Why do people think it's acceptable being negative about wanting lots of children?

[MrsVidic]

Hi, I am 39 weeks with dd 2 and I'm 28. Dp and I have had the number of children discussion the other night and have decided to try for a 3rd after we get married and 4th a few years later.
Anyway since chatting with my parents/ family etc about this I'm getting really pissed off. To start with I only mentioned number of children as we will be looking to move to a bigger house ( only have a 4 bed ATM) to accommodate.
My parents only had 2 dc and it seems everyone trying to dissuade us has no more than 2 dc.
Our close friends with 4 have been really supportive etc.
It seems to be people think they have a right to be negative about your plans if you want more than 2, that it's ok to remark on what is not really their business.
I've had comments regarding we'd be mad to move just to have more children, it will be too expensive- I work pt and dp has a good safe job.
Maybe I'm hormonal but I think if your a grand parent you should be happy at the prospect of more grand children?

Yes BuckBuckMcFate, I thought that would make sense in context to anyone reading it..obviously I was wrong!

TBH I have to agree with the nay sayers to big families - for the environmental reasons but also...................

I would love a household full of children but am satisfied with the two children I have. If I do get the chance to 'grow' my family I will be applying to foster.
Its well known there are lots of children who need foster homes/adoption - there is really no 'need' to have lots of your own when there are lots of children needing a mum :(

I have been trying to teach ds all week to "be satisfied with what you have"

I understood the context moonferret, thanks for the slightly patronising italics btw

I'm just wondering who put you in charge of deciding the reasonableness of a child's existence?

But whoever said two children is acceptable? Who decided that and who is to say fewer or more are acceptable?

I'm just asking how the 'correct' number of children was decided upon.

2 dcs replaces you and your partner.

The word reasonable was a shortcut way of saying "the additional children over and above those that humanity should have limited itself to". I think most people would have understood that, but clearly you didn't. It wasn't to be taken literally but in context.

Just to add (having read Buckbuck's post) obviously there are big families due to contraceptive failure, that is different dont you think?

But I personally always knew Id rather like four kids but always also knew I couldnt justify (to myself) more than two because of our crowded planet and all the children who need a foster/adoption home.

I know some really really lovely families who made a decision to have a huge family and now they have a huge family - I just dont get that.

Well WinkyWinkola, if you look at how the world's population is spiralling out of control, then the number needs to come down until it is stable. Whether that means one or two children I have no idea, but until that number stabilises or even reduces, it needs to reduce.

I've been reading this thread sitting on my hands and squirming about because I really don't want to get into it but here goes...

Yes, the planet as a whole has an issue with overpopulation and sustainability of resources. But, individual countries like UK, Japan, France to name but a few have their own problems of ageing populations. In other words, women are either delaying pregnancies until later in life, not having children at all or generally having fewer children than previous generations which means basically populations are disproportionately old. Too many old folk and not enough younger people of working age to pay taxes/NI which fund pensions, NHS, road repairs, public transport etc., etc. So, many countries in this position are taking action by offering gov subsidies to encourage people to have more kids (and, unfortunately, making us all work longer and longer).

So what is the 'responsible' thing to do in this messed up world right now? I don't know. I just know that I am v lucky to have 2 great kids but I have an all-consuming belief that my family is not complete and am ttc no.3 and would ultimately like a no.4 too.

Like others have said I try to reducer carbon footprint and care for our planet as much as I can in other areas of my life and will teach my kids the same for the sake of global issues. As for our national ageing population issues, I will have more than the 'normal' 2 kids.

AIBU or irresponsible or just plain wrong? Maybe, but please find me a better answer/compromise before telling me so!

Sorry for the essay!

laura you don't have to get it, it's their choice not yours. I don't get that people could only want one child but thats none of my business so i don't waste time wondering why they make those choices. :)

Lia66 - I get that its their choice, I get that I dont 'have' to get it.

But I dont understand how such lovely people could also apparently not care that huge numbers of children in one family has a HUGE impact on the enviroment over the course of their lifetimes. And I guess because I respect them as people I find it difficult to understand the apparent contradiction.
The Duggars in America for example, fantastic people, fantastic parents but 19 children?- I dont get how they justify that. (And yes I know its probably because they dont use contraception, well surely then the answer should be no sex!!!)

I worry A LOT about the environment - and its blatantly obvious that a global rising population is not good for our planet - so therefore the responsible reaction to that (for me anyway) is to only have two children.

Also we cant always make choices based entirely on our own needs and wants - surely its important to consider the impact on others? Upon our planet?

Moonferret, just to clarify, I do understand what you're attempting to say, i just don't agree with you deciding the reasonableness of my dc

I personally find that having a larger family makes me more aware of waste, energy consumption, reusable nappies, etc but I obviously I don't give a stuff about any of that do I, as seen as I have reproduced double what you deem acceptable.

Sorry for the delay in replying, one of my drains on the planets resources needed feeding.

Please please please don't slag off other people's family sizes. There could be zillions of reasons people choose to have a big family, or a small one for what it's worth. It's possibly not even through choice (as others have said).

I believe the environmental argument is a valid one, but also that people make decisions for whole load of different reasons, based on information that is available at the time. I don't think it's helpful to criticise those who have made the decision to have a big family, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with making the general population aware of the environmental issues, and then leaving the individual to make their own choices.

As a mother of an only child, I have been criticised and questioned over my family size when I haven't even been able to choose. So I hate it when others do this to someone else.

OP I hope you do manage to have the number of children you want. It's nice when you do get to choose. In my earlier post I was just trying to point out that things don't always go as planned.

I've actually not received negative comments from anyone. People have said things like "how do you do it" and seem more, well, in awe I guess! It always makes me a bit embarrassed when people act like I am supermum cos I'm not.

But I guess I never broach the subject of having 4 children as something I need to justify. It was our decision and it was the right one for us.

Moonferret, Thermos We have three DCs, we didnt plan it that way but three is what we have. They arent babies so now have ambitions:

• DC1 wants to be a toxicologist
• DC2 wants to join the RAF
• DC3 wants to be a doctor

All three have the ability, intelligence and application to achieve their ambitions.

So, my question is, which would you like me to kill?

Over-population is a complex problem not solved by a simple 'two's yer ration' approach.

Miranda It goes vertical because the numbers of people obviously increase exponentially - all charts which count numbers exponentially will end up like that. It's not scary, it's maths. Also, the numbers in earlier time periods are a lot harder to know so are rough estimations and many have been found to only count people in certain known areas without counting in the lesser known areas which would have been populated at that time. Some are actually calculated backwards (using the above principle that the numbers most likely came a certain way). Even today's numbers aren't exact.

Having a smaller population doesn't automatically mean any solution to those problems - a smaller number of people can take just as many resources as a large number of people if they so chose. The solution is people using less resources regardless of population size or sense of entitlement.

moonferret Mathlus hasn't been proven correct, in fact he's been proven wrong quite a few times, and there are also loads of articles that say - if everything stays the same as is (no change in birth rates) - we'll level out at 2050ish when our death rate and birth rate catch up with each other. The main reason for current population increase is actually people living longer as birth rates are actually declining.

So, unless all of you 'it's selfish' are going to tell older people it's selfish to have life extending health care, your overpopulation concerns of larger families just comes down to snobbishness and hypocrisy. The scientific community is far more divided on population levels than some of you seem to think and they re certainly going to need the resources of people in the future to solve all these problems.

Surely any cap on UK population is going to have no significant effect on global population?

Let's not do anything then CherryPi, as nothing we do has any significant effect on anything. We'll just advise other countries, but not "practice what we preach"...

Yeah, sounds sensible to me cherrypi!

I think that we set a good example by valuing educating females and using contraception.

Is an obsession with the environment just an excuse for being a bossy control freak?

You decide!

Why should we replace ourselves and our partners then? If one is concerned about the world's over population, I think one should not have any children at all. Instead of lecturing those who already have a large family. What's the point of that? Talk about alienating people from a cause.

Lockets - its a paraphrasing of the tenth commandment (in the bible)
ie do not want your neighbours wife or his house. do not covet

My ds often wants things he cannot have (very often because no such thing exists!) I am trying to teach him that he should be "satisfied with what he has"
Equally I would love to have a houseful of kids but I have learnt/am still learning to "be satisfied with what I have".
I didnt mean 'satisfied' in the sense of 'like it or lump it' - more 'be content' - In the words of the
BTW I have no wish to lecture or preach to anyone so I am sorry if I have personally offended anyone - Im just trying to express my opinion.

If you want to and can afford it, why not?