts, which increases infertility (also hard, I know).

wow we do this! I guess I could do this, thank you so much for the info!

My babies don't eat solids for a whole year but I do get my period before baby reaches 6 months ugh









SORRY PAJAMAJES WE WENT TOTALLY OT HERE LOL!!!!!


----------



## lisarussell (Jan 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pajamajes* 
I didn't really know where to post this, but I hope here is alright. If I need to post this somewhere else someone please tell me and I will. Or someone can move it for me. Anyway, I have noticed that there are a lot of families on here that have more than the average 1.5 children. I have always wanted a big family. I have hated and still hate being an only child. And I love kids and I've just always wanted to be a momma. Anyway, are there any families with a bunch of kids on here. That's really interpretive I guess, but my definition would be families with 6 or more children. Everyone seems to have a strong opinion on big families, either totally for or totally against. What's your opinion? I personally would love to have 12 or so children. Also, I have noticed a lot of large families do not use birth control for religious reasons. Being agnostic, this really isn't a factor in my decision. WDYT? Let's discuss!









We have 6, we are totally not religious, we just planned on having 6 kids. Being agnostic, you might notice people using religion to explain everything from why they limit family size, to why they don't. I'm totally for big families, IMHO singletons are weird. I think not having siblings would be the loneliest, saddest sort of hell.


----------



## purple_kangaroo (Feb 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saimeiyu* 
OK. What you want to do is research something called the Lactation Amenorrhea Method. Also you can research what's called "ecological breastfeeding".

Basically, for the official LAM, which is at least 98% effective (which is just as effective as most modern forms of the pill):

(These can also be applied to pumping while at work, although generally a little less effective)

1. Your baby is fully or nearly fully breastfed. This means no more than 2 mouthfuls a day of juice, water, or other foods.
2. Your baby is not on a particular schedule.
3. Your baby does not go more than 4 hours between breastfeeding during the day.
4. Your baby does not go more than 6 hours between breastfeeding during the night.
(if you start official version of LAM sometime after delivery, like you find out when your baby is a few months old the principles)
5. Your monthly periods have not returned.
6. Your baby is under 6 months of age.

To extend infertility, you can additionally:
Sleep with the baby and BF at night
BF before supplemental feedings (like solids)
Don't use pacifiers-- baby's sucking needs are mostly met at the breast
Try to take a nap w/baby sometime during the day (hard, I know)
Avoid separations from baby as much as possible to enable and encourage short frequent and unscheduled nursing bouts, which increases infertility (also hard, I know).

(I personally think one of the keys is that unscheduled part. Also the part about not *ever* going longer than 6 hours w/out pumping or nursing, even at night.)


I must be one of the 2%, because I did all that stuff and still started my cycle within 4-8 weeks of giving birth all three times. And got pregnant on day 30 of a 28-day cycle when I had a 6-month-old.


----------



## Chic_Mama (Jun 26, 2007)

I only have my one right now but I want a large family very badly. I know it is in the Lord's hands (I do have that faith factor in my decision) but of course it is hard to wait on someone else's timing! We have been trying for almost a year and had a m/c in November. I would love to have AT LEAST 6 but hopefully more- we would like to adopt some as well. I just have to take it as it comes!


----------



## Tuesday (Mar 3, 2003)

I"m wondering if there are any age 40 moms still building a large family. Or largish family, for that matter. It may not seem large but I have 2 kids and really wanting one more and I am 40. I suppose if I go with logistics, I would stick with 2 but my heart is saying have another one. Not sure.


----------



## robertandenith (Apr 1, 2008)

I honestly wanted 4 all my life until my first was born, then I narrowed it to 2 lol! This third baby was a total oops! but I am not complaining







We love traveling so we need to think of those things and expenses, I wouldn't mind a fourth kid but then we will not be able to travel like we like to


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *purple_kangaroo* 
I must be one of the 2%, because I did all that stuff and still started my cycle within 4-8 weeks of giving birth all three times. And got pregnant on day 30 of a 28-day cycle when I had a 6-month-old.









Well, that's just genetics and hormones. I'm the SAME way..sigh. I get a short period about 5-6 weeks after birth, then they get longer and regular. And, yep, I do all the LAM stuff...nurse on demand, cosleep, etc.

In fact, #2 was conceived when my first was exclusively breastfed. So, I've been very careful NOT to get pregnant until after a year as my milk supply plummited.

And still LAM is not 100% effective. I know a LLL leader who conceived at t months post partum while exclusively breastfeeding round the clock. She actually found out that she was pregnant because she started having supply issues and nipple sensitivity. It was another leader saying...'oh, I know it's highly unlikely that you're pregnant but why not take a test just in case..."

Even more interesting was that she was pregnant with TWINS! Had them slightly premature, so they were less than 9 months apart from her first!

As for the large family thing here. I do LOVE having kiddos. But, I'm taking it one at a time. I have a feeling DH will be the limiting factor. He is an only child, and definitely knew he wanted more than one.


----------



## Full Heart (Apr 27, 2004)

I come from a big family and I have 7 kids. Hopefully in the next few mos we can ttc #8. I can't even utter those words to most people because all I get is grief. So no one but my online friends know







. We hope to get 10 but at this point that goal seems so far off. Dh is 41 so there aren't too many more years left where we would want to be having kids. He doesn't want to be raising kids into his 70s.

I really love having come from a big family...a long line of big families. My dh came from a small family from a line of small families. They are almost all gone now and that for us is just sad.

LAM never worked for me either, which is probably a good thing because like I said dh is old lol. I ebf, no pacis, no bottles, co sleep, wear my babies and none of them slept through the night before they were 2. I am one of the 1% that get pg before 6 mos, one of the ones that gets pg before 1st ppaf (not once but twice!), and I concieved all but 1 of my kids by 9 mos pp. The only other one not was because of bc. And of course this time again thanks to bc. Oh well, glad lam didn't work for us! lol


----------



## Tuwamare (May 31, 2006)

We have a large family... 8 children so far. I say so far because who knows what the future will bring? We are open to more if it is meant to be.

I'm over 40 now, and we didn't start having children until I was 27. In fact our last was conceived after my hubby had a heart valve replaced (he was born with a defective aortic valve which finally went wonky). We try to live as lightly on the earth as possible. We only have one car, which we only drive as necessary. Hubby carpools to work unless he has dr appts during the day. We use public transportation when we need to.

All I can hope for is that my children will look back on their childhoods fondly. We homeschool and do family outings like the county fair, going fishing at the nearby fishing hole, etc. We grow as many of our own veggies as possible and have even raised our own meat at times. Anything to help with the food budget!









We live in a small home and we all share bedrooms. We don't turn on the heat unless it is cold. I would love to get solar panels or wind turbines for the roof... maybe someday we'll be able to afford it.

I love my large family! I didn't start out wanting a large one... but our first was such an easy baby, we just kept adding. Sure, we can't do everything we wish we could do... we make sacrifices to have our family. We don't take vacations, we don't have more than one or two pairs of shoes each and we live frugally. The big expenditure in our house is for computers... the kids use them daily to learn and I work online so I can be home with them. But it is so worth it.


----------



## ~*Trish*~ (Oct 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisarussell* 
IMHO singletons are weird. I think not having siblings would be the loneliest, saddest sort of hell.

Hey, it's not as bad as all that! LOL, We may be weirdos, but it isn't hell.









Personally, I'm shooting for 3, possibly others.


----------



## KindRedSpirit (Mar 8, 2002)

We count.I'm on my 7th pregnancy, hoping to see a big healthy #5 for a long life...
I also came from a line of big families.Each of my parents have 6 siblings and they have 7 kids.Dh came from a 1/2 siblings and step siblings combined 12 siblings.Raised with an average of 6 of them.This is our norm.I've been 100% done twice.heehee.We also breastfeed and I am blessed with abut 16 mo. of lactational ammenoreah.







I'm pretty much along for the ride.As long as health provides, I cannot bring myself to stop.It's way too fantastic!I also would love to adopt at some point,but dh is not so sure.We'll see.A few of my cousins are adopted,and growing up,one of my best friends was in a family of 5 bio and 3 adopted handicapped siblings.I love that family!We'll see how it plays out.


----------

