Large families 'bad for parents'

[DoYouEverWonder]

26 December 2006

Having a large number of children is bad for parents' health - particularly that of mothers, a study suggests.

US researchers looked at 21,000 couples living in Utah between 1860 and 1985, who bore a total of 174,000 children.

It was found the more children couples had, the worse their health and the more likely they were to die early.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science study is historical, but the experts say it helps explain both the menopause and modern family planning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6202707.stm

[leesa]

1. Could be. My Mom had ten kids, she's 84 and in good health except for controlled hereditary

hypertension. She did work like a dog raising us though, but when asked she doesn't seem to remember that and says we raised each other and everybody helped out. Course we weren't from Utah, maybe that has something to do with it.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. The study does seem to have some flaws

One being, they only sampled people from one state. That's a pretty narrow sample and would only represent that particular group.

Also, they do not seem to take age into account. Women who have lot's of children are more likely to be older when they have their last child has opposed to someone whose only has one or two. Of course, age is a big factor, since you are more likely to have complications the old you are.

[customerserviceguy]

5. Plus

It's a pretty tight group genetically speaking. Few people move into Utah and interact with the breeding population there, at least on a genetic level. But, that said, being breeding stock for Mormon males has GOT to take its toll on women. I spend six lousy months in that state last year, I'm NEVER going back. I actually get distressed when a plane I'm in is flying over Utah...

[Tesha]

3. Large families bad for planet.

With six+ billion humans on the planet, having any kids
beyond than the replaement rate is morally unsupportable.

Tesha

[Triana]

7. What Tesha said..

..Exactly.

[Beausoir]

9. What about adoption? I have a large family, through adoption.

Are we bad for the planet?

There are many ways to define the word family. Just a reminder.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WindRavenX]

21. I think it's pretty clear this is about people who don't adopt

Adopting is a great alternative to having your own kids-- it's what my SO and I plan on doing when we're ready :hi:

Even then, I think if you have a large family, regardless of how it came to be, there are limits to how many kids you can devote your time to.

[Beausoir]

27. Agreement and one quibble.

My kids, though they were adopted, are my own. It's just a difference in terminology that irks me.

But YES! There are limits on how many kids you can devote your time to.

We actually turned-down a placement of a beautiful baby boy 2 years ago because we just knew that 5 was our high water mark. Toughest decision I have ever had to make and it broke my heart.

But, our agency hooked us up with his parents and he is exactly where he belongs. An only child, the light of their lives and completely and totally loved.

Things just work out sometimes.

[Lorien]

29. Amen to that

I would also choose adoption over having my own kids if I had a SO. There's no way that I would ever consider adding more children to the planet; I honestly don't believe that the earth will be capable of supporting humanity 40 years from now, and the starvation, disease, violence and war that will precede our species demise will be too horrifying to contemplate. Why bring another doomed human soul into such a mess?

[arewenotdemo]

23. amen to that

[wellstone dem]

4. My 79 year old mom had 7 kids (3 boys 4 girls)

she's in great shape (amazing considering the trouble some of us have caused) and still voting for democrats.

[MassLiberal]

6. my MIL just turned 89 and had seven kids of her own

plus she and her husband, who died in '68, raised two of their nieces, for a grand total of nine kids. In a four-bedroom house. On a railroad conductor's salary. She is still living in her own house, drives her car every day, volunteers a few times a month, flies across the country to visit us every year, and is one of the brightest, strongest, healthiest (in all ways) persons I've ever known. Raising a lot of kids seems to have helped make her thrive, if you ask me.

[karynnj]

8. This study is likely flawed

The study's conclusions may be flawed. They are assuming that correlation means causation. There may also be other factors that explain the difference. It may be that there were differences in education level, income, insurance or even where they live in Utah.

[jarab]

16. I think a flawed study. I suspect the exact opposite in my area. n/t

...O...

[uppityperson]

18. exactly, look at what years they included, too broad to mean much.

[pnwmom]

32. I wouldn't assume that. The results are perfectly logical.

Every pregnancy carries risks beyond those a woman would experience if she weren't pregnant, and some of the complications can result in life-long effects on the woman's health.

[Tempest]

11. Environmental factors are not considered

The study doesn't address environmental factors in Utah.

The only way the study can be considered valid is if all states are studied.


My mom had 10 kids and is 75 years old. She lives by herself in NH outside of a small town. She cuts brush on her property in the summer and shovels snow in the winter.

[robcon]

12. I think the environmental factors are controlled for...

by having a cross-section of Utah, a fairly homogeneous area, both in environment and genes.

That doesn't mean it applies to all groups, but certainly suggests a direction for research.

When in doubt, go with the science, not anecdotes.

[karynnj]

19. I agree that all of us citing our parents is not science

I am from a large family with 2 healthy near 80 year old parents.

There are other things correlated to family size:
- education and income are two of them. Income is related to whether or not you have insurance - which does affect health.

-Utah is unusual as it is (I think) the only state that has a large Mormon population. Is the average size of family different for Mormons and non-Mormons in Utah? If so, did they test whether there was any difference in average life span in the two groups. Are there other ethnic groups that might differ from the population in these two factors.

Is there a difference between one geographical area of Utah? ( There were nuclear tests in the west - I think near Utah (or possibly in Utah). What if in the area where fallout was higher, the economics and culture led to larger families?

There is always a danger in statistics of assuming that correlation equals causation. Usually, it would be good to have some theory that explains why the result could happen. For the mother, it could be that more pregnacies wear you down - but, in fact having pregnacies lowers the risk of things like breast cancer. It might be stress - but kids are also helpful.

This type of study - on its own - is not "science".

[Gormy Cuss]

20. It's based on a 100 year pattern in an area with excellent VR s

The lead author seems to be an evolutionary ecologist/biologist interested in how we adapt. I wish there were a publication citation in the article because it sounds like an interesting bit of research.

But yeah, it's better to look at the science rather than rely just on anecdotes.

[greccogirl]

13. Geesh that's a no brainer.

[The Anti-Neo Con]

14. Large families are also...

bad for the wallet.:+

[Gormy Cuss]

15. Has anyone found a link to the actual study results?

Hard to comment on the findings without seeing the actual report and whether there has been peer review. The lead author seems to be an evolutionary biologist looking for genetic clues to human behavior.

[uppityperson]

17. math, means averaged 8.3 kids/couple

"They found that the couples had an average of eight children each, but family size ranged from one to 14 or more children."

I wonder about times, breaking it down by decade might show more, also bunch of other things could impact this batch of statistics.

[WindRavenX]

22. My SO has lived in Utah his whole life, and just being here...

...this is study is a big DUH.

GRANTED, like ALL things, there ARE exceptions. But there is a creepy cultural norm here that you, if you are a woman, you must have a large family.

Utah is also the state most heavily medicated for anti-depressants.

If you want a family on your free will, that's one thing. But in this culture, right here, that's rarely the case.

[daleo]

24. Each pregnancy is bound to stress the mother physically

With the cumulative effect being a greater level of harm to the mother as the number of kids increases. Also, having larger families means spreading the same resources among more kids - that means less money for food, health care, housing, education and other vital needs per person. This is bound to have some detrimental effect on the parents' health, as well as the kids.

This is a trade-off many people are willing to make, as a large family can have emotional benefits, or can deemed desirable for religious or cultural reasons.

[crim son]

25. This seems like common sense to me

but also a huge generalization. There is no question that some capable people thrive on raising many children and are very successful doing so and there is no question that some people raise many children, feel good about it but do it badly. Probably most of us stay healthier and more sane raising families of four or fewer children.

[roseBudd]

26. My sister in law is a twin & her twin has 6, she has 1...

Twin with 6 kids looks significantly older at the age of 49.

[SoCalDem]

28. Until the 60's, it was difficult to control family size and in many parts of the world

it's still difficult.

Women are still treated as "vessels" and property in most of the world. Their reason to exist is to reproduce, care for the young and prepare food.

That's IT !

Fundamentalist religions encourage large families because it keeps women subservient and needy..

Large families create problems for our planet, but in poor countries, many children never reach adulthood..

Educate women, make sure men have meaningful employment with decent compensation, and the population "problem" goes away :)

[robcon]

33. Your post is insulting and offensive, IMO.

SoCalDem: "Until the 60's, it was difficult to control family size and in many parts of the world, it's still difficult. "

Who is this person/organization/country that you want to CONTROL family size?

No one on earth should be able to restrict people from having as many children as they choose (it's the obverse of the abortion issue - no one can make a family have a baby they don't want, and no one can force a family from having a baby they do want.)

The only tried, true and proven method to reduce the number of children in a family is to make that family middle class. Economic growth is the only way to reduce family size.

[SoCalDem]

34. Sorry if you were insulted, but before the "pill" (the 60's), women

often had more children than they wanted to. The children were loved and appreciated, but given a choice, I'm pretty sure that many of those Moms-of-six, might have preferred to be Moms-of three:)

married women had more children because they often had few choices. In MY lifetime , even after the pill came on the scene, I had to have "permission" from my husband to get the prescription..(that did change after a while)

[No Exit]

35. There is nothing insulting or offensive about your post, IMO

You said: "Educate women, make sure men have meaningful employment with decent compensation, and the population "problem" goes away."

The complaining poster said: "The only tried, true and proven method to reduce the number of children in a family is to make that family middle class. Economic growth is the only way to reduce family size."

In my opinion, those two statements tend towards the same conclusion.
I can't figure out why someone, who essentially reached the same conclusion as you did, said they were insulted or offended by your post.

Maybe it was your bald statement of facts--such as stating that it used to be harder to control family size. That's just plain true. The complaining poster seemed to think you meant for someone other than the family to "control" its size, but I took your post to mean that the "control" should be exercised by the woman and/or her spouse. I don't see anything wrong with that!

[antiimperialist]

30. gasp!

[Eurobabe]

31. Ditto what others have said, large families bad for mother Earth

Too much consumption and off gassing. Limit it to 2 please?