Is wanting a large family so bad?

GracieP

Spendless wrote: »

But you would need to ensure that the 'extra' people are living in a country where they need more to keep society intact rather than an imbalance of some countries having too many people and others not enough?

If only people could travel and countries had immigration systems that allowed them to grant visas to people with skills needed by their economies.

eve13_2

This is such an emotive subject! I only had two children because by the time I had my daughter I realised my extremely difficult son was'nt being naughty but had some kind of problems. I realised there was no way I could then cope with more than them without seriously neglecting them. He wasn't diagnosed with autism until he was 14 and I did everything possible to make sure his sister didn't have to look after him as every child should have a childhood. I guess what I'm saying is, what if 1+ of your children is either born or develops a condition that requires 24 hour attention? Will you make its siblings help you? Would your husband have to leave his job to help you? Will you force a socially inhibited child to go out as part of family group? Will you be able to protect the childs siblings from attacks, or prevent their belongings from being destroyed by that child? If you have 4 perfectly healthy happy children why can't you simply be grateful for what you have and be contented with them?

SusanC_2

hngrymummy wrote: »

Alas, China's policy was much more draconian than that. Had it been that simple, then it might have eased China's population fears and caused far fewer problems. However, mothers' with a child who were found to be pregnant could be forced into an abortion. I remember studying it at college, and we watched an interview with a poor mother who was forced into an abortion post 26 weeks. Because parents were allowed just one child, baby girls were aborted, left to die or left at orphanages so that the family could have a son. There is now a serious problem with an imbalance in the male/female ratio.

I believe even a first pregnancy could result in a forced abortion if it was unauthorised. And the policy also applied to adoption. I read about one lady who was some senior figure locally and she adopted a baby who was abandoned on her doorstep. IIRC as a result her house was bulldozed. And if a pregnant woman didn't turn herself in for abortion they would keep arresting her relatives until she did. Although obviously that would become less effective since they all have fewer relatives nowadays.

ceridwen

SusanC wrote: »

I won't argue with you as to whether the world is overpopulated enough as we have completely different worldviews and there are enough people arguing over it already. I do wonder though whether the problem (assuming there is one) is the actual raw number of people or the increased wants that individuals have in this day and age. Does the solution have to be reduced population or do we just need to change our outlook?

I would agree with you if by "change our outlook" you meant the outlook that some people have that goes "Its my RIGHT to have as many children as I want (stomp foot)". We ALL want what WE want....but that does NOT mean its our right.

Actually - if we read back through history books it soon becomes apparent that most people in most societies in most periods of history have a pretty full quota of "wants" and will satisfy them if they possibly can. The 20th/21st century is no different to any other century in this respect.

We could have a long discussion that went right round in circles as to which is the more valid - one persons supposed "right" to have more children as compared with another persons supposed "right" to have more material goods. Put like that - both are equally valid personal opinions....

ceridwen

SusanC wrote: »

I believe even a first pregnancy could result in a forced abortion if it was unauthorised. And the policy also applied to adoption. I read about one lady who was some senior figure locally and she adopted a baby who was abandoned on her doorstep. IIRC as a result her house was bulldozed. And if a pregnant woman didn't turn herself in for abortion they would keep arresting her relatives until she did. Although obviously that would become less effective since they all have fewer relatives nowadays.

It is simply not adequate to come up with this as a fact - and provide no proof at all as to whether this is actually the case.

ceridwen

hngrymummy wrote: »

I think we have a good balance in this country between those who think that they should not have more children, and those who think it's not a problem. The numbers balance themselves out quite well so that people are able to do as they feel is best regarding family size.

Actually ...no...that argument is fallacious. It totally ignores the necessity for the population of this country and the world as a whole to decrease.

I have had this situation in my own family - I chose to have no children and my brother & his wife discussed increasing their family from 2 children to 3 or 4 for a while. They eventually decided to stick with 2. I do remember thinking at the time "What gave you the right to decide that since ceridwen has not had any children we can have the two she could have had - as well as OUR 2?" I certainly felt "I didnt give you permission to have 2 more children on my behalf - to make up for the 2 I could have had but chose not to". To me - if they had had MY 2 children, as well as their OWN 2 children - then my personal feeling of satisfaction/achievement that I had "helped out" a bit by doing a tiny bit to decrease the worlds population would have been totally squashed by them negating my "good deed". I know...I know...that I didnt want children for my own reasons - but I DO take satisfaction that I have helped improve the world a tiny tiny little bit by "doing my bit" to help decrease the population and I would have felt they had "robbed me" of the satisfaction/pride I take in that if they had had MY 2 children I could have had without so much as "by your leave - is it okay if we have yours as well?"

Fortunately my brother and his wife thought it through enough to realise that their circumstances were simply not conducive to them having any more children - so they didnt in the end.

galvanizersbaby

ceridwen wrote: »

Actually ...no...that argument is fallacious. It totally ignores the necessity for the population of this country and the world as a whole to decrease.

I have had this situation in my own family - I chose to have no children and my brother & his wife discussed increasing their family from 2 children to 3 or 4 for a while. They eventually decided to stick with 2. I do remember thinking at the time "What gave you the right to decide that since ceridwen has not had any children we can have the two she could have had - as well as OUR 2?" I certainly felt "I didnt give you permission to have 2 more children on my behalf - to make up for the 2 I could have had but chose not to". To me - if they had had MY 2 children, as well as their OWN 2 children - then my personal feeling of satisfaction/achievement that I had "helped out" a bit by doing a tiny bit to decrease the worlds population would have been totally squashed by them negating my "good deed". I know...I know...that I didnt want children for my own reasons - but I DO take satisfaction that I have helped improve the world a tiny tiny little bit by "doing my bit" to help decrease the population and I would have felt they had "robbed me" of the satisfaction/pride I take in that if they had had MY 2 children I could have had without so much as "by your leave - is it okay if we have yours as well?"

Fortunately my brother and his wife thought it through enough to realise that their circumstances were simply not conducive to them having any more children - so they didnt in the end.

Ceridwen I have seen you post some bizarre thoughts on this matter on a variety of threads but this is on a whole different level!
Why on earth would you think that your brother having more than 2 children would be anything to do with you? - why would it be the 2 children you could have had? - why on earth would he have to ask your permission to have his own children on your behalf even if he had decided to add to his family?

gravitytolls

galvanizersbaby wrote: »

Ceridwen I have seen you post some bizarre thoughts on this matter on a variety of threads but this is on a whole different level!
Why on earth would you think that your brother having more than 2 children would be anything to do with you? - why would it be the 2 children you could have had? - why on earth would he have to ask your permission to have his own children on your behalf even if he had decided to add to his family?

I have to agree.

If having no children makes you feel good about yourself, then all to the good. But if having 2,4,17 children makes your brother feel good, that's his choice to make. Are you eally saying that you would prefer others to feel bad so you can feel good?

Spendless

GracieP wrote: »

If only people could travel and countries had immigration systems that allowed them to grant visas to people with skills needed by their economies.

Eh? But that isn't what always happens. You might get an overpopulation in an African country that needs loads of help and support, not people with the current inter-transferable skills to go and fill in the gaps elsewhere. But I suspect you know that as well as I do.;)

toontron

Loanranger wrote: »

Over population is the elephant in the room.
For environmental reasons it is highly irresponsible to have more children.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Are there people who seriously do not increase the size of their family because of "environmental reasons?"