To be fed up when people have an opinion on how many children you have or want

[brummiegirl1]

I have 2 young boys aged 2 and 7 months and would like 4 children if i'm lucky enough as i was an only child and knew i wanted a big family. Before i went off on maternity leave with my youngest a woman at work said are you done now and i said i would like more children in the future and she said im mad.

Other people have also asked the same thing. Is it me? I wouldn't dream commenting on how many children someone wants or has as it's up to them, when im asked now i feel all defensive about it and don't want to tell them like im a naughty teenager not a 33 year old married woman!

I'd love for those opposed to large families on financial grounds to explain their positions. Who do they think is going to pay for them when they're on their pension (if such a thing exists then)? Would they like to have their adult nappy changed by a robot, as is happening to some of the elderly and infirm of Japan? As is the case everywhere where there aren't enough young people not only to pay taxes but to physically perform basic jobs, it's grim.

Actually, if I ever need a nappy changing I'd be delighted if it could be done by a robot. Far more dignified than having some random stranger wiping my arse thanks.

Omg Saski, like, statistics? What're they?

Of course I'm aware that you are likely to have more grandchildren if you have more children. I was just pointing out (by using the Duggar example) that this is not always the case. People are odd things, given to doing the unexpected. :)

As I said, I want five eventually, but I don't know if I'll have any more biologically or not. Although Fellatio I am also an odd relaxed/control freak by rid! Perhaps I should reevaluate...

Cheerful Yank - fair enough, but I think we already knew that any one person might have 0 or 8 or 10 kids. You would never use this kind of logic to solve a problem!

And. Again. If anyone thinks that reducing your C02 footprint in your home can offset having 5 kids, again, take a math class. Linear vs exponential.

I didn't think those arguing against large families were talking about carbon footprints necessarily. Unless carbon footprint is a catch-all term for the amount of food you need, and waste you generate, the amount of services you will need, the amount of space you take up, and so on.

Which I guess it ultimately is

Queen - it's better than the 'are they natural?' question. I just used to smile and say 'no, they're unnatural'.

When I was pregnant with number three, after having boy / girl twins, my mum would happily tell anyone who would listen that she couldn't see why I needed to have any more as I had one of each.

People are weird.

My twat of a BIL was insistent that he and his wife only have 2 to replace themselves. All well and good.

Once adoption came up and I said that DH and I would like to someday. He asked me "why would you, you can have your own!" And he was the one who said the world was overpopulated. He's just worried I'll adopt a "retarded kid" (which, frankly, is the plan) or one of -shock horror- another race.

Pleasestoptalking the people who know the one I'm carrying is a girl have said that to me to! "Ohhh, one of each! Perfect! You can just be done now."

I've only got two so far, all being well, #3 will appear in September, but (if I can toilet train a reluctant DS2 by then) it will be using the same nappies as the previous two.

As i have 2 boys and people always say about trying for a girl(as if i can put my order in for a girl lol!) i just say if DS2 had been a girl i would still like another.

To the posters against large families due to environmental aspect do you take holidays abroad as i'm sure planes are not environmentally friendly. There are many things that affect the environment.

FWIW i don't go abroad(not interested really) and i use terry towelling nappies/ But each to their own i wouldn't be against people using disposable i chose reusable from a cost point of view.

Also when people are planning a family there are many considerations that go into it, i'm not saying the environment is not important but it's not personally something that would decide the size of my family. As long as i could afford my children and had the space for them in my house then that is all that matters to me as they would be very much wanted and loved.

maltesecat having more babies isn't the answer to the elderly population problem, because they, in turn will be old one day and need support. If we keep on doing this 'so we have someone to wipe the arses of the elderly' or whatever other menial job we think other peoples children will do, it will never solve the problem. In 70 years those babies will be the elderly that need more looking after. I don't know what the answer is. Either we have a generation that suffers from not having enough young people etc to look after them and then hope less babies lead to less elderly and a more sustainable population overall or in the long term we have a world that suffers for years and years from hunger and lack of resources until we inevitably die out as a species and are replaced by some other life form. The planet will be fine. We will not.

whyriskit they could share the nappies if your older child not fully toilet trained
I'm assuming cloth nappies here.

Juule - What I meant was immediate cost. You don't want to know how many people are out there who just "pop out" kids without thinking of the costs / effort of raising them, later relying on the state / your taxes for hand-outs. Often, they don't think about the cost of nappies, food, etc. beforehand.

Going back to my comparison with pets - they, too, cost a considerable amount to "raise up" - some more so than others ( a horse would be similar to a child!). But you'll find that no animal shelter will give an animal / furbaby away without "donation" - not just for cash purposes, but because that immediate payment will make people think before acquiring a pet.

The same can't be said for "human" babies...

I suppose - not sure I would have enough! But they are one size so that would work (I think I've just been in denial about the idea of two in nappies at once!).

Pyramid Scheme??? That's what the argument of "having babies to support pensioners" reminds me of. That would mean that the population would have to grow endlessly.

What really should happen - and what the government is already asking us to do - is that we should save for the time we retire.

As for who should look after us, I really don't mind C-3PO or R2-D2... it's not as though a lot of British youngsters do it anyway. A lot of young carers happen to be immigrants.

At the park this morning I meet a lovely Egyptian lady with 8 children . She made me feel quite sad I've only two as all hers were beautifully behaved and helping each other. In the Middle East having 1or 2 children only is uncommon. Strangers urge you to try for more.

I have three, the last one was the result of a contraceptive failure but we could not face an abortion and can afford our children, she was the loveliest mistake I ever made regardless of her environmental impact. Dh has made sure we will not be able to make anymore babies and I am grateful.

There are many good reasons to limit your family but I think the state enforced options to force people to limit the number of children any one family have are crude and border on fascist I value free will and on balance would like to live in a world where my children are valued as individuals not judged a burden before they have had a chance to make their contribution to society.

We are a vegetarian family, politically aware and socially concious, I volunteer while I am not in paid employment, I would like to think my children will be good citizens one day. I may be wrong but at least I try.

I get the odd comment about how many children I have or if I want more etc. they do not bother me, people generally are just making conversation and if they have an axe to grind that is not my problem.

Tasmania that is true, but I (and honestly most people I know) would not have babies I had to rely on state aid to have. I did have help paying for the delivery of my DS (I'm in America so no NHS) but I've been working/paying taxes since I was 14 and am now on private insurance, so it all balances out. :)

Also if I end up adopting a few (and I know for the most part this thread is talking of biological children) the carbon footprint doesn't really come into play as those kids are already here.

I may have a rosy view on it all because of my aunt and uncle who have six, and are disgustingly functional. They also have never claimed any sort of benefit except for what they get for their son with Down syndrome, which would be the same if he were their only.

To reiterate, no one here is advocating state control.

FellatioNelson it's just interesting to talk about it here because when I say I have six people look horrified and obviously think the same things as you, but I just have to smile and nod. I am from a big family myself funnily enough. I don't see it as self-indulgent. We could have had a lot more holidays and a nicer house but we chose children instead.

That's the thing too...whether I end up with 2 kids or 7, they're not going to have ridiculous wardrobes or flat screens in their bedrooms or whatever the hell else, because I don't believe in those things. I

Ah it's my Il's I have to put up with dc#2 on the way and they constantly dig at everything, names choices-so I refuse to say what we have picked until its officially born/ registered! How many, they had 6!! Then say we cant afford it (both in well paid jobs) /take time off/house isn't big enough/kids take up to much time etc! It's up to us and the constant negative input is putting my DH off having anymore, we said we would like 4! I will not let anyone make that choice for us..... ba**ds!!

As long as your paying for them whats the issue just tell others to bog off

Arielthepiraticalmermaid I'm not advocating state control. Just taxation. Which is sort of the opposite of the current system that renumerates people for having kids. And if the latter does not qualify for "state control", then taxation should't either.

However, will see whatever's good for them as "benefits" and what penalizes them as "state control"... when in reality, both can be seen as the same thing. You'd have to have no welfare state and full-on capitalism for there to be no state control...