NationStates Jolt Archive

I find it interesting to see how some posters think that there should be a limit to the number of kids a couple have, see the thread on the happy couple with no less than 16 kids, as if there is something inherently wrong with having more than an X number of children. Therefore, I pose to you the simple and fair question: around what number do you think you should draw the line? What’s the number that once crossed makes you go: "For God's sake!! NO MORE!!"

For me, a lot depends on whether the kids are in good care, or not. In other words, both the financial resources and a pair of healthy parents/guardians should be present in order to provide them with the 'love&care' that are a child’s' basic needs.

If these criteria are met then I see no reason to act all moral over a couple having more children then I myself would ever wish for. When, however, those conditions aren't met, think about a guy fathering a child at the age of 70, or already having trouble paying the bills, then I think the parents are simply being very selfish, or lacking the mental resources needed to realize what they are getting themselves into.

It is acceptable to have as many kids as you can provide for.

I think we'd see bigger families more often if not for the finacial burden that large families pose in today's society. If the costs weren't go great, people wouldn't be so inclined to hit the brakes and draw the line at the number of children that they want.

I think that it's acceptable for "a couple" to have as many kids as they darn-well please, as it's not my business what they do with their bodies, their finances, or their time. I choose to accept their right to manage and govern themselves, which means whatever they choose, so long as it isn't illegal, I really have no condemnation for.

As for me, though, I would not be interested in an overly large family. Partly because of the financial burden via extra expenses for children, partly becuase of the financial burden via time needed to raise the littl'uns. I refuse to pass judgement on others for decisions they make in their private, free lives--though I'll readily makes rules and guidelines for myself.

I think there's usually some sort of limit on how many children two people can actually raise simultaniously, but I don't see how anyone but the parents can be qualified to set such a limit.

Are people really saying otherwise?

I think that it's acceptable for "a couple" to have as many kids as they darn-well please,

Even when this comes at the expense of the kids already in their care? How about protecting a child from its own parents and/or potential parents?

Even when this comes at the expense of the kids already in their care? How about protecting a child from its own parents and/or potential parents?
In what way does that relate to the question raised here?

I think there's usually some sort of limit on how many children two people can actually raise simultaniously, but I don't see how anyone but the parents can be qualified to set such a limit.

Are people really saying otherwise?

Having exaggerated a bit, it was only 1 poster so far whose post implied that there should be a limit, yeah.

In what way does that relate to the question raised here?

You didn't bother reading the opening post, did ya? Tsk tsk tsk....

I think there's usually some sort of limit on how many children two people can actually raise simultaniously, but I don't see how anyone but the parents can be qualified to set such a limit.

Are people really saying otherwise?
really? and what would that limit be?
my uncle has 17 kids, the older ones ended up taking care of the younger, it worked out okay.(I guess)

I decided to only have 2 that way I can afford to support them the way I think they deserve, but if someone else has different standards then who are we to limit how many kids they have? (as long as no one is being abused or neglected it isn't anyones business)

I don't think that its anyones place to tell another how many kids they can have. HOWEVER, I think it's perfectly acceptable to stop ANYONE from having more kids, if they are on public assistance. It's essentially an act of taxation without representation if they are getting tax money for their children, and then choose to have more at the expense of society.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing child restrictions on anyone who recieves welfare. I don't want to pay for other peoples kids!

Even when this comes at the expense of the kids already in their care? How about protecting a child from its own parents and/or potential parents?
It doesn't really matter what the effects of the extra mouth are to me, I don't want to impose my personal aims and beliefs upon others. If I were a governmental official, or worked with family services, then maybe I'd worry that an extra child in a 15 person family would make the situation problematic. But, since I'm not a social worker, I'm leaving others' bedrooms, nursuries, and family rooms to the governance that resides rightly over it: those others themselves.

You didn't bother reading the opening post, did ya? Tsk tsk tsk....
Uhm.. I did. So, I apologise that I didn't understand you wanted to know the specifics of how many children a given family may or may not be capable of raising.

The poster you asked the question to (the one I quoted I mean), didn't comment on the specifics of the situation, nor did you explicitly ask for it in the OP.

To me, for example, abusive parents should not be parents at all. The number of kids they have is completely irrelevant. As long as parents act responsibly, I fail to see why anyone but them should set any limits on how many children they wish to raise, and are capable of raising. I'm sure the poster you asked feels the same way

really? and what would that limit be?
my uncle has 17 kids, the older ones ended up taking care of the younger, it worked out okay.(I guess)

I decided to only have 2 that way I can afford to support them the way I think they deserve, but if someone else has different standards then who are we to limit how many kids they have? (as long as no one is being abused or neglected it isn't anyones business)
Uhm.. In what way did I contradict this? Seems to me we agree completely...?

A family should be able to have as many kids as they want. Hopefully, they will take their financial and social health into consideration when planning the family.

It is a true violation of basic human rights to tell families how many kids to have.

Uhm.. In what way did I contradict this? Seems to me we agree completely...?
sorry allergy medicine (I know that is always my excuse but at least it is true ;))

I think there's usually some sort of limit on how many children two people can actually raise simultaniously

I was wondering what type of limit, or how you came to the decision that there was one.

For example 17 kids is too many because......

that was the part of the statement I was refering to, the rest of it seemed fine, I am just curious as to what would limit someone on how may children they can raise?

I think we'd see bigger families more often if not for the finacial burden that large families pose in today's society. If the costs weren't go great, people wouldn't be so inclined to hit the brakes and draw the line at the number of children that they want.

Totally agree with that.

Coincidentally, my wife successfully got pregnant again right this last month (we have two already and we decided to have one more) but because twins run in her family we’ve spent a few hours talking about how much can we afford if she should end up with two instead of the expected one.

We both work and we are already well aware of infant day care costs (the two we have are in elementary school now) so after some math we figure that if we had twins we would need to use so-and-so much of the household income for monthly day-care costs, but if we should have triplets, it might not be cheaper if I quit my job and stayed home because day care costs would be so high, it would be more prudent… :D

sorry allergy medicine (I know that is always my excuse but at least it is true ;))

I was wondering what type of limit, or how you came to the decision that there was one.

For example 17 kids is too many because......

that was the part of the statement I was refering to, the rest of it seemed fine, I am just curious as to what would limit someone on how may children they can raise?
You simply misunderstand me. I was trying to say that most people probably have some sort of limit. An individual one, that they themself impose on their lives.

For example, 17 would be too many FOR ME PERSONALLY, because I don't want any children. So 0 children would be my self-imposed limit, relevant for me only.

Whether you want 0, 17 or something else is none of my concern. It's your decision. I don't quite understand how you managed to misunderstand that... I thought I was pretty clear.

And I do think it's reasonable to assume most normal adults decide on a limit. If you ask your neighbour, for example, the person will probably have some idea of how many children s/he can handle. You seem to have a limit yourself.

EDIT: I think the source of the misunderstanding is you thought I meant 1 limit. Not an individually decided limitation, which is what I was talking about.

You simply misunderstand me. I was trying to say that most people probably have some sort of limit. An individual one, that they themself impose on their lives.

For example, 17 would be too many FOR ME PERSONALLY, because I don't want any children. So 0 children would be my self-imposed limit, relevant for me only.

Whether you want 0, 17 or something else is none of my concern. It's your decision. I don't quite understand how you managed to misunderstand that... I thought I was pretty clear.

And I do think it's reasonable to assume most normal adults decide on a limit. If you ask your neighbour, for example, the person will probably have some idea of how many children s/he can handle. You seem to have a limit yourself.
okay, I understand now. My head is kinda fuzzy today, thank you for going into more detail for me.

btw I don't want 17 kids, wow that is too many for me. :P My uncle has 17 and I can say I am not wanting to get into that kind of mess.

so yeah I do have my own limit 2, no more, no less

If you have the love to raise them all and the money to support them then have as many as you want. If not, then you of course could still do it, but it would be irresponsible for you to do that. When you have kids they come first. Many don't have the time to spend with 1 kid never mind more.

okay, I understand now. My head is kinda fuzzy today, thank you for going into more detail for me.

btw I don't want 17 kids, wow that is too many for me. :P My uncle has 17 and I can say I am not wanting to get into that kind of mess.

so yeah I do have my own limit 2, no more, no less

So we can add the corollary, "no more than your wife is willing to bear".

So we can add the corollary, "no more than your wife is willing to bear".
sure. that sounds about right. ;)

It is acceptable to have as many kids as you can provide for.

^What he said.^

None. That way, the world (and particularly humanity) would soon drastically improve.

^What he said.^
she

Ideally, none. Failing that, have as many as you like as long as you keep them out of my way.

It'd be nice if everyone stopped at 2 but so long as you can proerly provide for them you should just be frowned upon for more, not prohibited.

It depends upon the will of the space monkeys. Ultimately it is up to them.

As far as I'm concerned they can have as many as they can manage. As long as they can provide a stable and loving home then I don't see the problem. I have four siblings, and I don't think it's a bad thing in the slightest bit. I dunno about america, but Britain needs more births, so the more people have kids the better.

my uncle has 17 kids, the older ones ended up taking care of the younger, it worked out okay.(I guess)

Do you really think that children should have to raise children? If the parents bring the children into the world, shouldn't it be their personal responsibility to raise those children - not to pass it off to their children, who should be....welll....being children?

(as long as no one is being abused or neglected it isn't anyones business)

What do you consider neglect? Does it have to be financial or physical? Is a parent who spends all the necessary money and provides for all of his child's physical needs doing a good job, or is there more to it than that?

"How many children do you think is acceptable for a couple? Why?"

Quite frankly, I don't see it as any of my frakkin' business! We had five, three by my wife's first marriage, and sometimes people would look at us like, "WTF are you doing with all those kids???" I always just smiled at them, unless they made some snide comments, which ( amazingly ) some people did. Then I just asked them which ones they tought I should kill. :D

Some people have no sense of politic whatsoever. They need to spend their next life as the youngest member of a massive clan and get nothing but hand-me-downs from their older siblings. :p

Do you really think that children should have to raise children? If the parents bring the children into the world, shouldn't it be their personal responsibility to raise those children - not to pass it off to their children, who should be....welll....being children?
I didn't say they raised the younger ones, just that they pitched in to help, and if you didn't notice I did add the (I guess). His family dynamic is one of the BIG reason's that I decided to only have 2 kids.



What do you consider neglect? Does it have to be financial or physical? Is a parent who spends all the necessary money and provides for all of his child's physical needs doing a good job, or is there more to it than that?
My definition of neglect goes way beyond what the legal definition is, if kids are being neglected in legal terms then for sure they need to be put somewhere safer.

When I say support, as in you shouldn't have more kids than you can support, I include food, shelter, clothes, water, education, medical care, emotional well being, spiritual guidance, love, attention,discipline,ect. It is not all about physical and financial needs some of it takes a lot of time and patience, you should not have more kids than you are willing to spend the time to do these things.

The argument that western countries with their wealth and relatively low birth rate do not fuel the population crisis is, of course, fallacious. France, as national policy, urges its citizens to procreate, giving lots of subsidies and perks to those French who make more French. The US population is growing faster than that of eighteen other industrialized nations and, in terms of energy consumption, when an American couple stops spawning at two babies, it's the same as an average East Indian couple stopping at sixty-six, or an Ethiopian couple drawing the line at one thousand.

...

It's as though, all together, in the waning years of this dying century, we collectively opened the Door of our Home and instead of seeing a friend standing there in some sweet spring twilight, someone we had invited over for drinks and dinner and a lovely civilized chat, there was Death, with those creepy little black seeds of his for planting in the garden. And along with Death we got a glimpse of ecological collapse and the coming anarchy of an over-peopled planet. And we all, in denial of this unwelcome vision, decided to slam the door and retreat to our toys and make babies—those heirs, those hopes, those products of our species' selfishness, sentimentality and global death wish.

-Joy Williams, The Case Against Babies (available online at http://www.granta.com/extracts/778)

-Joy Williams, The Case Against Babies (available online at http://www.granta.com/extracts/778)
And your point? What would you have us do? Increase the abortion rate? Pull a "China syndrome" and forbid anyone to have more than two children? Have more wars to rid ourselves of the "excess population?" Kill every fifth person? Or maybe just kill every fifth baby. :headbang:

And your point? What would you have us do? Increase the abortion rate? Pull a "China syndrome" and forbid anyone to have more than two children? Have more wars to rid ourselves of the "excess population?" Kill every fifth person? Or maybe just kill every fifth baby. :headbang:

Nothing. We deserve the consequences of our complacency.

I find it interesting to see how some posters think that there should be a limit to the number of kids a couple have, see the thread on the happy couple with no less than 16 kids, as if there is something inherently wrong with having more than an X number of children. Therefore, I pose to you the simple and fair question: around what number do you think you should draw the line? What’s the number that once crossed makes you go: "For God's sake!! NO MORE!!"

If you can reasonably provide for more children then go ahead and have them. If you can't, don't. That simple.

I'm not going to say that having children in the latter situation should be illegal. I am going to say that anyone who does it is clearly an irresponsible fuckwit who probably shouldn't be spreading their genetic material around under any circumstances in the first place.

3 so they can fit in a normal size sedan so we dont have to have pieces of shit on the roads

A couple should have as many children as they are able to eat I think.