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?

The one thing I don't agree with, is people having children they cannot afford. If you can solely/with your partner afford to house, clothe and feed a child without relying on benefits to help pay for that, then have as many as you can afford.
If however, you're going to be reliant on claiming thousands of pounds a year (cannot BELIEVE parents can claim up to £26,000!) in benefits just to get by, then imo, you have no business bringing a child in to the world yet, until you can cover the cost of a child unaided.
Benefits should be reserved for those who through no fault of their own end up sick or disabled, who genuinely cannot work to earn the money then need to have a roof over their head and food on the table. It should be a fall back system when there's absolutely no other option, not a "lifestyle" choice.
Children are a blessing, not a right. Just because you want something, doesn't mean you get to have it. If you want a sports car, you have to earn the money to pay for it. If you want a nice house, you earn the money to pay for it. If you want to go on holiday, you earn the money to pay for it. The same should apply to children, if you want to be a parent, you earn the money to pay for it.

"Today, right now, an elderly person is sitting in their own urine or thirsty or hungry simply because there are not enough nurses and carers to look after them."

That's not just an ageing population, it's about decisions made on spending on nurses and carers. It's the budgets available.

"I definitely think that you not being able to have your own kids is colouring your view on large families."

Lots of people don't really understand why people have large families these days.

I agree Gwen but the budgets are only going to get smaller with a shrinking tax payer population. Things are bad enough now, how much worse are they going to get with less money?

"Too many people on the planet as it is" is a fucking stupid thing to say! The number of people having children in the UK is barely a scratch on the surface of that number. If we stopped having kids here it would make no difference at all to the planet as a whole

This is a point of view I can't agree with, because at this very moment we have Western quangos spreading small-family propaganda throughout the developing world and now, judging by this thread, high-earning Westerners are brandishing their high-earning, Western status as all the 'justification' they need for their large families (bear in mind, the West has invented the small family agenda - not a moment too soon).

The most pressing, deleterious impacts of overpopulation are global rather than local. Consider the polar ice sheets. It hardly matters whether the nth person is in India or the UK.

And I don't believe that this crisis of caring for the elderly will come to pass, we'll merely have to pay more for it (as well we should, that carers are on such low wages is a scandal unto itself) - immigration will sort it out in the end. Population is like water finding level.

I don't believe that this crisis of caring for the elderly will come to pass, we'll merely have to pay more for it...

And where precisely do you think the money will come from to pay more money for more careers for more elderly?? A couple of pages ago you were calling me morally bankrupt for pointing out that it will be the taxes paid by my children, so what's your solution?

Pardon me if I am wrong about this but I do not think the polar ice sheets and the number of babies born are related.

The problem is not numbers of children, it's poor use of resources and resources that are sucked out of the earth by one or two regions, leaving the rest high and dry.
We eat meat. We drive cars. We divert rivers to irrigate lawns and golf courses. We refuse to develop clean energy because the wind turbines would spoil our view.

We then tell people in underdeveloped places that they should follow our lead and become materialistic consumers instead of having children.

mathanxiety Do you think you could give it a rest now? You must have posted about a dozen times now. Anyone would think you were enjoying feeling deeply offended and outraged.

You are the gift that just keeps on giving.

You think you can post something that is positively oozing offence and then turn around and tell people to stop pointing out how crass (because rude doesn't cover it) you have been?

I'm "wasting my time and energy", because it bothers me, because it intrigues me, because I have nothing better to do today, and because it's a way of dealing with feelings of jealously about other people who are able to pop out numerous children when I can't.

And yet you accuse other people of being selfish?

'Can I ask why you are on mums net if you have no children?'

FFS. I swear that question has been asked more frequently in the past week than in the entire 7 years I've been on MN. If you must know, I personally started posting on MN the first time I was pregnant. I was all excited, gagging to talk to other people about being pregnant. Then I miscarried. Then got pregnant again. Miscarried. And so on. Five pregnancies, five miscarriages. No children. I've had great conversations with people here, and wonderful support. I've been feeling very unwelcome lately. I've been told I shouldn't be here as I don't have children quite a few times recently. There's been some outright nastiness to those of us who can't have children (some on this thread). It's really fucking unpleasant, and makes me feel extremely unwelcome in the one place I thought I could go for support.

High earning Westerners are brandishing their high earning Western status as all the 'justification' they need for their large families

Once again you are (wilfully or otherwise) misunderstanding, paraphrasing and taking out of context what was said - constructing a straw man in other words.

We are high-earning (by global standards) Westerners who are presenting the pros of large families for our situation. We didn't mention family size in the developing world (and the OP specified families in the West too) you did. And then conflated the two things and attributed it to me

I'm appalled at the people who claim that their large families are OK because they somehow know their children will be high earners. They own the moral low-ground.

You wouldn't be appalled if you met my DCs.
You would understand exactly what I am saying.

There is no 'will be' about it either. My DCs are probably older than the DCs of many on this thread.

And while you are appalled at the idea of high earning DCs, others are appalled at the idea of parents and/or children not being high enough earners to afford the children they have and only surviving because of benefits.

Large families can't win, can they...

Sometimes they arrive unexpectedly. I always wanted at least four. I was from family of four ( plus my sister who died as a baby) but DH said enough after three. I went back to studying and a little surprise arrived.
We could afford four ( not over indulged but fed , clothed and watered) so why shouldn't we have them.
I do think you should try and keep to those you can afford. I don't mind that big family in Morecambe as they provide for their own children and they are well cared for and disciplined kids. They look such a happy family. I do think people should aim to provide for their own family.

It is irresponsible. Sorry but it is. There are so many people on this planet, talk of care homes, lovely dc, economics. I stopped at 2 because in all conscience i would have felt guilty having more than that.

I had twins. Some people have triplets or more. Sometimes nature dictates these things and there is no control over your body releasing multiple eggs!

It isn't irresponsible to have three children.

I had three because I wanted three. I have no conscience about that and refuse to feel guilty. I didn't want any more, but knew that with just two I wasn't yet finished.

I stopped at 2 mostly because as much as I love my children,I dont particulalrly enjoy parenting. We have no help and I am a SAHM. I have sacrificed my career and find the relentlessness enough for me to know I couldnt start again. Mine are almost teens and I look forward to my freedom. Thats not to say I don't enjoy the children and all we do. I just dont want that to make up the majority of my adulthood. If people feel differently then I can see why more children would appeal.

I agree with the OP. It is irresponsible. Children should be in a home that has enough living space, bedrooms and bathrooms to accommodate the whole family. There should be excess funds each month after all bills are paid to ensure your children are never stopped doing something they want due to lack of money. Children need attention and emotional support which can't be attained when there are 3+ children running around and only two parents. Children often need help though university, with the desposit for a flat, wedding costs etc. The fewer children you have the more you can give them.

There are too many people having more children because they "want another one" with no real understanding on how unfair it is on the children you already have. If you can't afford to give your existing children the best - do not have anymore. It's selfish.

OP - if you can understand why anyone would want a child at all then you can understand how large families happen. My number 4 was no less desired or wAnted or planned for than the first.

ItsLike, do you have the ssame view of those of us on the thread who earn enough to pay school fees, fund university, help pay for flats for a lot of children though? We also tend to be the ones whose children will pay a lot of tax.

I don't accept that a parent cannot give sufficient love to a lot of children. I do think if you have absolutely masses - I am thinking about the Escape from Polygamy s2 programme I watched last night where Daniel Kingston has something like 140 children so they don't know their father too well although know their mothers pretty well it can be too much but other than in those extreme cases with loads of wives, I am sure I can love my 5 children and give them time, consideration, love as much as many a parent of only 1 or 2 children can. (My youngest are twins by the way and I don't feel they have been loved less or had a worse deal as they have a twin - quite the contrary and we don't even get child benefit in this family now as I earn too much so am not exactly a drain on the state)

My opinion is that nobody should have more children than they can afford, and the state shouldn't fund more than 2.
I also think I would struggle time wise in giving each child individual attention personally.

If you can afford them yourself without help then that's different.

So many posters banging on about not having large families unless you can afford them. Do you not realise that no one who has to earn a living can guarantee they'll be working next year, or that they can't become too ill to work?

You can have a 5 bedroom house and 4 kids, all paid for. Then the breadwinner gets seriously ill. Wallop, you're on benefits.

Some people seem to think it's possible to control and predict the future. It isn't.

Prawn in that case only 2 kids will be supported by the state. Plus people with paid for houses tend to have life insurance etc.

And critical illness cover