@ChelseeDagger
I find the environmental impact argument a red herring.
The UK birth rate has been falling since the seventies. Our children's generation stands to be smaller than our own, irrespective of the small number of larger families. The housing stock in the UK will be more than sufficient for the next generation of householders going by current trends.
Yes the world has a problem with overpopulation, the UK doesn't.
many women are choosing to remain childless in far greater number than previous generations.
If you want to object to larger families then fine, but please do so on less spurious reasons than the falling birth rate of our country.
We do need somebody to actually keep the economy going when we all finally get to retire in our seventies.
You're not going to like this, but:
What the western world needs if it is to survive is a healthy, sustainable birth rate.
But it also needs for those kids to grow up to be net contributors to society. And I don't mean 'we do a bit of charity work' type 'contributors'.
I mean economically contributing, or supporting a contributor, by, in this case, properly and adequately meeting the family's needs.
It's the cold, hard maths.
Having 'loads of kids' aren't going to help the tax burden if they, themselves, due to poverty, low educational achievement, overcrowding, time and money-poor parent/s- perpetuate the 'loads of kids' models, themselves.
Functional societies need tax payers who not only can look after themselves, but pay enough tax to help meet the needs of those not in a position to provide everything for themselves.
Supporting a person on benefits with 6 kids isn't necessarily what society needs.