To have a 5th child

[Flowerflow]

I have 4 children ages 13, 9, 8 and 4 (5 in a few days), recently DP and I have been discussing have another child, he completely up for it but I'm still a little unsure. I have a few concerns like we currently live in a 4 bedroom house, oldest two share and youngest two have their own bedrooms. 8 year old is the only boy and if were to have another boy they would probably share but there would be a big age gap and DS wouldn't be impressed. That or we move to a bigger house which we might not be able to afford where we currently but would be able to if we move slightly further away. Another concern would be there'll be 5/6 between them and our current youngest so new baby might feel left out or the odd one out although not all our children are very close in age. I'm also unsure about going through pregnancy again, I've never really enjoyed it, baby, toddler stage and so I'll happily go through again but pregnancy I'm willing to go through not exactly happily though. On the other hand I'd love to have a fifth child and these concerns and problems can be worked through

I also believe euthanasia will be optional in the future. I personally think many would choose this, rather than rotting due to advanced medicine and really old age.

Personally I think Euthanasia will eventually be legalised.

I think you're probably right. The next natural step, though, if not outright making it mandatory under certain circumstances, would be for elderly and/or very ill people to be subjected to extreme emotional pressure to 'do the right thing - you've had your turn' when they otherwise have no actual desire to artificially truncate their lives, limited as they may be.

This pressure could come from selfish, greedy relatives wanting an expedited inheritance but no perceived burden (or 'loss' of inheritance from care-home fees), from environment campaigners, politicians.... who knows.

So it’s a sort of death cult? You want to voluntarily walk into extinction so that other nonhuman earth inhabitants can survive?

You've got it exactly backwards. We are currently voluntarily walking into extinction. Some of us would rather not, if it's all the same to you. But I am full of grief that my DS will witness it.

Oh, come on. David Attenborough is talking about the "collapse of society". We won't need voluntary euthenasia, because it will be far, far too easy for us to die naturally, without the current level of medical care that keeps us alive into a reasonably active old age now.

I think there's a whole lot of confirmation bias going on now. Everything in most of our lives looks "normal", still, so we can't really grasp how bad it's going to get.

So it’s a sort of death cult? You want to voluntarily walk into extinction so that other nonhuman earth inhabitants can survive?

Not my view! I would like very much for humans to survive, which is why I'd like for there to be fewer of us.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3581358-Georgia-USA-makes-abortion-punishable-by-life-imprisonment

I feel like OP having a fifth child or not isn't going to make much difference tbh.

Why is encouraging people not to have very large families remotely the same as euthanising the elderly?

You've got it exactly backwards. We are currently voluntarily walking into extinction. Some of us would rather not, if it's all the same to you. But I am full of grief that my DS will witness it.

I sort of vacillate between this position and one that's more hopeful.

I think we're at a watershed moment in terms of ecological awareness, and I expect that in the next several years life will be transformed pretty radically.

Based on the sort of things I've been reading up on recently, I do wonder if all the concern about Co2 is slightly misplaced - this is one example of where economic pressure is making inroads (taxes are making renewable technologies more attractive every day - witness the phenomenal investment in batteries and the like).

I feel far more pessimistic about biodiversity, deforestation, oceans and food supply chains than I do Co2.

Because some people love to get a bit hysterical.

Why is encouraging people not to have very large families remotely the same as euthanising the elderly?

Why indeed.

Perhaps we should think deeply about family planning, have fewer people, and take really good care of them? Just a though.

Japan is another economically comfortable country (relatively) - and they low birth rate is hot topic there.

USA still has large population with their quiverful religion and 3000sq ft houses so still long way to go to slow down birth rate and is now causing wars just to stay prosperous. Didn't you want population to reduce? Here's wars from USA for you.

OP, good luck in whatever you decide - I for one will be congratulation and be in awe if you end up pregnant with 5th :) I love large families but it isn't for everyone.

It seems odd that posters on this thread are on one hand complaining that ecological concerns have never been mentioned to them in real life and that's outrageous, whilst on the other saying we're practically one step away from a one child policy, euthanasia and authoritarianism. Which is it?

The US has a below-replacement birth rate ChattySchoolMum, not sure what you're talking about.

The quiverfulls are fringe loons.

I didn't say it wasn't below-replacement. Just higher than Europe/Russia/Japan - not surprising given influence of religion and size of houses, but happy to be corrected. Pacific Coast and East Coast are feeling the most squeeze.

Why is encouraging people not to have very large families remotely the same as euthanising the elderly?

Why are they idealistically mutually-exclusive? If the stated agenda were to radically and swiftly reduce the population and merely relying on fewer babies being born - and having to wait for a generation or two for the drop in numbers to start taking effect deemed simply too dangerous.

Re enviromental concerns-not eating meat and dairy is one of the biggest ways to reduce your impact on the environment, if not the biggest.

Discussing Euthanasia as an option to decrease population in the future, only if the person or medical staff make the decision.
I personally wouldn't like to still be alive if I was very old, incapable of looking after myself. There was a recent case in the paper of a 94yo gentleman, he spent 3months bed bound in the hospital, waiting for a care placement, ok we've derailed from the 5th child, but over populating is happening as people are living to long, lots without any quality of life. Euthanasia should be a personal choice in civilised country's.

Re enviromental concerns-not eating meat and dairy is one of the biggest ways to reduce your impact on the environment, if not the biggest.

Here we go again. Isn't the bigger way to reduce your impact on the environment to not produce five meat and dairy eaters?

Although invariably on these threads the big family people talk about how they're vegan and don't have cars and don't fly (while simultaneously believing that the planet is in a perfectly fine state! weird!).

Why are they idealistically mutually-exclusive? If the stated agenda were to radically and swiftly reduce the population and merely relying on fewer babies being born - and having to wait for a generation or two for the drop in numbers to start taking effect deemed simply too dangerous.

Because it's the difference between murder and birth control.

I've never murdered anyone in my life, I hope to carry on in this vein. OTOH, I've used birth control for 30 years.

I'm facing the financial cost of two kids going to university on top of all the adult clothes, food etc. It's expensive.

My two pence also concerns the planet. No, OP, you should not have another child. We should be aiming at only replacing each one of us, i.e. one dch per person, dch per couple of parents, if everyone is to have a Western standard of living. We are very 'lucky' that most of the world does not consume in the way that we do - but they deserve to be lifted out of poverty and have food security, and that won't be possible if we keep producing more people. To say nothing of wildlife habitat loss.

If you 'need' another one, how about adoption/fostering?

Why are they idealistically mutually-exclusive?

If you can't see the ideological difference between practicing birth control and murder then I can't really help you mate.

We ARE reproducing at roughly one child per adult in the west though. It’s in Asia and Africa that family sizes are still very high.

I can't tell you how much I hate being an only child. Its worse since I've gotten older. My parents are my responsibility (well my mum is, my dads dead now): my sole responsibility.

HarryPottersSecretSister I am one of four kids. Not only was I left to be responsible for my mum's care during her long, long, distressing decline, i was also responsible for looking after the needs of one of my sisters, who has long term problems and who my mum had looked after all her life.

Lots of siblings does not guarantee that you will share any responsibilities for looking after your parents.

My DS is an only child. I am planning to arrange my own life so that he isn't responsible for me as I age.

Why are they idealistically mutually-exclusive?

If you can't see the ideological difference between practicing birth control and murder then I can't really help you mate.

Did you read what I actually wrote past the first sentence?

I said that people could be made to feel pressured to opt for it, but the absolute decision would (technically) be their own.

Also, nowhere did I say that it was MY idealistic viewpoint - it most certainly is not. However, I can see the way the wind is blowing. We happily 'cull' animal species to control population numbers. Looking at a lot of the vitriol and the language used on this thread, which was only originally started by somebody wondering how it might affect her own family if they had another child, I could well see a time when the Hunger Games ideology might not exist purely as a fiction/fantasy in many people's minds.