Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Two children

74 replies

newwave · 04/10/2010 23:28

AIBU to consider two children to be more than enough.

We have a rising poulation in this country with ever scare rescources (housing etc) should we consider the effect of having more than two and is it a bit selfish.

I know the poulation is getting older and more young people are needed but then again this can be offset by working a bit longer.

Obviously no one can be told how many to have.

OP posts:
Imarriedafrog · 04/10/2010 23:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MollysChambers · 04/10/2010 23:34

Oh FGS

YANBU to consider it more than enough for you.

YABVU to think it any of your business how many children I have. Hmm

newwave · 04/10/2010 23:35

Frog, it was a disscussion point not a personal attack on you. The world has limited rescources and the more we use the less will be available for your descendents.

OP posts:
muttimalzwei · 04/10/2010 23:37

I think it is really up to the individual. I think if you are committed to being a good parent and to giving your kids the best start and all your love then it doesn't matter how many you have as long as they are well looked after.

SheWillBeLoved · 04/10/2010 23:37

So then shouldn't we be educating the young on how best to look after our limited resources, rather than putting a limit on the thing we are intended for - reproducing? Madness.

muttimalzwei · 04/10/2010 23:39

I personally think any more than 5 and you'd be struggling to remember who was who. I think the parents who can do a good job of it should raise the number of kids they feel happy and comfortable with. Those who are just having them for the sake of it and doing a shit job obviously shouldn't.

cory · 04/10/2010 23:39

But no everyone is going to want as many as two. Out of my set of friends who all had children about the same time, three had 2 children each, one had 3 children and one had only the 1. Same in my family: I and one of my brothers have 2 each, one brother has 3 and one has 1. Works out at 2 children each. Why would we have been beautifully unselfish if we had all had exactly 2 children each. And what about those people who have twins the second time round? Bit naughty of them, don't you think?

Imarriedafrog · 04/10/2010 23:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

newwave · 04/10/2010 23:40

If every family decides to have four or more children we may have a big problem further down the line with housing, fuel, food etc.

OP posts:
muttimalzwei · 04/10/2010 23:41

I think the schools try to teach kids about limited resources but then consumerism cocks all that up and gives kids very narrow views on life and a desire to buy more and more crap

cory · 04/10/2010 23:41

"Frog, it was a disscussion point not a personal attack on you. The world has limited rescources and the more we use the less will be available for your descendents."

In which case, how do you justify having two rather than one?

animula · 04/10/2010 23:41

I may be misreading Frog's post, but I think she was merely pointing out in a humorous way, that what you decide to do with your body is up to you, for whatever reasons.

Which seems to be what your post is saying, yes?

You are telling us that you have decided "X" for yourself, but you do not extend that as a rule for others.

It seems a bit of an odd post, really. What can we say, other than what Frog said: "If that's what you want, of course". We're a fairly liberal country, and we allow most people to reproduce, or not reproduce for their own private reasons, unless there is a real question about whether there are real questions about their rational capacity to take that decision. And then it tends to all kick off in the DM.

What is it you want to discuss? whether your concern about population and your subsequent decision to limit (your own) reproduction is rational?

Imarriedafrog · 04/10/2010 23:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

muttimalzwei · 04/10/2010 23:42

Hardly anyone decides to have that many children for economic reasons though. So I don't think it will cause any bigger problems than we would face anyway.

newwave · 04/10/2010 23:43

As I said it was a disccusion point not an attack on those who have large families however I seem to have touched some nerves, heaven knows why.

OP posts:
MollysChambers · 04/10/2010 23:44

Because its a ludicrous question.

SheWillBeLoved · 04/10/2010 23:44

It's more about lifestyle habits/choices than it is number of children, in my opinion. How is it fair that one family who are greener than the grass in my garden can only have 2 children, and another family who leave switches on, don't recycle, have 2 4x4's can also have 2? What good is this limit then?

Imarriedafrog · 04/10/2010 23:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Imarriedafrog · 04/10/2010 23:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

newwave · 04/10/2010 23:49

animula, I have two and yes I do have concerns with the future of this planet. The worlds poulation is ever growing and rescources are diminishing. I fear that the next wars will be about oil and possibly food and water, in fact IMHO the Iraq war was more about oil and less about terrorism.

We as a country will find it difficult to produce enough food to feed ourselves if other countries dont export to us.

The above taken together with the effects of global warming make for an uncertain future which will be exacerbated by population growth.

OP posts:
DandyDan · 04/10/2010 23:50

Isn't the population in Western Europe dropping in a massive way? A number of countries - Spain and Italy are two - don't have a birth-rate which is at replacement level. With the birth-rate bulges in different years, we are currently headed for a huge increase in the elderly, with not enough younger people to work and pay taxes for all that society needs - predominantly healthcare, care of the elderly and pensions. Obviously it's more complicated than that, but the birth-rate is currently 1.96 in the UK.

kidsncatsnwine · 04/10/2010 23:53

Well I have four ..well loved, reasonably well educated, decent kids, now teens , who hopefully will be making their way in the world and contributing to it.. (eldest just gone to Uni to read medicine)...

Not sure which two I shouldn't have had?? Grin
We both work, we don't rely on anyone but ourselves to provide for them, and three of them have the potential to be useful members of society. Maybe no. 4 should have been ditched then as he's disabled?!!!

I seriously do NOT believe that by having 4 we are using twice the electricity/gas/petrol that having two entails (one family car..so why does it make a difference?) and for my part, having four has meant my children are less materialistic than many in smaller families.

So yes I think YABU, and it's no-one's business how each of us decide to have our families..big or small..

newwave · 04/10/2010 23:54

Molly, why is it ludicrous, please let me know what was wrong in that question.

Frog, I asked "could it be considered selfish" not that it was selfish.

OP posts:
Imarriedafrog · 04/10/2010 23:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Bigmouthstrikesagain · 04/10/2010 23:57

Interestingly now we have three children we have started growing our own veg (very badly), recycle/ reuse more, I do not (cannot) drive and we have not been and do not plan to go, abroad for a long time. We are vegetarian (which also impacts less on the environment). Perhaps I am making up for my thoughtless breeding by raising good little environmentalists!Grin

Swipe left for the next trending thread