When Large Families Are Not About Religion

[roddma]

One is an older article but it hits the nail on the head. I do think religion is used an excuse in cases like Michelle Duggar . There was a family on SuperNanny with 10 kids a couple or three years ago. The mother wanted to fulfill her dream of a dozen kids. However, it is not really saying those with more than 4 kids are addicted to babies. This is referring to four or more so close in age.

http://www.justmommies.com/articles/bab ... tion.shtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29163803/ns ... addiction/

[breadprincess]

There can be practical reasons for having so many children, above and beyond religion. My father was the oldest of 7, and the youngest was born in 1960, 10 years after my father was born. 7 kids, spaced closely together = 7 more farmhands basically. I come from a very long line of farmers so this has been ingrained into my family traditions and doesn't seem as odd, plus my Grandmother was allowed to work outside the home and pursue her own interests above and beyond having a bunch of children. I do think she's a saint however, for dealing with 6 boys under the age of 10.

[nimerha]

I've always wanted a large family (well, by large, I mean 5 or so). It's not likely to happen now (between my career field, age, partner, and not least my own actual dispositions), but, I can see the appeal and do believe it can be done, and done right by the kids; it might not just be practical "reasons", just a family wanting this and having the means and resources to do it.

My favourite big family is right here

http://www.azcentral.com/news/azliving/ ... -kids.html

That said, I only skimmed those articles, but I'm glad to see that baby addiction is something that the mainstream is becoming somewhat aware of. It goes far beyond Nadya Suleyman and the awareness might help.

[TinyDancer87]

Wow, nimerha, what a great story of the Hams! After reading that, the Duggars look like selfish people, never reaching a hand out to lonely children. Plus, I think those two dads are great parents, and spend a whole lot more time with their children than Michelle ever does.

[0KidsAndHappy]

I've started doing my genealogy and I love seeing how the number of children born dwindled over the years, especially as they moved away from the farms and into the city. I'm also glad my ancestors got off their Duggar kick and quit only using "J" names. I even had a Jedidiah in there.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

Skimmed the articles, IMO taking the religious aspect out of it only solves a fraction of the problems with large (let's say 5+) families. Time and money can still only stretch so far.

[YPestis]

There's a lot of cultural reasons for having large families, typically with financial bases (I.e living on a farm, wanting a boy etc). Tat said, in this country, religion seems the main motivator. Take away religion and I see a few people who love children and a few family who have psych issues, and a few saints who want to provide homes for foster children.for the most part, having children is such a financial burden that no amount of religion will convince people to have a dozen of them. I mean, as much as we say children are a joy and gift from god etc, the fact is people have always calcuated the financial aspect of such a decision.

[ADoyle90815]

In the past, people had more children to ensure that at least a few of them survived to adulthood as before vaccines and other modern medical treatments, most children died before they were 5, if they managed to survive infancy. While my dad's side of the family was mostly Catholic, there was someone who had 11 children, but only 5 managed to live to adulthood. Other ancestors were ranchers, so they needed the extra help, which meant those families were relatively large when compared to current generations. It's true in my family that once people left the ranch or farm, family size for non-religious reasons went down.