Large Families

[Czerny88]

I'm trying to understand the psychology behind people having large families (by which I mean anything over three children, I guess). NB I'm thinking about people in the 21st century, in the West, with access to contraception and low infant mortality, who don't belong to a culture where it is particularly encouraged to have a large number of children, such as Judaism. And obviously there are circumstances such as multiple births which don't apply.

My visceral feeling is that it is often wrong on many levels. In attempting to enunciate why, I would say people should not have more children than they can afford, than they have time to care for, than can fit comfortably in their living accommodation.

And even in the case where the parents are very wealthy, have a huge house and extra support such as a nanny, there is still the hugely important issue of over-population. It feels like we are at capacity already, without room to increase the population by the amount would result by every couple having even three children.

I'm trying not to be too goady or right-wing, and I have personal reasons for the way I feel (I am involuntarily childless) so please don't be too harsh, but it's something I struggle with ideologically as well as emotionally.

So... AIBU to think that people should be more responsible about how many children they produce and not act solely on their own desires regardless of the potential effects on others? Or is that an unrealistic, draconian expectation?

Well said ofafrenchmind, If we could get female emancipation and proper birth control in the third world I suspect population would decrease. Let women control their own uterus and see what happens.

Czerny

I'm glad that you came back to the thread.
I genuinely do sympathise with your enforced childlessness and of course I respect your candour although I believe your concern to be misplaced in all but the smallest minority of instances.

I come to this debate from a wholly different perspective; my parents struggled to conceive and carry a child to term. I was born prematurely, an only child and my parents then suffered many late miscarriages and failed attempts at IVF.

Owing to my own experiences I cannot fathom why people with a modicum of economic, social and cultural capital and most importantly the propensity to give and receive love would choose to remain childless or to have only one child.

I do however respect their choices and do not feel entitled to any explanations by way of justification from them.

I consider it ignorant of you to assume that I am unable to effectively parent my children by virtue of my family size but I think that your perspective is understandable under the circumstances

Ellen Thank you for your post. I think you have put your finger on two important points:

1. Everyone is inevitably coming to this discussion with their own perspective and is therefore predisposed to justify their own choices;
2. You assume that I have made assumptions about a specific individual's capacity to parent.

I know nothing about your personal ability to parent. You maybe be the most caring, loving, considerate and environmentally-aware person on the planet for all I know. But that does not change the fact that resources have to be spread more thinly where there are more people requiring them. Or that some people do struggle to adequately look after a large number of children, but still produce more. Your personal resources may be ample, but those of other people, and the planet, may not be.

*may be

Quite agree OP.

Each child will grow up to want foreign travel, cars, houses, white goods etc. etc.

It's about resources and waste as well as population growth. The 'we can afford them' line is irrelevant.

Large families will leave a very negative legacy.

I think that you made the assumption that parents of large families have less capacity to effectively parent them.
I think that in some cases your assumption is correct.
I also consider that to be true for almost any demographic, for example parents who both work full time, parents who suffer from physical/mental ill health, parents who are economically deprived or intellectually challenged.

I also agree that our resources in this country will in the next generation or so, dependent entirely on your chronological definition of a generation, be extremely thinly spread.
This will be due to a surplus of elderly people within our population, far in excess of those who will at that time be economically active, if our birth rate remains at 1.8, which it has done approximately for over a decade.

You are correct that we come to these discussions from our own perspectives.

I wonder sometimes at the morality of extending the lifespan at the detriment of the younger generation who will be expected to economically and socially support the burgeoning increase in the elderly population.

Does a fifth/sixth child really need to be born?
Does an octogenarian in arguably naturally ill health really need medical treatment to extend their lives by half a decade or so?

The answer to both is probably no if you employ utilitarian principles, but who ever does so?
And it is immoral to apply those principles to one and to act more leniently towards the other.

And it is immoral to apply those principles to one and to act more leniently towards the other.

The groups are quite different in that one is already born, the other not.

Hi all,

Just popping by because we've had reports about a number of posters who appear to have joined the site today just to post on this thread and ask variations on the old 'why are you posting on Mumsnet if you don't have children' chestnut.

We just want to say that you don't have to be a mum (or a dad) to join in here - loads of topics on the site have nothing to do with parenting at all.

We welcome all views; all we ask is that you use the same courtesy when posting messages on our Talk boards as you would use when speaking to someone face to face. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Many thanks

Not if you are arguing from an economic/ecological standpoint.
They are both obstensibly a potential drain on shared resources.
One if conceived/born. One if kept alive via medical intervention.

It is the potentiality of their circumstances that is equal in the absence of any intervention.

To be clear in the case of no intervention the child would not be conceived and the octogenarian would expire.

Therefore no potential drain on resources.

Not if you are arguing from an economic/ecological standpoint.
They are both obstensibly a potential drain on shared resources.
One if conceived/born. One if kept alive via medical intervention.

If you refuse to distinguish between creating a new life and sustaining an existing one, then and only then your argument makes sense.

And, there are infinite numbers of potential people to be born vs a finite pool of elderly people.

There is no distinction to be made in the case of no action/intervention as I previously stated.

Can you argue for the octogenarian being entitled to be assisted to remain alive as a significant drain on resources (and no potential of becoming anything other than this) whilst advocating for the fifth child to be prevented from being born (with all of their inherent cultural, economic and social potential) ?

There aren't infinite numbers of child number 5,6,7 plus to be born in this country.
And that was the premise of the question.

In fact I'd go so far as to argue for child seventeen to be born if only to act in the capacity of paying taxes and wiping octogenarian arses.

It's an uncomfortable truth but we are going to need people to do exactly this if our life expectancy continues to exceed our healthy life expectancy.

Personally I could not deal with more than the 2 I have, but everyone is different. We have 5 on a weekend here as DH has 3 with someone else...so I guess we would be seen as a 'large family' when out with them all, and maybe judged by people like the OP. I do think the reason so many families seem to have so many children is a lot to do with this kinda thing too. Divorce and such is more common now so families are 'split' at times.

Anyway, how many kids someone else has is fuck all to do with me. I don't think there is an issue with overcrowding as families with a shitload of children are still very very rare.

Can you argue for the octogenarian being entitled to be assisted to remain alive as a significant drain on resources (and no potential of becoming anything other than this) whilst advocating for the fifth child to be prevented from being born (with all of their inherent cultural, economic and social potential) ?

Firstly, I don't agree with extraordinary measures keeping elderly people alive. Secondly, I am not advocating any sort of 'birth prevention intervention' (although that's happening right now in developing countries under direct control of, broadly speaking, the West which is part of the hypocrisy that I was referring to earlier).

Birth rates are slowly falling into place, although the ageing population is masking the trend.

I'd like to see every consumer product reflecting the cost of mitigating the environmental impact, and no government subsidies for childbearing, I think that's realistically the best form of birth control we have.

Slightly off topic but are people aware that from April 2017, child tax credits will be capped at 2 children so anyone who has a third or more after that date will only get ctc for 2 children which seems fair to me.

"WillyW8nker

Slightly off topic but are people aware that from April 2017, child tax credits will be capped at 2 children so anyone who has a third or more after that date will only get ctc for 2 children which seems fair to me."

Absolutely. Totally fair. Surely you are not suggesting those with multiple children have their beady eyes on cash for kids?

And presumably baby number 3 never has to pay any tax or national insurance as its not taking out it's completely fair that it doesn't put in. Lucky baby

Slightly off topic but are people aware that from April 2017, child tax credits will be capped at 2 children so anyone who has a third or more after that date will only get ctc for 2 children which seems fair to me.
Oh no what will I do now?, I only had children for all the benefits and tax credits I could collect [DailyFail Sad Face] That has really back fired on me.

Large families will leave a very negative legacy

Families are smaller than they have EVER been. The average family size is a fraction of what it once was.
Historically speaking, you are all talking out of your arses. All this guff about resources shows a fundamental misuderstanding of how the world works, and you haven't even grasped the fact that large families are now so unusual as to be statistical outliers anyway.

You don't need a lower birth rate in the west, you need a higher one. You have it so arseways its laughable. You're the selfish ones.

Bloody heck, I've done some reading and I'm wrong. Arseicle is right... it seems (this is just one of many articles agreeing)

allianz.com/en/about_us/open-knowledge/topics/demography/articles/110711-world-population-growth-are-we-too-many.html/

I still maintain having a clutch of kids is a bizarre thing to do but it's interesting to see it's not the economic/ecological catastrophe I thought it was... might try for another baby now! (not RIGHT now)