How many kids are too many?

[bluebird]

JMO, but I think spacing makes a difference when you are looking at a particular number of children being doable or not. My mother had 4 in 6 yrs and was overwhelmed. The 5th one came 6 years after. I only had three but they were spaced 8-10 years apart..3 little kids close in age and I would have been nuts. For me it worked and I do not wish that it had been done any other way, neither do my kids. They are all close to one another despite not sharing young childhoods as a sibling group.

[Coco]

JMO, but I think spacing makes a difference when you are looking at a particular number of children being doable or not. My mother had 4 in 6 yrs and was overwhelmed. The 5th one came 6 years after. I only had three but they were spaced 8-10 years apart..3 little kids close in age and I would have been nuts. For me it worked and I do not wish that it had been done any other way, neither do my kids. They are all close to one another despite not sharing young childhoods as a sibling group.

i had to laugh because when i was 12, the youngest 3 babies in my family were a 15 month old and twin newborns, who came by accident. My mom called them the triplets. They got into everything. Life was crazy for a few years. They were cloth diapered old school style, pins and rubbery plastic that leaked. Sometimes i wonder if my sisters who were near my age (my parents had two groups of kids, the older ones and the younger ones) and i have completely gotten over those days yet. :lol: So yes, spacing is SO much a part of the equation. And what a girl grows up with affects her decisions later. I see my kids at the stages my little siblings were 20 years ago and i freak out that it's going to be so fast, then i think -- it's okay grandkids are around the corner, no need to have more of my own to fill up the baby wishes. And... my kids kind of feel like they're my grandkids sometimes since i have so many memories of helping raise littles already; potty training, helping with school: all the things. It's really weird. :doh:

[Mama Mia]

Sorry for the off topic, it's just that a fundie friend of mine posted this horribly sad poem on FB about "The Last Time" as if the last kid was the end of the world. :lol: i couldn't help but get on her case about how grandkids start the sweet little moments cycle all over again. It was just a dumb thing to make people want more babies. :pull-hair:

That's so interesting that that's what you got from that poem! I had a totally different take on it.

My kids are grown, several are parents of young children, several others don't have children yet.

What I got from it was that you should try to appreciate and savor those little everyday moments because they pass sooooooo quickly. Not that you should run out and have another baby because you want to recreate them. Especially, the ones that spoke to me, were the ones that could be annoying at the time --- like when they are getting REALLY heavy to lift up and carry on your hip. Or when you feel like if you have to sing "Wheels on the Bus" one more time your head will explode. That kind of thing.

I mean yeah, it's a super over the top sugary sweet tear jerker --/ but after having raised a large family, and felt deep, deep, deep in the trenches for a long, long time. And now having a bunch of little grandchildren -- what really sticks out to me is how fast it really does go, and how much you miss it once it's past -especially those little things. The " big" stuff like graduations or achievements or firsts don't stick out nearly as much as those little everyday things.

Just my take, cause I was so surprised to see that poem taken in such a different way.

[Anny Nym]

Yeah, as long as you don't find it remotely classist, elitist or racist that about a quarter of families wouldn't be able to have children, at all, because their perfectly respectable jobs - that YOU rely on- don't pay enough for them to get by without things like Medicaid or WIC or Section 8 :roll: of course, not having children will allow them more time to pick that fruit and shuffle that paper and ring up your purchases and watch Your kids-so it's all good. Right?

I think the truth lies somewhere in between. Of course it can´t possibly be "fun" or be called a reasonable decision, when already having to cram 4 kids into a 2 bedroom apartment, to add another little blessing on purpose.

The other topic is, however, the role of the government and its duty to provide a stable enviroment for its citizens to ensure their reproductive rights. Because only a social stable society makes a stable country.

So we may have to differ here into actions the state has to set like regulating the real estate market and providing affordable housing for families, national healthcare so...well, babies don´t die, bluntly spoken and things like child benefits. And of course minimum salaries a family can live off!

I don´t know if that is the same as "Medicaid, WIC and Section 8" because I only remotely know how that is supposed to work. But I guess it is.

For me personally, I don´t know yet what my point of "how many kids are too many" is, frankly.

I have two children now and the third is on his way. I´m a SAHM right now. Coming from a family of seven siblings altogether, I think I would love to recreate this way of growing up in a large family for my own children, as I have very dear memories of my childhood. Mr. Nym has three sisters and always wanted a brother, he said he would love to have three or four boys in addition (but his family is very girl-prone, so let´s see :wink-kitty: ).

But for the sake of honesty, I have to add: we werent´exactly struggling in financial terms and as long as no mutated bug devours the whole woodland area or the aliens are invading or something we will be just fine in the future too. I DON`T KNOW if I would have the same opinions and fond memories, if there would have been food insecurity, not enough room, family instability or if I would have been forced to "sister-mom" my siblings. Probably not. Maybe I would want zero kids now instead of multiple?

I always had and have the greatest respect for all the moms and dads out there, who could navigate themselves through rough times (for example, working full time as a single parent without a sufficient support net). I sometimes ask myself if I could be so strong in such a situation and I haven´t found a answer yet. But I think it is our most urgent civic duty to help this parents as much as possible. And that starts at creating a safe net, so everyone who does want to start a family could do so without worrying about if there would be enough money left to buy the monthly supply of diapers!

[Toothfairy]

I do completely wholeheartedly agree that if someone doesn't want children, they should not have them. They should not be made to feel apologetic or 'less than."

I don't agree too much that children are abused or neglected because their parents never wanted them. If we are going to say that all spanking is abuse, then there are loads of abusive parents who do want their children, they just think spanking is an acceptable form of parental discipline.

People who don't want their children and never wanted to have children would be likely candidates for abuse and neglect, I feel that is obvious. But if it is being said that all abused and neglected children are because the parents didn't want them, that's the part I don't agree with.

I think wanted children are probably abused more than unwanted children, and one reason is that birth control is widely available and abortion is legal.

I saw Freakonomics back in Oct. I'm not gonna be quick to believe the crime rate is down because abortion became legal... the reasoning being that unwanted children are being aborted rather than birthed and then abused/neglected which pushes them to criminal behavior.

I'm not saying that. I'm speaking from a foster parents POV. Of course even wanted kids are abused. Parents who abuse their kids come from every background, but the kids I fostered were obviously unwanted from the get go. Another kids parents just stopped caring

[Ella]

Germany had a lot more children at one time; it's just that Germans were so keen on killing off 1.5 million of them in the Holocaust.

[Ella]

"I wonder how many kids most people would have if for every child a couple gave birth to, they were then responsible for one child who needed a home."

Now this is an interesting idea, but what government or religion would implement it?

[Anny Nym]

Germany had a lot more children at one time; it's just that Germans were so keen on killing off 1.5 million of them in the Holocaust.

I think this is what you are searching for right now...

Also, Ella ... WHAT THE FUCK?! Inappropriate much?

[Mama Mia]

"I wonder how many kids most people would have if for every child a couple gave birth to, they were then responsible for one child who needed a home."

Now this is an interesting idea, but what government or religion would implement it?

I, personally, in theory, would have liked this -- as my pregnancies were full of lots and lots and lots of time puking til I thought I'd die. And complicated deliveries.

I would have loved to be a foster parent -- but I admit I am not strong enough to handle the possibility of them being returned to their parents.

[calimojo]

I agree with you on this Mama Mia, I also thought about fostering, but It would have been hard to part with them, if they were very young when I first had them. And I also don't think I would have been patient enough or strong enough to foster parent kids who were older and most likely emotionally and/or physically traumatized. It would break my heart, and I would not have been able to really give them the care they needed.

My hat is off to people who can do that and do it well.

[Anny Nym]

Agree with you both @Mama Mia and @calimojo on that very important point of asking oneself "Am I strong enough to foster a child (which may likely have a traumatic past)?"

IMHO this point seems to be ignored in the original suggestion of "I wonder how many kids most people would have if for every child a couple gave birth to, they were then responsible for one child who needed a home."

But it is a crucial point.

One can´t simply assign" child in need number X" to "couple number X ,with one child already, on the list", that idea is one of this ideas who may be of noble origin in theory, but would eventually end in utter disaster in reality.

Not all parents are mentally/physically and financially equipped to properly care for a foster child.

This children often are forced to carry alot of "bagage" from their past. Now just imagine some kind of law starts to oblige parents, who never would have choosen the option of fostering out of free will, to foster such a girl or a boy? Abuse out of excessive demands would run rampant!

[JillyO]

I think this is what you are searching for right now...

Also, Ella ... WHAT THE FUCK?! Inappropriate much?

Seriously, what the f is wrong with you??

[alba]

I am thinking the bolded is true more and more. I think Michelle has a nasty case of baby rabies, and he just left it up to her to decide how many children they had. Jim bob's fault lies mainly in the fact that he let her carry on like this without thinking how it would affect Michelle's mental and physical health over time.

There's also an article I found where Michelle is the one to insist that, although her girls are "real go-getters" who could support themselves, her plans for them include becoming wives and mothers.

Interestingly, Jim Bob says in the comment right before Michelle's that he actually wants his daughters to be able to work and support themselves if they ever had to. Michelle states that her daughters are hard working and COULD support themselves if they had to, but insists that they would rather be wives and mothers instead. Kind of like how Jinger doesn't want to move to the city at all, she just wants to be closer to a Wal-Mart. :roll:

If there's any truth to this article and it's not a fabrication, then for me, it really puts the issue to bed about whether or not Michelle is the one pushing for the ATI lifestyle. Seems to me that Jim Bob wouldn't care if his daughters moved out and supported themselves as long as they lived with other conservative Christians and didn't fool around with guys or dressed immodestly.

http://www.popsugar.com/moms/Interview- ... II-2727153

Remember everyone, it's Michelle's world - we all just live in it.

I only skimmed this article, but I can't help wondering what the hell happened? The family were less worldly then, yet JB's talking about the girls studying nursing and Michelle's talking about them getting real estate licences (I did notice that, for four different young women, they only seemed to envision a couple careers), and now, six years later, the closest any of them has gotten is half a lay midwife qualification.

[Bluenoser]

Totally off topic, but I saw a few people comment on not having kids, brought to mind something that pissed me off a while ago ...

I had a friend try and tell me that

"being selfish" was not a reason to have kids. We all have a duty to do. What it every thought this way? The human race would die out.

more or less. And continued to ramble on about how she's sure that if you were so selfish and had kids that you'd find a way to share your resources and become a "less selfish" with them.

A person might not know why they don't want to have kids, but just stating the " I'm too selfish" seems like a pretty accepted answer. I hate when people push the subject on those who just don't want to have kids.

[Toothfairy]

I, personally, in theory, would have liked this -- as my pregnancies were full of lots and lots and lots of time puking til I thought I'd die. And complicated deliveries.

I would have loved to be a foster parent -- but I admit I am not strong enough to handle the possibility of them being returned to their parents.

kids are in foster care for various of reasons. The goal is to always return to parents. If that's not possible then a family member is contacted to take the child in. If that's not possible and the parents are shitty and doesn't do anything they have to do or just decides to give up then the parents rights are terminated.

I'm not going to lie it is hard to see the kid who cared for for X amount of time to leave, but if it's in the best interest of the child I support it. Some kids who did go back home who I fostered still keep in contact with me and may come over and visit. Being a foster parent is hard but it is rewarding. It is sometimes hard to deal with the foster care system because it's broken.

[Toothfairy]

Totally off topic, but I saw a few people comment on not having kids, brought to mind something that pissed me off a while ago ...

I had a friend try and tell me that

more or less. And continued to ramble on about how she's sure that if you were so selfish and had kids that you'd find a way to share your resources and become a "less selfish" with them.

A person might not know why they don't want to have kids, but just stating the " I'm too selfish" seems like a pretty accepted answer. I hate when people push the subject on those who just don't want to have kids.

I tell people who thinks it's self not to have kids, that it's selfish to have kids. What's the reason on having children? So you can have someone to take care of you when you're old? They shut up then

[Feberin]

I tell people who thinks it's self not to have kids, that it's selfish to have kids. What's the reason on having children? So you can have someone to take care of you when you're old? They shut up then

Yeah I could never come up with a non-selfish reason to have children. I think people should do what will work for them. Although I know in certain areas population is dropping but it's not in my opinion a bad thing and I don't think we need to worry about humans ceasing to exist because fewer people are having babies.

I'm not sure what we would have done if we were required to take in an unwanted child in order to have a child. I'm also somebody that worries if I would have the ability to handle all the unique issues that would come with a foster child. Would the unwanted child arrive at the same time as the new baby because that seems like a recipe for disaster trying to adapt to having a newborn and an older child with abandonment issues.

[Mama Mia]

kids are in foster care for various of reasons. The goal is to always return to parents. If that's not possible then a family member is contacted to take the child in. If that's not possible and the parents are shitty and doesn't do anything they have to do or just decides to give up then the parents rights are terminated.

I'm not going to lie it is hard to see the kid who cared for for X amount of time to leave, but if it's in the best interest of the child I support it. Some kids who did go back home who I fostered still keep in contact with me and may come over and visit. Being a foster parent is hard but it is rewarding. It is sometimes hard to deal with the foster care system because it's broken.

My hats off to you. I have huge respect

I couldn't do it because while I never fostered kids, I worked, for most of my career, with families and kids who had been part of the foster care system. Mostly while they were actively working on reunification. And there were lots of awesome success stories. And a few where it was sad, but ultimately for the best that the parents rights were terminated. And of course lots where the extended family ended up raising the kids. But there were so, so many where it would be a big yo-yo of in foster care, back to parents, parents start using/neglecting/abusing/endangering again - kids yanked back to foster care -- over and over and over and over. Until they are teens and go to group homes that they usually run away from. Heartbreaking. I worked in a group home once where a 12 year old had been in 42 different foster homes. 42! And that poor little boy ( who, not surprisingly, had just a boatload of serious issues) , would still get a letter from his mom saying she would come to visit -- and get his hopes sky high that she was going to take him home. Again.

I wish I could do it, I just couldn't. I thought about doing emergency foster care at this point in my life ( kids grown - not enough room when they were home) - but my health went to hell. I could manage that --- a few days or a few weeks.

But long term, if they weren't cleared for adoption? Couldn't do it. Not emotionally strong enough.

[JaCrispy]

I just overheard someone say that three kids was "far too many children for a person to have", which was weird to me since I am one of three.

It got me thinking, I think most of us here agree that 19 kids are waaaaaay too many. But when does the line go from "a big family" to way too many?

I'm actually stuck on this issue right now. The hubby wants another, we already have a 15 year old daughter and now a 8 month old son. Wer'e not "poor" but on a fixed income and a one income household. I mean I can take care of another, at home etc, but the money issue I dunno, I have mixed feelings...

[whoviana]

Depends on so many things. To me, anything more than 2. But it's just me.

[morri]

I don't want more than 1, on average 5 is borderline too many even for wealthier families, but that just my op.

[DefrauderDaughter]

I'm an only child and I worry about how I'll split my love equally between two children when I decide to have kids. Everyone says it comes naturally, but I know that I was spoiled by everyone in my family because, well, there was just me. I thrived as an only child but I know that's not the case for everyone. I think that I"ll probably have two kids. I know that I'll be a SAHM so hubs and I likely won't be able to afford more than that. I think it's just a matter of what you're comfortable with and what you can afford.