10 kids? To judge it not to judge?

[Sekena]

I don't have 10 kids lol BUT boyfriends Dad was one of 10 - boyfriend's dad was a 'rainbow' baby born after a stillbirth -although doubt if this term was used then. Boyfriend himself is one of 5 - and all the sibs get on.

On MN - you get for instance a lot of 'only child' threads and parents potential guilt for not providing siblings and the opinions on these quite rightly are overwhelmingly that onlies don't miss out and these only child stereotypes are nonsense - which I completely agree with - I firmly believe an only child can thrive and doesn't need siblings. However - I also believe that a child in a large family can also thrive - just like my boyfriend's dad did. However if I was to say I'd like 10 kids - would I be judged ? I haven't decided on this at all - I'm currently pregnant with my second - but honestly felt my DD thrived as an only so definitely didn't conceive to give Dd a sibling - am delighted for this child in its own right !

I'm currently open minded about family size and am a SAHM. But what are your opinions on families of 10 like my boyfriends Dad's - WIBU if this is what I wanted ?

By your thinking any one accessing the NHS is a drain on it. Kids with cancer are a drain on the NHS according to you. People accessing the services they are entitled to use are a drain according to you.

*If it was relevant to the discussion, yes.

Most people just by living to an old age are a drain on the NHS*

And you didn't find it! 😁

Do you go round telling fat people or smokers that or just the people who you think have too many children? Get elderly women turfed out of the hospitals, many of them didn’t even work full time!!!!

Growing old is inevitable, having a dozen kids ain't!!

@Eyerollcentral

Well yes.

Obviously I'm glad the NHS exists and I'm glad to fund it.

But it's very rare for anyone to cover their usage.

Im not quite sure that equates to everyone being a drain but if that's how you want to put it...

@sunglassesonthetable

I wasn't looking

Tbh most people who use the NHS are a drain on its resources at some point.

Not just women giving birth.

But crack on arguing it's a decent measure for assessing birth rate criteria.

@sunglassesonthetable

You keep saying you're all about nuance and then completely miss the point of what people are saying

As a grandparent I would not be offering much support. If you want 10 then fill your boots but don't expect much help from me!

You keep saying you're all about nuance and then completely miss the point of what people are saying

Hmm, don't think did.

I said you didn't show it. Tbh I think you're just here to argue.

@sunglassesonthetable

Except I never claimed it did 'show it' and I never claimed I'm not here to argue

Here for the debate. Like you said

Most people use the NHS most as babies and infants, when pregnant and giving birth, and then when elderly.
Pregnancy care can be expensive as can care for a premature baby. Most parents take babies and young children to the GP more than working adults go to the GP. And babies and young children are rightly hospitalised at a much lower level of ill health than adults are.

Most working age adults do not use the NHS much except when pregnant. There are exceptions e.g. people with cancer, major heart disease, etc. But the risks of contracting these illnesses rise a lot with age and it is mainly adults no longer of working age who have these medical issues.

I have been unfortunate to be in and out of hospital from a young age and unless you are on a surgical ward full of people with things like sports injuries, gall bladder, etc, then you will be in a ward with mainly elderly people.

Except I never claimed it did 'show it' .

yep So nuanced, I'm not even sure what you're saying. Just agitation.

Just seem notice all your 'debates' seem to end in one word play ground retorts.

You crack on. Have a nice day.

@sunglassesonthetable

The hypocrisy

🤣

I have no children, and neither do my two siblings. Other people need to have children to make up for our non reproduction. At this time, the population of the developed world is shrinking. At the same time, having more than four children can mean the elders bring up the younger sibs.

He can afford it though.

Yes I'd judge if expecting the state to pay.

I'm an only child. It had negative consequences for me in many ways, so I think while not true for all, it's wrong for parents to tell themselves there is never an adverse impact. Similarly being one of a a large number of children will have negative consequences for some children in that situation. I don't judge peoples parenting decisions, but I do judge people who close their eyes to the potential impact of them on their children while we all maintain the polite fiction that there isn't any. Being aware of potential negative impact is important to minimising it.

If you can afford to fund a large family without state help go for it. If you're claiming state benefits to afford it then yes I do judge it as a poor and selfish choice.

The earth can't afford it. The carbon footprint of an average American child is about 58.6 tonnes annually. One African child is 0.07 tonnes. Rich Americans and Europeans have far bigger carbon footprints than rich Asians or Africans.

Elon apparently has 10 now. And he plans to have more. I certainly do judge him and others including Boris, Posh Spice, Jamie Oliver etc etc.

I do think it's somewhat ironic that many of those posting about how lovely it was to grow up with 8 siblings, or for their parents to grow up with 8 siblings, and how people who have 9 children shouldn't be judged because the world needs us to keep having lots of babies...

The reason we have a looming crisis is because of the couple of generations where having 9 kids was common, are now pension age or approaching it. Anyone recommending that a woman have multiple kids in 2023 to pay for those pensions is essentially storing up the exact same problem in a few generations time.

I judge the hell out of people who have this many children. It's socially and environmentally selfish, and people who act like they're doing us all a favour are totally deluded.

PS - check out how many flights you'd have to take per year to even compare to the carbon footprint of ONE additional child: www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

But large families are costing the NHS a lot of money. Look at the awful Radfords. 22 births! Cost a fortune plus all the child benefit they will have received over the years.

If after 2 children women had to pay for their births most would stick at 2.

I will openly admit I do judge large families.

In this day with birth control so effective and easy to get hold of there is no excuse for 'accidental' large families.

Unfortunately, most large families you hear about can't support themselves financially without some help or total help from the government. Many don't have houses big enough to house so many children, indeed most houses are not built for such large families.

Assuming the family can financially provide for all children and you have a large house, and even if you can afford one stay at home parent, I just don't see how you can realistically care for that many children and also give them enough one on one time.

Large families invariably rely on older children to provide far more care for younger siblings than they really should. You hear so often of older siblings of large families who don't choose to have a large family of their own as they feel they missed out.

Don't get me wrong, children should help each other. I have two and I have asked the older one T to watch the younger on occasionally and I will often shout the younger one to go wake the older one when he isn't responding to my calls over Alexa and they will both occasionally make the other tea if we go out.

However, neither have been responsible for personal care of the other, neither have had to look after the other daily and have them as their responsibility. This does seem to happen in large families from what I have seen.

If you aren’t super rich then I think by having ten children you are restricting the opportunities available to them growing up, which doesn’t automatically mean they won’t be OK, but you are still making the choice to set them behind what is normal for their peers in terms of attention and variety of life experiences. They aren’t realistically going to get brand-new clothes, family holidays, their own room, university funding from parents, a personalised range of after school clubs or hobbies to their own interests, meals out, much 1-to-1 attention from parents (directly or in terms of supervising education etc), etc etc - and while some families with only one child can’t provide any of this either, it feels different to actively choose it for your family when you could avoid it, than to not have a choice if you want to have any children at all.

Meanwhile, the UN says that two thirds of countries in Europe have introduced policies to encourage population growth.