Is wanting a large family so bad?

Mupette

hngrymummy wrote: »

Actually, plenty of space without using up greenbelt land, and more besides. Before you ask, I work within the construction/demolition/conservation industry, so I have a pretty good idea about what space there is and where is being built on right now. The main problem is people wanting affordable housing, but not wanting developments near them and complaining that their 'countryside' is being built on. Because of a bunch of NIMBYs, small increases in the number of houses in an area become difficult, so the necessary increase in housing ends up bunched together in a larger development.

The new housing development in French Quarter, Southampton on a former warehouse site, The old brewery in Bristol, the former hospital sites spread accross the country (Bedfordshire, Gloucestersire, Derbyshire etc etc etc), the former factory site at the Copper Quarter in Swansea, the demolished factory in Aylesbury etc are all 'brownfield' sites that now have thousands of new houses on them without taking a scrap of countryside. There is plenty more where that came from that can and is being used.

Next time you've broken down on the M25 near junction 19, take a look accross the countryside. You'll see a winding river, a small woodland with peacocks, and a whole host of other wildlife. It's really quite beautiful and peaceful. Next time you're on the train, take a look out of the window. Compare the amount of built-up land you pass through compared with the amount of open space you pass through.

To throw a comment like "we are overpopulated" around is a bit sensationalist, and not very accurate.

So, to conclude. OP, if you want more children and you feel that you are able to bring them up well, then go for it. There are enough people out there not having children/having just 1, to balance you out.

Are we talking about the old courage site in the center, that's tiny, and tiny flats for sale when complete.

such a shame lots of building around Bristol are just allowed to rot, the owners find that to make safe to expensive, not allowed to knock down due to some buildings being listed.

Which i know is a problem throughout the land.

I've just moved from a block of flats (social housing) where on average the families that live there (2 bed) have 4 - 6 children and no chance of rehousing. I got moved out for medical reasons, and although extremely grateful i did, the 'brand new' bungalow i was given is of cheap quality. If in the future i was able to do a loft conversion (apparently the roof space is perfect for such a thing.) all the internal walls would have to be removed (stud walls) and brick walls built to support such work.

There is definitely a need for new housing cheap affordable, but at what cost when it is made too cheaply, ironically i am just a street away from where the new stadium is to be built (on flood planes) we don't need a new stadium for 4 concerts a year, we don't need a new supermarket, the one we have is more than sufficient, housing is what is needed.

Sorry for hijacking thread.

digitalphase

Some interesting comments on this thread.

I believe hearing years ago that China had a favourable policy that the first child born to families would receive their equivalent of benefits (not sure if that included schooling/health care etc), but any additional children that the family chose to have, would receive no extra help, and the parents would have to cover it.

I am not sure how they would police this as does it cover children born within one set of parents, or per parent? i.e. can parents split up, get a new partner, then receive the benefit for their first child with that partner.

Anyway, it seemed a good policy, and one which I'd support here.

I do not have any children yet, expecting my first, but have experience of my OH's niece and nephew. They have an age gap of 4 years, so have different demands and attention needs. To be honest I think the two of them is definitely enough. I do not see how families can have plus 3 children and divide their time equally. There will always be the exception to the rule i.e. "super mum" but I do not see it.
I was an only child, and would have liked a sibling, but do not think I'd like to share any potential attention/presents etc with more than one sibling.

Two children in a family of two parents, can have equal time split between these two parents, the children will not go without as there is always a spare parent. Out of work hours of course.

A daughter for example can spend time cooking with her mother one day, then discuss homework with her father another day. The son can go fishing with his father one day, then out for a walk another. Parents can take the children together to a zoo or theme park and not have to worry about 'loosing one' as there should be sufficient parentage there to look out for them both.

I suppose if I were from a larger family, I could have a different view point.

I do think this country is incredibly overpopulated. I think this is more people coming to this country from other countries, than to do with British people having more children. I am not going to get involved in that debate though

LittleTinker

Loanranger wrote: »

Absolutely.
Many of the posts urging the OP to have more children are from people who can't, or choose not to, see the bigger picture.

Absolute rubbish!

It has nothing whatsoever to do with not being able to see the bigger picture.

There is a housing shortage. Is that because too many children are born? Or is it more to do with the fact that it is now more socially acceptable for single people to be parents, therefore two houses are needed. One for Mum, and one for Dad? Or that it is more socially acceptable for children to leave home earlier? etc etc

The social norms have changed dramatically in this country.......which I am sure has a greater impact on the environment than the actual number of people around.......after all one family in the news recently created less than 1 ounce of rubbish per year, are extremely environmentally friendly, eco aware and no doubt do more for the environment in a positive way than all the single people in the same street do individually.

One single person can damage the environment more than a family of 10 if the attitude is wong.

peachyprice

ceridwen wrote: »

Good points.

Another personal point that someone made earlier was that in days gone by older children used to help out with bringing up younger ones. In this day and age it is simply not fair to expect this of them - they have their own lives to lead and are entitled to BE children until they grow up (ie no responsibilities). Responsibilities will come quite soon enough when they grow up:cool:.

This makes me think of a girl at my DD's school. Why I feel sorry for her I don't know, she's bullied my DD for the last 18 months.

She's 10 years old and the eldest of 6, she is the saddest little girl I've ever seen, she's possessive with friends because no-one at home has time for her, which is causing her to bully anyone who wants to play with her BFF. Every time her mum pops out another baby a little bit more of her dies inside, you can see it in her face.

She HAS to help mer mum round up all the other children in the carpark, her mum can't catch them all herself. So while all the other girls are skipping in together she's literally left behind holding the baby.

Poor kid, she's had no time to enjoy her own childhood but boy can she change a nappy in double quick time.

catkins

peachyprice wrote: »

This makes me think of a girl at my DD's school. Why I feel sorry for her I don't know, she's bullied my DD for the last 18 months.

She's 10 years old and the eldest of 6, she is the saddest little girl I've ever seen, she's possessive with friends because no-one at home has time for her, which is causing her to bully anyone who wants to play with her BFF. Every time her mum pops out another baby a little bit more of her dies inside, you can see it in her face.

She HAS to help mer mum round up all the other children in the carpark, her mum can't catch them all herself. So while all the other girls are skipping in together she's literally left behind holding the baby. "

Poor kid, she's had no time to enjoy her own childhood but boy can she change a nappy in double quick time.

I don't think it's fair to expect older children to look after the younger ones and, again, that is another reason not to have such large families. It is just not possible to have enough time for each child if you have a large family, particularly if both parents work. Better to have lots of time and energy for 1 or 2 children than little time and energy for more children

onlyroz

I haven't heard anyone mention the nation's ageing population. Don't we need a fairly steady influx of young people into the labour market in order to ensure that the ageing people leaving the workforce can be replaced, and looked after in their latter years? I'm not saying that we should all be having 10 children, but isn't it part of our social responsibility to at least "replace ourselves" (i.e. average 2 children per couple)?

lemoncheesecake

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.

Spendless

onlyroz wrote: »

I haven't heard anyone mention the nation's ageing population. Don't we need a fairly steady influx of young people into the labour market in order to ensure that the ageing people leaving the workforce can be replaced, and looked after in their latter years? I'm not saying that we should all be having 10 children, but isn't it part of our social responsibility to at least "replace ourselves" (i.e. average 2 children per couple)?

Think it's post # 51. Do you have me on ignore?;):p

Spendless wrote: »

It's overpopulated due to people living longer (better healthcare, sanitary conditions etc). Today's children are likely to be heavily taxed as adults due to needing to support a top heavy elderly population, not in state pension claims as they will likely become means tested, but to provide for services used more by the elderly (eg Drs visits, hospital operations). You could argue you need more children to reduce the tax burden they will have more evenly. Or we could bump off our elderly population at a cut-off age.

LilacLouisa

Mupette wrote: »

Are we talking about the old courage site in the center, that's tiny, and tiny flats for sale when complete.

such a shame lots of building around Bristol are just allowed to rot, the owners find that to make safe to expensive, not allowed to knock down due to some buildings being listed.

Which i know is a problem throughout the land.

I've just moved from a block of flats (social housing) where on average the families that live there (2 bed) have 4 - 6 children and no chance of rehousing. I got moved out for medical reasons, and although extremely grateful i did, the 'brand new' bungalow i was given is of cheap quality. If in the future i was able to do a loft conversion (apparently the roof space is perfect for such a thing.) all the internal walls would have to be removed (stud walls) and brick walls built to support such work.

There is definitely a need for new housing cheap affordable, but at what cost when it is made too cheaply, ironically i am just a street away from where the new stadium is to be built (on flood planes) we don't need a new stadium for 4 concerts a year, we don't need a new supermarket, the one we have is more than sufficient, housing is what is needed.

Sorry for hijacking thread.

Don`t apologise. it was interesting to read your viewpoint.

Kate78

onlyroz wrote: »

....but isn't it part of our social responsibility to at least "replace ourselves" (i.e. average 2 children per couple)?

Says who?