Is wanting a large family so bad?

kafkathecat

Why does China keep being raised it is irrelevant to this discussion. Equally the lack of access to contraception in poorer parts of the world means women have more children than they want. We are talking about free choice.

SusanC. God gave you freedom of choice too.

Steel_2

Dear lemoncheesecake

If you want to have more children have them. Nobody else's opinion matters. Live your life the way you wish.

People will always have an opinion on what you do. Some will be negative, some will be positive. Everyone will have an argument for why you should or should not do something. Some will even quote statistics at you.

The bottom line is, all of them are wholly unconnected with your life and their opinions ultimately do not matter. Do not live your life thinking you must take a certain action because others are watching and may approve or disapprove of your choice.

If we all spent as much time thinking and debating the nuances of our own lives rather than others we'd all be happier more fulfilled people.

digitalphase

lemoncheesecake wrote: »

Hmmm - thanks again for thr comments but absolutely disagree with the recent comments. As I said I have 4 and never loose them at the zoo - can easily take them all out.....2 of other peoples children is probably enough for most people but when it is your own it is completely different kettle of fish.

It was only an example. You may not 'loose' your children if you have 6+ at the zoo, but I shudder to think of keeping them all in the same place where Sarah wants to see the elephants, Jodie wants to see the lions, John wants to see the penguins, Fred wants to see the fish, Elizabeth wants to see the... etc etc. Well, I saw plenty of examples of that last time I went to the Zoo, so it isn't merely speculation. However, it is just an example.
I know you could still get the same scenario with two children, but it is easier to deal with.

lemoncheesecake wrote: »

I could tell you stories of only children who are horrid little bullies because they don't know how to interact with other children or are socially inept and have no friends

Being an only child has nothing to do with not being able to interact with other children. Just because you don't share a house with 5 other siblings, doesn't mean you fail to interact with other children at school, playgroup and in many other walks of life. What a fatuous comment.

lemoncheesecake wrote: »

I spend alot of time with my children and find it really odd why one would want to go for a walk with dad while the other bakes with mum?? What is the premise for all this 'one to one time'. Why would you not all do the baking and then go for the walk like a family?

You missed my point entirely, probably deliberately. It is incredibly important for children to have time with a parent on their own, as well as a whole family. My examples above are plausible. You may find it odd for one child to do baking with mum one day, and the other child go fishing with dad another day, but then it seems like your children do not benefit from this one-on-one time with each parent. Of course the whole family can do baking, go for a walk together. The emphasis here is on QUALITY TIME PER CHILD, not doing things as a family, although both are equally important. The point is, with lots of children you will struggle to give each child quality time per child.

lemoncheesecake wrote: »

I truly do not beleive that children are damaged by being part of a large family and that they need all this one to one time so thats not an issue for us.

Just because you "do not believe it" doesn't mean it isn't a valid point, and you'd have to be very ignorant to believe your children would not benefit from quality time with a parent on their own.

My parents spent many, many hours giving me time both together and separately, and I honestly benefited from this as I was able to chat to them about anything, among the numerous other benefits. They were both busy working parents.

gingin wrote: »

I'm not sure if I've misunderstood what you mean or whether you really are saying you can't understand why a child wouldn't want one on one time?

The premise for this one on one time is to let them know that they are each valued individually. Children have different personalities and different needs - I have a daughter who is sensitive and quiet and a son who is gregarious and energetic. They love each other but they love their time apart too.

I don't do all the baking myself because my daughter would be cross with me if I did. It's a treat, not a chore in our house! She's six and can tell you the exact ingredients and measurements for fairy cakes because we have been doing it together ever since she could stir the spoon round the bowl (and lick it afterwards ). DS opens up far more about "stuff" to his Dad and their one on one time is the perfect opportunity to do this.

Do your kids ever get any quiet/ private time? Aren't there times when you close the door when everyone has gone out and relish the peace and quiet? I think kids need that too.

I think that 4 children in a 3 bed house is a squeeze and any more would be unfair on the others. It must be tough on one low income with tax credits and child benefits as a top up and I am impressed if you can afford school trips, after school lessons, cubs/ brownies, swimming, dancing etc. etc and still be able to consider adding to your family without compromising on all of this for your other children.

EXACTLY my point!

Obviously you SHOULD do things as a family, but quality time spent with each parent on their own is equally as important. I think Cheesecake was deliberately missing my point there.

nearlyrich wrote: »

I am second oldest of six my parents did a great job of bringing up six successful people and we all still speak to and actually like each other in our 40's and 30's...

That's great

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.

Thanks for the extra information I wasn't aware of the fine points, as just remember hearing about it a long while ago. I can see in practice it would be very difficult to police, and there would be a great many moral issues raised. Poor unwanted children

graemecarter

The fact they live in a 3 bed semi & have debts is enough for the head to say no. Though, the heart sometimes has a big say in these matters.

Personally, I'd want to have a household income of well over £100k a year for 4 children, let alone 5!!

Like many things in life,if you cannot afford it, you do without.
I cannot afford a safari holiday
I cannot afford a holiday home
I cannot afford to put the max into my ISA this year

Thus I do without.

peachyprice

lemoncheesecake wrote: »

Hmmm - thanks again for thr comments but absolutely disagree with the recent comments. As I said I have 4 and never loose them at the zoo - can easily take them all out.....2 of other peoples children is probably enough for most people but when it is your own it is completely different kettle of fish.

I could tell you stories of only children who are horrid little bullies because they don't know how to interact with other children or are socially inept and have no friends, or children who are shuffled from mums house to dads house and back again who also look sad and lonely. Except there will always be well adjusted only children and well adjusted children from single parent families.

I spend alot of time with my children and find it really odd why one would want to go for a walk with dad while the other bakes with mum?? What is the premise for all this 'one to one time'. Why would you not all do the baking and then go for the walk like a family?

My family is close and my children and not bullies. My eldest has never changed a nappy in her life although she probably would want to if she ever got the opportunity. She has a lovely attitude to her peers and is always very mindful of smaller children - not running past and sending them flying like I notice alot of other kids do all the time.

Yes we do claim child benefit, we are entitled to it. If it was taken away then we would cope. I am still undecided if we should have more. The issue for us is money and whether it is ethical. I truly do not beleive that children are damaged by being part of a large family and that they need all this one to one time so thats not an issue for us. Large families are no more damaging than any other type - its a dysfunctional family set up that damages and that happens no matter how many children there is.

But you 'only' have 4, not 6.

galvanizersbaby

ceridwen wrote: »

If you had taken the trouble to read/think about my post properly - rather than going straight off into "Its my RIGHT to have more than 2 children" thinking - then you would realise that I was not saying specifically that it was my brother/wife personally that would have specifically had the 2 children I could have had - but people generally who want large families keep on quoting that its okay for THEM personally to have more than 2 children because people like myself have less than 2 (ie the way they keep quoting that Britains birthrate is 1.8 children per couple - so its okay for them to have more because our population isnt increasing makes it quite plain that they are excusing having more than 2 children by telling themselves that its okay to do so BECAUSE there are people like myself having less than 2 - but they havent stopped to consider what WE feel about someone else just plain TAKING the 2 "replacement children vacancies" in effect without stopping to think about what our feelings are about someone having "taken our place" in this respect IYSWIM). IF you had taken the trouble to read/think about my post properly - then you would realise I was quoting the person nearest to hand to myself - as a very "In your face" example that I would have been able to see personally. I know there are plenty of selfish people out there unfortunately - but it would really "rub salt into the wound" to see that one of them was in my own family.

Thats about as clearly as I can explain it - if people don't understand what I am saying after that then its because they dont WANT to understand what I am saying - because it goes against their wish to have more than 2.:rotfl:

I dont actually understand how people can translate a birthrate of 1.8 children in Britain (if that is the case) as equalling their conclusion that "Its okay for those having children to have more then..." - and studiously ignore the fact that our population is still increasing (via immigration) - so we have to factor in those extra people as extra stomachs to be fed, extra bodies that need a place to live, etc.

EDIT: For future reference - please note you arent doing yourself any favours by resorting to "ceridwen is a nasty/xxx/xxx (whatever nasty word I can think of) person - now what other personal ridicule statements can I come up with?" posts. Personal ridicule could be said to be the sign of someone who knows they've lost the argument - so just resorts to throwing nasty personal comments instead....

I am not wishing to do myself any favours however I don't really have an arguement - I am not the population police nor do I consider it's anyone's right to have children full stop let anyone more than 2.
I apologise if my post offended - it was not intended to be nasty - more a yawn it's late - type of observation.
Your thinking re families/children I just find rather unusual - I recall you posting about being resentful of your siblings before (less money, material things etc to go round if your parents had stuck to having the required amount) - just find it rather a sad and bizarre way to think.
However your thoughts and feelings are to be respected of course but it has to be said that if you weren't in the minority and it was the norm to do your bit but not reproducing then we would all be extinct!

SusanC_2

kafkathecat wrote: »

SusanC. God gave you freedom of choice too.

I'm sorry but you'll need to expand on that if you want me to know exactly what point you are making.

LilacLouisa

SusanC wrote: »

By change our outlook, I meant that maybe we need to change our view of what a person "needs" such that the environmental impact of each individual is reduced. From what I can tell the overpopulation theory is that the population will become unsustainable but if each individual has lower requirements then a larger population could surely be sustained.

I do not believe it is a right to have children. I believe children are a blessing from God. (Which is why I said our worldviews are completely different.) I do want more children but I don't know whether I will have any more - for all I know I may never have another child. But since I believe that God is in control of all things my view is very different to the view of most people.

That is an interesting thought, but I am guessing you mean lower consumption of food, clothes, water and leisure goods etc.

Wouldn't extra people also need extra housing, schools and medical care?

I don`t know if anyone has mentioned this, I may have missed a few posts, but has anyone who would like, and feels that they can cope with, more children considered adoption?. I believe that there are children in care desperate for a loving home.

SusanC_2

LilacLouisa wrote: »

That is an interesting thought, but I am guessing you mean lower consumption of food, clothes, water and leisure goods etc.

Wouldn't extra people also need extra housing, schools and medical care?

Obviously there are minimum requirements for certain things but there are a lot of things which are used which aren't necessary. (I'm not saying that everyone should only have their basic needs met and never have any wants met but I think wants have taken over and become considered needs/essential/rights when they are not.)

LilacLouisa wrote: »

I don`t know if anyone has mentioned this, I may have missed a few posts, but has anyone who would like, and feels that they can cope with, more children considered adoption?. I believe that there are children in care desperate for a loving home.

I have every intention of doing this in the future. It may satisfy those purely concerned about environment/overpopulation but it still has the same "problems" of parental attention/money etc. being spread to thinly and other such objections people have.

ceridwen

SusanC wrote: »

I'm sorry but you'll need to expand on that if you want me to know exactly what point you are making.

Re the freedom of choice point - I think this boils down to the different world view you state you have Susan.

As I understand your worldview - it boils down to "Everything that happens to me or anyone else is ordained by God - and therefore is as it should be/exactly right/for a reason/etc". The vast majority of people (including myself) take the view that we ourselves make conscious decisions about the things that happen in our lives - including whether to have children or no. Some of us believe in God, some don't - either way it is still the case that the vast majority of us believe that we ourselves make all the decisions about our lives and duly act accordingly.

I can at least understand your viewpoint - though I don't agree with it. At least - also - you are polite in the way you express things and do try to understand the way other people think. So - kudos to you for those two things anyway.

Does that help in explaining the quote from another poster that puzzled you - ie about "God giving us free will" or words to that effect..