# Too many kids?



## Galatea (Jun 28, 2004)

Dh's cousin has 5 kids (10 y.o., 8 y.o., 6 y.o., 3 y.o., 9 mos.) and I was talking to her dh tonight at the family christmas party and he asked me if we were done after this baby, since we are having a girl after 2 boys. I said I didn't know. He then basically told me not to have more kids b/c it is really really hard in a multitude of ways. He said that he and his wife never talk about it to others, but it is really hard. Not that he doesn't love all his kids, but if he knew then what he knows now, he would have stopped around 3. He said it is financially difficult, obviously, and that as they get older, they require even more time. He doesn't feel like the younger ones get enough attention, nor does his relationship with his wife.

Anyway, it was really interesting to hear this, b/c I have never had anyone be so honest and direct about this issue. Usually this guy doesn't talk, so it really made an impression on me. It really got me thinking - maybe he is right. I always assumed that this baby was not my last, but hearing his story may have changed my mind. I want a career, and I don't want dh to work himself to death. I have been wishing that this pregnancy would just hurry up, but maybe it is my last and I should savor every moment.

Thoughts on family size?


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

I'm one of six kids. I can't comment on my parents' relationship because I'm not my parents--certainly it seems like a good relationship from the outside. But the younger kids get plenty of attention, and are probably closer to my parents in a lot of ways than us older kids were at their age. I'm sure that's partly due to homeschooling--the younger two have been homeschooled their entire 'school' lives.

Financially difficult--yes, it was, but mainly because my parents were living on a single pastor's salary. It would have been financially difficult even with one or no kids! But _with the kind of lifestyle they chose to lead_, which involved hand-me-downs, cooking from scratch, cloth nappies and so on, it's not like each individual child was a huge extra burden. You know? If you're cooking for 5, you may as well be cooking for 6. We were all perfectly happy wearing each other's clothes and getting 70c icy poles occasionally as a great treat. I don't know if that's the kind of lifestyle you're comfortable living, but it worked for us. If my parents had been desperate to get us all new roller blades, PlayStations and designer clothes, 6 kids would indeed have been a disaster!


----------



## Imogen (Jul 25, 2006)

Ste comes from a family of seven. I've spoken to both his parents about having such a large family and from what they've said, both would have done things differently. Example, not having so many children.

I think financially, it was crippling for them. Ste said that many a night when he was a child, he would come downstairs during the early hours of the morning to find his Dad with his head buried in his hand, piece of paper and pen in the other trying to work out the finances so everyone was fed & clothed.

Peace


----------



## Elvirnon (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Galatea* 
Thoughts on family size?

It's such an individual decision; what's a wonderful family size for some might be disastrous for others. But good for your DH's cousin for being honest about his feelings; there's a lot of pressure to pretend that whatever choices you've made for your family have resulted in an absolutely perfect situation that you wouldn't ever dream of doing differently.

I think that a family's ideal size has a lot less to do with priorities - whether they like their children more, or whether they want to buy their kids a lot of expensive stuff - and more to do with what the parents can handle physically and emotionally. Some parents thrive with a bunch of children. Some are pushed to their limits with one or two. There's no shame in recognizing one's limits and staying within them in order to be the best parent possible to however many children are in the family.


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

It probably depends on all kinds of things -- finances, spacing, individual personalities, etc.

Dh was the youngest of 5 kids. As a result, he only wants the two kids we have (he is considering three for my sake, but if it was solely up to him he'd probably stop at two) kids. He felt like he was raised mainly by his older sister, and that his parents did not have enough time for each of them. He felt ignored much of the time.

However, his mother had 7 kids in 5 years. I'm sure she was doing the absolute best she could. If the spacing had been further apart, perhaps things would have been easier for everyone. Who knows..?

One of his colleagues has 5 children, and they're a very happy family. The kids are spaced further apart, and his colleague makes a fair amount of money. So they have money to pay for a mother's helper when they need it, they aren't stressing about needs, etc.

I think the number of kids becomes too many only if/when you cannot feed or clothe them adequately (like, no coat for the cold winter, or having to live off of peanut butter for days on end).


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Both dh and I come from very large families. I think your dh's cousin has some very valid points.


----------



## OakBerry (May 24, 2005)

I think it totally depends on the situation.
Coming from a family of ten, and being the second youngest, I can attest that I did not get alot of parental attention. My dad was at work all the time. My mom was 42 when I was born, with 8 children already. Then she became pregnant with her last when I was only a year old. Although I know she loved me, and was not abusive, she was harried, impatient and tired the majority of the time. My oldest sisters were teenagers when I was born, so thankfully I got a ton of attention, both physical and emotional from them.
My life was much different than all of my friends. I remember resenting the fact that I wore my older brother's hand me down clothes (my sisters were all much older.) I resented that my mother never had time or energy to spend with me.

I'm not saying this to be totally negative, there was lots of fun and love growing up, I just didn't necessarily get as much as I wanted of it from my parents. We did not have alot of material possessions, hardly ever went out as a family because of $, but we were and still are a loving family.


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

Again I think this all depends on personalities of the parents, finances, and lifestyle choices. We live frugally, cook from scratch as much as possible, I breastfeed and cloth diaper my kids. 90% of Henri's clothes are Paddy's old clothes. And we're fine with that, because Paddy is only a year older than him and the clothes are like new, only now are they showing some signs of wear. Why waste money on all new stuff? But see, others might disagree and say each child should have all new everything. We are expecting our 3rd child in June. We are very excited and we know that this is something that we can handle ( emotionally, financially, etc...) We have discussed this issue many many times, and I think that having 4 children would be the perfect family size for me-not too small, not too big, in my opinion of course. But we could have this 3rd baby and decide that's enough, or have a 4th baby in the future and decide there's room for more. I don't think it is a decision that can be made ahead of time, you know? You just don't know what your life circumstances are going to be, and I wouldn't want to limit myself because I didn't trust the future.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Galatea* 
He then basically told me not to have more kids b/c it is really really hard in a multitude of ways.

I think it's cool for people to open up and share their feelings, as to what they're learning and how their lives are going at any given time.

But it's not so cool for them to say that what's best for them is best for everyone.

Also, I don't know, kids have a way of hearing stuff, even stuff not intended for their ears. This dad basically said he regrets choosing to have #4 and #5; I know he doesn't normally talk about it and I'm sure the kids weren't in ear-shot when he said it...

Still, what if one of those kids somehow finds out that they're "regretted?"

I personally believe that no human being is a mistake. We may go through difficult spots while raising our children, regardless of how many we have. But that doesn't mean our world would be a better place if one or more of them hadn't been born.

And even in the jump from 1 to 2, there are some times when I feel inadequate and totally stretched -- but I can't imagine looking at my 2nd and saying, "If I had it to do over, I would've stopped with just 1."

I think the hard times we go through, are one of the ways we stretch and grow and learn right along with our children. If God's given you (general you) 5, or 7, or 3, or 6, and you sometimes feel inadequate to raise them, I'd challenge you to see that inadequate feeling as a message that you need to be open to being transformed, not as a message that one or more of those children was a mistake.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Still, what if one of those kids somehow finds out that they're "regretted?"

I personally believe that no human being is a mistake. We may go through difficult spots while raising our children, regardless of how many we have. But that doesn't mean our world would be a better place if one or more of them hadn't been born.

And even in the jump from 1 to 2, there are some times when I feel inadequate and totally stretched -- but I can't imagine looking at my 2nd and saying, "If I had it to do over, I would've stopped with just 1."

I think the hard times we go through, are one of the ways we stretch and grow and learn right along with our children. If God's given you (general you) 5, or 7, or 3, or 6, and you sometimes feel inadequate to raise them, I'd challenge you to see that inadequate feeling as a message that you need to be open to being transformed, not as a message that one or more of those children was a mistake.

My husband's the first of four, and he was the reason his parents got married (they no longer are) and I do think there is some truth to what you said about being regretted. I think parents need to tread very lightly. But there have been advantages to that "family secret" being out in the open too, and he has always been very loved, so.

Of the 4 kids in his family though, 3 believe that they were mistakes in some way and none of them seems to feel that they got quite "enough" growing up. I'm not sure if they'd feel that way if there'd been 2 of them, so. I just think it shows it's very individual.

Moving on to the broader topic I _personally_ believe that even if God manages everyone's family size personally (which I find hard to believe given the millions of very good people who conceive children in conditions in which they starve, worldwide), he may well do this by giving individuals insight into their personal limits, if we are open to hearing it.

So to the OP I think you got really good information and it's really good to apply it as you go along.

My husband and I originally hoped for a larger family, and then after going through years of infertility, we both kind of came to understand that while that was a perfectly viable dream for us (and we may still end up expanding our family one way or another) we also had other dreams that we ended up pursuing in the added time.

Now we're balancing that out with one child and hoping to add at least one more, but that has been its own gift and I think we learned quite a lot about ourselves and what we have to share with the world without getting focused on parenting as the only path.

So I guess what I'm saying is that a child is of course a gift; sometimes time and space is a gift too. Again, it's really individual.


----------



## Mary-Beth (Nov 20, 2001)

Three kids is our goal and our limit.

I wanted the biggest family that I could and still have time, energy, and financial resources for each of us. It's not the "right" number of kids, just the number that feels right to us. There are times I feel stretched to the limit and I have to remember to rest and recharge myself.

I think it's nice that you were able to have a really open and honest discussion about how he is currently feeling. Remember that his feelings could change and evolve with him as the children grow. The same person could look back and say there were some struggles but I'm so glad we have this size family...if I hadn't I would have regretted it.

So take his and other peoples ideas and consider it because I do think it's valuable feedback but there are people who have totally positive big family experiences too...so ultimately do what you feel most called to do for your family.


----------



## swellmomma (Jan 1, 2004)

I think it is great that he was so open and honest with you and certainly take what he said into account but don't let it determine how many children you will have. I currently have 4 children. Ihave reached my limit as a single parent. 4 I can comfortably raise, any more than that and we are in big trouble. Other than the first 2 there is also a fair amount of spaceing(4 years between #2&#3 and btw #3&#4). Now if I was to have a spouse I would certainly have more children. I have alsways seen myself with 6-8 children. Then again I have worked in daycare since I was 11, being surrounded by a group of no less than 6 children at a time seems normal to me.


----------



## offwing (Aug 17, 2006)

My DH is one of 8 and has always felt that his childhood was wanting. Attention, support and some times material things were in short supply, especially after the birth of the next youngest sibling who was special needs. With that many kids life was often chaotic and that was hard for someone with his personality to deal with.


----------



## Avani (Feb 14, 2006)

As a single mom of 5, i wish i would've stopped awhile ago. I totally adore them all but trying to give them the attention and love they all need is really hard and i find myself pulling my hair out alot. Raising them on one income is nearly impossible. It is tough for me and i pray i keep it together until the last one is out of the house ( my kids are 10,7,5,2,1) My ten year old is special needs which makes it that much harder for me. I don't have family or friends around either or even the other parent to help so i feel really,really overwhelmed constantly.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

ITA that it totally depends on the particular family. I think that it was especially common 20-40 years to have more children than you could really care for. Factor in the general idea that children's needs were less valid or real than those of the adults, the fact that mothers had virtually no help from the fathers (beyond conception, lol), there was very little planning in the spacing of babes, and far less breastfeeding, and you make for a very stressful family life.

As for this particular father, he could be going through a very rough time at the moment -- if his oldest is 10, and his youngest is 9mos, I can totally see how challenged he would feel. But his experience is not your experience, and I agree with pps who recommend that you evaluate your own life and resources, both internal and external, when deciding how many kiddos to have. 4 is our limit, but I have one friend who wants (and could totally handle) 6, and another who is pushed to the brink with 1.

Your experience of how many is too many changes over time. I once read that when determining how many kiddos you want, you should consider how many you think you can sanely raise now, and how many you would want to surround you when you're old. The example given was something like: maybe you feel that you can raise 2 now, but would like 10 when you're old and gray -- so perhaps, you should consider having 3-4. Obviously, this heuristic is limited in it's value, but I think that it points out that our perception changes dramatically over time.


----------



## 2Sweeties1Angel (Jan 30, 2006)

DH comes from a family of 5 children. He actually has 5 siblings, but the oldest was adopted by a family member at birth so he doesn't really count her, KWIM? Anyway, he wants a big family. I have a brother and that's it--I never wanted any children. We have 3 living children and 1 that died at 3 months. DH wants 1 more but I think I'm finished.

I don't like being left alone with the kids we have now because they tend to stress me out. That's why I'm the primary wage earner and DH stays home with them more often than I do. I'm afraid of paying for college, paying for school activities, even paying for basic necessities. Kids are expensive and they get more costly as they age. How well do you handle the kids you have now?


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

I am glad you brought this up. I have noticed there are many parents here with 4 or more children, big families. And I thought it was unusual but maybe not really. I think it's interesting.

DH and I have two boys and are considering whether we are done. I am soon approaching 40 and feel like I'm getting toward the end of childbearing years. The two boys are great, it's exhausting, and it works well. That said, I'm not sure I want to close the door to another child.

But 3 would be our absolute max. Just managing two is a lot of work and effort and DH and I are tired. If we had a third I would want a little space just to catch a break. I don't have baby lust, but I love the 1 year old+ age so much.

I'm sure we could manage to feed and clothe more children, but it's the extras that would get crunched - education maybe, activities, vacations... we'd probably do those things still, but the options would be different.

It's likely we will stop at two. I once talked to someone retiring who said if he would do anything in life differently, he would have had more children. That made an impression on me (but I wondered and did not get to hear if his spouse agreed! I imagine she did a lot more of the childrearing than him.)

If we only have two we will be able to give them more and have fewer worries about providing anything they need. But, the downside is that we worry that it may be lonely. I don't know how it could be that lonely we still have two great kids, but that's our fear.

ETA: I have also had a couple professionals - an eye doctor in particular -- strongly suggest stopping at 2 (he had 3). He said particularly for travel the world is built for even numbers and that it's more difficult beyond that.

We just look at my DH's brother who has 3 and they look pretty tired. The kids are cute though!!


----------



## wildmonkeys (Oct 4, 2004)

My dh is one of 5 and it was certainly too much for his parents. Based on what I have heard, his childhood makes me very sad.

We have three and though I sometimes want another, I also feel stretched sometimes and really fear creating the kind of situation he grew up in.

Anyway, don't know how many are too many, but 3 is enough for us. Not too many, but enough


----------



## Parker'smommy (Sep 12, 2002)

I don't think big families are for everyone. It's just not a one size fits all thing, ya know? I know plenty of big families and they are happy and so are the kids. A good friend of mine has 7 kids and her kids are the most well adjusted people I know. Seriously. I have seen her in action and she gives all of her kids what they need.

Bottom line, just because this person is having a hard time with his family size doesn't mean that's the case for everyone. They might have had a hard time with one child because of who they are.

Good luck!


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

As others have said, it's an individual issue for each family. I have to say that when I see other women with 4 or more kids and they look like they have it all together, I often wonder if that mother has completely lost her SELF... that part of you who makes you you. Sometimes they seem like they never get to take off the "mother" hat, if that makes sense. When you are forced to be mother 24/7 just because of the sheer size of your family, I can't imagine that it's healthy, even if it appears that she has it all together. I'm sure some women thrive in those situations, though. They appear to love having a very large family, and indeed, do, as it is their fulfillment.

I am the youngest of 4. It was made well-known to me my entire childhood that I was a HUGE accident, that my parents really regretted having me. It wasn't until I became an adult (really into my 30's) that they seemed to be able to relate to me... perhaps because they could see me as a peer almost. Amazingly, I now have a good relationship with them, and my mom even lives with us.

My parents should have stopped at one. Better yet, none. My impression of my mother is that one was too much. Wearing the "mother" hat often seemed very uncomfortable for her. I chose to have 1 in part because of my own experiences growing up in a largish family. I'm sure other women have similar influences. Perhaps my dd will have a large family because of growing up an only.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
My parents should have stopped at one. Better yet, none.

But aren't you kinda glad they didn't do what they "should" have done? Do you really think you'd be happier if you'd never been born?


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

It really depends on the parents, many can't handle ONE.

I have 4 & 1 on the way & I can HONESTLY say I do find it very easy. I stay home & it just never got "crazy" like people expect. I expect we will be adding until we have 6 or maybe 7.







If it wasn't such smooth sailing I wouldn't even consider it.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
As others have said, it's an individual issue for each family. I have to say that when I see other women with 4 or more kids and they look like they have it all together, I often wonder if that mother has completely lost her SELF... that part of you who makes you you. Sometimes they seem like they never get to take off the "mother" hat, if that makes sense. When you are forced to be mother 24/7 just because of the sheer size of your family, I can't imagine that it's healthy, even if it appears that she has it all together. I'm sure some women thrive in those situations, though. They appear to love having a very large family, and indeed, do, as it is their fulfillment.

I am the youngest of 4. It was made well-known to me my entire childhood that I was a HUGE accident, that my parents really regretted having me. It wasn't until I became an adult (really into my 30's) that they seemed to be able to relate to me... perhaps because they could see me as a peer almost. Amazingly, I now have a good relationship with them, and my mom even lives with us.

My parents should have stopped at one. Better yet, none. My impression of my mother is that one was too much. Wearing the "mother" hat often seemed very uncomfortable for her. I chose to have 1 in part because of my own experiences growing up in a largish family. I'm sure other women have similar influences. Perhaps my dd will have a large family because of growing up an only.









Some of us are very content to not take off our "mommy hats." I AM mom 24/7 & don't feel I am missing a thing, and no - I don't live in denial. Why can't mothering be totally fulfilling? For many, of course not all, it is. Is for me.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rmzbm* 
Some of us are very content to not take off our "mommy hats." I AM mom 24/7 & don't feel I am missing a thing, and no - I don't live in denial. Why can't mothering be totally fulfilling? For many, of course not all, it is. Is for me.









I don't even get what it means to "take off our mommy hats." Even when I just had one child, I never felt a need or desire to take off my mommy-hat. To me, it's not really a hat, anyway. It's more like a piece of living tissue in my heart. With both my girls, we never separated until each started going for short walks and errands with dh as toddlers.

Even when both girls are out for an errand with dh, and I'm home on my own, it's not like I stop being Mommy. I'm often on here discussing various parenting issues. Mothering is a big part of what makes me, me. It's changed my whole life. For the better.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I don't even get what it means to "take off our mommy hats." Even when I just had one child, I never felt a need or desire to take off my mommy-hat. To me, it's not really a hat, anyway. It's more like a piece of living tissue in my heart. With both my girls, we never separated until each started going for short walks and errands with dh as toddlers.

Even when both girls are out for an errand with dh, and I'm home on my own, it's not like I stop being Mommy. I'm often on here discussing various parenting issues. Mothering is a big part of what makes me, me. It's changed my whole life. For the better.


----------



## Galatea (Jun 28, 2004)

I *DEFINITELY* need to be more than a mommy. I think many kids would not be good for my mental health.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Galatea* 
I *DEFINITELY* need to be more than a mommy.

Oh, I'm definitely *more than* a mommy: I just never stop *being* a mommy. It's an integral part of who I am -- similar to the way my Christianity, and the shape and color of my eyes, are always part of me wherever I go, rather than being hats I put on or cast off depending on what's convenient at any given moment.


----------



## Galatea (Jun 28, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Oh, I'm definitely *more than* a mommy: I just never stop *being* a mommy. It's an integral part of who I am -- similar to the way my Christianity, and the shape and color of my eyes, are always part of me wherever I go, *rather than being hats I put on or cast off depending on what's convenient at any given moment*.

Somehow I'm finding this vaguely insulting.

Obviously I am always a mom, but some people said that having many kids means always being on as a mom; I don't think I can do that and need to have activities/jobs that are just me. But to say that this feeling is tantamount to casting off my motherhood for convenience's sake...









This is totally derailing my thread, anyway. I just wanted people's ideas about having large vs. small families. Actually, maybe it isn't derailing; if having a large family requires your attitude, then that helps me make up my mind.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

I have four kids and would like to either have one more in the future or do foster care. Since dh probably won't go for both, I will probably go the foster care route instead. For me, four is not too many. While they drive me nuts sometimes, ds1 did the same thing when I just had him.

Quote:

I have to say that when I see other women with 4 or more kids and they look like they have it all together, I often wonder if that mother has completely lost her SELF... that part of you who makes you you. Sometimes they seem like they never get to take off the "mother" hat, if that makes sense.
I had dinner last week with two other moms who both have four kids, my neighbor around the corner has four and a lady I babysit for has five. I can say at least for the five of us moms, we each have our "self" intact. Each of us have things that we do that are our own interests, along with doing cool things with our mobs of children









Quote:

Obviously I am always a mom, but some people said that having many kids means always being on as a mom; I don't think I can do that and need to have activities/jobs that are just me.
I don't think having a large family requires not doing anything that you want to do. It does make it more challenging juggling childcare, but it can be done.

The lady I babysit for who has five children enjoys rehabbing houses to sell. She always seems to have a project going on. Her family is also looking at buying a far.

My neighbor with four kids is a hairdresser. She loves to do hair and has a salon in her basement.

I started having kids young enough that when they are going to college, I will have another 20-30 years to have a career. I'm planning to finish college by going part-time in the evenings when dh can be home with the kids.


----------



## mommy68 (Mar 13, 2006)

I may not be the norm, but I think it was wrong that this person told you all of this without his wife there to hear it. He sounds frustrated with his "choice" of family situations and he sounds unhappy. I feel sorry for him. He really should be ashamed more than anything else to be talking about his wife and kids behind their back. Kids are a blessing and not something you should regret.

And to answer your original question, you can't go by what someone else says about having children. You and only your spouse can determine what is good for you. So what someone like that would say to me would have no bearing on my choice to have more children. IMO the man just sounds unhappy with his choices and that's what I probably would have told the person that if they told me that much about their private life. He needs to talk to his wife, not you, and he probably needs counseling.


----------



## Girlsmama (Jul 14, 2007)

Having lots of kids is hard, i can tell you from firsthand experience, my mother had five and was horrible at it, she will tell everyone that she never liked having so many kids. Me? I love it, it's hard work but i wouldn't change it for the world.


----------



## mommy68 (Mar 13, 2006)

As far as those of you who have issues with the thread and say that you are "always" a mommy. Well the others on here have a good point. You can be mommy and also be YOU. You can't lose sight of the woman that you are. You were *you* long before you had children so you need to keep that or else somewhere along the road you might realize you aren't so happy even though it seemed like you were for so long. Children are a blessing, no doubt about that. But we can't lose ourselves in our quest to be the perfect parent either.


----------



## offwing (Aug 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Do you really think you'd be happier if you'd never been born?

I'm sorry but whenever I see this statement made I can't help but point out that not being born pretty much precludes there being a person who would feel anything at all about not being born.

Even people who hold a religious belief that each soul is already in existence prior to birth do not believe that the soul is aware and would have an emotional reaction to "missing out" on being born into a specific body.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Galatea* 
Somehow I'm finding this vaguely insulting.

I never meant to insult any individual person. However, when I hear stuff like "take of my mommy-hat," maybe it reminds me a little too much of the societal belief that after we have kids, we need to arrange our lives such that they resemble, as closely as possible, our lives BEFORE kids. That we need child-free time, child-free zones, and such-like.

I'm not saying that's the attitude of the poster who talked about taking off the mommy-hat: it's just my (possibly quite inaccurate) reaction to the phrase itself. I believe most people on this board (including probably the person who used the mommy-hat phrase) celebrate their children and are certainly not in a hurry to act like they don't have any. That's why the "mommy-hat" idea just seems out-of-sync. Probably just my own personal weirdness about it.

Quote:

Obviously I am always a mom, but some people said that having many kids means always being on as a mom; I don't think I can do that and need to have activities/jobs that are just me. But to say that this feeling is tantamount to casting off my motherhood for convenience's sake...








I understand what you mean about not always wanting to be "on," in the sense of needing down-time. I get that throughout the day, with my children right here with my. And obviously, there are enough mamas with large families that post here, that it sounds like even they get some down-time occasionally.

Quote:

This is totally derailing my thread, anyway. I just wanted people's ideas about having large vs. small families.
I didn't realize what I shared was totally disconnected from the issue of large vs. small families.

Quote:

Actually, maybe it isn't derailing; if having a large family requires your attitude, then that helps me make up my mind.
Well, since I only have 2 children, and I'm 43 so I'm not likely to get to have more than possibly 1 more baby, I certainly can't claim to represent all mamas with large families everywhere. I think there's lots of variation in individual personalities and attitudes -- among women with large families just as there is among women with small families -- so I don't know why you'd assume that having a large family "requires my attitude" -- especially since I don't even have a large family.


----------



## Miss Information (May 17, 2005)

I have trouble with just three, but that's just me. I love them to bits, but I have a lot of my own personal issues that keep me from being a great mom. It's really hard (for me) to be a mom, and the troubles I'm having stem mostly from me, not from them (meaning they've picked up some of my bad habits).

I became a mom almost 6 years ago, I'd still be a mom 24-7 if I stopped at one child. It's not something you can't "not" be once you are one. You can be an (partially or completely) absent mom - either physically or mentally, but once you are a mom, you are one 24-7. There are times when you are on call at 2 am holding your dc's hair while they puke into a bucket and rub their back (I've done that recently).

You can have interests of your own, that is for sure. But each mom has to make decisions to balance those interests and the needs of the family. Whether it's working because you have to or because you want to, a hobby you are passionate about, or just having some time to be with adults (and other scenarios I'm sure I'm missing). That doesn't make it wrong, it just makes you a balanced person if that's what you need. And it also depends on the individual too. There are women who thrive on serving the family, there are others who give what they can and complete their needs in other ways.

For me, personally, I need lots of rest and good nutrition, and some intellectual stimulation. I thought that last one had to come from a work environment, but I realize that I don't need a job at this moment to feel fulfilled. I've just taken up a few hobbies, and I am reading a lot and occasionally, I need to get out without kids once in a while.

And there are seasons where you move in and out of different "phases" - I've been a WOHM and I'm now a SAHM. I will return to the workforce, some day.
I have a college degree and I have had 12 years in the science field. I'm not too worried about it. But for now, I'm having a season at home taking care of my young children.

There is nothing wrong with having balance in your life. Some women can achieve a balance they are happy with and they have 12 children, some can't achieve it well when they have 1 or 2. There are a multitude of difference forces at work when it works for one person but not for another.

But comparing your situation with another's is not a good idea. Meditating or praying on the matter for your specific situation is the way to go and getting dp on board with the idea. If now doesn't feel like a good time to add to your family, then don't. If you (and dp) feel more children are meant to be added to your family, then do that and don't mind anyone else.

Dh and I thought we were done at 2. We felt that was all we'd be able to handle. I quit my job to be home with the two I had, dh was all set to get a vasectomy, and the day it was scheduled to happen (so we thought), we found out the dr was on vacation. That evening, we ended up conceiving dd #3.

Apparently even though we were done having children, children were not done coming into our family. It's been rough, I have some bad days, but they are farther and fewer between. It gets easier as they get older.

And yes, dh did go in for his vasectomy the very next opportunity he could get scheduled.

At any rate, family size in an incredibly personal decision, but more often than not, I see a lot of posts where it's almost like moms are so uncertain about adding to their family they almost have to take a poll about it. Yes, I understand the need for reassurance, but the only real way to know you are comfortable with it is to meditate or pray about it, and have dp on board with it (this is very key here otherwise resentment could build up). That's all you really need to move forward. Either you will find the answer, or the answer will find you.


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

You know, I always wanted a big family--6 children and all that. I love children so much. Now that I have one and another on the way, realistically I think I can do this once more, maybe twice. I know that with faith and careful planning, all my children will be well taken care materially and spiritually but . . . I also have dreams and things I'd like to do with my life that are just not realistic with young children. I'd love to write a book one day but I can't even get 20 mins. daily to write in my journal.

It's such an individual choice though. I know some mamas who want as many kids as they can have because being a mother completely fulfills them. I think what is most important is knowing who you are and what you want so that you don't harbor any resentment against anyone for your choices. For me, that means stopping after 3 (maybe maybe maybe 4) so that by the time I'm 40, they'll be old enough where I can do other things with peace of mind.

I like for people to be frank with me, OP. I think he was being frank about his experience. It might not be everyone's experience but it is something to consider. I *never* fully grasped how much work it is to have children until I had one. And although I wanted so many before, it is overwhelming now to think of having a lot. Goodness, I'd have to get a new car, new house, more car seats, booster seats . . . it's overwhelming.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

There is no magic number. 5 for someone might be "hard", but for other might be an easy beginning. I have three and I don't regret it at all, and want more, but have known others who thought three was waaaay too many, and that two should be the maximum. We are poorer than most of those, but don't feel as poor as they felt. Some people I have known had one or two and just couldn't fathom that anyone could possibly love and care for more than that.

I think it depends a lot more on personality, lifestyle decisions, how one rates things as "needs" vs "wants", than on an actual number.

Honesty is good. But someone else's experience doesn't apply to everybody. I had two good older friends warn me against having more than two or three, because in their experience, motherhood was restrictive and terrible. It's been a completely different experience for me.


----------



## Twinklefae (Dec 13, 2006)

I also think that for some people, they felt like a "mom" BEFORE they had children. I have always wanted children, worked with children, gottten attached to children... to me actually having one if fulfilling something that's always been inside me and is now out and growing and making me into the person I've always intended to be.


----------



## mumm (May 23, 2004)

I have too many children.









In a few years I may not say that, but for now it is really hard. I lost "me" with the twins. BUT, I know that I will get "me" back in a few years. And I can live with that. And if I wasn't willing to give "me" up for few years I wouldn't be able to do this parenting thing justice. ((Did I lose you yet!!!))

I love my kids but do feel they are being shortchanged since my last pregnancy. I'm not saying 6 or 7 is too many, but for my situation, my comfort level, my finances and priorities, 3 would have been better. (But, since I can't write a short post,







I have to admit that I really like some of the changes in my older two kids since the twins came. So there are truly a million wonderful things about having "too many.")

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom* 
Honesty is good. But someone else's experience doesn't apply to everybody.

I think it is the rare person who will admit that their family planning didn't work the way they thought it would. Or that they are in over their heads on such an important task.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy68* 
As far as those of you who have issues with the thread and say that you are "always" a mommy. Well the others on here have a good point. You can be mommy and also be YOU. You can't lose sight of the woman that you are. You were *you* long before you had children so you need to keep that or else somewhere along the road you might realize you aren't so happy even though it seemed like you were for so long. Children are a blessing, no doubt about that. But we can't lose ourselves in our quest to be the perfect parent either.

Well yes, but who we are changes as our lives change. If you think about the maiden/mother/crone life phases, I think it is really healthy and fine to embrace 'mother' and not try to preserve the 'you' that existed in the maiden phase. That time is gone. 'Mother' has changed who I am, it is woven into the threads of me and there is no part that is 'me' without the threads of that experience.

I think there is a miscommunication happening here in that some are speaking of that identity and how there is no need to try to erase it, while others are speaking of the duties of mothering, and how they can be all enveloping, or not. And how that is fine for some women, not fine for others. It wouldn't be fine for me. I see some making the argument that the more kids one has, the more all consuming the duties of caregiving become. I don't know as I only have one, and my bet is that more children do = more work, AND that it is highly individual, depending on the particular children, particular mother, and particular style of parenting. I know that while my own life and identity have changed hugely since my child was born, I am not overwhelmed by the duties of nurturing.


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

I agree that family size is a very personal thing. I always wanted 5. DH wanted 5. We planned from the very beginning to have 5. But we have decided to stop at 3. I have a lot of health issues, I have bipolar and SID, I ended up with pre-eclampsia twice, two preemies and 3 c-sections. So we are done. And honestly I cannot imagine having more. I find 3 takes everything out of me, I don't have any more in me to give. We always planned to homeschool to but the older two are going to a private Christian school in September because I find being a mom hard. I get too impatient easily and I need lots of alone time. So as much as it pains me to admit it I would not be a good mom to more children. I have a cousin who has 15 children (yes, 15!) and loves every second of it.


----------



## quarteralien (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *offwing* 
Even people who hold a religious belief that each soul is already in existence prior to birth do not believe that the soul is aware and would have an emotional reaction to "missing out" on being born into a specific body.

Not true, but that's a subject for the Spirituality forum.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
If you think about the maiden/mother/crone life phases.....

What? Maiden, mother, crone? Crone? I have no intention of being a crone and in fact do not know any crones. Life gets better with age. I like maiden, mother, matriarch.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Crone is not meant to be a derogatory term. It connotes wisdom.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KBecks* 
What? Maiden, mother, crone? Crone? I have no intention of being a crone and in fact do not know any crones. Life gets better with age. I like maiden, mother, matriarch.

You'd appreciate the terms if you were familiar with paganism.

(I'm not pagan, but did study some when I was a young-un)


----------



## ComaWhite (Mar 13, 2003)

Did you ever think of the other side of the coin?
I grew up the oldest of 2, and I STILL didnt get enough time and attention from either of my parents and longed daily for a sister or a baby to play with. (My brother and I never got along, we were always battling and competing for the small attention that was dealt out as a result of our fighting)
As a result, I plan on having a midsized-to-large family with lots of love and lots of attention to go around for everyone.

Maybe it has less to do with *how many* kids there are and more to do with how parents are coping and parenting and general family dynamics.

Its easy to brush off the blame on just "too many kids" though.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Quote:

Maybe it has less to do with *how many* kids there are and more to do with how parents are coping and parenting and general family dynamics.
I very strongly believe that. My parents were both one of four. My mom's childhood was a mess, and her mother probably wouldn't have parented just one child well, let alone four. She was a mean drunk, and constantly bringing home men, who abused my mom. My dad, on the other hand, had an idyllic childhood, parents who loved him and enjoyed family life, etc. Different parents, different experiences.

From my observations, numbers have very little to do with happiness.


----------



## mommy68 (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well yes, but who we are changes as our lives change. If you think about the maiden/mother/crone life phases, I think it is really healthy and fine to embrace 'mother' and not try to preserve the 'you' that existed in the maiden phase. That time is gone. 'Mother' has changed who I am, it is woven into the threads of me and there is no part that is 'me' without the threads of that experience.

I think there is a miscommunication happening here in that some are speaking of that identity and how there is no need to try to erase it, while others are speaking of the duties of mothering, and how they can be all enveloping, or not. And how that is fine for some women, not fine for others. It wouldn't be fine for me.

You make a good point. I've noticed the longer I'm a mother the more moms I meet that are just "cut" out to be one of those moms I admire because she really truly lives for being a mother or it comes naturally to her, and then there are those mothers that you can tell it just frustrates them to no end to have kids, then there are those mothers that are in between those ranges. So I totally see your point.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

I read through most of the reponses in this thread and agree with many posters...having a lot of children/having a large family makes resouces - financial, emotional, physical energy, patience, attention for each child - diminished.

I was surprised that no one seemed to mention the impact of large families on the earth. What about population control and lessening our footprint?

Families historically were large so that families could produce male heirs and also to have enough children to help with work on the farm. Times have changed, obviously, and most people have smaller families now.

A friend of mine once said something that I thought was a really good point. He said, "Maybe your family can afford another child, but can the earth or society afford another child?" Something to think about.


----------



## mommy68 (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
A friend of mine once said something that I thought was a really good point. He said, "Maybe your family can afford another child, but can the earth or society afford another child?" Something to think about.

Actually, I don't see that as a good argument against having a lot of children. The earth was here waaaaay before any humans or anyone of any kind walked on it. I believe in God and I believe that he created earth and the earth made it for a long time on it's own without us humans trying to save it or protect it.


----------



## quarteralien (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
I was surprised that no one seemed to mention the impact of large families on the earth. What about population control and lessening our footprint?

What about societal stability, which is lessened when the birth rate falls below replacement levels, about 2.2 per woman? It has to be more than 2 because not everyone makes it to adulthood. If the population falls, the average age increases, and soon there will be a larger number of retired people than working people to support them. This is also something to consider.

I'm all for taking care of our earth. That is why I will teach my children to do so by example. That way there are even more people to go out into the world and teach others to take care of it.


----------



## alicia622 (May 8, 2005)

So much comes into play when deciding how many children to have. It's interesting reading about people's experiences based on family size and how it effects their decisions on family size. We are pretty sure we will not add any more to our family. This is based on age (we are both 40), money (I want to be able to afford giving DS lots of exeriences as he grows up) and circumstances (we would be adopting again and we don't know if we can handle the emotional strain again). When we first started TTC I thought I wanted three or four children.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom* 
I very strongly believe that. My parents were both one of four. My mom's childhood was a mess, and her mother probably wouldn't have parented just one child well, let alone four. She was a mean drunk, and constantly bringing home men, who abused my mom. My dad, on the other hand, had an idyllic childhood, parents who loved him and enjoyed family life, etc. Different parents, different experiences.

From my observations, numbers have very little to do with happiness.

My parents were both oldest children (mom of four, dad of three). Mom's family was happy and loving, Dad's had issues but was basically loving, he was close to his brothers.

Nevertheless, as oldest children, both of them decided to stop after me. Not because I was difficult, but because, as mom put it once, "We looked at how happy you were and we thought 'How could we do that to her?' because we remembered how much our lives changed when our younger brothers were born."

My mom loves her brothers and is still very close to 2 of the 3. My dad isn't day-to-day close to his, but was close growing up. Still....

I think there's no shame in saying "This is all I want." And further, a mom who has a bunch of children is no better a mother than one who has one or two by choice. IT's not like its a contest where more babies brings you more "Mom points" until you are the Ubermother and the Best of All.

I also would agree that insight into your personal limits is a gift -- not something that you need to try to overcome, or a sign that you're an inadequate mother and/or human being...


----------



## GranoLLLy-girl (Mar 1, 2005)

Interesting thread--good discussion...


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
I read through most of the reponses in this thread and agree with many posters...having a lot of children/having a large family makes resouces - financial, emotional, physical energy, patience, attention for each child - diminished.

I was surprised that no one seemed to mention the impact of large families on the earth. What about population control and lessening our footprint?

Families historically were large so that families could produce male heirs and also to have enough children to help with work on the farm. Times have changed, obviously, and most people have smaller families now.

A friend of mine once said something that I thought was a really good point. He said, "Maybe your family can afford another child, but can the earth or society afford another child?" Something to think about.

ITA.


----------



## ComaWhite (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
A friend of mine once said something that I thought was a really good point. He said, "Maybe your family can afford another child, but can the earth or society afford another child?" Something to think about.

Again, it depends on which way you are willing to look at it.
I could argue that a family with 6 kids had 5 more people that are willing and able to save the earth than a family with 1 kid.
And what if one of those 6 kids goes on to research/invent/contribute to something world-changing and miraculous for the environment or society?
What if the only child goes to become the CEO of Shell and chooses to pollute hundreds of lakes and rivers and poisons thousands of animals in the pursuit of oil and greed?
What if that one kid is in disposables for 4 years, and the 6 are EC'd 100%?
What if the 1 kid had a 3000sq foot house and his parents use disposable EVERYTHING and own 4 hummers? What if the family with 6 kids lives in a tiny "green" house and uses public transportation and walks everywhere?
What if the one becomes a narcistic sociopath and rapes and murders rapes 36 women? What if one of the 6 opens and runs a sanctuary for battered women and fundraises millions into rehab and family councilling programs?

We could "what if" all day, but the fact of the matter is, you cant prove AT ALL that 1 child is more responsible or has less of an impact on the earth/environmnent/society than 6,
nor can you prove that 6 children are more responsible or has less of an impact on the earth/environmnent/society than one. Because that is assuming.

There are infinite possibilities lying in each and every one of us.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
..having a lot of children/having a large family makes resouces - financial, emotional, physical energy, patience, attention for each child - diminished.

I will argue that there is NOT finite resources for the amount pf people on earth as of now. There is only a distribution problem. There, people go hungry. Here, we waste millions of pounds of food.
There is ENOUGH for everyone. It is a matter of figuring out how to get it to everyone that needs it, or educating people who need it on how to access it. We just need a better system.


----------



## jul511riv (Mar 16, 2006)

I dunno. I'm kinda shocked to read all of this, really.

I mean, I think you should know what is right for you without influence from the outside world.

We are all on these forums, so we are all doing at least ONE thing that is not "mainstream". A zillion people could be on our butts for doing that one (or more) thing we are doing (or are not doing,whatever the case may be)

Take circ. Okay, so some parents could say "hey,you should really have your son circed" or vaccination "hey, vaccinations saved the universe" or whatever it is. If you are against that, well the arguments are out there but you KNOW that it just isn't right/acceptable to YOU and YOUR family.

Kids are all blessings. Every. Single. One. This doesnt' mean that being a mom is easy or that all people should have as many children as they are able.

I think priorities are an issue too. I mean, your son might have a foreskin and other guys might see it and tease them. Your kids might wear hand me downs and other kids might see that and tease them, ykwim? I don't think this is a real argument for going against our priorities.

I wore hand me downs and goodwill. We rummaged through garbage cans. But at the end of the day, we are all adults now and are basically good people and all is well. We are all accomplishing our goals and dreams and it worked for our family.

I've seen mothers suck at handling a ton of kids, I've seen them suck at handleing two kids...or ONE. Just my dd alone makes me go off the deep end sometimes.







but I couldn't imagine life without my ds. And I spent the whole pregnancy terrified. OH man, how can I handle another like dd?! That sort of thing. His presence gives me the calm and strength to handle dd and their interactions with one another give me a bit of a BREAK.

I dont know how many we will have. I do know that at some point they will all think I'm a crappy mom. That's the nature of the game. Not always, maybe, but I've never personally seen the exception.

And someday they will grow up and have kids and say I wasn't half bad...I hope.

listen, I"m not looking at the earth and what the earth can handle. That's just too far out for me. But hey, if that is your thing, well then adopt if that is what is holding you back, yk?

Adopt anyways. Or don't. Or use cloth diapers to cut down on your earth footprint or whatever. Don't eat MacDonalds, yk? Turn off the water while you are brushing your teeth. CUt down on your showers.

We all have the power to make the best out of our situation and me putting 12 kids through two sets of cloth diapers is less of an imprint than a family putting 2 kids through disposables. Or formula. Or whatever. I don't buy cribs for the kids. That saves money and resources, yk?

I dunno. Take the long view. Picture yourself at the end of your life and ask yourself, do I wish I had more or less children. Really. I dont need 12 children looking down at me on my death bed, yk? Or take a look at my friends who had 3 kids (1 son) and then that son died after they were already finished having babies and could not have anymore. It was a huge blow. I tihnk if they could do it all over they would have had more children, really. SOmeone to carry on the family name.

dh says two of each gender is ideal. I'm stressed with 2, but I know from watching bigger families that the kids grow up and help out and are playmates for one another and the dynamic changes. What is hard today may not be so hard tomorrow, so if I were to voice 3 months ago my opinion about having 2 kids, I probably would have scared someone off to not having 2 or more. But this month things are better and I'm really doing well with both of them. You see?

OUr babysitter is the youngest of 8 children. The only girl. Oopsie or not, she is ADORED and gets TONS of attention from her parents and all those doting brothers. She's very happy and the family is very close and all is well. Another babysitter of ours is the second youngest of 11. They escaped an abusive father and are beign raised by a single mom who is always the picture of calmness and serenity. They all feel loved and have each other to confide in during this difficult time. They might feel that they didnt' get enough attention, but I know people who were single children who also felt that they didnt' get enough attention.

it's not just how many you can handle but how many G-d thinks you can handle and the dynamics of the kids too. And those all change. SO do financial situations, actually. You might think you have enough money but then someone gets laid off and you are right back to being broke and having hand me downs. And the kids might get picked on but the priority is survival and that is what really matters.

I think priorities and perspective is where it's at on this one.


----------



## Einen (Dec 27, 2006)

andrea said:


> Maybe it has less to do with *how many* kids there are and more to do with how parents are coping and parenting and general family dynamics.
> QUOTE]
> 
> This is a topic I've been devoting a lot of thought to in the past few months.
> ...


----------



## Galatea (Jun 28, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Well yes, but who we are changes as our lives change. If you think about the maiden/mother/crone life phases, I think it is really healthy and fine to embrace 'mother' and not try to preserve the 'you' that existed in the maiden phase. That time is gone. 'Mother' has changed who I am, it is woven into the threads of me and there is no part that is 'me' without the threads of that experience.

I think there is a miscommunication happening here in that some are speaking of that identity and how there is no need to try to erase it, while others are speaking of the duties of mothering, and how they can be all enveloping, or not. And how that is fine for some women, not fine for others. It wouldn't be fine for me. I see some making the argument that the more kids one has, the more all consuming the duties of caregiving become.

Yes, this is the distinction I was trying to make. I do not want to be young and single and carefree again. But I know myself and know that I require lots of alone time and mental stimulation, and I am not getting it solely from being a mom, simply b/c of the amount of work required. I also want to travel and have different careers, so I think I need to limit my family size so as to have more freedom. That, and in all seriousness, I want to be able to stay in normal cars and normal tables at restaurants.

Dh's cousin-in-law was not complaining, and he loves his kids and wife. I was pleased that he opened up to me, esp. since my in-laws are very pro-large family and all about family duty and tradition. To hear the other side of the coin was very helpful and clarified some things for me.


----------



## simonboy'smommy (Jan 22, 2007)

Did not get to read all posts but...
I think it mostly depends on where your priorities lie. You can have one child and claim to never have enough money, enough time alone as a couple etc etc. It all depends on what your expectations for life are and how you define "enough time, money,... whatever"You can have one family with 15 kids and it can be disasterous and another with 15 happy, healthy kids, with a mommy and daddy very much in love.
If I had many children I would try to get a babysitter to give us time alone, try not to do too many activities outside the home, be more careful with money, and turn off the tv and computer and actually spend time together. ( I need to do these things now with one child!!) We struggle with money sometimes, but it usually is because we did not plan well. We are considered to be at or a little above poverty level many years, but I have no doubt we could feed and clothe several children and be very happy and content.
Of course I am not speaking from experience and am not an expert








I have always wanted 6 or more children though.
I think it sounds like he and his wife *need* to start talking about how hard it is and get some help from others maybe. Getting away for a couple hours alone or on a date can make such a difference!


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
I was surprised that no one seemed to mention the impact of large families on the earth. What about population control and lessening our footprint?


I think that that argument really only holds weight once you are doing everything possible to live carbon-neutral and are actively campaigning for your own nation to be reducing carbon emissions, promoting recycling and in all other ways working towards environmental friendliness. The earth can certainly support my family with two adults and four children, based on our water and power usage and our waste creation, and I trust that I can raise my children in such a way that they make good, responsible choices as adults. I know a few dozen families who get in the car to do a school run of a few hundred metres, are flying off here, there and everywhere, don't recycle...
To the OP, I would point out that Christmas is not the time to talk to anyone about being a parent, because it tends to be the season where most people are most negative about it. It is- or can be- the season of crass commercialism, of whinging, of children asking with total seriousness if Santa has an email address so they can change their Christmas list on Christmas eve, and the cost of taking five children to see a mall Santa gets prohibitive. If you look, even some of the die-hard NFL advocates have posted about stresses with gifts. It's just THAT time of year.
I'm pregnant with my fourth, and I know that I could not be the parent that I am if I hadn't had a big gap between 2 and 3. Child spacing can be as important as family sizing, and I did notice that your BIL's family are very evenly spaced, with a new babe every 3 years or so. I couldn't do that. I NEEDED to know that my boys could make their own breakfasts and wouldn't starve if they were hungry at the same time as the new baby. I also needed the maturity- I'm a better mum at 30 than I was at 21. In the end, though I have regrets about my life, choosing to have, or to keep, each of my children is REALLY not an issue.

Oh, and I'm not a full-time mummy. I'm just me. I have three kids, one still gestating, a burgeoning interest in fibre crafts, an obsessive interest in emigrating to Mars and I have a crush on Heston Blumenthal







: I'm not working at the moment, though I have done in my life post-parenthood, and I do a lot of voluntary work with families and young children. I'm as much myself, if not more, than I ever was, and I get a lot of love and support to follow my dreams from my family, just as my kids do. If you're interested in the whole "losing my identity" issue surrounding motherhood, I can recommend some fantastic books on the politics and feminist ideology surrounding motherhood that I think you'd enjoy.


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

I don't think the struggle (barring finances) lies so much in the NUMBER of kids, but the SPACING of kids.

I think there are very good reasons, both for parent and child, that the biological norm for child spacing is roughly every 2 years with a high infant mortality rate. I'm not saying it's good to have a high infant mortality rate; I'm saying that the biological norm is not to have two babies at the same time. Obviously, we have artificially altered (for the better) the infant mortality rate, but our bodies are still biologically designed to give birth every two years (unless we artificially alter *that* as well). And therein lies the rub.


----------



## BMG580 (Jun 19, 2007)

I read a couple posts in the beginning of the thread which made it appear that those couples who choose to limit how many children they have to 1-2 are doing so because they want to provide their children with more material things. Yes, it is true that economic resources are stretched far more with larger families but that has never really been a factor in our decision to only have two children and to imply that that is the deciding factor for those of us who do choose to limit is sort of insulting.

I am not choosing to limit our family to two kids because I want to be able to shower them with things, I am having only two children because that is a number that I feel confident and comfortable parenting. My husband works very long hours and travels quite a bit and the child-rearing is left mostly up to me during the week. I know I would be stretched too thin and not be able to provide an enriching or secure environment as I can by limiting how many children I have. That doesn't mean that I don't readily accept that other parenting couples have different familial goals and emotional resources for their large families. This is just what we feel will work best for us as a family unit.


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JEB20005* 
I read a couple posts in the beginning of the thread which made it appear that those couples who choose to limit how many children they have to 1-2 are doing so because they want to provide their children with more material things. Yes, it is true that economic resources are stretched far more with larger families but that has never really been a factor in our decision to only have two children and to imply that that is the deciding factor for those of us who do choose to limit is sort of insulting.

I am not choosing to limit our family to two kids because I want to be able to shower them with things...


Just pointing out that it is okay to choose to limit family size because of resources. We want our kids to go to college, have a life full of travel, and to have a certain amount of monetary freedom. That is not "showering them with things" (which I find insulting, though I realize it was not your intent to insult). We would have a hard time doing that with three, but we can do that with two.


----------



## BMG580 (Jun 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RedWine* 
Just pointing out that it is okay to choose to limit family size because of resources. We want our kids to go to college, have a life full of travel, and to have a certain amount of monetary freedom. That is not "showering them with things" (which I find insulting, though I realize it was not your intent to insult). We would have a hard time doing that with three, but we can do that with two.

No, I was definitely not trying to be insulting. I felt like that the "showering of material things" was the point of some of the earlier posts and I was just piggybacking on that.

I agree with you that there are many significant monetary reasons to have a smaller family but that certainly isn't the only deciding factor for us. Of course I want to be able to help my kids with the financial responsibility of college and provide experiences like participating on sports teams or in band , things I was not able to do as a child because we were too poor to afford the equipment. But even if I were a multi-millionaire I would still only have two kids.

I hope that makes sense!


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

A friend of mine once said something that I thought was a really good point. He said, "Maybe your family can afford another child, but can the earth or society afford another child?" Something to think about.
Unless your children grow up to not be self-supporting, I'd say that society needs as many children as you can give have. Especially in America, with the way social security is tanking, we need people working to support the elderly and those among us who can't work for one reason or another.


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Parker'smommy* 
I don't think big families are for everyone. It's just not a one size fits all thing, ya know? I know plenty of big families and they are happy and so are the kids. A good friend of mine has 7 kids and her kids are the most well adjusted people I know. Seriously. I have seen her in action and she gives all of her kids what they need.

Bottom line, just because this person is having a hard time with his family size doesn't mean that's the case for everyone. They might have had a hard time with one child because of who they are.

Good luck!

I agree. In our circle of friends, DH and I are the only ones with 1 child. Most of our friends have 2 kids or more. It always amazes me when I get around them because *I* seem to be the most stressed out Mommy.


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JEB20005* 
No, I was definitely not trying to be insulting. I felt like that the "showering of material things" was the point of some of the earlier posts and I was just piggybacking on that.

I agree with you that there are many significant monetary reasons to have a smaller family but that certainly isn't the only deciding factor for us. Of course I want to be able to help my kids with the financial responsibility of college and provide experiences like participating on sports teams or in band , things I was not able to do as a child because we were too poor to afford the equipment. But even if I were a multi-millionaire I would still only have two kids.

I hope that makes sense!


Yep --


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 
Unless your children grow up to not be self-supporting, I'd say that society needs as many children as you can give have. Especially in America, with the way social security is tanking, we need people working to support the elderly and those among us who can't work for one reason or another.

It's not a lack of money that prevents support of those who need it, but a lack of giving a crap.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katheek77* 
I'm saying that the biological norm is not to have two babies at the same time. Obviously, we have artificially altered (for the better) the infant mortality rate, but our bodies are still biologically designed to give birth every two years (unless we artificially alter *that* as well). And therein lies the rub.

I thought that (most of the) the research on this pointed to a three or four year difference as being the biological norm because of extended breastfeeding? Just curious because I'd never hear the two-year number, just the three and four year numbers.

To keep this on topic, we will probably only have two at most, maybe, under extreme circumstances, three. That's all we feel we can handle and be the parents we want to be.


----------



## momoftworedheads (Mar 6, 2003)

I am one of 4 children. My parents struggled to give us good educations and things kids want in life but they are totally happy and have a strong relationship. They did work really hard (2 jobs each at times) so that we had a good life.

I think that as long as you can provide for your children (necessities, love, emotionally, educationally), and remain close to your spouse, then have more kids. Big families are not for everyone. I think it takes a lot of patience and understanding.

Best wishes to you in your decision. Enjoy the rest of your pregnancy!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy68* 
As far as those of you who have issues with the thread and say that you are "always" a mommy. Well the others on here have a good point. You can be mommy and also be YOU. You can't lose sight of the woman that you are. You were *you* long before you had children so you need to keep that or else somewhere along the road you might realize you aren't so happy even though it seemed like you were for so long. Children are a blessing, no doubt about that. But we can't lose ourselves in our quest to be the perfect parent either.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Twinklefae* 
I also think that for some people, they felt like a "mom" BEFORE they had children. I have always wanted children, worked with children, gottten attached to children... to me actually having one if fulfilling something that's always been inside me and is now out and growing and making me into the person I've always intended to be.

I've never worked with children, but even in my partying days, I was always the one who noticed people's kids, kept an eye on them, etc. As for who I was before I had kids...I'm honestly not that fond of her in some ways, and I certainly have no desire to get her back. I don't consider it an issue of being mommy and _also_ being me. I _am_ me - I've never been anything else. If I could go back and have anything about my life change (other than Aaron living), I don't think I would...but the regrets I have are all about me _before_ kids. I did a lot of stupid things, and closed a lot of doors on myself. But, me? I'm still here...and I've done more growing since becoming a parent than at any time in my life, with most of it being since ds2 was born.

As to family size - I want four. I've always wanted four. I don't have control over that, though. I just lost the baby that was supposed to be my fourth child. My brother and sister both have four, and neither of them ever wanted that many (one had an "oops" pregnancy after the second baby was twins...and the other had an "oops" pregnancy that _was_ twins, after the second baby). If my fourth ends up being a multiple, then I'll just have to adapt to that as well as I can. Four is the number that's right for me - it's not right for my brother or sister.

For me, the difficulties in being a good mom have little or nothing to do with how many children I have, and a lot to do with my own emotional issues (depression, c-section related PTSD, etc.). Those things are a lot harder to parent through than juggling the children's different needs is.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Hm - dh and I are both from families of 5 children and have no issues with it. In fact, we are glad for the siblings that we have, esp. as we get older. At this point in my life I"m firmly entrenched in a segment of society (Orthodox Jewish) where 5 children is considered a small to average family. I'm of the opinion that family dysfunction is generally not a product of the number of children you have, though if there is a tendancy there, it can certainly be a stressor.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momoftworedheads* 
I am one of 4 children. My parents struggled to give us good educations (snip)

I never understood why it's a parents job to give their children a good education (College)? Whatever happened to working for it yourself? I paid for my own college (still am) and so did all of my friends. I don't really understand why that's a failure on my parents part. They could afford to pay for it, they just choose not to.









If someone wants to pay for their child's education I say more power to ya but I certainly find it unfair that it's viewed as parental failure not to.


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

I agree that it is such an individual thing. What is right for a family w/ one child isn't right for a family of 5 kids and vice versa.

I am concerned, however, about the trendiness of having a lot of kids. It is very "in" right now, and some people who are into that type of thing may be having a lot of kids for the wrong reasons (keeping up w/ the Joneses type thing).


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 

I was surprised that no one seemed to mention the impact of large families on the earth. What about population control and lessening our footprint?



I asked this before and was truly surprised at the number of people who don't care much about this.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karina5* 
I am concerned, however, about the trendiness of having a lot of kids. It is very "in" right now, and some people who are into that type of thing may be having a lot of kids for the wrong reasons (keeping up w/ the Joneses type thing).

Is it? I certainly get no end of comments that it is socially unacceptable.


----------



## saimeiyu (Aug 13, 2007)

I am the second of 12 kids. Ten biological, and two adopted. My parents didn't have 12 kids on accident, and most of us are spaced at least two years apart. (the adopted ones are both exactly 5 months older than my biological siblings, making currently one set of 12-y/o and one set of 9 y/o) some of us are 3-4 years apart.

I can honestly say that... overall, i'm *incredibly* glad that I had/have so many younger siblings. I always used to say that "I know more about babies and little kids than most mothers of 3 in the U.S" ... just because I had so much experience with the little ones.

I remember once, when my older sister was a teenager (maybe 15) she told me, :"i'm not gonna have more than two!!" ,,,now that she has two (one special needs), she's seriously thinking about having tree or four more, as soon as she has her annulment finalized and can marry her fiancee.

I have alway known that i want a handful of kids-- between 4 and 6. I want a good-sized family, but i also want some time for me and my hubby. My mom and dad always had time for each other, but only because my older sister and I were there to babysit. (Which we liked... it was the only time besides christmas, easter, and our birthday that we got any money.)

One thing I have to say, though, is that my parents absolutely would not have had so many kids if my dad didn't stay home (for going on 21 years now!) to take care of us.
my parents work really hard with all of us, and we did wear a lot of second-hand and hand-me-downs, but i think we were all the better off for it. we spent some years in private school, when they could afford it, and others in public school, when they couldn't... I'm glad for the experience of both, but I would have much preferred homeschooling, so that's what dd will get.

honestly, my dd is right now wearing a bunch of hand-me downs from myself, my younger sisters, and my neice. My hubby and i didn't buy but maybe three outfits for her, and her cloth diapers new... and i would say the most we spent on her was maybe 700 dollars (and not all at once: a car seat, a stroller, a moby-wrap, and a bouncy-seat plus some toys). we certainly aren't very stretched, in that regard, and i'm sure that will continue for our next ones...

i think it all depends on parenting style and how much you feel the need to spend money on your kids. I really think that a lot of people in the modern world tend to (not all) equate parental love with parental money-spending, and assume that if you aren't extremely well off, you shouldn't have more than a few kids. i don't think that follows for all, but i think it's very common, esp around christmas time. for things like travel and such, i don't really know-- dh and i think we want to go places, but not sure just how yet... my family did a lot of road trips, which are fun, and it doesn't take much other than the vehicle you've already got.







Especially if you camp.

Anhow, I'm just saying it's very dependent on what kind of person you are and how you parent. I honestly think you'll know, if you listen to your heart, when is the right time to stop having kids.
Also,
I can't help but remember: _If God brings you to it, he will bring you through it!_ so... Honestly, I think it's impossible to really have too many kids... God won't let it happen. That's my philosophy, anyhow.


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

Sorry, doubleposted.


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
I never understood why it's a parents job to give their children a good education (College)? Whatever happened to working for it yourself? I paid for my own college (still am) and so did all of my friends. I don't really understand why that's a failure on my parents part. They could afford to pay for it, they just choose not to.









If someone wants to pay for their child's education I say more power to ya but I certainly find it unfair that it's viewed as parental failure not to.

Well, I agree with you about higher education. However, I live in a city where I would absolutely *not* send my children to the local public schools. My options are homeschooling or private school (and I refuse to do the cheaper parochial schools). So, yes, I will have to somehow come out of pocket to give my children what is, in my opinion, a good education. I can do that better and more comfortably if I had less children. Choosing to have more children would certainly mean 1) I'd have to go back to work full-time to help support the family (we do well on one income but it takes a lot of planning, budgeting, and waiting on things that we need now such as insulation/siding on the house and a fully functional kitchen) or 2) I'd have to suck it up and send the children to public school (if they, for some reason, didn't want to be homeschooled) which would mean moving to a town with better schools which means higher property taxes and which would still mean #1. And, really, I'd love to be in a position where I could send my children to college. I think starting life debt free is a good position to be in since the economy and life are so unpredictable. I do appreciate the fact that a child will appreciate their education more if they have to contribute to it but . . . paying my way through college was not fun and made me want to hurry the whole hellish experience up. It would be great if my children could enjoy it/have what I didn't have. And yeah, it would have been great if my parents could have helped out a little bit more with my college education as it's becoming more and more obvious that a college degree is "needed". But the experience definitely made me stronger.

So, long and short, being able to provide a good education for your children is, to me, a valid reason to consider limiting family size.


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saimeiyu* 
I am the second of 12 kids. Ten biological, and two adopted. My parents didn't have 12 kids on accident, and most of us are spaced at least two years apart. (the adopted ones are both exactly 5 months older than my biological siblings, making currently one set of 12-y/o and one set of 9 y/o) some of us are 3-4 years apart.

I can honestly say that... overall, i'm *incredibly* glad that I had/have so many younger siblings. I always used to say that "I know more about babies and little kids than most mothers of 3 in the U.S" ... just because I had so much experience with the little ones.

I remember once, when my older sister was a teenager (maybe 15) she told me, :"i'm not gonna have more than two!!" ,,,now that she has two (one special needs), she's seriously thinking about having tree or four more, as soon as she has her annulment finalized and can marry her fiancee.

I have alway known that i want a handful of kids-- between 4 and 6. I want a good-sized family, but i also want some time for me and my hubby. My mom and dad always had time for each other, but only because my older sister and I were there to babysit. (Which we liked... it was the only time besides christmas, easter, and our birthday that we got any money.)

One thing I have to say, though, is that my parents absolutely would not have had so many kids if my dad didn't stay home (for going on 21 years now!) to take care of us.
my parents work really hard with all of us, and we did wear a lot of second-hand and hand-me-downs, but i think we were all the better off for it. we spent some years in private school, when they could afford it, and others in public school, when they couldn't... I'm glad for the experience of both, but I would have much preferred homeschooling, so that's what dd will get.

honestly, my dd is right now wearing a bunch of hand-me downs from myself, my younger sisters, and my neice. My hubby and i didn't buy but maybe three outfits for her, and her cloth diapers new... and i would say the most we spent on her was maybe 700 dollars (and not all at once: a car seat, a stroller, a moby-wrap, and a bouncy-seat plus some toys). we certainly aren't very stretched, in that regard, and i'm sure that will continue for our next ones...

i think it all depends on parenting style and how much you feel the need to spend money on your kids. I really think that a lot of people in the modern world tend to (not all) equate parental love with parental money-spending, and assume that if you aren't extremely well off, you shouldn't have more than a few kids. i don't think that follows for all, but i think it's very common, esp around christmas time. for things like travel and such, i don't really know-- dh and i think we want to go places, but not sure just how yet... my family did a lot of road trips, which are fun, and it doesn't take much other than the vehicle you've already got.







Especially if you camp.

Anhow, I'm just saying it's very dependent on what kind of person you are and how you parent. I honestly think you'll know, if you listen to your heart, when is the right time to stop having kids.
Also,
I can't help but remember: _If God brings you to it, he will bring you through it!_ so... Honestly, I think it's impossible to really have too many kids... God won't let it happen. That's my philosophy, anyhow.

Great post!


----------



## TinkerBelle (Jun 29, 2005)

My husband is the youngest of 12. I think that there can be a lot of problems with having large families. For one thing, his older sisters seem to think that they are his mothers. I have had many go-rounds with them over this. Also, there is this unrealistic expectation of having "all 12" together for every damn thing. They take photos of the sibs and parents, which is fine, but never any photos with the spouses. I am the oldest of 3. I don't know, but maybe I just don't "get" being so enmeshed in the lives of your family members.

My MIL told all of her kids not to have such large families. So, if it is coming from her, then I guess she would know.


----------



## Sonnenwende (Sep 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karina5* 
I asked this before and was truly surprised at the number of people who don't care much about this.

Me too. I thought this was a natural living forum, environmentally responsible living. I just fail to see what is so environmentally responsible about having large families. Sorry, at the end of the day 8 kids are more than 1. 8 kids require more resources than 1. You need a bigger car(s) to drag them around. You need a bigger house to keep them. You need more clothes because even hand me downs don't last forever. You need more food. You need more electricity. You need more water. You create more trash.

You can recycle all you want and conserve all you want, but it doesn't negate the impact made by having so many kids period, particularly when they are adults. You cannot compare it to having just one because it is not comparable. A family of three could in theory waste just as much though not many do. However, it would be easy enough for them just to downsize and make a more reasonable impact and then use far less resources than a family of 10 people have to. It is just math.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
I never understood why it's a parents job to give their children a good education (College)? Whatever happened to working for it yourself? I paid for my own college (still am) and so did all of my friends. I don't really understand why that's a failure on my parents part. They could afford to pay for it, they just choose not to.









If someone wants to pay for their child's education I say more power to ya but I certainly find it unfair that it's viewed as parental failure not to.

There is a range of opinion on this. I've heard among wealthier families that it's not right to have more kids than you can afford to send to college. I believe that goes along with a preserving the family fortune and status line of thinking.

I think that it's nice if you can do it but not a necessity. It is a nice thing to be able to help kids start out without a mass of school debt if possibe.

However, I do feel parents have a responsibility take interest in their children's educations as they are the primary educators for the childhood and teen years, regardless of what type of schooling is chosen.


----------



## TripMom (Aug 26, 2005)

I've been thinking about this issue recently myself. We returned from our triplets 3 year old ped appointment. I was reading the hand out the ped gives for the 3 year old appointment stressing how important 1-1 time is with the child at this age. The hand out said a parent should strive for 1-1 time (no other sibs, no other parent, etc.) with your 3 year old for at least a half an hour 4 to 5x a week. That made me so







. There is just no way I could do that with all 4 kids. And it is something that bothers me . . . . . . I felt like I did not get enough time at all with my parents and I was the oldest of 4 . .. .

Good discussion . . . thanks for posting. . .


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saimeiyu* 
Also,
I can't help but remember: _If God brings you to it, he will bring you through it!_ so... Honestly, I think it's impossible to really have too many kids... God won't let it happen. That's my philosophy, anyhow.

Well I'm glad that works for you but some of us believe that God gives us insight into our personalities and limits, and rational thinking and free will, rather than just handing off particular numbers of children. Whether or not we want large or small families.

There are definitely families out there who have too many kids and don't handle it well. If God "wouldn't let that happen" then we wouldn't need CPS and there wouldn't be abused needy kids in our society... not to mention countries where people have children and truly cannot feed them and they die. Do you really think that God is making the decision to give those people children so that they can starve?

It is not, in my opinion, turning your back on God to do what you do well and be grateful for the children you have rather than to seek more.


----------



## BMG580 (Jun 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
I never understood why it's a parents job to give their children a good education (College)? Whatever happened to working for it yourself? I paid for my own college (still am) and so did all of my friends. I don't really understand why that's a failure on my parents part. They could afford to pay for it, they just choose not to.









If someone wants to pay for their child's education I say more power to ya but I certainly find it unfair that it's viewed as parental failure not to.

My mother didn't pay for my sister's or my college educations and we paid our own way and neither of us have student loans. It took a lot of juggling and working various part time jobs but we survived just fine.

However, I think student loans and debt are very pervasive in the United States. A lot of college-aged students don't even contemplate not taking out loans and then they end up having enormous debts for years after they graduate. I have many, many friends who are suffering from crushing debt, much of it accumulated during their college years. I'm not saying this is their parents fault but there seems to be a huge disconnect and a lot of parents not teaching their children proper financial stewardship. I'm *NOT* suggesting that all student loans are bad and that every single person who attends college can pay as they go along by working, I know there are various circumstances. But I would not want my own children starting out their adult lives with an enormous amount of debt already accumulated when I could help them either financially or by teaching them financial responsibility.

My husband's parents paid entirely for his college, bought him a brand new car after he graduated from high school and let him have a very high limit credit card to use freely while he was in school that they paid the monthly balance on. I don't think his parents did him any favors either and he was pretty shocked when he got his first job making a fairly low salary that the money didn't stretch very far.

There has got to be a balance between the two and I hope we are able to achieve that for our kids.

Quote:

i think it all depends on parenting style and how much you feel the need to spend money on your kids. I really think that a lot of people in the modern world tend to (not all) equate parental love with parental money-spending...
And this is the very attitude that I found insulting earlier in the thread. I don't see how anyone can legitimately argue that taking finances into account is inappropriate. I will be a happier and more stable parent if I am not constantly worried about how I am going to feed, clothe and shelter my children. I am not a religious person so I don't buy into the "God will provide" mindset. *I* need to provide for my children and that doesn't mean I will provide excessively. It just means that I am realistic about what we can and cannot afford. I grew up very, very poor and I don't want my own children to feel that constant strain like I did as a kid. It is hard watching your parents continually stress about making ends meet and it takes a lot of the parents time and energy. Just because I don't want to stretch my family's resources to the maximum limit doesn't mean that I buy my DD an excessive amount of toys, all new clothing, etc. This all goes back to what I wrote about in response to the last quote about modeling and educating children in financial responsibility. For our family, that means not having debt and having enough in savings to get us through rough financial periods. If other families have different financial plans and comfort levels, jolly for them. But I dislike the idea presented by various posters in this thread that if you are a family that is choosing to limit how many children you have then that is tied into wanting to provide an excessively material lifestyle for your children. Ultimately, this isn't the determining factor for us, though I think it is a very reasonable and responsible aspect to consider. As I wrote earlier, I could be a multi-millionaire and I would still only have 2 children. That is just what works best for my husband and me.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sonnenwende* 
Me too. I thought this was a natural living forum, environmentally responsible living. I just fail to see what is so environmentally responsible about having large families. Sorry, at the end of the day 8 kids are more than 1. 8 kids require more resources than 1. You need a bigger car(s) to drag them around. You need a bigger house to keep them. You need more clothes because even hand me downs don't last forever. You need more food. You need more electricity. You need more water. You create more trash.

You can recycle all you want and conserve all you want, but it doesn't negate the impact made by having so many kids period, particularly when they are adults. You cannot compare it to having just one because it is not comparable. A family of three could in theory waste just as much though not many do. However, it would be easy enough for them just to downsize and make a more reasonable impact and then use far less resources than a family of 10 people have to. It is just math.

Absolutely. And you can have a small family and teach your children to be environmentally aware.

If you have a large family, each one of those children will ultimately be driving cars and maintaining their own households. It is highly, highly unlikely that say 8 households are going to be less damaging to the environment than one or two households.

As for the idea that one needs to breed a huge number of children because one of them might be the next Einstein, that's nonsense. They could all turn out to be the next Ted Bundy. There are no guarantees.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
I thought that (most of the) the research on this pointed to a three or four year difference as being the biological norm because of extended breastfeeding? Just curious because I'd never hear the two-year number, just the three and four year numbers.

That's the case with MY body, at least. I realize I started later in life, which may have some impact -- but even if I'd married much younger, I think child-led breastfeeding would have created a spacing of *at least* 3-4 years.

It's funny, because I realize most people would look at the 5-year spacing between our 2 girls, and assume we did something unnatural to alter things. But really, it's a totally natural spacing, for us at least.


----------



## Miss Information (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TripMom* 
I've been thinking about this issue recently myself. We returned from our triplets 3 year old ped appointment. I was reading the hand out the ped gives for the 3 year old appointment stressing how important 1-1 time is with the child at this age. The hand out said a parent should strive for 1-1 time (no other sibs, no other parent, etc.) with your 3 year old for at least a half an hour 4 to 5x a week. That made me so







. There is just no way I could do that with all 4 kids. And it is something that bothers me . . . . . . I felt like I did not get enough time at all with my parents and I was the oldest of 4 . .. .

Good discussion . . . thanks for posting. . .

The one-to-one time is kind of a modern American thing. Not that it makes it bad, but 1-1 time once a week is something you can strive for that will make them feel special enough. Make "dates" with your children. The rest of the time 1-4 time is enough. And remember, the children are each other's playmates too.
And I think of all your children, the one who may feel left out more often may be the oldest, because the triplets will create a lot of attention just by being triplets.

All you really need to do is include them in your world - teach them when they are old enough to help bake, wash dishes, fold clothes - you can make games out of chores so they they think they are having fun doing the mundane but necessary tasks.

It will be okay.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

And about it being "the trend" now to have large families -- maybe it is among some cultural/religious groups.

But I've also heard there was a trend, back in the 60's when I was born, to stop with only 2. Parents were supposed to reproduce themselves -- ideally with 1 girl and 1 boy -- and then stop.

This was so pervasive that I guess people even made shocked comments if they found out someone was expecting a 3rd. Especially if that couple already had "one of each" (it was seen as somewhat understandable if couples with 2 girls or 2 boys wanted to "try" for a baby of the opposite sex).

So I guess some people are always going to be influenced by trends. Though I'm inclined to think it's more that the current popular trend of thought, influences and shapes our own line-of-thought as we consider various issues. Not that we just say, "Big (or small) families are TRENDY, and I have to be "in style" -- so I've got to have at least X number of kids (or I can't have any more than Y number)."

There also seems to be a trend where some people think you don't care about the environment, unless you make the same choices they do.


----------



## Miss Information (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JEB20005* 

However, I think student loans and debt are very pervasive in the United States. A lot of college-aged students don't even contemplate not taking out loans and then they end up having enormous debts for years after they graduate. I have many, many friends who are suffering from crushing debt, much of it accumulated during their college years.

****

And this is the very attitude that I found insulting earlier in the thread. I don't see how anyone can legitimately argue that taking finances into account is inappropriate. I will be a happier and more stable parent if I am not constantly worried about how I am going to feed, clothe and shelter my children.

And there is a mindset out there that makes the assumption that if I get a degree, I will be able to get the job that will pay for that degree. Oftentimes, that doesn't materialize. I know of a few college graduates still struggling to find the job they felt they deserve since they put in the time, and took out the loans to get through college. It's a crushing reality. A degree is not a guarantee of getting the fabulous pay that it used to be.

I also have two friends who never went to college, but worked their way up (one worked for same bank for many years, the other worked in different companies but quickly went up in salary over the 12 years he was working). One was making $60,000/year before she quit to be home with her son, and the other is making $80,000 and neither stepped one foot on a college campus. It doesn't seem fair, but it is reality.

I paid for my college myself, but I went to a community college first, then went to a satellite branch of a big name school so I could stay at home and not pay room and board. I was from a family of 5 kids. The only ones that got their college paid for was my brother who was 10 years younger than me (and the 3 older of us had moved out by then), and 1 year of my youngest sisters college (but she subsequently got kicked out of because she partied a little too much).

And even though I am religious, I do think about the financial aspect of raising kids - which is why dh and I stopped at 3 (well would have stopped at 2, but that whole surprise conception thing...). This is also more important since I made the decision to quit my $45,000 a year job. God does call us to be good stewards of our money too, and not just squander it needlessly without thinking of the consequences, and I feel that also means with regards to having children too. God does provide us with fertile times and non-fertile times, so that we can have some input as to the timing and the amount of children we do have through the use of these natural and God-given rhythms - it's not completely out of our hands. God gave us free thought and brains so that we can use our judgement too.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 
Unless your children grow up to not be self-supporting, I'd say that society needs as many children as you can give have. Especially in America, with the way social security is tanking, we need people working to support the elderly and those among us who can't work for one reason or another.

Not really. That's one of the many advantages to the US of immigration.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kmcmommyto3* 
I also have two friends who never went to college, but worked their way up. One was making $60,000/year before she quit to be home with her son, and the other is making $80,000 and neither stepped one foot on a college campus. It doesn't seem fair, but it is reality.

Why doesn't it seem fair? I did the same thing with the same results. I can assure you that I worked way harder than any college student to be where I am today. Yes, I make more money than many of my friends with MA degrees. Actually, most of my co-workers have advanced degrees. But we are doing the same work, and getting the same pay. That seems very fair indeed to me - same work, same pay, not how much money you borrowed or your parents paid out for your education.


----------



## newmainer (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 
Unless your children grow up to not be self-supporting, I'd say that society needs as many children as you can give have. Especially in America, with the way social security is tanking, we need people working to support the elderly and those among us who can't work for one reason or another.

are you kidding me? are you honestly using that as an argument for having more kids- to take care of boomers who have lived the high-life and now we need endless care facilities because *their* kids are working thier a**es off just trying to make it?

i'm all for families taking care of their elders and for changing how our society cares for and considers elders. But this is imo- is a pretty weak argument for having more children.


----------



## newmainer (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sonnenwende* 
Me too. I thought this was a natural living forum, environmentally responsible living. I just fail to see what is so environmentally responsible about having large families. Sorry, at the end of the day 8 kids are more than 1. 8 kids require more resources than 1. You need a bigger car(s) to drag them around. You need a bigger house to keep them. You need more clothes because even hand me downs don't last forever. You need more food. You need more electricity. You need more water. You create more trash.

You can recycle all you want and conserve all you want, but it doesn't negate the impact made by having so many kids period, particularly when they are adults. You cannot compare it to having just one because it is not comparable. A family of three could in theory waste just as much though not many do. However, it would be easy enough for them just to downsize and make a more reasonable impact and then use far less resources than a family of 10 people have to. It is just math.

Thank you!!

Not to mention that fact that our system is broken. and until our society *as a whole* changes- like our government actually taking the lead on reducing our part in global warming, and not waging wars on other nations to feed our oil addiction- all of our recycling and wearing of hand-me-downs is chump change.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

I personally don't believe that it's my duty to have less kids to reduce our carbon footprint. All of you who are saying that... I don't really get how you can get up on your high horse about "only" having one or two kids. If you're that concerned about it you should have 0 kids. Otherwise I see it as very hypocritical.

Nobody knows how much each individual family does to preserve the earth. Just looking at family size is very unfair and unscientific at that.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
I personally don't believe that it's my duty to have less kids to reduce our carbon footprint. All of you who are saying that... I don't really get how you can get up on your high horse about "only" having one or two kids. If you're that concerned about it you should have 0 kids. Otherwise I see it as very hypocritical.

Nobody knows how much each individual family does to preserve the earth. Just looking at family size is very unfair and unscientific at that.

I agree.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KBecks* 
There is a range of opinion on this. I've heard among wealthier families that it's not right to have more kids than you can afford to send to college. I believe that goes along with a preserving the family fortune and status line of thinking.

Or maybe many wealthier families deeply value education and don't feel it is responsible to have children if they can't give them a top-notch education through college?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JEB20005* 
And this is the very attitude that I found insulting earlier in the thread. I don't see how anyone can legitimately argue that taking finances into account is inappropriate. I will be a happier and more stable parent if I am not constantly worried about how I am going to feed, clothe and shelter my children. I am not a religious person so I don't buy into the "God will provide" mindset. *I* need to provide for my children and that doesn't mean I will provide excessively. It just means that I am realistic about what we can and cannot afford. I grew up very, very poor and I don't want my own children to feel that constant strain like I did as a kid. It is hard watching your parents continually stress about making ends meet and it takes a lot of the parents time and energy. Just because I don't want to stretch my family's resources to the maximum limit doesn't mean that I buy my DD an excessive amount of toys, all new clothing, etc. This all goes back to what I wrote about in response to the last quote about modeling and educating children in financial responsibility. For our family, that means not having debt and having enough in savings to get us through rough financial periods. If other families have different financial plans and comfort levels, jolly for them. But I dislike the idea presented by various posters in this thread that if you are a family that is choosing to limit how many children you have then that is tied into wanting to provide an excessively material lifestyle for your children. Ultimately, this isn't the determining factor for us, though I think it is a very reasonable and responsible aspect to consider. As I wrote earlier, I could be a multi-millionaire and I would still only have 2 children. That is just what works best for my husband and me.









: ITA.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmainer* 
Not to mention that fact that our system is broken. and until our society *as a whole* changes- like our government actually taking the lead on reducing our part in global warming, and not waging wars on other nations to feed our oil addiction- all of our recycling and wearing of hand-me-downs is chump change.

Well, then, the down-sizing of families for environmental reasons is also "chump-change," IMO.


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
I thought that (most of the) the research on this pointed to a three or four year difference as being the biological norm because of extended breastfeeding? Just curious because I'd never hear the two-year number, just the three and four year numbers.

To keep this on topic, we will probably only have two at most, maybe, under extreme circumstances, three. That's all we feel we can handle and be the parents we want to be.


I'd always heard 3-4 years, as well, but when I started looking at it, I kept reading two years. I want to look into it further; I don't know if that's an "average" and what, exactly, it takes into account. I could see if you have Baby A, in year 1, who dies in infancy, having baby B in year 2, then not having Baby C until year 6 or something b/c of extended bfing...and that still works out to an "average" of birth every two years. I am very curious now...I would suspect that 3-4 years is certainly IDEAL.

As to cruel and unusual punishment having an only...er...i'm not planning to lock mine in a cage. She'll get plenty of socialization. In fact, if you research, onlies tend to be as well adjusted or BETTER adjusted than children with siblings.

As for later in life...my great uncle had six kids, two of which lived within 15 minutes of his home (one lived in the BASEMENT apartment). Who took care of him and his wife for 15 years when they got Alzheimers, Cancer, etc?..not his kids...my grandmother...so, I don't really see having kids as an insurance that you'll be taken care of. Despite having a child, my DH and I are taking steps to ensure that that burden DOESN'T fall on our daughter. If she wants to take care of us, that's great, but I certainly don't think she's *obligated* to do so.

Ideal family size will be different from family to family, but, I think it's very important to realize one's limitations (be they emotional, financial, physical, etc.) Having a large family would be horrible for our family. I have a good friend who wants at least three. I have a good friend who wants none. But, unless it gets to the point where the children's very basic needs are not being met, I really couldn't care less how many kids someone has.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kmcmommyto3* 
I also have two friends who never went to college, but worked their way up. One was making $60,000/year before she quit to be home with her son, and the other is making $80,000 and neither stepped one foot on a college campus. It doesn't seem fair, but it is reality.

What's not fair about it? The fact that someone has a degree doesn't actually mean that they will necessarily have more to offer in the workplace. I've worked with people who have degrees and who are major assets to the companies they work for. I've also worked with people who have degrees and aren't assets at all - several of them have the attitude that since they worked so hard for their degree, they should now be able to coast (those ones either smarten up or don't last long) and others just aren't that good at their jobs. The same also applies to people without degrees - some of them are major assets, and some of them aren't. If someone can work their way up to being worth $80,000/year to their employer, I can't see how that's "unfair".


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy68* 
As far as those of you who have issues with the thread and say that you are "always" a mommy. Well the others on here have a good point. You can be mommy and also be YOU. You can't lose sight of the woman that you are. You were *you* long before you had children so you need to keep that or else somewhere along the road you might realize you aren't so happy even though it seemed like you were for so long. Children are a blessing, no doubt about that. But we can't lose ourselves in our quest to be the perfect parent either.









:







:


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Galatea* 
I *DEFINITELY* need to be more than a mommy. I think many kids would not be good for my mental health.

I feel the same way.


----------



## rambunctiouscurls (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katheek77* 
I'd always heard 3-4 years, as well, but when I started looking at it, I kept reading two years. I want to look into it further; I don't know if that's an "average" and what, exactly, it takes into account. I could see if you have Baby A, in year 1, who dies in infancy, having baby B in year 2, then not having Baby C until year 6 or something b/c of extended bfing...and that still works out to an "average" of birth every two years. I am very curious now...I would suspect that 3-4 years is certainly IDEAL.

As to cruel and unusual punishment having an only...er...i'm not planning to lock mine in a cage. She'll get plenty of socialization. In fact, if you research, onlies tend to be as well adjusted or BETTER adjusted than children with siblings.

As for later in life...my great uncle had six kids, two of which lived within 15 minutes of his home (one lived in the BASEMENT apartment). Who took care of him and his wife for 15 years when they got Alzheimers, Cancer, etc?..not his kids...my grandmother...so, I don't really see having kids as an insurance that you'll be taken care of. Despite having a child, my DH and I are taking steps to ensure that that burden DOESN'T fall on our daughter. If she wants to take care of us, that's great, but I certainly don't think she's *obligated* to do so.

Ideal family size will be different from family to family, but, I think it's very important to realize one's limitations (be they emotional, financial, physical, etc.) Having a large family would be horrible for our family. I have a good friend who wants at least three. I have a good friend who wants none. But, unless it gets to the point where the children's very basic needs are not being met, I really couldn't care less how many kids someone has.

Kathee, Thank YOU!
why are ppl so judgemental about other's choices anyway








I chose to have an only because I'm so happy with our dd, I do not want to put any more on our plate or go ahead and ruin a good thing by doing that. Our lives are easy, simple, and loads of fun. And Yeah, she gets to play with more kids than I ever did coming from a large family.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
Or maybe many wealthier families deeply value education and don't feel it is responsible to have children if they can't give them a top-notch education through college?
.

Well, I would hesitate to say that wealthier families value education more than lower net worth families. (That point was clearly brought out on the classism thread, that lower net worth families also value education, etc.) But I would say that wealthier families are more likely to do whatever they will to ensure that college degree is obtained, they see the value of a college education, and do I think it is connected in their minds with creating earnings potential, as well as giving children the experience of college. Basically giving any kids the best start in life they can.

I'm not knocking wealthy families or lower net worth families, and I want to be completely neutral about that!


----------



## Miss Information (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
What's not fair about it? The fact that someone has a degree doesn't actually mean that they will necessarily have more to offer in the workplace. I've worked with people who have degrees and who are major assets to the companies they work for. I've also worked with people who have degrees and aren't assets at all - several of them have the attitude that since they worked so hard for their degree, they should now be able to coast (those ones either smarten up or don't last long) and others just aren't that good at their jobs. The same also applies to people without degrees - some of them are major assets, and some of them aren't. If someone can work their way up to being worth $80,000/year to their employer, I can't see how that's "unfair".

I tried (but poorly expressed), that college isn't always necessary to get a great paying job. That parents drill it into the kids heads that college is your ticket to a better life, when the person doesn't have the motivation or the skill to make it really work for them, but would have been better off doing something different (directly into work, into a trade school). College becomes something they were almost pressured into, then they get into debt because of it, and then they become disillusioned because that's not what they thought they were getting themselves into.

I know someone this happened to, so it's not a theoretical scenario. And I'm so glad I didn't marry him, because he carried a $10,000 debt 10 years after the fact after he dropped out of 1 year of college. He had no degree and only debt to show for what he attempted to do.

But at any rate, I didn't say it I thought it WAS unfair, I said it doesn't "seem" fair. There's a subtle difference. The implication was to the average person looking outside in, it may not seem fair. But to another, such as yourself, it could be fair because you can look deeper into the situation. I didn't delve into that aspect of things because (at least for me) it wasn't a relevant point. I can see that is an important point to you (which is why it's not sitting right with you). And the person who is now making $80,000 technically got let go from his last job (over personal differences) and walked into the next making $80,000 - so he technically didn't work his way up in the same company (though it helped tremendously that one of the people hiring was someone he worked with 5 years prior to the job he applied for with a different company). Not saying he wasn't worth it, because he's a great guy and has very marketable skills and a very congenial personality.

But what I am saying is that there are people who have the opinion you think - that they worked hard in school and therefore "should" get a good job and then slack off afterward. Because that's what parents drill into their kids heads to get them motivated to go to college in the first place. No one questions the value of a college degree which is why everyone worries about how to pay for college, but it can happen that young people are pressured into going to college with the understanding that a degree should equal a good paying job. But you and I both know it doesn't (for the reasons you stated among others - some of which are that some people are highly skilled but terrible interviewers or they are up against equally good candidates). There are those that don't even get out of the starting gate into a good job, and those that lose jobs due to economic losses and can't get back into a good job. This second scenario happened to my dh, where he has a college degree (mechanical engineering), got laid off from his company (they were making bad choices in management that po'd their customers), and dh was low man on the totem pole so they let him go. He tried for 5 years to get back into what he was doing and couldn't until this year. Up until this year, he was doing assembly line work, busted his hiney when the other guys slacked off (he literally carried his shift), and even though he sent out dozens of resumes, only a few interviews came of it (even with the help of some headhunters) and of those most weren't engineering design work (what his degree is in), but more production line work (what he ended up doing to "get by"). Even so, I wasn't even thinking of my dh's scenario when I made the comment about fairness, because now he's finally back into engineering design work and he's so happy about it.

Life has a way of not working out the way you were told it should. For example, I had a colleague of mine who had a PH.D. fall up on bad times and ended up starting all over at a "trainee" level in one of the jobs I had. So she and I had the same amount of pay, even though she had years of experience and education on me. That's how it can legitimately be not fair. She was an extremely bright woman, but ended up having to start over after some serious misunderstandings at the university where she taught and ended up applying for a job that mostly fresh out of college graduates applied for. She was working her way back up, but her life got cut short after her cancer came out of remission.

That's all I was talking about....


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
I personally don't believe that it's my duty to have less kids to reduce our carbon footprint. All of you who are saying that... I don't really get how you can get up on your high horse about "only" having one or two kids. If you're that concerned about it you should have 0 kids. Otherwise I see it as very hypocritical.

I heard a news report of a woman in the UK who had two abortions and then was sterilized as she wanted because she and her partner believe its enviornmentally irresponsible to have children.

That's not how I think at all, but some are choosing that path.


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sonnenwende* 

You can recycle all you want and conserve all you want, but it doesn't negate the impact made by having so many kids period, particularly when they are adults. You cannot compare it to having just one because it is not comparable. A family of three could in theory waste just as much though not many do. However, it would be easy enough for them just to downsize and make a more reasonable impact and then use far less resources than a family of 10 people have to. It is just math.


EXACTLY. People don't seem to get this.


----------



## Miss Information (May 17, 2005)

KBecks said:


> I heard a news report of a woman in the UK who had two abortions and then was sterilized as she wanted because she and her partner believe its enviornmentally irresponsible to have children.
> 
> That's not how I think at all, but some are choosing that path.[/
> 
> You have to have some children born because if no one did, people would eventually die out. And somewhere I read that we are among the first generation where the children are in poorer health than the parents (environmental toxins, genetically mutated foods, etc), so I really think we are going to have the average life span shortened again. But cancers and viruses that are deadly and the body not being able to fend them off are going to do that.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kmcmommyto3* 
That's all I was talking about....

Oh, okay - I misunderstood you. The degree issue is one that frequently rubs me the wrong way, and I then filter other people's comments through that.

I'm sorry about your friend.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:

I don't really get how you can get up on your high horse about "only" having one or two kids. If you're that concerned about it you should have 0 kids. Otherwise I see it as very hypocritical.
Two or fewer refers to replacement rate. In other words, you aren't making the problem worse. I've got two kids, but did not birth them.

I absolutely think it is my responsibility to provide my children with a college education. I wouldn't have adopted them if I wasn't prepared to do that. Some people do manage to make a good living without a college education, but statistically, people with college degrees earn substantially more money than those without. I want to help my kids to be successful, and I believe that the number one way I can do that is by sending them to college. I also believe that getting started in life is difficult enough without being underneath a pile of debt.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

I used a carbon footprint calculator and according to it my family of 7 (soon to be, hopefully, 8!) uses far less resources than a typical family of 3. I drive, at most, 20 miles a week, usually closer to 10. And there's no guarantee that my 6 children will have fewer or more children cumulatively than someone else's 1 or 2. My mother had 2 children and now has 9, almost 10 grandchildren.

A couple of my children have already told me that they have no plans on procreating. It's very likely that my children will produce fewer grandchildren than my mother's 2 did. You just can't predict.


----------



## Miss Information (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Oh, okay - I misunderstood you. The degree issue is one that frequently rubs me the wrong way, and I then filter other people's comments through that.

I'm sorry about your friend.









No, it's okay. And thank you.

Life is never what you expect but what you make of it, right?


----------



## maplesugar (May 24, 2005)

With regards to the environmental impact of having children, I think it all comes down to lifestyle choices. I surmise that having ten breastfed, cloth-diapered (depending upon how ecologically laundered), low viehicular using children does less damage to the earth than the opposite.

If you have ten children but rarely use fossile fuels, and raise you own food, you do less damage than a one child family who does typical mainstream things.

I recently read one mothers account of going through eighty disposable diapers per week with her 3 month old. Multiply this by three years. That's a lot of plastic in the landfills.

Of course, most large families I know do use sposies.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maplesugar* 
With regards to the environmental impact of having children, I think it all comes down to lifestyle choices. I surmise that having ten breastfed, cloth-diapered (depending upon how ecologically laundered), low viehicular using children does less damage to the earth than the opposite.

If you have ten children but rarely use fossile fuels, and raise you own food, you do less damage than a one child family who does typical mainstream things.

I recently read one mothers account of going through eighty disposable diapers per week with her 3 month old. Multiply this by three years. That's a lot of plastic in the landfills.

Of course, most large families I know do use sposies.

But someday all 10 of those children grow up. They're not going to live in the one low-impact home forever. They're each going to need their own house, for their own family and their own ten kids.

And 40 years down the road, the 2-child family has their household, 2 child households, and 4 grandchild households - 7 households total. The 10-child family family has 111 households. Even if the 7 households drive SUVs and use disposables, the 111 households in their Priuses, washign their cloth diapers are still going to have a bigger carbon footprint. They'd have to reduce their footprints to 1/10th of the smaller family's footprint for all things to be equal.


----------



## maplesugar (May 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
But someday all 10 of those children grow up. They're not going to live in the one low-impact home forever. They're each going to need their own house, for their own family and their own ten kids.

And 40 years down the road, the 2-child family has their household, 2 child households, and 4 grandchild households - 7 households total. The 10-child family family has 111 households. Even if the 7 households drive SUVs and use disposables, the 111 households in their Priuses, washign their cloth diapers are still going to have a bigger carbon footprint. They'd have to reduce their footprints to 1/10th of the smaller family's footprint for all things to be equal.

Agreed.









I guess I can see it both ways. I just think so much pollution is caused during the childhood years. People generally look for the ease of "modern" products when they start to have children.

We should all work to reduce our carbon emmissions, big family or small.









I came from a big family myself and probably would have enjoyed it had my mom and step dad not been malfunctional.

I like having my siblings around now that we are all adults.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
But someday all 10 of those children grow up. They're not going to live in the one low-impact home forever. They're each going to need their own house, for their own family and their own ten kids.

And 40 years down the road, the 2-child family has their household, 2 child households, and 4 grandchild households - 7 households total. The 10-child family family has 111 households. Even if the 7 households drive SUVs and use disposables, the 111 households in their Priuses, washign their cloth diapers are still going to have a bigger carbon footprint. They'd have to reduce their footprints to 1/10th of the smaller family's footprint for all things to be equal.

This is so obvious, yet clearly many people are in total denial about it.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KBecks* 
But I would say that wealthier families are more likely to do whatever they will to ensure that college degree is obtained, they see the value of a college education, and do I think it is connected in their minds with creating earnings potential, as well as giving children the experience of college. Basically giving any kids the best start in life they can.

I don't think that wealthier parents look to education for earning potential more than poorer parents, and I definitely still disagree with your earlier statement regarding status and earning. If anything, in my experience wealthier parents are more likely to encourage their kids to study esoteric subjects for the sake of learning only, because they can afford to subsidize that kind of intellectual exploration on the part of their children.

In the college I attended, the wealthiest kids majored in the humanities, because they didn't have to worry about getting a job after college. The sciences and engineering schools were filled with poorer kids.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KBecks* 
I'm not knocking wealthy families or lower net worth families, and I want to be completely neutral about that!

I think, though, that stating that wealthier families do something for their children for status and money reasons alone, though, does come out quite negative, whether you mean that or not.


----------



## JERENAUD (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EFmom* 
This is so obvious, yet clearly many people are in total denial about it.

But you're also assuming that each child will move out, start his/ her own household and have a large family. What about those who continue to live at home, to care for aging parents? (a fairly traditional responsibility in a large family) What about those who do get married but don't have 10 children? What about those who leave home but share a household, maybe with another sibling, as my husband's uncles have done? Our culture really promotes independence, but that wasn't always true. It used to be that at least one child was expected to stay at home to care for the parents and the farm, and children didn't generally leave until they were married, so the total number of households was far less than what you're suggesting. To play devil's advocate, perhaps these 10 children are being raised with these values regarding their families.

So I don't know that it's *so* obvious.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
But someday all 10 of those children grow up. They're not going to live in the one low-impact home forever. *They're each going to need their own house, for their own family and their own ten kids*.

And 40 years down the road, the 2-child family has their household, 2 child households, and 4 grandchild households - 7 households total. The 10-child family family has 111 households. Even if the 7 households drive SUVs and use disposables, the 111 households in their Priuses, washign their cloth diapers are still going to have a bigger carbon footprint. They'd have to reduce their footprints to 1/10th of the smaller family's footprint for all things to be equal.

Bolding mine.

I suppose you may have some statistics to back up your assertion that ALL children from large families will grow up to have large families -- as well as your assertion that ALL children from small families will grow up to have small families.

What I see IRL, is that some children grow up to do things similarly to their parents, and some totally diverge.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JERENAUD* 
Our culture really promotes independence, but that wasn't always true. It used to be that at least one child was expected to stay at home to care for the parents and the farm, and children didn't generally leave until they were married, so the total number of households was far less than what you're suggesting. To play devil's advocate, perhaps these 10 children are being raised with these values regarding their families.

So I don't know that it's *so* obvious.

Exactly.

And I agree with the pp's who believe that the more children we pass our values on to, the further the message will spread.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saimeiyu* 
If I teach my kids to treat the land properly, to not waste water on stupid things like spraying your sidewalk clean, to turn off the lights when they're not in use, and not to litter, and to recycle, my 5 or 6 kid family will have less impact than probably 50% of the single-kid families in America.

Honestly, those things are not going to make that much of a difference. The real difference is in material consumption and food distribution, not in "green-lite" earth-saving strategies.

dm


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EFmom* 
I absolutely think it is my responsibility to provide my children with a college education. I wouldn't have adopted them if I wasn't prepared to do that.

Hmmm. The third child to join our family (via adoption) will be college age in 5 years. I certainly can't see us being able to finance a college education then (those pesky medical bills and all that). I know that what you said is simply your opinion, but I certainly don't see being able to pay for college as a (dis)qualifier for adoption!


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
It's not a lack of money that prevents support of those who need it, but a lack of giving a crap.

Well, we're pretty charitable/generous, as are our kids, so the more people we produce that give a crap, the better.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 
Well, we're pretty charitable/generous, as are our kids, so the more people we produce that give a crap, the better.









Sounds a bit like my philosophy that the queers need to breed like bunnies to keep up with the 'quiverfull' fundies.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

I absolutely think it is my responsibility to provide my children with a college education. I wouldn't have adopted them if I wasn't prepared to do that.
I'd think it would be better for children to be adopted at all, regardless of whether that parent was able to fund their college education.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 







Sounds a bit like my philosophy that the queers need to breed like bunnies to keep up with the 'quiverfull' fundies.

Well you'd better get to it, because right now I've got you 4 to 1.


----------



## Rockies5 (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
As others have said, it's an individual issue for each family. I have to say that when I see other women with 4 or more kids and they look like they have it all together, I often wonder if that mother has completely lost her SELF... that part of you who makes you you. Sometimes they seem like they never get to take off the "mother" hat, if that makes sense. When you are forced to be mother 24/7 just because of the sheer size of your family, I can't imagine that it's healthy, even if it appears that she has it all together. I'm sure some women thrive in those situations, though. They appear to love having a very large family, and indeed, do, as it is their fulfillment.









I'm quoting this because it is SO well written and expresses so much that I, as a full time mother of 5 wish I had the brain power left to tell other women.

Children are a WONDERFUL JOY. Mine especially. They are all high needs and the ones who have been tested are actually genius-level intelligence. I am not. It's HARD. I didn't know I was loosing myself until I was basically GONE and there was this insane, natural living to the core, OCD-perfectionist homeschooler left that I hardly recognized.

The financial part has ruined us.

I joke in my CBE classes about how one day we realized our relationship wasn't simply on the back burner but had fallen on the floor years ago and had been kicked under the stove by some crazed sling wearing woman with a swiffer in one hand and a pot of coffee in the other. Clean floor meant more to me then spending time with dh. If I was given the choice between a date and a day alone cleaning..oh man that whould be a tough choice!

I wouldn't be one to say not to do it, or that I wouldn't do it all over again even knowing what I know now. I'd just want to be honest about what it is like. It's really chaotic (as far as movement goes, and I'm really sensitive to that type of thing) and loud, and messy. Some days I can clean 8hrs non stop (meaning not even 5mins sitting with a glass of water) and it makes little difference. We have a good sized house and not a lot of stuff yet there is clutter everything all the time.

It doesnt get easier as they get older. It's gets more complicated, more expensive, more messy (??), more noisy and more rushed. In general you won't see many families with more then 2-3kids in the GD forum. You all can guess why. There isn't always time for thoughtful approaches to every infraction. After 3 our motto changed to the Vulcan motto: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Very scary stuff









I also still have long stints of time where I am totally on top of things and happy being a housemaid (as they grow that's all you are in many respects. The 2, 4, 6 8 and 10yo will all go to the park, outback or watch a show while you clean) and working part to full time out of the home.

Recently I enrolled in college part time. I finally realized that things will never be easier, so I am embracing it and doing my best to enjoy the ride without loosing view of my goals again. It may take me 10 years to graduate, but if I had done this 10 years ago; I'd be done now! My best advice would be to not sell yourself short. Not to give up or put aside things that are importnat to you, because of the belief that they (whatever they may be) are incompatable with motherhood. I did this with my education, assuming that to be a good mother I needed to cross these t's and dot those i's.

Once I started pursing some things that I needed to (um besides the help I need for the OCD cleaning issues







) like in 2003 when I started my homestudy for my CCE, or the year before that when I began volunteering at births and working for hospice when time allowed (during that time dh was working FT and in college FT) I feel that I became a better mother simply because I was no longer frustrated.

I greatly admire those mothers who are fully fulfilled with their role as wife and mother and desire only to care and homemake.

I used to pray to become one of them, I still pray for peace about my current situation, but I've also learned that I have ambition and drive pouring out of me for a reason! In a million years I'd never wish one of my kids to put out their light, whatever it is, for anyone else. I no longer think I'm doing them any good by putting out mine.

just FYI this window was open on my computer for FOUR hours because of all the interruptions whil ei tried to write this. LOL


----------



## Rockies5 (May 17, 2005)

I'm one of 6. all but two sibling are childless by choice. the other two each had one child and are done. They found childrearing so distasteful that they tried to get their tubes tied at 20.


----------



## mimiharshe (Oct 16, 2006)

:


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 
Well you'd better get to it, because right now I've got you 4 to 1.

I'm cooking number 2 right now...


----------



## BMG580 (Jun 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rockies5* 
I'm one of 6. all but two sibling are childless by choice. the other two each had one child and are done. They found childrearing so distasteful that they tried to get their tubes tied at 20.

I know a family like this. The family had five children and only one of those siblings has one child. The oldest in the family is a woman in her early 40s. When people ask her why she didn't have children of her own (she's been married for years) she replies that she already helped raise children and she has no interest in having her own offspring. It seems that in this family the older children were relied upon heavily to help with the younger children.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
But aren't you kinda glad they didn't do what they "should" have done? Do you really think you'd be happier if you'd never been born?

What an odd question... of course I would have never known, so what would it have been to me? "I" wasn't yet, so how could "I" have been sad?

ETA: I just came back to this thread after the holiday otherwise I would have replied sooner.


----------



## Rockies5 (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JEB20005* 
she replies that she already helped raise children and she has no interest in having her own offspring. It seems that in this family the older children were relied upon heavily to help with the younger children.

this is true in the family I was raised in as well. My sister and I were babysitting full time when school was out for the summer. She was 12. I was 10. The "little kids" we were watching were 6years, 2years and a pair of 1yo twins.







we were also expected to clean perfectly (floors, windows, diapes, pet cages) and we didn't get a dishwasher until the 90's. It wasn't a positive expereince for her, but I got the selective memories genes and don't recall as much as she does. I also always liked babies and kids so found "playing house" fun. She bore most of the work though.

My best friends are two 40+ married 15+ years women who are childless by choice after growing up in families similar to mine.


----------



## Galatea (Jun 28, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rockies5* 
I'm quoting this because it is SO well written and expresses so much that I, as a full time mother of 5 wish I had the brain power left to tell other women.

Children are a WONDERFUL JOY. Mine especially. They are all high needs and the ones who have been tested are actually genius-level intelligence. I am not. It's HARD. I didn't know I was loosing myself until I was basically GONE and there was this insane, natural living to the core, OCD-perfectionist homeschooler left that I hardly recognized.

The financial part has ruined us.

I joke in my CBE classes about how one day we realized our relationship wasn't simply on the back burner but had fallen on the floor years ago and had been kicked under the stove by some crazed sling wearing woman with a swiffer in one hand and a pot of coffee in the other. Clean floor meant more to me then spending time with dh. If I was given the choice between a date and a day alone cleaning..oh man that whould be a tough choice!

I wouldn't be one to say not to do it, or that I wouldn't do it all over again even knowing what I know now. I'd just want to be honest about what it is like. It's really chaotic (as far as movement goes, and I'm really sensitive to that type of thing) and loud, and messy. Some days I can clean 8hrs non stop (meaning not even 5mins sitting with a glass of water) and it makes little difference. We have a good sized house and not a lot of stuff yet there is clutter everything all the time.

It doesnt get easier as they get older. It's gets more complicated, more expensive, more messy (??), more noisy and more rushed. In general you won't see many families with more then 2-3kids in the GD forum. You all can guess why. There isn't always time for thoughtful approaches to every infraction. After 3 our motto changed to the Vulcan motto: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Very scary stuff









I also still have long stints of time where I am totally on top of things and happy being a housemaid (as they grow that's all you are in many respects. The 2, 4, 6 8 and 10yo will all go to the park, outback or watch a show while you clean) and working part to full time out of the home.

Recently I enrolled in college part time. I finally realized that things will never be easier, so I am embracing it and doing my best to enjoy the ride without loosing view of my goals again. It may take me 10 years to graduate, but if I had done this 10 years ago; I'd be done now! My best advice would be to not sell yourself short. Not to give up or put aside things that are importnat to you, because of the belief that they (whatever they may be) are incompatable with motherhood. I did this with my education, assuming that to be a good mother I needed to cross these t's and dot those i's.

Once I started pursing some things that I needed to (um besides the help I need for the OCD cleaning issues







) like in 2003 when I started my homestudy for my CCE, or the year before that when I began volunteering at births and working for hospice when time allowed (during that time dh was working FT and in college FT) I feel that I became a better mother simply because I was no longer frustrated.

I greatly admire those mothers who are fully fulfilled with their role as wife and mother and desire only to care and homemake.

I used to pray to become one of them, I still pray for peace about my current situation, but I've also learned that I have ambition and drive pouring out of me for a reason! In a million years I'd never wish one of my kids to put out their light, whatever it is, for anyone else. I no longer think I'm doing them any good by putting out mine.

just FYI this window was open on my computer for FOUR hours because of all the interruptions whil ei tried to write this. LOL


Wow. This is great, really what I was looking for. I can see myself going down your path, esp. the "insane, natural living to the core, OCD-perfectionist homeschooler," and I realize I have too much ambition to not do something for myself. I have limited myself academically; before marriage I was in the top law school, and now I take classes at CC to get an ADN. I tried to go back to a major school to do premed classes, but got overwhelmed and depressed. I need to not write off those options, though, just b/c I have littles now.

Thank you soooooooo much for your thoughts.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rockies5* 
My best friends are two 40+ married 15+ years women who are childless by choice after growing up in families similar to mine.

This is interesting. Apparently the pp's prediction that environmentally-conscious parents raising 10 kids are always going to make a bigger footprint than parents raising 2, isn't that accurate.

According to that pp, ALL children who grow up in large families, grow up to have large families, and on and on and on. Here's an example of at least 2 who didn't.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

IMO, you have to look at the life you have now and try to determine whether you could provide your kids, yourself, and your family as a whole with what you want to provide if you had more kids before you can really make that decision.

I wanted to have five kids. I have three, and I feel stretched thin by that. I am sure that some of it is our family configuration. My two littles are artificial twins (children of the same age who are not bio sibs) and they require an extraordinary amount of energy to keep up with. My youngest is in speech, physical, and occupational therapy. My middle is in occupational therapy. My oldest has a truckload of emotional problems and also has HIV and Hep B. She has a lot of doctor and therapist visits as well as requiring therapeutic parenting at home. I would not be able to give anything more at this time.

Also, having more kids would mean that we could do fewer things outside the home. I find that going out to eat with three kids is astronomically more expensive than when we had just one kid. We need a bigger car. It's harder to visit people with more kids. My in-laws wouldn't have space for 7 people to visit; we'd have to split up. Family passes never include seven people. And etc. My FIL (who had three children) said he realized after the third that the world is built for a four-person family. I find that to be true. To me, two kids didn't feel like enough. Three feels, not like too many, but rather overwhelming.

However, if my three kids were, say, 10, 6, and 2, and were reasonably healthy, I would probably feel very differently. I think I would also feel differently if all of my children went to school (I homeschool the youngers). Having fewer medical expenses would make a difference. My husband having a less demanding job, time-wise, would make a difference.

I think it's a constellation of things that is different for every family.

dm


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dbsam* 
I give people credit when they know one child is right for them.

I wish my AIL held this statement. When she learned that DH and I were stopping at 1 child she flew into a glorious lecture that every woman should "at least 4 kids". I have no earthly idea where she came up with that idea. I really don't.

She has also instilled this into her 2 Adult Children (Son, Age 27 and Daughter Age 25). Currently, the Son is meeting HER goal and has #4 on the way, by 3 different women. He has no job and cannot support any of his kids. Guess who is paying Child Support to the first 2 children's Mom? AIL.

The Daughter remains Childfree. So far.

AIL has some type of (anger?) towards Only Children. I went through horrible PPD. Horrible. It lasted until DS was well over Age 2. So, I was a zombie for over 2 years. DH and I both knew *immediately*...we had reached our limit.

I can honestly say, if DH had turned out to be some sort of bastard of a husband and left me with a newborn infant because he couldn't handle it...DS would have probably wound up being taken care of by my SIL or other AIL (his chosen Guardians in the event of our deaths). Because I was sick...Mentally.

And to this day, regardless of what I went through the first 2 years, AIL is still pissed that DS will remain an Only Child. DH and I have told her (and will tell anyone who asks "So, when is #2 coming?" ) that it will be irresponsible...completely irresponsible for *US* to not have any more kids.

So, realizing THAT, I don't feel, having 1 child is "cruel and unusual punishment"


----------



## bobica (May 31, 2004)

I am constantly challenged with my ONE dd. I'm always amazed at people who choose to have bigger families. My best friend has 4 kids & would have more but she had a traumatic birth with the 4th one, and there are lots of concerns about having another pregnancy.

we struggle with the idea of having a 2nd one. DD will be 5 in March & we *still* can't get off the fence









absolutely, it's different for every family. knowing yourself, your limits, your personality, etc. etc. makes a big difference.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
This is interesting. Apparently the pp's prediction that environmentally-conscious parents raising 10 kids are always going to make a bigger footprint than parents raising 2, isn't that accurate.

According to that pp, ALL children who grow up in large families, grow up to have large families, and on and on and on. Here's an example of at least 2 who didn't.

Okay, say that some have the same size family, some have smaller. But some will have larger.

My husband has an aunt who is one of 19. No matter how many of her siblings choose to have none or one or two ... the fact is that a family of 19 _will_ have a larger carbon footprint in the next generation than a family of 2. Even with several of her siblings choosing no family or small families, she has 120 nieces and nephews on her side. On her DH's side (my husbands uncle) - she has 5.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
Okay, say that some have the same size family, some have smaller. But some will have larger.

My husband has an aunt who is one of 19. No matter how many of her siblings choose to have none or one or two ... the fact is that a family of 19 _will_ have a larger carbon footprint in the next generation than a family of 2. Even with several of her siblings choosing no family or small families, she has 120 nieces and nephews on her side. On her DH's side (my husbands uncle) - she has 5.

Okay ... but it's still a matter of interpretation: you seem to think 5 is better than 120. I think each and every new life is something to celebrate -- and I'm not implying that you don't celebrate life, either, just that we obviously have different ways of looking at the same issue.

The more people there are, the more diverse ways there are of looking at all the issues ... more people may create more problems but, the more minds there are to think about the problems, the better the chance of solutions, and on and on ...


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Quote:

The more people there are, the more diverse ways there are of looking at all the issues ... more people may create more problems but, the more minds there are to think about the problems, the better the chance of solutions, and on and on ...
Yup. Sometimes we're our own worst enemy. Sometimes, we're our best hope.







THe world would have missed out on a lot of greats had a 2-child family been the norm through the centuries, and we will miss out on more greats if it becomes the norm in the future.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom* 
Yup. Sometimes we're our own worst enemy. Sometimes, we're our best hope.







THe world would have missed out on a lot of greats had a 2-child family been the norm through the centuries, and we will miss out on more greats if it becomes the norm in the future.

And using that logic, we will also miss out on more mass murderers, terrorists, polluters, dictators and the like.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Galatea* 
Wow. This is great, really what I was looking for.
Thank you soooooooo much for your thoughts.

Rockies 5, I also appreciate your insights and honesty on this subject. Thanks!


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EFmom* 
And using that logic, we will also miss out on more mass murderers, terrorists, polluters, dictators and the like.

I guess it depends on our views of human nature.

I tend to take an optimistic view of each new child that's born into the world. I see more good possibilities than bad.


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I guess it depends on our views of human nature.

I tend to take an optimistic view of each new child that's born into the world. I see more good possibilities than bad.


Optimism is nice, but it's not logical. So yes, the more babies born, the more chance for great people and awful ones, right?

Same w/ carbon footprints - there will certainly be those "exception to the rules" families, but OVERALL and OVERWHELMINGLY, families that have a bunch of kids are making a much larger impact on the environment than small families.

Look, have a bunch of kids if you want to, but don't deny that it is what it is.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom* 
Yup. Sometimes we're our own worst enemy. Sometimes, we're our best hope.







THe world would have missed out on a lot of greats had a 2-child family been the norm through the centuries, and we will miss out on more greats if it becomes the norm in the future.

I'll write what I always end up writing in these threads.

My mom is a retired principal and teacher. She started teaching in the 1960s. When she first started out, she said on average 50% of each class she taught would be what today is considered "gifted." Very bright, motivated children, with caring parents invested in their education.

Then in the 1970s the "too many children pollute the environment" stuff started. My mom said within 5 years she noticed a drastic change in the quality of the classes she was seeing. Instead of a 50% "gifted" component, there would be only 1 or 2 children per class who would be considered especially bright, and whose parents were deeply involved and committed to their education.

In other words, the intelligent, conscientious people stopped having children, while the uneducated ones and/or the ones who didn't care kept having them.

If you need me to spell it out for you, the social implications of this are that society is intellectually and morally dragged downward in the name of environmentalism. More power is put in the hands of fewer people. The populace becomes more passive and less intellectually charged by virtue of its make up.

My mother, while not necessarily approving of my large family size (for reasons other than environment), has always told me the above anecdote when the issue of family size comes up. The greatest tragedy of the zero population movement is that it created a reverse eugenics that subtracts talent, consciousness, and intellect from the genepools of the developed world.


----------



## IdahoMom (Nov 8, 2005)

I'm youngest of 9. The only thing I wish was different is that I'm not really close to all my siblings. But that could be our family dynamic as much as our size.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

*Several posts and those quoting them have been removed from this thread for violations of the MDC UA. Please keep in mind that we do not allow posting in a disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual, including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, name-calling, personal attack, or in any way which violates the law.

Further violations will force closure and removal of this thread from the board and appropriate action taken for said violations.

Dallaschildren*


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Okay ... but it's still a matter of interpretation: you seem to think 5 is better than 120. I think each and every new life is something to celebrate -- and I'm not implying that you don't celebrate life, either, just that we obviously have different ways of looking at the same issue.

The more people there are, the more diverse ways there are of looking at all the issues ... more people may create more problems but, the more minds there are to think about the problems, the better the chance of solutions, and on and on ...

I know we're getting way off topic here, but my opinion is colored by the fact that my DH does agricultural research. I've seen the charts he has on the amounts of "tillable" land on the planet, the percentages of it currently under cultivation, and the outputs possible from it with "ideal" yields of current crops. Earth isn't full yet, and redistribution of food resources from richer to poorer countries would help a lot -- but statistically, there will be a point --sooner or later -- at which the population exceeds the ability of the tillable soil on the earth to produce enough calories to feed everyone. Current projections put that point a little sooner than most people think. The _faster_ we get there, the less ready we will be for it with better, more sustainable farming practices.

I'm not a zero-population-growth advocate. I just think we need to be sure we're not lemmings rushing off the cliff. Yes, one of those 120 kids in my post above might be the one to discover a solution to the problem; but if they didn't, one of the 5 might be able to, as well.


----------



## IdahoMom (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Bolding mine.

I suppose you may have some statistics to back up your assertion that ALL children from large families will grow up to have large families -- as well as your assertion that ALL children from small families will grow up to have small families.

What I see IRL, is that some children grow up to do things similarly to their parents, and some totally diverge.


Using DH's large family:

Sibling 1- 2 kids
Sibling 2- 6 kids
Sibling 3- 3 kids
Sibling 4- 3 kids
Sibling 5- 5 kids
Silbing 6- 3 kids
Sibling 7- none

All but 2 and maybe 3 of those are done having children.

and my large family:

Sibling 1- 6 children
Sibling 2- 6 children
Sibling 3- 3 children
Sibling 4- 5 children
Sibling 5- 4 children
Sibling 6- 5 children
Sibling 7- 4 children
Sibling 8- 3 children
Sibling 9- 3 children

One or two may or may not have more children.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Yes - but mammal_mama was asking about _all_ large families.

My ex-MIL is one of 13. She had 2 kids (each of whom had one) - one of her sisters had 1 - one brother had 2. The last time I had any contact with them, that was it. Her youngest brother was only about 27 at that time, so he may have gone on to have some kids, but I have no idea how many, if he did. So - out of 13 kids, there was a total of 5 grandkids at last count. The only ones who had kids were my ex and his sister, which meant 2 great-grandkids. Admittedly, there may be more now. My ex-MIL's family live in Ontario, and I certainly haven't had any contact with them since my ex and I split up.

On the flip side, my maternal grandparents had 2 kids. They each had 3 (my generation). On my uncle's side, there are 6 great-grandchildren, with another on the way. On my mom's side, there are 11, and would be 12 if Aaron had lived. I'll probably have 1 more.

So starting with my ex-MIL's parents and my grandparents in the same generation:

My ex-GMIL had 13 kids, and 2 great-grandchildren.
My grandmother had 2 kids, and 18 great-grandchildren.

We can't exactly figure this out as a mathematical problem, because there's no way of knowing how many children our children will have.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
Earth isn't full yet, and redistribution of food resources from richer to poorer countries would help a lot -- but statistically, there will be a point --sooner or later -- at which the population exceeds the ability of the tillable soil on the earth to produce enough calories to feed everyone. Current projections put that point a little sooner than most people think. The _faster_ we get there, the less ready we will be for it with better, more sustainable farming practices.

Have you ever read Daniel Quinn's _Story of B_ (sequel to _Ishmael_)? Since I'm a Christian, there's a lot I disagree with in Quinn's writings -- but I was absolutely intrigued by Quinn's presentation of at least one anthropologist's view of population growth.

Quinn asserts that *over-production of food* is the reason the world's population keeps increasing. There are some in power who keep insisting we have to continue aggressive agricultural practices in order to make sure everyone gets "enough" food, at affordable enough prices. But the truth (according to Quinn) is that we keep over-producing, and world population keeps increasing in response to the abundance of food.

So ... the abundance of food results in the abundance of people, which big agriculture uses as justification for continuing the aggressive practices that increase population (I'm not sure if Quinn says this, but it's how I see it).

Quinn's idea (expressed through his protagonist) is that when food supply starts to drop off, population will level off, too. He's not advocating starving anyone, either. He simply asserts that people are made of food -- there has to already BE food, for new people to grow.

This makes a lot of sense to me, and I'm strongly in favor of "the powers that be" forgetting about meeting production quotas, and focusing in on the sustainable practices that are the key to health for everyone: earth, and all the plants and creatures that inhabit her.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
I know we're getting way off topic here, but my opinion is colored by the fact that my DH does agricultural research. I've seen the charts he has on the amounts of "tillable" land on the planet, the percentages of it currently under cultivation, and the outputs possible from it with "ideal" yields of current crops. Earth isn't full yet, and redistribution of food resources from richer to poorer countries would help a lot -- but statistically, there will be a point --sooner or later -- at which the population exceeds the ability of the tillable soil on the earth to produce enough calories to feed everyone. Current projections put that point a little sooner than most people think. The _faster_ we get there, the less ready we will be for it with better, more sustainable farming practices.

But consumption is a different issue from family size. A large family can eat carefully and consume less food than a small family with a high consumption rate eats/ wastes. Packaged and frozen foods are also resource gobblers, compared to homemade food made with basic staples.

The waste and consumption in America alone is sickening... it's not about numbers of people, but the amount each individual consumes. We are a society of waste and indulgence. I can't even stand eating out at restaurants anymore because I'm sickened by the amount of food I see thrown away. I had a friend who waitressed through college and she said it wasn't unusual for people to eat less than 1/4 of the food on her plate. The rest was thrown away.

The last time I went out to eat at a nice restaurant, I was served enough food to feed 3 or more people. It was so disturbing I just swore off eating out entirely.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
I had a friend who waitressed through college and she said it wasn't unusual for people to eat less than 1/4 of the food on her plate. The rest was thrown away.

Don't people even do doggie bags, anymore? When we don't finish something in a restaurant (that's the kids more often than me or dh), we bring the rest home, and eat it the next day.


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

Well, our doggie bags go to the dog, because we love her









Something else: DH and I are both onlies. My mum and dad were both one of two, his mum and dad were one of three or four respectively. His mum and my dad both died over 10 years ago, when we were in our early twenties.
We're now in a situation where my FIL is wheelchair bound with rheumatoid arthritis and because of shame about his medical conditions, chooses not to leave the house. He's entirely dependent on others, and his brothers, who helped support him before DH finished his education and moved here, are getting on a bit themselves. One has arthritis and is being treated for cancer, one has a wife with alzheimers. They've both got their hands full.
So what this means, bluntly, is that it's down to us. Social services and the district nursing team will do what they can- they do the daily personal care, the washing, the dressing. All the rest of it- including some help with medications- is passed to us to do. Helping him physically manage his money. Shopping. Cleaning. Cooking. The works. And we do it willingly, because we love him- but there's a cost. The cost is us living in fear of my mum having a bad fall, getting alzheimers, rheumatism, anything that would require a comparable level of support, and us feeling forced to choose between our two surviving parents. Just ONE other sibling in our families would ease that pressure on us. And yes, the UK has a pretty good support network for people like my FIL, but they can't- won't- don't, do it all. This could be you. This could be your kids.

Oh, and in terms of consumption, more than half our family's refuse is created by FIL. The convenience/waste correlation, ime, is most closely connected to those who need that ease of use. That's not necessarily young families, but young adults who are learning independence and those at the other end of their lives.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

It just boggles my mind that there's all this worry about food supply, when all I see (and hear about) is tons and tons of food getting thrown out every day. I recently watched a debate on TV between someone representing big agriculture, and someone representing a more sustainable, organic approach.

The big agriculture guy agreed that organic food tastes better than the mass-produced stuff -- but insisted that most people can't afford organic, and also insisted that our population requires a continued focus on big agriculture, possibly shifting to nuclear power in the near future.

The sustainable guy pointed out that we're over-producing food, but I think he was just kind of ignored.

I just think there are some powerful folks out there who have a strong interest in preserving the agricultural status quo -- and they use population as an excuse to keep disregarding the obvious.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *quarteralien* 
What about societal stability, which is lessened when the birth rate falls below replacement levels, about 2.2 per woman? It has to be more than 2 because not everyone makes it to adulthood. If the population falls, the average age increases, and soon there will be a larger number of retired people than working people to support them. This is also something to consider.

I'm all for taking care of our earth. That is why I will teach my children to do so by example. That way there are even more people to go out into the world and teach others to take care of it.

Oh, yes, I completely agree that it is important to teach children to be good stewards of the environment, and to go out into the world and to teach others.

But population growth is a real issue, and the planet's resources are finite, so more people = less resources, however sustainably used.

Still, we should all strive to lessen our footprint and live as sustainably as possible, no matter how many children we decide to have (granted this is just my opinion based on my own worldview).


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *quarteralien* 
If the population falls, the average age increases, and soon there will be a larger number of retired people than working people to support them. This is also something to consider.

Yes, I agree with this in theory. The world population is not decreasing though. If you look at population trends, we are in no danger world wide of population decline.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *andrea* 
Again, it depends on which way you are willing to look at it.
I could argue that a family with 6 kids had 5 more people that are willing and able to save the earth than a family with 1 kid.
And what if one of those 6 kids goes on to research/invent/contribute to something world-changing and miraculous for the environment or society?
What if the only child goes to become the CEO of Shell and chooses to pollute hundreds of lakes and rivers and poisons thousands of animals in the pursuit of oil and greed?
What if that one kid is in disposables for 4 years, and the 6 are EC'd 100%?
What if the 1 kid had a 3000sq foot house and his parents use disposable EVERYTHING and own 4 hummers? What if the family with 6 kids lives in a tiny "green" house and uses public transportation and walks everywhere?
What if the one becomes a narcistic sociopath and rapes and murders rapes 36 women? What if one of the 6 opens and runs a sanctuary for battered women and fundraises millions into rehab and family councilling programs?

We could "what if" all day, but the fact of the matter is, you cant prove AT ALL that 1 child is more responsible or has less of an impact on the earth/environmnent/society than 6,
nor can you prove that 6 children are more responsible or has less of an impact on the earth/environmnent/society than one. Because that is assuming.

There are infinite possibilities lying in each and every one of us.

True. Very true. Yes, I think the manner in which a household raises children and lives in general matters quite a lot. You are correct that as you make parenting decisions, that the impact that your 2 or more children have could have a lesser footprint than someone who raises one child in an opulent or wasteful manner.

But...what about when those children go out into the world...do 5 adults living lightly thread more lightly in total than one adult with an average footprint? I don't know.

And what about when those 5 people have 2 or more children each? The impact surely is greater.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *andrea* 
I will argue that there is NOT finite resources for the amount pf people on earth as of now. There is only a distribution problem. There, people go hungry. Here, we waste millions of pounds of food.
There is ENOUGH for everyone. It is a matter of figuring out how to get it to everyone that needs it, or educating people who need it on how to access it. We just need a better system.

Oh, yes, I totally agree that there is a distribution problem when it comes to resources.

But many resources are finite, and the ones that are rechargable and sustainable, aren't being managed that well.

Now, I'm not dooming and glooming for the next generation, but if we look 7 generations down the years, what will the impact of having large families be?


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RedWine* 
Just pointing out that it is okay to choose to limit family size because of resources. We want our kids to go to college, have a life full of travel, and to have a certain amount of monetary freedom. That is not "showering them with things" (which I find insulting, though I realize it was not your intent to insult). We would have a hard time doing that with three, but we can do that with two.









:

Yes, I agree. To me, it's not so much about limiting my family size to provide more material things to my children.

With fewer children, I can provide more opportunities to my children, just as you said RedWine.

And also I think about living lightly on the planet.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
I never understood why it's a parents job to give their children a good education (College)? Whatever happened to working for it yourself? I paid for my own college (still am) and so did all of my friends. I don't really understand why that's a failure on my parents part. They could afford to pay for it, they just choose not to.









If someone wants to pay for their child's education I say more power to ya but I certainly find it unfair that it's viewed as parental failure not to.

Well, I agree with you to an extent. I paid for my own college education and everything else on my own. But I am one of only a few in my family who have a college education.

Parents don't necessarily need to pay for college, but they should stress education, otherwise kids often go in other directions.

Personally, I don't intend to pay 100% for my kids to go to college, but I will save money to help them. With the growing cost of education, it may be nearly impossible to self-finance college in 10 or 20 years.

There aren't that many scholarships and grants, and loan borrowing amounts aren't keeping pace with the rising cost of college.

It was hard to pay for college myself years ago, it will probably be even harder when my children are of college age.

That's why it's important to me to save for them.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karina5* 
I asked this before and was truly surprised at the number of people who don't care much about this.


















:

I think in terms of the impact of larger families on the carrying capacity of the planet or intentionally living lightly on Earth or God's Creation, however you think of it, maybe it comes down to two things:

1. There is sometimes an overwhelming personal desire to have a baby. It is hormonal and instinctual in many circumstances. And it's a very personal decision. And your philosophy about this is also probably heavily connected with your spiritual/political/social beliefs and your socioeconomic status.

2. And many people have only a casual understanding of world resources, population growth, etc. I mean, I'm knee deep in motherhood and it is hard to keep on top of issues and keep current with the news. We in this forum are busy raising children. I'm not as current as I'd like to be.

I had opinions about population growth and world resources and living lightly before I had children. It would be hard to find the time to do this research now and formulate these opinions now, with kids and all the demands of motherhood!


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mom2seven* 
Is it? I certainly get no end of comments that it is socially unacceptable.

Yes, I agree. I haven't noticed a trend in having large families. I agree with you, I think society generally finds large families these days socially unacceptable (right or wrong).

Most people I know and most people I see have small families. Two kids seems to be the norm, and 3 kids is considered a large family by today's standards.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sonnenwende* 
Me too. I thought this was a natural living forum, environmentally responsible living. I just fail to see what is so environmentally responsible about having large families. Sorry, at the end of the day 8 kids are more than 1. 8 kids require more resources than 1. You need a bigger car(s) to drag them around. You need a bigger house to keep them. You need more clothes because even hand me downs don't last forever. You need more food. You need more electricity. You need more water. You create more trash.

You can recycle all you want and conserve all you want, but it doesn't negate the impact made by having so many kids period, particularly when they are adults. You cannot compare it to having just one because it is not comparable. A family of three could in theory waste just as much though not many do. However, it would be easy enough for them just to downsize and make a more reasonable impact and then use far less resources than a family of 10 people have to. It is just math.











I agree.

Now, that's not to say that if you have a large family, that you can't still strive to live as sustainably as possible. In fact, I would try to convince all families with 3 or more children to please live lightly to lessen the impact! But that's just me.

It's just your footprint will be a large one, due to the large amount of people.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KBecks* 
However, I do feel parents have a responsibility take interest in their children's educations as they are the primary educators for the childhood and teen years, regardless of what type of schooling is chosen.









:










Thank you! Yes, I agree! Parents don't necessarily need to pay for college, but they should still stress education.

I did pay 100% for my college education and everything else pretty much on my own starting in my teen years. I've been self-sufficient and proud of it.

However, it was a struggle.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Well I'm glad that works for you but some of us believe that God gives us insight into our personalities and limits, and rational thinking and free will, rather than just handing off particular numbers of children. Whether or not we want large or small families.

There are definitely families out there who have too many kids and don't handle it well. If God "wouldn't let that happen" then we wouldn't need CPS and there wouldn't be abused needy kids in our society... not to mention countries where people have children and truly cannot feed them and they die. Do you really think that God is making the decision to give those people children so that they can starve?

It is not, in my opinion, turning your back on God to do what you do well and be grateful for the children you have rather than to seek more.











There are so many people who are homeless, hungry, sick with no medical access, living with unspeakable hardships, etc. I don't think God would turn His back on these people. I think think God is not involved in the day to day lives of people, but perhaps is a guiding force that we choose to listen to or not listen to.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EFmom* 
Absolutely. And you can have a small family and teach your children to be environmentally aware.

If you have a large family, each one of those children will ultimately be driving cars and maintaining their own households. It is highly, highly unlikely that say 8 households are going to be less damaging to the environment than one or two households.

As for the idea that one needs to breed a huge number of children because one of them might be the next Einstein, that's nonsense. They could all turn out to be the next Ted Bundy. There are no guarantees.









:


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

My sister's in-laws are zero population advocates. I'll have to describe the situation vaguely in case they or someone they know read this forum (unlikely for the former, likely for the latter).

They had 2 children, and when one of those children went on to have more than 2 children, they semi-disowned them. They talk about zero population IN FRONT of the "pollution" grandchildren. In their holiday newsletter they do not include photos of the "pollution" children and usually don't make mention of them. They spend a few dollars on holiday presents on the family in violation of zero population while they spend lavishly on the other child's family.

Meanwhile this couple, who is extremely wealthy, live in a luxurious, 3000+ sq ft home (just the 2 of them), take frequent international vacations, and drive 10s of 1000s of miles a year (for vacationing, not work).

My sister lives very, very frugally, grows her own food, keeps the thermostat lower than you can imagine, drives as little as possible... her family uses fewer resources than the in-laws, I'm sure.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
I personally don't believe that it's my duty to have less kids to reduce our carbon footprint. All of you who are saying that... I don't really get how you can get up on your high horse about "only" having one or two kids. If you're that concerned about it you should have 0 kids. Otherwise I see it as very hypocritical.

Nobody knows how much each individual family does to preserve the earth. Just looking at family size is very unfair and unscientific at that.

True. You are right...it is unscientific and it is unfair to just look at family size alone.

I'm not just talking about carbon footprint though. That is the hot environmental topic of the day, but I think resource expenditure in general and population growth are the broader issues.

I don't think I'm on a high horse







or at least I hope not to suggest that one's environmental footprint is ONE consideration you should look at when deciding to have a larger family.










I also think of the resources that will be available for quality of life when that child's great great grandchildren are born. It's about living lightly lightly but also about quality of life.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KBecks* 
I heard a news report of a woman in the UK who had two abortions and then was sterilized as she wanted because she and her partner believe its enviornmentally irresponsible to have children.

That's not how I think at all, but some are choosing that path.

Well, that is extreme, which is why it made the news. That is not the norm and I know not one environmentalist or scientist who advocates or agrees with that.

I don't think environmentalists in general are against having children (I know many who have children) but I think environmentalists do think you should consider the environmental impact and resulting quality of life for future generations when determining your family size, among other issues.










All things in perspective...


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EFmom* 
Two or fewer refers to replacement rate. In other words, you aren't making the problem worse. I've got two kids, but did not birth them.

I absolutely think it is my responsibility to provide my children with a college education. I wouldn't have adopted them if I wasn't prepared to do that. Some people do manage to make a good living without a college education, but statistically, people with college degrees earn substantially more money than those without. I want to help my kids to be successful, and I believe that the number one way I can do that is by sending them to college. I also believe that getting started in life is difficult enough without being underneath a pile of debt.









:


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
I used a carbon footprint calculator and according to it my family of 7 (soon to be, hopefully, 8!) uses far less resources than a typical family of 3. I drive, at most, 20 miles a week, usually closer to 10. And there's no guarantee that my 6 children will have fewer or more children cumulatively than someone else's 1 or 2. My mother had 2 children and now has 9, almost 10 grandchildren.

A couple of my children have already told me that they have no plans on procreating. It's very likely that my children will produce fewer grandchildren than my mother's 2 did. You just can't predict.

Carbon footprint is usually in relation to just global warming. A person's or families impact on the environment is broader than just the issue of global warming.

But it does sound like you're living a lighter impact than most families (







) and I do think that our daily living decisions can offset other decisions that we make.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maplesugar* 
With regards to the environmental impact of having children, I think it all comes down to lifestyle choices. I surmise that having ten breastfed, cloth-diapered (depending upon how ecologically laundered), low viehicular using children does less damage to the earth than the opposite.

If you have ten children but rarely use fossile fuels, and raise you own food, you do less damage than a one child family who does typical mainstream things.

I recently read one mothers account of going through eighty disposable diapers per week with her 3 month old. Multiply this by three years. That's a lot of plastic in the landfills.

Of course, most large families I know do use sposies.

I see what your trying to say here, and I agree with and applaud your intent. However, I have researched the cloth vs disposable issue and it is a toss-up as far as environmental impact.

I'm not so sure 10 kids living in an environmentally responsible family is the same or less impact of one kid in an average family. But I think it's admirable to raise the 10 kids in an environmentally conscious way.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
But someday all 10 of those children grow up. They're not going to live in the one low-impact home forever. They're each going to need their own house, for their own family and their own ten kids.

And 40 years down the road, the 2-child family has their household, 2 child households, and 4 grandchild households - 7 households total. The 10-child family family has 111 households. Even if the 7 households drive SUVs and use disposables, the 111 households in their Priuses, washign their cloth diapers are still going to have a bigger carbon footprint. They'd have to reduce their footprints to 1/10th of the smaller family's footprint for all things to be equal.









:

I agree with this. Still, I think trying to live in an environmentally conscious way is admirable.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama* 
Honestly, those things are not going to make that much of a difference. The real difference is in material consumption and food distribution, not in "green-lite" earth-saving strategies.

dm









:

Agree! There are major differences in "green-lite" and true environmental impact. It's a harsh reality but true. Still, "green-lite" or "deep-green" just be some shade of green in everything you do!


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
It just boggles my mind that there's all this worry about food supply, when all I see (and hear about) is tons and tons of food getting thrown out every day.

Well, diminishing food supply not right now, but generations in the future, when population growth has continued to grow exponentially.

And not just food supply...all resources.


----------



## KeanusMomma (Apr 29, 2006)

I have one child. I'm still quite young (22), and I know I have many childbearing years ahead of me, but I have lots of reservations about having more children (which combats the baby fever I have so often).

One reason is that I'm a single mom. I think I'm providing for ds well and we're doing ok, but for me to have more children, there are childcare costs--which would double--built right in because I don't have the luxury of choosing whether or not to work full time.

Secondly, the environmental aspect has influence on me. Sure, many things I do to reduce my footprint are just "chump change", but what else can I do? I strongly believe that chump change is a great deal better than nothing. In some perspectives, using a tea ball rather than the paper things and religiously recycling whatever I can, may seem hypocritical when I turn around and take a long shower now and then. But isn't that better than NOT recycling AND taking the long showers?

That aspect is very complex, because you can bring up religion and the theory of desiring motherhood being ingrained in every woman (which I don't believe). I don't believe that it's wrong, or even an inferior choice, to have a big family. My point is, at the end of the day, mamas that breastfeed and ec can do so with 1 or 7 children, and 7 children will be a bigger impact than 1 raised the same way, so it's worth *considering.* To me, it's worth it to avoid having more children partly because of the added waste, but the next mama may have the opposite opinion.

I do worry about the gd thing as well. I assume there are armloads of exceptions to the rule, but I'd imagine that, statistically, gd is more popular with smaller families. I don't have all the facts--it could be that bigger families tend to homeschool and have SAHMs, therefore have the time and resources to discipline conscientiously (sp?). Coming back to myself, I know that my patience wears thin at times with my one and only ds and ft work schedule. I know I'd have a harder time avoiding regressing to my own parents' "easy ways out", so for me I just mark that as another tally on the "don't have more children" side.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
Well, diminishing food supply not right now, but generations in the future, when population growth has continued to grow exponentially.

But what about the point-of-view of at least some anthropologists -- that if we (namely U.S. government) could focus in NOW on more sustainable food-growing practices, rather than producing massive quantities of cheap, sub-standard food, there would probably be less over-supply, and the population would adjust its growth-rate to the available food?

Of course, maybe I don't have a right to talk about this, because we're certainly not "putting (all) our money where our mouth is" right now -- though we do prefer (but can't always afford) to shop in our local farmers' market, and my dh is working on revitalizing the dirt in our yard with earthworms, and trying to figure out ways to get a bigger yield of vegetables each year, without doing anything harmful to the environment.

But if our nation's government made the shift to more sustainable practices -- well, it would certainly help us to make the shift, too. When cash is limited, and you know you can shop Aldi's, or even Price Chopper, for a fraction of the cost at the local health food store ... well, frankly, it's just so tempting to buy the larger quantities of food at cheaper prices, and have some money left over for the other things, and experiences, our kids want to enjoy.

What gets me is, I've heard that there are all kinds of government subsidies for big agriculture -- so surely those same subsidies invested in sustainable, organic food-growing, could help to make organic foods more affordable to the general public. So food production would gradually level off, and population would gradually level off in response. And at the same time, we'd all be supporting the shift to a more livable way of life.

Quinn makes an interesting point, that the advent of contraception really hasn't resulted in a reduction of population world-wide. He thinks (or maybe it's just my interpretation of what he thinks) that if governments would quit subsidizing an ever-increasing food supply, that would do more for population concerns than contraception. And he's not talking about producing *too little* food, and forcing some people to starve to death: he's saying we should produce *enough*, and quit aiming for an excess.

Because the excess isn't accidental: it's actually planned and aimed for each year.


----------



## nugglemama (Feb 18, 2007)

I am just going to jump right in, sorry I haven't had time to read the whole thread seeing as how I am a mom who has "too many kids" And Honestly I wouldn't change a thing. My kids do not lack "things" in fact we just got a Wii for christmas, Nor do they lack my love and attention. We spend lots of one on one time doing crafts, baking and sewing. I am not exhausted nor do I feel overwhelmed. My dh and I made the decision that we wanted a large family for many reasons mostly being the values you learn when you don't get everything handed to you and you have to learn to get along with others. My DH comes form a family where he was one of 11 children and I was an only child until I was 14. We live on one income ( I am a SAHM) my kids do go to public school and we eat easy healthy meals everyday.

One problem that the area I live in is having is that people are not having enough children so there is a severe economicy depression occuring, not to mention the lack of people to care for the elderly and do all the jobs that will be left behind when the current baby boom generation retires. Teh government is actually making it desireable to have lots of children by offering tax incentives and bonuses. I can see the value in having one child only, but it is not my personal choice, nor will I feel guilty for choosing to enrich my life with the love of a large family.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KeanusMomma* 
I have one child. I'm still quite young (22), and I know I have many childbearing years ahead of me, but I have lots of reservations about having more children (which combats the baby fever I have so often).

One reason is that I'm a single mom. I think I'm providing for ds well and we're doing ok, but for me to have more children, there are childcare costs--which would double--built right in because I don't have the luxury of choosing whether or not to work full time.

Secondly, the environmental aspect has influence on me. Sure, many things I do to reduce my footprint are just "chump change", but what else can I do? I strongly believe that chump change is a great deal better than nothing. In some perspectives, using a tea ball rather than the paper things and religiously recycling whatever I can, may seem hypocritical when I turn around and take a long shower now and then. But isn't that better than NOT recycling AND taking the long showers?

That aspect is very complex, because you can bring up religion and the theory of desiring motherhood being ingrained in every woman (which I don't believe). I don't believe that it's wrong, or even an inferior choice, to have a big family. My point is, at the end of the day, mamas that breastfeed and ec can do so with 1 or 7 children, and 7 children will be a bigger impact than 1 raised the same way, so it's worth *considering.* To me, it's worth it to avoid having more children partly because of the added waste, but the next mama may have the opposite opinion.

I do worry about the gd thing as well. I assume there are armloads of exceptions to the rule, but I'd imagine that, statistically, gd is more popular with smaller families. I don't have all the facts--it could be that bigger families tend to homeschool and have SAHMs, therefore have the time and resources to discipline conscientiously (sp?). Coming back to myself, I know that my patience wears thin at times with my one and only ds and ft work schedule. I know I'd have a harder time avoiding regressing to my own parents' "easy ways out", so for me I just mark that as another tally on the "don't have more children" side.

Good post!

















:

You make so many good points! Yes, I completely agree that even the chump change adds up over time, if we all do it.







And usually people get on a roll and start with the chump change and continue adding more and more green actions, going from "green-lite" to a deeper green.

Also, yes, I completely agree with how you said, the planet's carrying capacity is something we should at least consider when determining family size.










Kudos to you for being so thoughtful about all of this!


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nugglemama* 
One problem that the area I live in is having is that people are not having enough children so there is a severe economicy depression occuring, not to mention the lack of people to care for the elderly and do all the jobs that will be left behind when the current baby boom generation retires. Teh government is actually making it desireable to have lots of children by offering tax incentives and bonuses.

Wow! That sounds great! Do you live in the U.S.?


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nugglemama* 
One problem that the area I live in is having is that people are not having enough children so there is a severe economicy depression occuring, not to mention the lack of people to care for the elderly and do all the jobs that will be left behind when the current baby boom generation retires.

That is an interesting point to me. I think, yes, there are indeed parts of this country where there is population decline.

I wonder though if it is due to people not having enough children or due to out-migration? ...you know, the so called "brain drain" where the younger adults move out of more rural or economically depressed areas for the larger employment centers?

If that is the case, as is happening in many rural states, the population isn't really declining, it's just trasferring to other geographic areas.

And in the case of out-migration areas, having more kids isn't going to solve the problem...until there are jobs and other opportunities that make people, especially upwardly moving young people, want to remain in the area.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 

Because the excess isn't accidental: it's actually planned and aimed for each year.

True in a lot of cases.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
Yes, I completely agree that even the chump change adds up over time, if we all do it.







And usually people get on a roll and start with the chump change and continue adding more and more green actions, going from "green-lite" to a deeper green.

I'm glad to hear this positive outlook. It can be so discouraging to hear the deeper greens disparaging those of us who are "chump-changing" our way into a greener way of life.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
But what about the point-of-view of at least some anthropologists -- that if we (namely U.S. government) could focus in NOW on more sustainable food-growing practices, rather than producing massive quantities of cheap, sub-standard food, there would probably be less over-supply, and the population would adjust its growth-rate to the available food? ...Because the excess isn't accidental: it's actually planned and aimed for each year.

This is a good point. Yes, the systems could be managed much better. Part of the issue is political, part of it is logistical.

It will be hard to change that.

So, that is why I think it's important to also do things on a personal level, while advocating for change on the societal/world level.

Like Margaret Meade said, "Be the change in the world you want to see."


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I'm glad to hear this positive outlook. It can be so discouraging to hear the deeper greens disparaging those of us who are "chump-changing" our way into a greener way of life.











Well, I think any effort to try to be greener is admirable. I don't even really like to refer to it as chump change, but I see the point the PP was trying to make by calling it that, and I do tend to agree with her. There are big, big issues that need to be addressed.

Still, I prefer to see some one trying to be light green than not trying at all!









There are days I am a light shade of green and there are days I am a deeper shade of green. So I don't judge.

Every effort counts! And if you can do more or want to do more, all the better!


----------



## nugglemama (Feb 18, 2007)

I live in Quebec Canada and as far as I know it is not brain drain, but just because the younger generation had only one or no children.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nugglemama* 
I live in Quebec Canada and as far as I know it is not brain drain, but just because the younger generation had only one or no children.

I'm not a resident of Canada, so I was speaking of United States trends. From the little I know of Canada with regard to this issue, I can see you make a valid point.

It is hard to cross-compare countries.









Generally, though, the world as a whole is not having a problem with declining population. In fact, it is the opposite from the news articles I have read.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I'm glad to hear this positive outlook. It can be so discouraging to hear the deeper greens disparaging those of us who are "chump-changing" our way into a greener way of life.

I think it is counter-productive to make people feel discouraged about being green, any shade of green.

We need to be encouraging people to make the change.







And, let's be honest, for some people it is a big change and a difficult transition. So, to any of you who are trying to be green,







I applaud you wholeheartedly! Good for you! Keep it up!


----------



## JERENAUD (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flapjack* 
Well, our doggie bags go to the dog, because we love her









Something else: DH and I are both onlies. My mum and dad were both one of two, his mum and dad were one of three or four respectively. His mum and my dad both died over 10 years ago, when we were in our early twenties.
We're now in a situation where my FIL is wheelchair bound with rheumatoid arthritis and because of shame about his medical conditions, chooses not to leave the house. He's entirely dependent on others, and his brothers, who helped support him before DH finished his education and moved here, are getting on a bit themselves. One has arthritis and is being treated for cancer, one has a wife with alzheimers. They've both got their hands full.
So what this means, bluntly, is that it's down to us. Social services and the district nursing team will do what they can- they do the daily personal care, the washing, the dressing. All the rest of it- including some help with medications- is passed to us to do. Helping him physically manage his money. Shopping. Cleaning. Cooking. The works. And we do it willingly, because we love him- but there's a cost. The cost is us living in fear of my mum having a bad fall, getting alzheimers, rheumatism, anything that would require a comparable level of support, and us feeling forced to choose between our two surviving parents. Just ONE other sibling in our families would ease that pressure on us. And yes, the UK has a pretty good support network for people like my FIL, but they can't- won't- don't, do it all. This could be you. This could be your kids.

Oh, and in terms of consumption, more than half our family's refuse is created by FIL. The convenience/waste correlation, ime, is most closely connected to those who need that ease of use. That's not necessarily young families, but young adults who are learning independence and those at the other end of their lives.

I would hate for this to be the only reason to have another child. It's certainly a valid point, but the number of children you have doesn't necessarily change things. My Mum is one of 3 - except that her brother has autism and thus needs care himself. Her sister died at 50 of a stroke. So, she's alone in trying to care for her parents. And I know of families (like my in laws) where again there are 3 children but only one was doing the work to care for their mother. The brothers moved cross country and the sister did what had to be done. I doubt that this is an exception, either.

I don't mean this as "don't have many kids", I get the concern as my husband is an only and my sister is still a teen. I just meant that it doesn't guarantee anything.

Erica


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KeanusMomma* 

That aspect is very complex, because you can bring up religion and the theory of desiring motherhood being ingrained in every woman (which I don't believe). I don't believe that it's wrong, or even an inferior choice, to have a big family. My point is, at the end of the day, mamas that breastfeed and ec can do so with 1 or 7 children, and 7 children will be a bigger impact than 1 raised the same way, so it's worth *considering.* To me, it's worth it to avoid having more children partly because of the added waste, but the next mama may have the opposite opinion.









:


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KeanusMomma* 
I do worry about the gd thing as well. I assume there are armloads of exceptions to the rule, but I'd imagine that, statistically, gd is more popular with smaller families.

I agree with you on this point, as well.

I know for me, anecdotally, I am able to more easily discipline with GD because I have a smaller family.

I know there are larger GD families out there because I've read the moms posts here on MDC, but in real life the large families I know or see have chaos. And let's just say aren't the most gentle when it comes to anything.









For me, I look at a lot of issues when considering small vs. big families:

1. do I have the personal strength and energy to parent all the kids well, including overseeing their education?

2. do I have the financial means to support all of them?

And, yes, I also consider the impact on society and the environment. That's just me, though, based on my own worldview, spirituality, and philosophies. Others will feel differently because they have a different worldview, spirituality, or philosophy.

It is so personal.


----------



## nugglemama (Feb 18, 2007)

Oh and as for the statistics in the US the population growth is at replacement levels only. The boom in population growth there is due in most parts to imigration which is a whole other discussion.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

From the latest data I've read concerning the US, urban populations are increasing/ staying at replacement level (due mostly to immigration) but in rural areas the population is plummeting.

There are many parts of europe where population is not even at replacement level, and the holes are being filled by immigration. Japan also is having issues keeping population at replacement level.


----------



## gridley13 (Sep 3, 2004)

We chose to stop at 2... for many reasons. Some personal reasons, some what we believe is social responsibility.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flapjack* 
The cost is us living in fear of my mum having a bad fall, getting alzheimers, rheumatism, anything that would require a comparable level of support, and us feeling forced to choose between our two surviving parents. Just ONE other sibling in our families would ease that pressure on us. And yes, the UK has a pretty good support network for people like my FIL, but they can't- won't- don't, do it all. This could be you. This could be your kids.


That's very true and my sympathies to you. However I have to say from observing my own family (my dad is an only; my mother is not), sometimes siblings arguing over the details of someone's care is just as stressful as having the burden of care, especially as there are no guarantees that a particular sibling will get directly involved in the actual care.

I just don't think one should have children of any number in order to secure a particular outcome in the future.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
From the latest data I've read concerning the US, urban populations are increasing/ staying at replacement level (due mostly to immigration) but in rural areas the population is plummeting.

There are many parts of europe where population is not even at replacement level, and the holes are being filled by immigration. Japan also is having issues keeping population at replacement level.

This is very interesting! So apparently SOMEWHERE in the world, there's a birth-related population explosion -- but here in the US it's mainly caused by immigration?

But some people think Americans should have even fewer babies, to make room for more new immigrants and their babies?

Please note: I'm actually pro-immigration; I'm not saying the U.S. should close the door to anyone who wants to come here. My own great-grandparents (or was it great-great or triple-great?) immigrated to this nation. I'm not a Native American, not at all!

It's just so interesting to me, to find that American fertility really has nothing to do with the world's growing population.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nugglemama* 
Oh and as for the statistics in the US the population growth is at replacement levels only. The boom in population growth there is due in most parts to imigration which is a whole other discussion.









:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
From the latest data I've read concerning the US, urban populations are increasing/ staying at replacement level (due mostly to immigration) but in rural areas the population is plummeting.

There are many parts of europe where population is not even at replacement level, and the holes are being filled by immigration. Japan also is having issues keeping population at replacement level.









:

The rural areas in the US is what I was talking about as far as "brain drain" and diminishing population.

The U.S. may be at replacement level, but world wide population is increasing, exponentially.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gridley13* 
for many reasons. Some personal reasons, some what we believe is social responsibility.


























:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
This is very interesting! So apparently SOMEWHERE in the world, there's a birth-related population explosion

But some people think Americans should have even fewer babies, to make room for more new immigrants and their babies?

It's just so interesting to me, to find that American fertility really has nothing to do with the world's growing population.

Yes, in many parts of the world, there is birth-related population increase.

I don't think Americans alone should have fewer babies...and I didn't hear anyone say that. I don't think anyone should have fewer babies...just that there are many issues to consider when family planning.

I think American fertility does have something to do with the growing population...maybe we're at replacement levels as a country...but with the world population as a whole growing, another American birth adds to the total count. And since Americans consume more resources than most of the rest of the world, well, that adds to the impact even more.









I don't look at it in national terms. I look at it in world terms.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
I think American fertility does have something to do with the growing population...maybe we're at replacement levels as a country...but with the world population as a whole growing, another American birth adds to the total count. And since Americans consume more resources than most of the rest of the world, well, that adds to the impact even more.









But maybe Americans learning to live more eco-friendly lives, makes more sense than Americans having smaller families.

I realize you're not saying that anyone should have fewer kids than they want to have -- you're just pointing out that we're still adding to world population.

Quote:

I don't look at it in national terms. I look at it in world terms.
And of course that makes sense. It's just, I've met some international people who may think in "world terms" when relating to anyone BUT Americans -- but get kind of nasty with Americans. It's like there's the rest of the world, and then there's us "ugly Americans."

So sometimes I feel kind of "nationalistic" in self-defense: if people are going to lump Americans into a separate category from everyone else, sometimes it seems kind of self-defeating to try to include ourselves, as if acting like we're one of the gang will make the others love us.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

However, I have researched the cloth vs disposable issue and it is a toss-up as far as environmental impact.
That sounds nice, but it isn't the case. Cloth diapers make far less of an impact on the environment than disposables do.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 
That sounds nice, but it isn't the case. Cloth diapers make far less of an impact on the environment than disposables do.

Yes, I was surprised to hear that it was a "toss-up," too. I mean, I realize there is some pollution involved in the production of many kinds of diapers and covers, and also there are varying degrees of pollution in the laundering, depending on our methods --

But a "toss up?" When a disposable's used one time, and thrown into a land-fill (except for the few that are put through an expensive recycling process and used, for example, to nourish a tree ... I don't quite get how that works







) -- and cloth are used for several uses, and often for more than one child.

None of our cloth diapers have ended up in landfills ... they just kind of disintegrate ... I just keep laundering them and noticing there are fewer and fewer as time goes by ...


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 
That sounds nice, but it isn't the case. Cloth diapers make far less of an impact on the environment than disposables do.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Yes, I was surprised to hear that it was a "toss-up," too. I mean, I realize there is some pollution involved in the production of many kinds of diapers and covers, and also there are varying degrees of pollution in the laundering, depending on our methods --

But a "toss up?" When a disposable's used one time, and thrown into a land-fill (except for the few that are put through an expensive recycling process and used, for example, to nourish a tree ... I don't quite get how that works







) -- and cloth are used for several uses, and often for more than one child.

None of our cloth diapers have ended up in landfills ... they just kind of disintegrate ... I just keep laundering them and noticing there are fewer and fewer as time goes by ...

I see what you're saying...yes, if you compare just the issue of garbage or landfill space...then cloth wins.

However, the articles I read compared landfill space with use of water for laundering, and also the disposal of that water with or without cleaning agents added in and the information pointed to both having around the same impact. Neither choice is without impact. I've gone back and forth about what has a lesser impact.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

EC definitely has less impact ... I may get a chance to try that if I get a next time.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
EC definitely has less impact.

Absolutely.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower*
Parents don't necessarily need to pay for college, but they should stress education, otherwise kids often go in other directions.

If you think so, then _you_ should stress education. What _I_ should do is remember that my children naturally have the desire to learn and seek out their own best good, and to support their doing so however that happens.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower*
However, I have researched the cloth vs disposable issue and it is a toss-up as far as environmental impact.

Hm. Well, the toxins released in order to manufacturer disposables is far greater than that required to make cotton cloth. That's enough for me. http://www.mothering.com/articles/ne...-of-cloth.html

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KeanusMama*
I do worry about the gd thing as well. I assume there are armloads of exceptions to the rule, but I'd imagine that, statistically, gd is more popular with smaller families. I don't have all the facts--it could be that bigger families tend to homeschool and have SAHMs, therefore have the time and resources to discipline conscientiously (sp?). Coming back to myself, I know that my patience wears thin at times with my one and only ds and ft work schedule. I know I'd have a harder time avoiding regressing to my own parents' "easy ways out", so for me I just mark that as another tally on the "don't have more children" side.

It seems a straightforward mathematical problem -- "If I have this hard of a time keeping my temper with two children, it would be four times as hard with eight" -- but for us it didn't work that way. The first two were especially difficult because I wasn't prepared for devoted mothering, nor for being dependent on my husband. So in addition to the normal expense of energy in caring for children, I was dealing with working through these extra issues and this was very stressful. Add in that we were younger and so not as financially stable, and that we were still working out how our own relationship interconnected with this whole new thing, and that we hadn't done any research or thinking about what children need, nor work on ourselves to be able to provide it. The result of all that was that we were not especially GD. Our parenting has evolved significantly with each successive child, by trial and error and for emotional survival. Also, the older they get, the more helping hands there are, and the more they can help and entertain each other. Having my fourth baby was far easier than having my first, and having four is easier than having one was for me, in many ways. I wouldn't have predicted that, but it's the reality.

To the OP -- I'm not going to get into the population growth debate, which merits discussion, of course, I just don't have anything to add to what's already been said. I want to instead just comment on the questions put forth in the OP.

I'm glad that we stopped at four; my kids are exactly the same ages as his, minus the baby, and to add a baby into the mix would be stepping over the line of comfort for me. The reason for this is that _I'm_ ready to move past the baby stage. I'm ready to focus on doing things as a family that are harder with a baby, and I'm ready to give myself a little more time and move out of the 24/7 maternal role. My older children are becoming more and more independent, and they have each other to play with, so my work load is lessening. It sounds like your DH's cousin and wife were past that comfort zone at four. Not everyone will be, we're all different and have different life situations.

I don't know what he means by them requiring more time as they get older; in my experience it's far less. It may be that their lifestyle or ideas about what children need make it so for them. Are the kids traditionally schooled? Do they both work for an income? Are they involved in lots of outside activities? What's their philosophy of parenting and the role of the parent in childhood?

I wouldn't have considered having this many kids if we'd both had to work for an income. Given who we are, we couldn't have done it and provided the calm home environment we have, I'm sure of that. As it is, our days are pretty relaxed. This morning, for instance, we slept as long as we all wanted, then we spent some time sitting on my bed embroidering. (My kids are pretty rambunctious, but a focused activity like this quiets them right down.) Then we came downstairs and reheated last night's leftovers for breakfast (I try to make enough so we can do this, so nobody has to prepare food in the morning.) Now the girls are playing with dolls, and one boy is on the computer and the other is reading The Golden Compass. I'm going to take a bath soon, and the girls will probably join me and I'll comb out their hair. The rest of the day will be like that; we weave in and out of each other's paths. There are lots of hugs and kisses along the way. I am being completely honest with you here -- it's not hard. We enjoy our family life very much.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
I see what you're saying...yes, if you compare just the issue of garbage or landfill space...then cloth wins.

However, the articles I read compared landfill space with use of water for laundering, and also the disposal of that water with or without cleaning agents added in and the information pointed to both having around the same impact. Neither choice is without impact. I've gone back and forth about what has a lesser impact.










From what I've read, the impact is only the same for cloth vs. sposies if someone is using an actual diaper service. Then you must factor in the 13 times they launder the dipes, the harsh detergents that HAVE to get the stains out, and the fuel for delivery service.

If it is cloth diapers taken care of by Mom vs. sposies, cloth wins hands down. I looked into it because I live in the desert and was concerned about water useage.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
Well, diminishing food supply not right now, but generations in the future, when population growth has continued to grow exponentially.

And not just food supply...all resources.

Yeah. You can't really say "well, right now we have all this extra..." ITs a bit like saying "well, we grew up without seatbelts and we turned out okay."

The graphs of population projections vs. tillable land vs. output are disenheartening, to say the least. We may be talking "generations" in the sense of more than one - but its not _hundreds_ of years in the future that the earth's population will cross carrying capacity if population continues to increase at the current rate. Its less than a century. That means that we'll go from producing surpluses (worldwide) to a worldwide calorie deficit, not even including the calories needed for farm animals. It will require turning marginal lands into farmlands, hastening ecological problems and species extinction. And it will probably be hastened by the sudden focus on biofuels, because growing enough plant mass for the biofuels currently being investigated will use quality farmland that could be used to grow food.

Again, I'm not saying that zero population growth is the answer; I'm just trying to point out that to ignore the issue of rapid population growth is a mistake. I've heard people say "Well, my family only needs a half-acre for a house for us all, and the world has Xthousand acres of solid ground, so there's room on the earth for 50 billion people. Even with green revolution agriculture, there's a limit to how many we can feed.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
Yeah. You can't really say "well, right now we have all this extra..." ITs a bit like saying "well, we grew up without seatbelts and we turned out okay."

The graphs of population projections vs. tillable land vs. output are disenheartening, to say the least. We may be talking "generations" in the sense of more than one - but its not _hundreds_ of years in the future that the earth's population will cross carrying capacity if population continues to increase at the current rate. Its less than a century. That means that we'll go from producing surpluses (worldwide) to a worldwide calorie deficit, not even including the calories needed for farm animals. It will require turning marginal lands into farmlands, hastening ecological problems and species extinction. And it will probably be hastened by the sudden focus on biofuels, because growing enough plant mass for the biofuels currently being investigated will use quality farmland that could be used to grow food.

Again, I'm not saying that zero population growth is the answer; I'm just trying to point out that to ignore the issue of rapid population growth is a mistake. I've heard people say "Well, my family only needs a half-acre for a house for us all, and the world has Xthousand acres of solid ground, so there's room on the earth for 50 billion people. Even with green revolution agriculture, there's a limit to how many we can feed.











Exactly.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hoopin' Mama* 
From what I've read, the impact is only the same for cloth vs. sposies if someone is using an actual diaper service. Then you must factor in the 13 times they launder the dipes, the harsh detergents that HAVE to get the stains out, and the fuel for delivery service.

If it is cloth diapers taken care of by Mom vs. sposies, cloth wins hands down. I looked into it because I live in the desert and was concerned about water useage.

Thanks for pointing that out!







I need to go back and make sure I'm not misquoting. I thought I read in general terms disposable vs. cloth, but maybe it was a cloth diaper service.

Thank you for bringing up this point.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds* 
If you think so, then _you_ should stress education. What _I_ should do is remember that my children naturally have the desire to learn and seek out their own best good, and to support their doing so however that happens.







.

I didn't necessarily mean only formal education, or public education, or college education (although, for me, personally, that is what I'll promote with my own kids).

The way you phrased your post..."remember that my children naturally have the desire to learn and seek out their own best good, and to support their doing so" to me, anyway, is the same as supporting the education of a child...again not so much in the public education or formal education sense but in the sense of having a child turn out as a thoughtful, aware, capable person...to me that is an educated person.

But you're absolutely right - what's best for me and mine isn't what other people need to do...we all have our own paths.







I just think education as described above is a societal good.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds* 
Hm. Well, the toxins released in order to manufacturer disposables is far greater than that required to make cotton cloth. That's enough for me. http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/diapers/joy-of-cloth.h.

That is a very good point. I'm going to read your linked article. Thanks for sharing that!


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds* 
It seems a straightforward mathematical problem -- "If I have this hard of a time keeping my temper with two children, it would be four times as hard with eight" -- but for us it didn't work that way. The first two were especially difficult because I wasn't prepared for devoted mothering, nor for being dependent on my husband. So in addition to the normal expense of energy in caring for children, I was dealing with working through these extra issues and this was very stressful. Add in that we were younger and so not as financially stable, and that we were still working out how our own relationship interconnected with this whole new thing, and that we hadn't done any research or thinking about what children need, nor work on ourselves to be able to provide it. The result of all that was that we were not especially GD. Our parenting has evolved significantly with each successive child, by trial and error and for emotional survival. Also, the older they get, the more helping hands there are, and the more they can help and entertain each other. Having my fourth baby was far easier than having my first, and having four is easier than having one was for me, in many ways. I wouldn't have predicted that, but it's the reality.

Very interesting post.







Thank you for posting that. I wouldn't have predicted that four kids would be easier than one, but you are right about there being a learning curve. So maybe as a more seasoned parent, the fourth baby is easier for some than the first baby.

But is that because four is easier than one or because experienced parents know better what they are doing than inexperienced?

If I could go back now and parent a newborn, having been through the experience already, I would know better what to do and what not to do, what to worry about and what not to worry about.

One thing, though, is that if you have helpful older kids, they can be wonderful little helpers, so maybe it is easier. I know a mom who has three and her older two girls are very sweet and very helpful to their mother.


----------



## hopefulfaith (Mar 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mary-Beth* 
Three kids is our goal and our limit.

I wanted the biggest family that I could and still have time, energy, and financial resources for each of us. It's not the "right" number of kids, just the number that feels right to us. There are times I feel stretched to the limit and I have to remember to rest and recharge myself.

I think it's nice that you were able to have a really open and honest discussion about how he is currently feeling. Remember that his feelings could change and evolve with him as the children grow. The same person could look back and say there were some struggles but I'm so glad we have this size family...if I hadn't I would have regretted it.

So take his and other peoples ideas and consider it because I do think it's valuable feedback but there are people who have totally positive big family experiences too...so ultimately do what you feel most called to do for your family.


I think this, too. Interestingly, I have had a lot of dismay from family/friends about dh and I consciously limiting the size of our family - we are complete after two children.

However, two is what I KNOW in my heart I can parent well. And I'm not talking about material stuff/college funds, etc., but what I know I can handle on a day-to-day basis - being patient in the kitchen, nighttime parenting, teaching and learning, etc.


----------



## quarteralien (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
Yes, I agree with this in theory. The world population is not decreasing though. If you look at population trends, we are in no danger world wide of population decline.

World population, no. But several industrialized nations in Europe and Asia have a population in decline, with birth rates below two. The only reason their populations aren't plummeting is immigration.


----------



## lisarussell (Jan 24, 2005)

Everyone has their limits. Our goal and limit was 6 kids. there's a LOT we want to do in life and I just wish we'd reached 6 a few years ago instead of now.

Life has many seasons, and the years spent with little ones are very strenuous on the marriage for sure.

As far as the financial strain we'll be experiencing when these kids start college- I am sure that will put a strain on things, too.

Our current ages are... 14, 11, 7, 4, 2 and 1month old. Originally, I wanted them all 2 yrs apart, but I am glad for the spacing I got in the beginning.

We look at this stress as a season in life, though. It will pass and we'll look back fondly at the season, nevermind that the days nearly drove us off the edge.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

This thread grew very large and even more interesting while I was out on holiday!







My response is going to be a bit loopy, as I try to respond to many different ideas in one post.

The US certainly doesn't have the largest population in the world, but each child in the US is estimated on average to have 5 times the impact of any 1 child anywhere else in the world. This suggests to me that what we teach our children about caring for the planet and each other matters just as much if not more so than the sheer number of children born.

The amount of food we're consuming is also a huge factor.

I think that what we always have trouble with in matters like this is mixing the need for a change in overall trends with personal choices. I know far too many people who are driving full size trucks and SUVS (Tahoe and Expedition size), flying 2-3 times a month, consuming more dairy and meat than their hearts and waistlines can support, are living in 3000+ sq. ft. homes, etc. and who have less than 2 children. They don't need this to live -- if each of us was truly making our decisions based on what we could truly handle and what we truly need, then our impact overall would be far less. Then it would be much less damaging when the people who do need to use trucks, and need to fly frequently, and need a larger house, and need more food, and would like a larger family, etc., do their own thing.

I do think that each family needs to truly evaluate their resources and not have more children just because they can. There are probably many people who should have chosen to not procreate, or to create fewer children. And definitely, we should not have people thoughtlessly making more people.

The matter is too complex to say that 1 or none is better than 2 or more. I think that if people truly follow their hearts and know their limits, then the overall trend will even out to sustainable levels (but perhaps only in privileged countries -- the birth levels are bound to be high in crisis areas, because of the way human fertility works, as well as limited access to birth control and education). I *do* think that, on average, a family of 10 is going to consume more and cause more havoc than a family of 3, all other things being equal. But, we have the power and the intellect to change our impact.

I also don't think "larger" families are a "trend". The vast majority of people I know have 3 or fewer children, with at least half of those having 1-2 children. I know many, many couples/individuals with no children, and only a few with families of more than 4.

I have more to say, but my computer time is done, and this post has grown far too long!


----------

