How many kids are enough?

[The Straight Story]

How many kids are enough?
Large Kern County families like the Lugos are bucking a national trend
BY MARK BARNA, Californian staff writer


Photo by Brian Drake

Deanna and Wayne have seven children — with an eighth child on the way. The Lugo family, from right to left: Wayne (father); Deanna (mother); Elizabeth, 13; Catherine, 13; Stephanie, 11; Gabby, 8; Kolbe, 5; Jacob, 4; and Maggie, 2.


Photo by Brian Drake

The Lugo ladies crowd mom Deanna’s bathroom to do their hair before school.

Seventeen eggs. Twenty pancakes. Two pounds of bacon. Two dozen sausages. A gallon of OJ. A half-gallon of milk. Twenty-five ounces of cider.

And 18 arms reaching to fill plates and glasses.

That's right, two parents, seven children (ages 2 to 13) and another on the way.

"Costco is our No. 1 place," Deanna Lugo, mother of the Bakersfield tribe and three months pregnant, said of the food-retail company known for selling in bulk.

http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/89795.html

The video is worth a watch.
How many kids re enough? As many as someone wants IMHO.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

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

[fleabert]

2. one of my great friends has 7...

and she's a VERY liberal Jew. She's an amazing mother, I know I couldn't do it.

[JacksonWest]

45. Colbert is the youngest of 7.

[MonkeyFunk]

127. Actually

he's the youngest of 11 children.

[Lurking Dem]

129. Wonder how he would feel about

his family being referred to as a "litter"?

[MonkeyFunk]

134. i suspect he'd find humor in it

[geardaddy]

169. Since he had no choice in how many siblings...

he has, I don't think he'd take it too personally. The question to ask Colbert would be how many children does he have.

[Arugula Latte]

271. He has three -- one girl and two boys.

[Taverner]

3. Any more than 2 is irresponsible

For the environment, for the human race and for the kids.

[Common Sense Party]

41. Really? How so? nt

[Taverner]

47. With 2 kids you are just replacing yourselves

1 kid and you are still working (individually) towards zero population growth and even negative population growth.

3 kids, and there is one more person in the world than you when you and your spouse die.

A child in the US takes much more toll on the Earth than one would in any other country. Each of our environmental footprints leaves lasting damage.

We seriously need to stop having so many kids in this country and planet.

[JacksonWest]

52. Good luck. You can't curb population growth within the bounds of our constitution.

Procreation is a fundamental right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_right

[Taverner]

63. Just because I disagree with it

Doesn't mean I want legislation against it

[karlrschneider]

65. So is utter stupidity and greed.

...

[Quantess]

200. There's no law against being stupid.

Kind of like buyer beware caveat emptor.

[Crandor]

66. Amend the constitution then.

Your so-called "right" is going to, at the very least, utterly destroy people's quality of life in the future if it is not curbed.

[Taverner]

122. Legislation is not the solution

Education - raising awareness - that's how you solve the problem

[Zookeeper]

197. Well, my number #3 child is the one that I am particularly...

expecting to do great things. At twelve, he is super responsible, hardworking, politically aware, kind, creative, very intelligent, generous and he has a great sense of humor.

I can't imagine my life without him. And I know that he will make the world a better place.

On edit: BTW, I'm an only child and my mother is one of two children. And my third child would be devastated to think that people consider him "a problem."

[RC Quake]

218. No Necessarily True

Posts about having children always catch my eye. My spouse and I tried for years to have children, to no avail. What about the millions of couples out there that either cannot have children or wish not to...or stop with one? The counter-balance of other families having more is needed, don't you think? Or do you think it's irresponsible for people to not have children, also?

[Lurking Dem]

219. You are correct.

The actual replacement rate is 2.1 children to account for infant mortality. If you add increases in people that can't or chose not to have children it goes up higher, I would think. I read somewhere that infertility was growing exponentially.

The actual rate in the U.S. is higher than it has been in a few years but still below replacement population rates at 2.03.

edited to make sense

[RC Quake]

220. Why do you think that is?

I used to think that we just didn't know how many people suffered from infertility because it just wasn't talked about. But, I truly am surprised at the amount of people that are coming forward in my personal life. I work directly with 12 women...of which 4 suffer fertility problems and have never been successful with treatment.

Strange.

[Lurking Dem]

243. Likely because

people are being treated for things that would have killed them previous to child bearing coupled with the vast amount of poisons we are pouring into our environment.

[Nikia]

267. Untreated stds

In young women. Waiting to try to have children until later in older women. I think that certain medications can also affect fertility as well as being underweight or overweight.
I don't know if there is a lot more infertility though. I think that more childless couples adopted children decades ago than now.

[IA_Seth]

61. Oh jeez..

What if my 3rd child led the revolution against environmentally damaging policies?

[jgraz]

125. What if your 3rd child was the second coming of George Bush?

By that reasoning, you should keep popping them out until one of your kids does something significant.

[Imagevision]

157. How many will die in Iraq??

[Pithlet]

174. Does that 3rd child somehow require more resources

than the first two?


I don't get it. I mean, if every single person ever born on this planet will have kids, then it's one thing. But, many do not. Some people have 1 kid. Some have 3. Some have more. Many have none. I'm not saying that the earth's population is something to ignore. Obviously, there is a finite amount of humans that the earth can support. I just don't get this notion that the number of children an individual (or couple) has has any baring on anyone else any more than, say, the amount of time and resources you choose to spend on your computer. Or how many miles you've decided to put on your car this month. How much paper products did you consume? How much matter did you contribute to the local landfill over the course of the past year? And how does that compare to other individuals? Did you consume more ore less overall than average?

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to direct this at you personally, but I refuse to join in on this particular brand of smug self-righteousness that many are displaying on DU today. I have only two kids. Do I get a cookie? It's ridiculous.

[Nikia]

269. I think they actually require less

At least while they are children.
I think that it is more economical and environmentally friendly to raise 3 children in one household than 3 children in 3 different households.
Most families with several children who are not rich tend to reuse baby and early childhood clothes and furniture, have children share rooms, buy less toys because the children share or hand them down, and eat more economical meals and waste less food. Their parents are more likely to buy in bigger packages so there is often less packaging and the same number of trips to the store as a single household. The parents may encourage children to be involved in the same activities or schedule children's different activities in a way that they are not making multiple trips to take and pick up the children from those activities. Some children forced to share by growing up in a bigger family may rebel against that. Others may be used to sharing and not buying new all the time and live more economically and ecologically friendly as adults.
A problem that they have found in China since instituting the one child policy is that the single child is often given more resources than parents would give to each child in larger households, that the adult child uses more resources as adults, and they are less likely to live communally with family than in the past. While some of this probably is the result of modernization, some of it is that parents will spend more and use more per child when they have 1 than when they have more.

[trotsky]

209. The upside I've noticed is that kids from very large families...

tend to be childless themselves or have just one or two. They've lived the circus, and want no part of it.

[shrike]

227. You got it

I'm living proof of that.

[texastoast]

242. That's certainly my experience

with my best friend's family--she was one of 7 and not one of her siblings had more than 2.

[geardaddy]

4. At least they shop at Costco

but I do agree. It's not like they need farmhands. Plus I'm getting tired of dumb kids' names like Kolbe. Sorry if this offends, but it irks me.

[frankenforpres]

195. Kolbe is that the last name of a saint ...

"On 28 May 1941 he was transferred to Auschwitz and branded as prisoner 16670. He was assigned to a special work group staffed by priests and supervised by especially vicious and abusive guards. His calm dedication to the faith brought him the worst jobs available, and more beatings than anyone else. At one point he was beaten, lashed, and left for dead. The prisoners managed to smuggle him into the camp hospital where he spent his recovery time hearing confessions. When he returned to the camp, Maximilian ministered to other prisoners, including conducting Mass and delivering communion using smuggled bread and wine.

In July 1941 there was an escape from the camp. Camp protocol, designed to make the prisoners guard each other, required that ten men be slaughtered in retribution for each escaped prisoner. Francis Gajowniczek, a married man with young children was chosen to die for the escape. Maximilian volunteered to take his place, and died as he had always wished - in service.
Born"



so i dont see why it is a dumb name.

[geardaddy]

211. Duly noted. n/t

[Alenne]

5. That's a personal choice

As long as my uterus is not being used I don't really care how many someone else has.

[Crandor]

71. If you live on Earth, you should care.

We cannot have an expanding population forever, especially when available energy is going to be going DOWN pretty soon.

[Alenne]

85. I don't care

how many children someone decides to have. It is a decision that is out of my control. I don't see how me pretending to be outraged will help the environment.

[Midlodemocrat]

95. But this isn't the norm. And, frankly, I think that those who choose to have

a lot of kids are offset by the childless.

I don't see what the big deal is over the size of someone else's family. Don't want kids? Don't have them.

[Pithlet]

178. It's just one more thing for people to feel smug about.

It's a personal choice that is more obvious to outside observers, unlike the precise amount of resources they themselves have consumed.

[tabasco]

222. "I think that those who choose to have a lot of kids..."

"are offset by the childless."

You might "think" that but it is wildly incorrect. You are aware that the world population is increasing, right? So childless people are not "offsetting" anything.

[Midlodemocrat]

262. My point was that it isn't the norm to have seven children.

It's completely outside the norm, so I think people are getting worked up over nothing.

If every family had seven or eight kids, they would have a point, but they aren't. Most families are two or three kids. That is the norm, not seven or eight.

[Blue Gardener]

6. When I was growing up

There were a lot of large families. Birth control was not as readily available as it is now, plus more kids meant more farmhands. At least they shop at Costco!

[maxsolomon]

121. condoms have been available since the 1500s

but the catholic church no like birth control. every large family i knew growing up (and i was 1 of 4 which was NOT large in the 60s) was catholic.

children are a blessing & sex for pleasure is a vice. thus sayeth the lord. :sarcasm:

[Clark2008]

275. What do you bet that most of those Catholic parents has some

pleasure when they were making those seven or eight kids. :evilgrin:

[ikojo]

147. I grew up in a city of 100,000 and not one of the

kids that I knew who came from a large family lived on a farm. I come from a family of seven and my parents weren't farmers.

[leftchick]

7. their diets are not exactly healthy

I hope they have good Insurance. Sustainability of the planet will determine how many is enough. And I am quite certain humans multiplying at this rate is not a good thing.

:eyes:

[Nikia]

272. That seemed like a lot of food for regular breakfast

The children eat a couple of eggs, a couple of pancakes, and a not exacly small amount of bacon everyday before going to school?
$700 a week is a lot to spend on groceries even for 9 people, especially if they are shopping at Costco too. Food is cheaper in bulk. I wonder what they are eating for lunch and dinner.

[shaniqua6392]

8. As many as you can properly care for.

I would never have that many children. But, I have no objection to how many children other people have as long as they are not so poor they can not feed and clothe them. I have two daughters, ages 25 and 14 and it is awesome. But, I know how hard it is to afford a good college education as I have put one through a five year teaching program. The youngest wants to be a psychiatrist and a writer. Yikes! So, you have to be prepared for the future. I can't imagine doing that with eight children unless you are rich. Quality not quantity for me.

[WindRavenX]

9. How many kids are enough? When they start impacting my quality of life.

We have limited resources and it is a huge negative impact on the enviroment. I'm going to stress this part though: I'm not ever going to say ENFORCE a zero growth population, but I'm damn well going to call people out for simply breeding.

I'm not talking about 3 or 4 kids--I'm talking about families like these. You simply cannot give equal time and love to all of them, either :(

[karlrschneider]

14. You remind me again why I'm not in line for an ambassadorship any time soon.

:D

[WindRavenX]

18. like I'd be one either

I'm in Utah right now, and the amount of kids is disturbing. And the parents are so young too :(

[Pithlet]

172. Does the child who has 12 siblings take up more resources

than the child who has 1?

[WindRavenX]

194. um, duh?

:shrug:

[Pithlet]

196. Well, that was easy. n/t

[SoCalDem]

10. This mother of three says..... ONE is perfect

because with one, you always know "who did it"


I gave birth to Scott, Michael & Steven....BUT we always said we had SIX..not three

In addition to the above-named, we also had "Not me", "Somebody", and "I don't know"..

Those last three were the ones who left the house unlocked all day, who left a whole gallon of milk on the table all day, who dented a brand new car, who threw a shoe at and dented a $1500.00 brand new refrigerator, who dumped a thermos-ful of cocoa on a white couch, who broke an 8ft sliding glass door, who mowed off a sprinkler head, breaking the mower, who left ourt too numerous to count numbers of bicycles (that were promptly stolen)..

ONE child is the only number for peace of mind :)

[Taverner]

138. God you're worrying me and I have two!

One's just 10mo, but the other's 3...and he's already starting to blame his sis for everything....

[jeff30997]

11. How many kids are enough?

2.5 :)

[TahitiNut]

12. He breeds dairy cattle?

Well, it just shows we shouldn't bring our work home. :evilgrin:

[bmbmd]

277. Don't work the breeding stock

and don't breed the working stock?

[brentspeak]

13. Seven or eight is definitely reaching the limit of "too many" for one family

First, there's the (incredible) financial burden. Second...there's the incredible financial burden.

Going beyond the incredible financial burden, there's some very real problems that having way too many kids will always create: the older children are often forced to spend their teenage years as babysitters and mother's assistants, whether they like it or not.

[SoCalDem]

22. The flipside is that often the older ones of the large families

end up childless by choice.. I know lots of people from large families who said.. "none for me, thanks"..

so It may balance out in the end :)

[brentspeak]

28. That's unfortunate, though.

If someone doesn't want even one child because of his/her unhappy large family upbringing.

[SoCalDem]

37. Not necessarily unhappy, just a true knowledge of how hard it is

to raise kids. One friend was the oldest of 6, and by the time she married, she said NO THANKS to the whole baby thing. She married a guy who was divorced with one child, and she was a very happy step-mother to a darling 6 year old girl.

[HuffleClaw]

156. or lucky!

[BlackVelvet04]

160. I didn't have an unhappy upbringing,

but it was damn sure crowded with 5 kids. After a miscarriage and some female problems I decided to have my tubes tied. I just didn't want children enough to deal with the physical issues. I'm perfectly ok with not having any and I enjoy my nieces, nephews and now great nieces and nephews. I may regret it later on but I doubt it.

[Zookeeper]

198. 'Just give those nieces and nephews lots of love and...

attention and you won't have reason to regret it.

My BIL has been a wonderful, although long-distance, uncle to our kids over the last few years. And he has made a special effort to connect with my 16 year old who has ADD and has had a really rough couple of years.

I think aunts and uncles can be as important as parents if they choose to be involved.

[tenshi816]

78. So true.

My mother was one of nine children in a farming family with not very much money. She went on to have only one child - me - and always said it was largely because by the time she became a mother herself, she had already spent most of her life looking after her younger siblings and didn't wish to repeat it.

[Gormy Cuss]

79. The last time I raised that flipside

I had others from large families calling me a liar. I'm from a large family and half of us chose to have no children of our own. Only one had more than two. We know first hand the benefits and the downside of being a child in a large family.

I wouldn't support legislation limiting family size but IMHO it's not just an issue of individual choice, it's an issue of responsibility to the larger community called Earth. I realize that "quiverful" people see it differently.

[kineneb]

130. that is what Grandpa thought- #10 of 10

that survived (12 born). He never got much attention from his mother because she was so busy. His one daughter is my mother. I think most of his siblings had small families as well.

[ikojo]

135. I am the youngest girl in a family of seven and

NEVER, EVER, wanted children. Funds were so tight when I was growing up that I feared putting a kid through that.

[smokey nj]

159. That's not limited to the older ones in a large family.....

I'm the youngest of six and lots of babysitting for my older siblings' children (I have 10 nieces and nephews) helped me realize that motherhood isn't for me.

[Redstone]

15. However many the specific parents want. It's none of my business. Or anyone else's.

Redstone

[Common Sense Party]

38. Wow! Common sense and respect for others' freedom isn't dead

on this thread.

[jgraz]

49. Is it just me, or is "Common Sense" being used more and more as a synonym for "Thoughtlessness"?

And "Personal Freedom" seems to be turning into a stand-in for rudeness, irresponsibility and greed.

[Redstone]

64. Yes, it's just you. It's not my business, nor is it yours, to tell other people how to

lead their lives.

Redstone

[jgraz]

67. How dare you tell me not to tell people what to do!

That's my personal choice. :evilgrin:

And no, it's not just me. You may not have noticed, but you're posting on a board that's dedicated to changing people's personal behavior -- namely, how they vote.

[Redstone]

76. Nope, I'm not telling you what you can or can't do. Just expressing an opinion.

Redstone

[rinsd]

68. LOL. See the definitions of sanctimonious and self righteous.

"And "Personal Freedom" seems to be turning into a stand-in for rudeness, irresponsibility and greed."

Yeah personal freedom to decide whether one wants to procreate or not and how many children one wishes to have or not have. What is so hard to understand.

[Redstone]

81. Don't sweat the details, here. This is just someone who doesn't like me, so he or she

will be arguing it until next Tuesday, whether he or she really believes in what she or he is posting or not.

This kind of thing happens now and again at DU.

Redstone

[jgraz]

84. You flatter yourself

Honestly, I have no idea who the fuck you are.

[Balbus]

106. Yep - just you.

[Redstone]

60. It's not my business to tell other people what to do or not to do. Can you tell that

I grew up in Vermont?

Redstone

[jgraz]

62. Do you tell people to vote Democratic?

Or is that a personal choice you're cool with, too?

[Redstone]

70. Yes, it is. I'm PERFECTLY "cool with that." I can encourage, I can advise, but

I CANNOT "tell people to vote Democratic."

It's not my right. It's their decision to make.

I gotta say, I'm a bit surprised by your hostility to this concept.

Redstone

[jgraz]

75. Quit parsing. It's called "advocacy"

What's your problem with me advocating that people limit their family size?

[Redstone]

80. You can advocate all you want. But you can't TELL people what to do.

Well, yes, you have the right to try to do that, and they have the right to tell you to go fuck yourself.

That ought to be fun to watch.

"Parsed" enough for you, right there?

Redstone

[jgraz]

82. Sounds like we agree

That's all I'm saying. People should not be treated as fascists for advocating against large families. It's high time this was part of our public discourse.

[Redstone]

86. Well, yes, that is my point! Too many people here are issuing broad, command-like

statements that condemn people for having large families.

"I don't think that people should have that many kids" is a lot different from "more than two is a litter."

Isn't it?

Redstone

[jgraz]

88. Hell, that's the fun part about the internet

We can all say shit we'd never say in person. Personally, I think it cuts down on workplace shootings.

[Redstone]

89. I suspect you're right. People get a place to vent, then they calm down. An interesting

concept, and one I hadn't thought about before.

Thanks for bringing it up.

Redstone

[Megahurtz]

100. Hahahahaha!!!

:rofl:

[Zookeeper]

199. Thank you, Redstone....

It unusual for me to take much of anything personally, but this thread is making me (mom of three) feel very sad. I can't imagine life without my wonderful third child. He is truly a blessing.

:hug: from Zookeeper

[NaturalHigh]

16. I agree with your opinion.

The number of children a couple have is a personal choice between the two of them. I'm tired of hearing about how having more than a certain number of kids is irresponsible. If they can support their family financially and emotionally, it's up to them.

That said, my wife already had two kids when we got married, and that was plenty for us. Eight kids would probably wipe out what's left of my hair.

[texastoast]

30. It's irresponsible

More than two children should require environmental impact studies.

But I'm not worried that any politician will have the guts to ever say that. It is a very unpopular stance. But overpopulation is the bottom line of our earthly woes.

Really, 6 billion little miracles are really quite enough.

[rodeodance]

99. yes, I think every country should raise this issue.

[NaturalHigh]

139. I guess I'm not into China-style social planning.

Telling people how many children they are allowed to have is a little too authoritarian for me. As I said in my previous post, I think the decision of how many children to have is a personal one. The family profiled in the OP's story seems pretty happy to me. I don't think they've done any harm to the world by having several kids.

BTW, what would you suggest for a woman who already has two kids and gets pregnant again?

[texastoast]

240. I don't know

I just think we have to get wiser as a culture. The Native Americans had the good sense not to have these huge broods. The land didn't suffer because, hey, they actually realized that a few million North Americans was enough.

We can talk about freedom and authoritarianism all day long, but "freedom" is just a word we use in this situation. It has nothing to do with "freedom" and everything to do with wisdom.

I do not advocate making a law--it did no good in China and the extra baby girls get adopted out or worse. Humans are little walking hormones driven by our genetic code to reproduce. It's the nature of life. Don't thinking I'm being snotty about it--you couldn't have convinced me of it before menopause, but it is amazing how many things become clear without estrogen and testosterone to inhibit thought processes.

And if a woman gets pregnant the third time, she has the right to choose what to do here--for now--in most states. But I would get me to a clinic after that baby is born and get my tubes tied.

[NaturalHigh]

245. I respect your opinion.

I just don't agree with it, at least not entirely. To me, the decision of how many kids to have is entirely personal, so long as the parents can support those kids. BTW, I'm all for free education and free birth control.

As I said in another post, two kids is plenty for my wife and me, but I won't criticize those who have large families.

[Deja Q]

17. Thanks to those proud patriots, the USA will soon

be at the population range similar to that of China and India. Good job!!

:sarcasm:

Sorry, but we always argue we can't feed the number of mouths on this planet as it is. Meanwhile some of us see the squandering some do (and I don't always mean the mega-wealthy, many values are gone from today's "society" and that overabundance has led to the global warming problem what with wasted food and all... it's saddening, not to mention sickening).

And I surely don't see the logic or sense in creating more children right now. I only see selfishness on the part of the parents (I'll spare the readers the "B" word, which I dare is a more apropos epithet...), and eventual suffering (on the part of the children).

A society has controls. Population is as much as any of them. And not biased against one gender over the other; any society that claims a girl is a burden is far closer to an anarchy than a civilization.

An anarchy, or laissez faire society doesn't give a crap. The net result is devolution.

And I don't care which skin color it is either.

[alarimer]

137. I think the Earth will ultimately take care of itself

And it will most certainly not be good for humans. If you consider the Gaia hypothesis that the Earth acts as a single organisms, then humans are definitely the parasites, like tapeworms sucking the life out of it. But we will pay for it in the end, probably not in my lifetime but not too much later than that. A couple hundred years more or less and we will effectively be gone or living in caves because I see no evidence that the human species is moving towards any kind of sustainability. Part of that discussion is going to have to involve the choice to have more than two kids. But then again, if society devolves to the point where we are all living in caves and barely eking out an existence, people will have lots of kids but most will not survive.

Yes I am not at all hopeful for the future.

[jgraz]

19. Personal choice or not, it's selfish, irresponsible and ultimately destructive

Nobody's advocating making multi-child families illegal. Doesn't change the morality of the choice. Nobody should be giving these people attention.

Let's see a few positive articles on all the responsible people who have chosen not to breed at all.

[WindRavenX]

24. said better than I could have

NT

[jgraz]

And btw, when you look at that photo, picture 90 third-world children

Cuz that's the amount of resources that this ignorant brood is gonna suck down over their lifetimes. Think of that the next time you complain about all those overbreeding brown people.

[TahitiNut]

36. $36,000/year just in groceries!

Can we encourage these fine folks to emigrate to Darfur?? :eyes:

[Deja Q]

144. The media loves making everything oddball, obscene, or illegal the norm.

None of us should be surprised at who is turned into a celebrity. Nothing is based on merit anymore, it's based on how gaudy and atrocious it is.

[TahitiNut]

20. "Blessed is the man whose quiver is full."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Someone should tell the Reverend there's more than one way to empty a quiver! :evilgrin:

[SoCalDem]

25. Oh Jeez.. now you're tryin' to scare the cows..

[TahitiNut]

29. (deleted duplicate)

[TahitiNut]

31. Loose boots! Daddy could use a pair of loose boots for Christmas!

LOL!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I sure hope Mommy had a zipper installed. She needs another one. And a padlock!

[GoneOffShore]

21. More than replacement is too many.

Especially if they're consuming as many natural resources as that lot do.

It's irresponsible and downright selfish.

[leftofthedial]

23. more than 2

should require a large annual payment into an environmental fund.

more than 4 should be a crime.

[Zookeeper]

201. Believe me, my Yuppie friends with no children....

use at least as many resources than my frugal family of five. And if the government added to their disposable income for not having kids, they'd have even more money for wasteful consumption.

[leftofthedial]

228. overconsumption (SUV's, etc.) is a seperate issue

Corruption aside, society enacts standards of behavior to address global problems, not to cater to exceptional individual circumstances. Overpopulation is a global problem.


Over 2 kids, parents should pay a penalty.

[Zookeeper]

233. But, the claim being made here is that having more...

than two children is straining the world's resources. Overconsumption is THE issue behind this thread. Yet, childless Yuppies who are consuming more than their fair share of everything are off the hook because they fall into your category of "exception individual circumstances?" Most of the families I know have two children, so maybe my choice to have three puts me in the "exceptional individual" column.

When it comes to such deeply personal issues as having children (or not), everyone is "exceptional" because we are all individuals.

Everyone has different circumstances. For a large family that is already struggling and find out they are expecting another child (accidents happen, you know), a financial penalty could be devastating and raise the chances of abuse or abandonment. Or have you decided they should get an abortion, whether they like it or not?

[leftofthedial]

238. by far, the number one strain on resources is overpopulation

overconsumption is THE next tier problem.

both are real problems. both must be solved.

when two parents have their third child, it is no longer a personal issue. fines and tax penalties are reasonable disincentives. abortion works when reason fails.

[Zookeeper]

258. Overpopulation and overconsumption are the same thing...

if people didn't consume resources there would be no such thing as OVERpopulation.

Sorry, charlie. My third child is a personal issue and my choice. Why don't you give me a run-down of your lifestyle and possessions and I'll bet I can find something to judge you for as well.

Oh, and when "reason fails," you are advocating forcing people to abort their third child? That is so sick and anti-Liberal I can't believe you're posting on DU.

[leftofthedial]

I'm not judging backwards

already having three kids is fine. I'm sure your youngest is a great kid and you are an outstanding parent. I'm sure you and your family are models of environmental responsibility and activism.

But the ice caps are melting. The supply of fresh water is dwindling. The forests are shrinking. Species are disappearing daily. The ability of the earth to feed the human population is in decline. Your individual responsiblity is a good, but insignificant tick on a giant curve moving in the wrong direction.

Charlie.

[leftofthedial]

259. I'm not judging backwards

already having three kids is fine. I'm sure your youngest is a great kid and you are an outstanding parent. I'm sure you and your family are models of environmental responsibility and activism.

But the ice caps are melting. The supply of fresh water is dwindling. The forests are shrinking. Species are disappearing daily. The ability of the earth to feed the human population is in decline. Your individual responsiblity is a good, but insignificant tick on a giant curve moving in the wrong direction.

Charlie.

[texastoast]

26. Absolutely not more than 2, at least for a while

We need the death rate to be greater than the birth rate until we can get ourselves reacquainted with the concept of living in harmony with our surroundings.

[JacksonWest]

46. Would you make that a law if you could? Would you support others that would?

[karlrschneider]

51. The obvious solution is to eliminate tax exemptions for any over 2.

There's no excuse for the government to subsidize excessive breeding.

[jgraz]

56. Bingo -- you want to squirt out a litter, don't make me pay for it

[JacksonWest]

207. Once again, you run into problems with the constitution. Equal protection under the law....

You would be given different classifications to different Americans. Also-I'm not sure how you or anyone is paying for a large family-absent specific government programs. If you truly think having so many children is irresponsible across the board- what makes you think eliminating tax exemptions is going to do? Irresponsible people wouldn't care. You might cut back on large families that can afford-wait-never mind. If any Democrat campaigns on eliminating tax cuts for more then two children, he or she will never be elected and the whole party will be damaged. It won't happen.

[mondo joe]

266. Not an equal protection problem. It would apply to all classes. NT

[JacksonWest]

281. It wouldn't apply to the first two children.

If you're a third child, you are effectivly discriminated against. The tax deduction is done to benefit the child. By eliminating that deduction for the third child and on, you are discriminating against them-imho. So, while this would apply to all americans, it still discriminates against a certain class who are literally born into it. And, of course, it wouldn't survive strict scrutiny under exsisting case law.

[mainegreen]

282. What rubbish. Tax rates already vary based on number of children.

All it means is an adjustment to the system in place. Nothing to do with equal protection. The tax break is for the parents. The child, as paying no taxes, can not be discriminated against. Both the first and the seventh child pay the same taxes: zero.

[treestar]

69. Interesting thought. There can't be any laws against people having

however many they want, it is a human rights issue, but many things are regulated with tax incentives.

The feds determine the poverty level to go up with more people in smaller increments, so that to have an 8th person in the house is not as much more expensive as the second and third.

The tax deductions could be graded down like that for each child. Those who have the most children use the most resources, yet by the time you consider their tax deductions, they may well pay no taxes.

The government sees children as cannon fodder, no doubt, or there wouldn't be all those tax rewards for having them.

If people were considered a positive asset, immigrants wouldn't bother us and we wouldn't penalize people for employing them - the more farm hands thing. It is interesting that so long as the people are not immigrants, it doesn't matter how many we have, we are all free to have as many children as we want to; and that would not be considered too many people, even if there weren't enough jobs for them all.

[Megahurtz]

112. Another Reason for Selfish People to Excessively Breed.

Eight little Tax-Write-Offs!:think:

Then they get the rest of us to pay for their load. Niiiice.

Yep, I bet they're just thinking of the children!:sarcasm:

[Pithlet]

180. What a fine idea! Because those brats should have known better

then to be born 3rd, or 4th, or whatever. They don't deserve the benefits those tax breaks bring. They should have been sensible enough to have been born as an only child. To hell with them. Also, while we're at it, let's drop subsidizing heating oil, home purchases, roads, electricity etc. Anyone who doesn't live in a grass hut and grow their own food and use a horse and buggy is making choices to consume, so why should we subsidize any of that, either? Why should I pay for the resources because they choose to hook onto the grid and drive to work, and use electricity to go on the internet and post on message boards? Those are all choices, and I for one feel we shouldn't be forced to subsidize any of that. If you can't pay, you can't play.

[Zookeeper]

203. Yes, as I said upthread, my third child would be devastated....

to realize that so many DUers consider him a problem that shouldn't have been born, or that his parents should pay a fine for bringing him into the world.

[Zhade]

182. I'm uncertain as to why we subsidize ANY - and I have a son.

Why do we take taxes from the childless to give to those who CHOOSE to have children? What's the logic behind that, anyway?

[toddaa]

251. The NRA has a better solution

Let's require all school aged children to carry a loaded fire arm to school. Quickest way I know to reduce the population.

Yes, I know. I'm sick, sick, sick.

[jgraz]

54. legal prohibition is a straw man

There are many, many legal choices that are seen as less-than-beneficial to society as a whole. People are free drink too much, smoke too much, eat too much or have terrible personal hygene. None of this is illegal, but than again I don't see anyone writing congratulatory articles when a fat guy tops 400 lbs.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that these people are making some poor choices when it comes to how they're using their personal freedom.

[nashville_brook]

108. then you should have no problem when people point out that your self-righteousness

is also an unfortunate choice.

[jgraz]

128. Not at all -- I may disagree with your charaterization, but...

Aw, who am I kidding? I'm totally fucking self-righteous. And I'm cool with that.

[texastoast]

236. No.

It wouldn't do any good. Look at China.

[wickerwoman]

279. Self-delete.

Sorry... confused. :-)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. My wife & I decided to stick with cats.

Easier to educate, civilize, cleaner, quieter, and they make great bosses.

[jgraz]

33. But HOW MANY cats??????

:evilgrin: :hi:

[TahitiNut]

39. Most municipalities have laws against more than 3-4 dogs or cats

Maybe that's why this couple have spawned eight kids: circumventing the pet law.

[HockeyMom]

73. They also have laws how many PEOPLE can inhabit an apartment

10 people living in a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment? That is called a slum.

Speaking as an ONLY child who grew up in Manhattan in the 50s and 60s.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Two, but their small eaters and haven't demanded a car for graduation.

And, being housecats, they've managed to avoid being arrested. They do, however, have a fondness for an occasional bit of catnip.

[jgraz]

42. If they do, buy them a Hummer. After all, it's a personal choice.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. They'd prefer a Jaguar.

Delusions of grandeur. Kinda like the wannabee masquerading as a president now infesting the White House.

[Ilsa]

32. I know someone pregnant with her eight or ninth. I've lost count.

They plan on having ten. I don't think restricting family size is a role of the govt unless there is an abundance of this idiocy going around. I wouldn't want to have that many pregnancies and babies and children to take care of. I guess they pay nothing in federal income tax.

[jgraz]

34. She probably has too

[WindRavenX]

35. seriously, the human body just didn't evolve for this

:(

[jgraz]

50. hell, the human body can just barely do one

Take a look at how many women still die or are gravely injured from childbirth.

[hedgehog]

252. Seriously, the human body did evolve for this.

It's just that it's only in recent years that the children have survived infancy! If it weren't for birth control, most women would be pregnant most of the time.

[WindRavenX]

276. ...which is why this is completely unnatural

Being pregnant most of the time, like these people, is not natural. Spacing is highly recommended.

[nini]

43. What the hell is the mom doing to her body?

Jesus.. being constantly pregnant is not too smart.

[gollygee]

74. It depends on the woman

My grandma had 8 and was strong as a horse till she died at 96.

But it certainly isn't something all women can handle.

[nini]

93. I know someone who practically died from this same thing..

which is why I thought of the stress on her body issue.

Your grandma sounds pretty hearty! You're lucky to have had her for so long.

[Hardrada]

170. My mom had 12 (I am her oldest)

and is doing well at age 81.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

193. My mother also had twelve!

I am number 10. She is 89, sharp as a tack and in good shape.

Funny story - she and Daddy had nine and then I came along, with a surprise companion. They literally had no idea that my twin sister was in there too! It caused alot of talk even in the very Catholic community in which we lived.

[Hardrada]

213. I think younger siblings have a tale to tell also.

Well, good for your mom that she is doing so well! By the way, we were Lutheran in a Norwegian Lutheran community where rather large families were not exactly the norm in the 1950's although that many had not been unusual in 1900 or 1910. My dad is still living also at age 84.

[Redstone]

87. She's doing what she WANTS to do with her body. It's HER business, not yours.

Redstone

[nini]

91. well excuse the fuck out of me

:eyes:


I'd really love to know why considering the effect constant pregnancies can have on her body warranted that reply.

[Redstone]

116. Like I said, it's HER body. Don't we DUers stand for NOT telling women what they can

or can't do with their own bodies?

Redstone

[nini]

148. I'm not telling her what she can do..

I am questioning the health issues related to it. Just as I would if it was someone doing any other thing that may affect their health - drug use, smoking, etc.. Having an opinion regarding it does not mean I want to take their right away to do whatever they want.


If she wants to have 20 kids go for it.

I however can question the rationale as to why put the strain on her body.

That's all I was saying. I believe you're aiming your point at the wrong person.

[pitohui]

164. it may be HER body but it's MY planet

no one should be permitted to have 8 children, no one

[Zookeeper]

204. How do you propose stopping a person from having...

8 children? How about women having 8 children in Mexico or Ethiopia?

"No one should be permitted." :puke:

[gollygee]

229. Exactly

it's one thing to rant on an internet discussion forum, but to think people should be permitted to have children or not - I mean what would you possibly do? The most common suggestion here seems to be taking away tax deductions, which then punishes poor children for being born into poor large families. I can see being annoyed by it, but there isn't any solution that respects people's civil liberties and doesn't punish the children who are involved.

[Zookeeper]

234. Yes, Golly, as I just posted upthread....

what about a large family that is already struggling and find out another child is on the way ("accidents" happen)? A financial penalty could be the last straw that makes the children even more at risk for abuse or abandonment. At best, it makes it that much harder for parents to provide for their kids in a way that could improve their lot in life.

Maybe they should be forced to abort. Or maybe they should be forced to be sterilized after the second child. I mean, it's for the good of the planet! :sarcasm:

[SemperEadem]

103. and we can talk all about it, since she put her business in the street

by doing the article. If they'd kept their mouths shut and kept their business to themselves, we wouldnt' be discussing it.

[karlrschneider]

110. I get exactly ONE tax exemption, ME. Those people having litters

get a bunch, so I'm helping to support their insanely large families. Fuck that.

[Megahurtz]

113. Wholeheartedly Agreed! n/t

[Redstone]

117. Well, that's not too selfish of a stance, is it?

Redstone

[Megahurtz]

123. I don't see how.

Why should others who are uninvolved pay in taxes for that litter of kids that others decide to have? Why shouldn't they pay for their own massive brood of kids?

[Redstone]

126. There's some GREAT community spirit, right there. I guess we shouldn't all pay for Katrina relief,

because we, the sanctimonious ones, don't live in a hurricane zone.

Redstone

[Megahurtz]

131. But Katrina was an accident,

having those 8 kids was not.

.....or was it?:silly:

[Redstone]

136. Oh, fuck me. I give up. Go on, be selfish, enjoy your life. It's no matter to me.

Redstone

[Megahurtz]

142. Lol!

:D

[Beaverhausen]

146. is this an example of you valuing someone's opinion?

very nice.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

191. are you channeling my fundie boss?

"I don't see why I should have to work my ass off all day so those people can sit at home on welfare!"

wow.

[karlrschneider]

140. No, it isn't. Why should I have to subsidize incontinent breeders?

I already pay property taxes to educate the offspring of others which I don't especially resent but why the hell should I be forced to be a monetary-foster parent to every fucking kid popped out by a barefoot/perpetually-pregnant baby manufacturer? Give me one good reason. Just one.

[gollygee]

244. The same reason we subsidize "welfare queens"

You sound like you came off Free Republic. Why do we subsidize people for being irresponsible? Why should I pay for other people's food stamps? I don't need them. Why should I pay for other people's welfare? I don't need it?

*sigh*

[Zhade]

183. How is it selfish AT ALL?

People choose to have children - why should they be rewarded for it?

[rinsd]

237. But they're the selfish ones?!?

[shrike]

224. I know a woman with eight kids who looks like a teenager

They were all planned, by the way. She and her husband loved kids and wanted a house full. She's a local theater actress who looks great doing nude scenes.
As another poster says, it really depends on the woman.

[nini]

232. Yes, it depends on the woman

I know one woman who did die and another who came close. Because of that I always wonder if a woman is pushing herself.


Also, I didn't mean how the pregnancies affected her LOOKS.. I meant her body - the calcium levels left in her bones, the affects of the hormone swings, the stress on a heart that may not be perfect etc.. I was referring to overall strain on one's system.



AND I'm jealous of the mom with 8 kids who still looks that great :D

[shrike]

247. self-delete

[shrike]

self-delete

[shrike]

248. Yeah, that's true

It is much more than cosmetics. Pregnancy can wreak havoc on the body sometimes.

And believe me, a lot of us are jealous of someone who can get away with doing nude scenes in her forties after having had eight children. And there ain't no air brushing onstage.

[Redneck Socialist]

44. Environmentally speaking...

that family is a harbinger of the apocalypse.

That being said I don't think this country will ever get to the point of mandating family size.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

48. I can't help it, but every time I see these kinds of large familes, I think of

the natural environment that is being destroyed to accomodate the growing population of consumers around the world. I think of the disappearance of many of the open spaces around where I live. I think of growing pollution, ever bigger landfills to dump all the garbage, the disappearance of wildlife and the end of many species, the destruction of rain forests and coral reefs around the world, not to mention the fact that I can't even drive a car anywhere anymore without running into masses of humanity everywhere.

To me, we not only need to have zero population growth, for the good of the planet we need to reduce the present population. I can't help but want to discriminate against a family so selfish that it has seven children, in a day and age when large farm families to work the land are no longer justified. And this is not just a problem in America, but around the world, in India, China, Brazil, Mexico, and many other places. Saying that this is a personal choice is fine, but personally I would do everything I could to discourage people from making these terrible and destructive choices and letting them know about it.

[jgraz]

90. Sounds like you're ready for vhemt.org

Check it out ;)

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

97. I'm not advocating something that extreme

I just want people around the world to live rich, productive lives, to end hunger, to end poverty, to end disease, to end war, to end the competition for dwindling natural resources, and to prosper, while also preserving the natural environment. I don't want to end the human race, as the human race and the other living things with which we share the earth are my concern. I just would like to see a reduction in population all over the planet for the good of all the planet's inhabitants, not the end of the human race.

[Megahurtz]

55. Gross.

I swear sometimes I think people breed litters like this just to get attention.

It's extremely self-centered and selfish, bad for the Environment
and this World certainly doesn't need extra people walking around
like fucking bugs everywhere trashing the place.

I think that people should have no more than 2 kids, if even that.

Oh and I might add how stupid these kind of people are that think
that they live by a Bible that says everyone on Earth has their own free will,
yet they turn around and say that "God gave them" all of these children.:eyes:
Yeah sure, blame your own shit on God.

Yeah so ya fucked and fucked like Rabbits and irresponsibly popped out all these kids
so now ya want a Fucking Medal for it or something?:sarcasm:
Yeah musta been real tough doing that!:think:

Idiots.

[geardaddy]

175. No, it's all about making more Christians. n/t

[LeftyMom]

57. Well, when you start tripping over your own uterus, that's nature's way of telling you to quit.

Jesus people, I like kids too, but collecting is for coins or stamps, not human beings. :eyes:

[Zhade]

184. LOL! That's a very disturbing image.

So, LM, would you eat an animal to save your life?

KIDDING!

:D

[melnjones]

58. Well, I'm torn...

I love big families. My dad was one of ten and we come from a long line of big Amish families going back 400+ years...although I'm only the oldest of three. I am all about not overpopulating...don't want to have any kids of my own actually, in part because of that problem. At the same time, I love big extended families. I guess I just wish more people would create their big families through adoption...but as expensive as it is, it's typically not an option. Wish we could fix that.

[jgraz]

59. How much you wanna bet these people vote Republican?

Of course that's their personal choice, too. God forbid anyone should try to talk them out of THAT!

[porphyrian]

72. That depends on how many people you are trying to feed.

What? Cannibalism suddenly isn't funny anymore?

[Zhade]

185. LOL!

Just wanted you to know this didn't go unappreciated. :)

[porphyrian]

212. I knew someone else out there ate children...

;)

[gollygee]

77. I only have one and we don't plan to have another

but I think people need to make this decision for themselves. I just wish people would have the number of children they want because they truly want that many and not because they won't use birth control. Though that's their right as well. I'm very very pro-choice about reproductive rights and that includes the right to multiply like crazy, though I think it isn't very responsible.

[Beelzebud]

83. It's no one elses business how big, or small, a family is.

[nashville_brook]

92. and i thought it was only fundie rightwingers who tell other people HOW TO live

not directed at the OP -- just... some of these comments cross the line. private lives are PRIVATE.

what is this? liberal authoritarianism? you can only have X-number of kids. you can't smoke. and lord, don't feed them bacon!

[IA_Seth]

98. or circumsize them!

Or drive an SUV, breastfeed in public, climb mountains and *gasp* need rescuing, or or or....

..or use cornflakes for fried chicken for that matter!

Lord it gets out of hand sometimes. Thanks for a liberal post!

[nashville_brook]

102. thanks -- self-righteousness is just as ugly on progressives as conservatives

[Redstone]

120. And God HELP you if you take all those kids to dinner at The Olive Garden!

Redstone

[etherealtruth]

263. How dare you

cornflake covered baked chicken is far superior to fried!

[nini]

154. Considering things like this affect the global environment..

that part of this issue is up for debate.


Sorry, but if we all took that stance to have that many children - what would we doing to insure our grandchildren would have a planet not ovewhelmed with polution, etc.. Aren't we putting them at risk for not addressing such issues? Overpopulation is a real risk to human survival.

It is an issue and we have to start doing things to take care of our kids and future generations.

[nashville_brook]

94. having kids is a REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT

same as the right to have an abortion.

[jgraz]

101. Taking a shit's a right too

Doesn't mean we don't observe a little etiquette on when and where we do it.

[nashville_brook]

104. etiquette? you want to enforce reproductive limits as a matter of etiquette?

[jgraz]

109. Here's what I don't get

You're posting on a board whose entire raison d'etre is to get people to change the way they exercise one of the fundamental rights of our democracy -- namely, how they vote. And yet you think that any other kind of advocacy is somehow self-righteous or invasive.

Nobody said "enforce". I'm just saying it shouldn't be treated as some fucking badge of honor. These people made a selfish choice and I, for one, think it's perfectly OK to say so.

[nashville_brook]

111. it's one thing to be an advocate for democracy -- it's another to be a boor

[jgraz]

114. I can do both -- I'm multi-talented

It's been my experience that anyone advocating for social change gets viewed as a boor by people who don't want the change. These peoples' children will use resources equivalent to 90 third-world children. You don't think we have a right to be concerned about that?

[Zhade]

187. DAMN STRAIGHT.

Hell, I've bred, and I couldn't agree with you more.

Very well-said! Good for you on calling out selfishness!

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

[Megahurtz]

118. I don't see anything rude and clumsy about

advocating for small families.

....on the other hand I find it rude and clumsy to pop out a litter of kids
and expect others to pay for it with their own taxes!

[nashville_brook]

167. wow -- i've heard this before

on other boards.

[Lurking Dem]

217. He also thinks I hate Christ

because I don't think there should be Christmas trees on tax supported federal property.

:shrug: I guess it's a really, REALLY big tent.

[texastoast]

241. But is it smart? n/t

[mainegreen]

283. Until the world population reaches a point where each additional person infringes on

another's right to live just by existing. Who's right wins? The existing person or the potentially existing person?

:shrug:

[SemperEadem]

96. I only have time, energy and resources to deal with one

she gets my full attention when she needs it. I was one of 3 and it would piss me off when my siblings would distract my mother when I needed her attention... it was the prime reason why I decided early on that I only wanted one. Less noise, no tattle-telling and I could afford to do for her what my parents couldn't do for me because "if we can't do it for your brother and sister, too, then we can't do it for just you". fuck that.

As long as they pay full fare for their brood and don't turn to the state for assistance in feeding and clothing and sheltering what they've created, then they can have as many as they want.

[Zookeeper]

205. Well, I'm an only child and I always found it lonely....

and isolated. (Granted, I had almost non-existent parents.) On one hand, I appreciated my space, but it took a while to learn to live with other people as an adult. Nothing is perfect. :shrug:

It sounds like you are there for your daughter, though.

[shrike]

225. Having grown up in a large family, I can attest to the fact that

siblings are not all they're cracked up to be. Especially when you've got a mess of them: everybody's scrambling for limited resources, time and attention.
Not only that, in my experience sibs remember everything they think you did wrong to them. They're like elephants, they never forget.
I used to think it would be cool to be an only child. Guess we all want what we don't have, eh?

[Zookeeper]

235. "Guess we all want what we don't have"

Exactly. Life is not perfect, we just think it is for everyone but us. Or we think we're perfect and everyone else isn't

I find that is at the heart of a lot of the rather extreme posts on DU informing people of the way they SHOULD live. "Here are the rules, there is no reason everyone can't follow them". No, life is messy and imperfect and so are people.

[SemperEadem]

249. yes... as is her father, too

I've asked her on a number of occasions growing up if she wished she had siblings and she's always said "no". I've never married and it's going to stay that way. She's had experience of step-sisters when her dad married and that pretty much solidified her stand on not wanting siblings... he divorce after 10 years of marriage and has never remarried and is not interested in remarriage... which is good as her dad and his family have quite a bit of property and she is his 'heir apparent'. His sister has one child, too, as does my own sister. Only my fundamental xtain brother has 4 kids--two from each of his ex wives. Funny how that one worked out.

[dorktv]

105. I wanted to have a big family myself...but I would have adopted as much as

I could.

Now of course it is a mute point.

[uppityperson]

107. as many as they want and can healthily raise.

Not my business unless they need my help.

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

115. My personal take

By no means is it the concern of the state how many children couples should have.

For me I'm unsure whether I want to have kids, however I don't want to commit genetic suicide so perhaps I'll have one or two but do my best not to get my hands dirty with the whole parenting thing.

How many humans are enough, I don't know, I guess at this rate we'll probauly find out! Maybe somethinc catastrophic will happen bringing the population back down to something managable, nature has a way of bring population back into check however we've gotten better at better at undermining this so perhaps we'll just keep pushing the carrying capacity until we finally hit a point where population growth is 0 because humans die from starvation just as fast as they are born.

[eppur_se_muova]

119. You can't fight arithmetic. Anything over two leads to overpopulation.

Eventually, the only way to have more than two children will be to cause someone else's child to die.

[JCMach1]

202. not exactly death rate plays a role too... replacement level

for the U.S. is about 2.2-2.4

That is all...

[eppur_se_muova]

206. True but trivial. Three is over, but occasionally tolerable; five is right out.

Numbers after the decimal point don't really affect the conclusion.

[deaniac21]

230. And the Lord spake, saying,

'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three.
Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three.
Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'

[Lurking Dem]

124. How odd

that for so many here, CHOICE only works one way.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

141. They way I look at it, you can support the principle in having a right

such as a reproductive right, without necessarily supporting the way that right is exercised. If I think the right is being abused, I have the right to criticize its abuse.

I fully support the right of a woman to choose and to have an abortion. But I don't encourage abortion in some situations and I will criticize those young women who have abortions as a routine substitute for birth control which I think is sick behavior. I support the legal right to an abortion and don't want the law to step in to prevent it, but I frown upon the abuse of that right, will publicly criticize it, and would hope society would also frown on that abuse.

I support the right of free speech, even that of right wing whackos, although I usually don't support the way the right is exercised by the latter. In fact, I criticize it heavily on these boards.

All rights, however, have limits. There are no absolute rights under the Constitution, whether we're talking about the right to counsel, the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of speech and assembly, the right to vote, and even the right to how someone practices religion. So far, I don't think the government should step in and prevent large families as a matter of law. I could foresee a situation in the future where it might have to, in order to preserve the rights of others to live. However, it doesn't mean that citizens and even the government should encourage large families, a behavior that in my opinion jeopardizes the planet and everyone on it.

[ikojo]

132. There's a fundie family in Arkansas

that is often profiled on TV, with 16 or 17 kids. Joe Bob something or other. I think there may be two sets of twins but still!

[Ms_Dem_Meanor]

133. For me...

1 is enough. That is what I had. 2-3 if you can handle it. But the Duggars have 16 kids!!! Here is a one of many links that I found about them:

http://www.jimbob.info/index.htm

This is their website. The most recent family photo was in 2004. The last 2 kids aren't in the picture. They were born in 2005 and 2006. These people really need to use CONTROL!!! I recommend tubes being tied, clipped, and burned!!! Mom and Dad both!!!

[Megahurtz]

143. They probably want donations.

LOL!

[XanaDUer]

145. My ultraliberal BF is eldest of 7 kids

My former ultraliberal BF was eldest of 13.

[SammyWinstonJack]

149. I have two sons and that seemed plenty too me.

My family consisted of two half brothers and myself and my full brother. i didn't even know I had two half brothers until I was 27 years old. It was shock to me!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

150. It is selfish to assume

that you can "have" as many children as you can feed or take care of. It is not a legislative issue if you are informed about the effects of population growth and the limited resources of our planet. It is a responsibility to your family and this world not to produce "en masse".

[mondo joe]

151. How many are enough? As many as you choose, and you support. NT

[HCE SuiGeneris]

152. that is selfish eom

[mondo joe]

153. Selfishness is permitted.

Provided you foot the bill for your selfishness.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

155. not saying you should be penalized...

I am saying that if you care to envision a future that is sustainable (on this planet) you should limit your family's size.

[mondo joe]

158. I did limit mine. But others will make other choices, which I consider their choice.

[pitohui]

162. then choice is more important than survival of the earth?

that is why there is no future, because people think their right to breed is more important than the right of the earth to continue existing for more than a few more decades

everyone should be sterilized after producing one, and one child only, and people who volunteer to be sterilized before having any child should be given some economic bonus

however it will never happen because idiots on our side talk about choice and say that people should be able to pop out all the brats they want -- overlooking the reality that in the real world, intelligent and thoughtful and responsible people automatically have fewer children, so all they are doing by taking this stand is promoting the freedom of the rightwing extremist stupid people to continue to outbreed us

we are being outbred by fundamentalist fools because there is no "choice" in the real world, people are subject to social pressure, and weak-minded people fall prey to predatory religion, so while educated and responsible people do not breed or have only one child, the haters and the fools have 8

democracy becomes suicidal in such a world because we are creating a world where we will be inevitably out numbered by the weak minded and the stupid people

if you want a future where democracy can thrive, you can NOT support the right wing fucktards being allowed to outbreed the decent people who only give birth to a number of children they can rightfully support

but oh well people are happy to repeat the cant about "choice" even if it allows the other side to bury us

you notice that THEY don't talk about or permit "choice," there is no choice for them except to breed like flies so they can overwhelm us

look around you, it is not the smart thoughtful caring gifted people who are popping out eight babies, we all know this, it's time to stop lying about it to ourselves

[mondo joe]

165. I support freedom and liberty. That includes selfish choices.

I agree, "it is not the smart thoughtful caring gifted people who are popping out eight babies".

It is also not the smart thoughtful people producing the future underclass.

[The Straight Story]

173. Um, these people are supporting their kids

"if you want a future where democracy can thrive, you can NOT support the right wing fucktards being allowed to outbreed the decent people who only give birth to a number of children they can rightfully support"

It appears they are doing a fine job with their choice.

We have choice here - how you choose to use yours is up to you.

[Zhade]

188. I disagree with a lot of your post, but giving economic incentives for not breeding...

...is absolute GENIUS.

I totally support that idea. It's a great one, it preserves choice, it helps with the overpopulation problem... it could work!

[rinsd]

239. Forced sterilization to counter birthrate of polticial opponents?

Geez why not just create camps or have an annual infant cull.

:eyes:

[SmokingJacket]

161. Most people I know from very large families felt they were too big.

The people I know from families of seven or eight or more children have told me they felt their parents just didn't get to spend much time with them. The older ones especially felt they had too much responsibilities to care for the little ones. (I'm sure there are people who loved coming from a huge family, but I don't know them.)

In the old days it made sense to have a ton of kids, to make sure some survived. Now, I don't think it's so fair to the kids or to the earth -- as "fun" as it is for some parents.

[Nikia]

176. My dad liked coming from a family of 6

He was the third child. His siblings were his naturual friends and he felt that his parents did a good job of raising that many children, much better than a few other friends from large families.
I agree though that most children from large families don't like having that many siblings.

[Nikia]

163. Americans are choosing to have fewer children on average

I don't think that a family, who has the resources and is capable as a parent emotionally, should be prohibited from having several children if they want.
Safe, inexpensive birth control and education should be provided though so all potential parents can really choose to become parents or have subsiquent children.

[pitohui]

166. yes, smart people, educated people have fewer children

unfortunately religious hysterics do not fall into the category of smart or educated, they fall into the category of sheeple -- stupid people who are easily impressed by superstition

we cannot, must not, allow these category to outbreed us and the only way to stop it is to make a law that limits the size of families

period

smart, decent people ALREADY limit their families to what is responsible but the reality is that the fundamentalist fucktards are only going to continue to grow as a percentage of our population if they are allowed to outbreed us

in time, if fundy hysterics are being encouraged to breed like flies while decent people have to continue to have no or at most one children because of economic realities then democracy will have to die, because there will be an ever-growing class of voters from the fundy hate class proportionate to the rest of us

[melnjones]

181. just because fundies have lots of kids

doesn't mean the kids will stay fundies as well...
I saw a lot of this happening in my large amish family.

[kitty1]

179. If parents have the resources to afford all those kids....

then I agree as well. Why not have all you want.
However, I can't understand those parents (or parent) who have one baby after another when they can hardly get by financially.
It's not like they're unaware about birth control methods.
Why would someone want to be burdened down with a brood of kids who don't stand much of a chance at getting a break in life. Either thru secondary education or otherwise. Life is just about struggle for the most part in these situations.
Sure, there are the lucky few who receive scholarships here and there, but they are in the minority, and are gifted with talent and/or above average intelligence.
It just perpetuates another generation of the same dire circumstances to deal with realistically.

[bleedingheart]

168. To each his/her own....if they can handle it then bless them.. (it is about Choice)

however two is my limit...although adoption in the future might not be a bad idea if I had a hankering for more mothering.

It is 2006 (almost 2007) and people choose to have that many...and that is their right...

My neighbor has 5 and she is overwhelmed and out of sorts....and it is sad.

4 out of 5 have problems in school and she can't afford to clothe them properly.

It is just plain sad....and breaks my heart to pieces.

My aunt raised 7, my grandmothers each raised 5 and 6 and they were really good at it...but not everyone is cut out for it.

[Auggie]

171. 1/2

[azmouse]

177. I'm infertile so my lack of children helps balance out

some of the kids in that family. One would have been enough for me but each to their own.

[cynatnite]

186. Since I can't tell a woman how many abortions are too many...

I can't tell her how many kids are too many.

[shrike]

226. You bet. My feelings exactly.

Pro-choice is pro-choice.

[Dulcinea]

246. Well said!

How many kids to have is purely a matter of personal choice, provided you can provide for them. And if you choose not to have kids, that's your choice to make as well.

Neither choice is more "moral" than the other. The earth's resources are drying up for reasons other than people having more than 2 kids apiece. What are you gonna do about that?

Dulcinea

mother of 2 (and no more, because I'm too old & lack the necessary patience for a bigger family)

[Beausoir]

189. Adoption. As a mom who built her family though adoption, I can tell you that 5 is MORE than enough!

;-)

We went from two to four almost overnight. And then our 5th baby came to us and we had to call it quits. The agency kept calling us with placements and we had to decline. (Try making THAT decision just once in your life. Absolutely gut-wrenching.)

There are so many kids out there, right here in THIS country, that need good, loving families.

But, personally? From an exhaustion level, 5 is my high-water mark.

We would have loved to have loved another child, but at some point, it becomes a conveyor belt. Move one child down the belt, make room for another.

I still would love to adopt another special needs child, but I can't do it all.

[NightOwwl]

190. I can't believe how young the mom looks.

She looks really happy, too. Hey, if this is what they want, I say go for it.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

192. Large families sometimes lead to tragedy

People sometimes have large families, especially a bunch of kids close together, and cannot deal with the stress. Without help, isolated mothers are pushed beyond their limits.

1) The most glaring example is Andrea Pia Yates, who had five kids in something like seven years, and killed them feeling guilty because of fundamentalist brainwashing that she was not a good mother. She and her former hubby were warned by a psychiatrist that if she had anymore babies, I believe after the fourth one, her postpartum depression would be a full blown psychosis. Mr. Oblivious See-What-A-Macho-Stud-I-Am Yates ignored this advice. This case has raised a firestorm of controversy, because of her severe mental illness. She will be locked up for the rest of her life probably, because of the severe mental illness, and she needs to be treated in a locked mental health facility, not in a prison.

And the fact that in her first trial she was found sane and guilty of capital murder but not given the death penalty. In her mind she thought she was doing her children a favor by killing them when they were young and not yet sinners, so they would not go to Hell. In my mind, her husband destroyed her and those children by not using condoms, and by being a fundamentalist control freak, not to mention clueless. And the extreme preacher she listened to is also responsible. It is amazing how many people screaming fundamentalists break down mentally and physically with their poisonous preaching.

Follow-up: Mr. Russell Yates has divorced Andrea and remarried at the local Clear Lake Church of Christ. Only a brainwashed woman would hook up with a control freak to be a baby factory for him, IMNSHO.



2) There is a set of quints (no fertility drugs) named Kienast, who were born in 1970. Their father committed suicide because he could not deal with the financial burden. I think they were young adults or possibly in high school when this happened. And he was probably thinking about how in the hell he could send them all to college?



3) Read about the Rev. Fred Phelps, famous protestor at military funerals and person who teaches his children to hate gays while they all go to law school, so nobody sues them. I think he got his wife knocked up every year and had something like 14 kids. Two or three of them have come to their senses and gotten out of this web of hatred, and written exposes of it. You can read them on the web.


Note: I have one child, and my ex husband screamed and yelled at me to get an abortion, and I refused. I did not want to die off without leaving someone behind, and I wanted the experience of motherhood. He got back at me (because I did what he didn't like) by getting custody in the divorce, and making me pay child support until the child graduated from high school. He was the one with the steady job and the health insurance, and the good health, and he was determined to make my life, and my parents' life, total hell, for as many years as he could. I've gone through hell because I loved and wanted that child more than anything in my life and boy have I paid for it, in many ways!!

I have no nieces or nephews. My sister (only sibling) died of incurable cancer 16 years ago. She had no children because she married control freaks that would have been horrified if they had been informed they were going to be a father. They probably would have beaten her up if that had happened.

[CornField]

208. I'm the baby of 13

I really don't care --- 1 or 2.... 12 or 13

[madokie]

210. 13 of us kids 10 of us is still plugging along, youngest is 54

I know for a fact I am older than a big tree, cause I have many in our yard that we planted and they are big assed trees today.

[Fleshdancer]

214. I'm not the kind of mom who could do that

I would go insane. :scared:

[HardRocker05]

215. More than 2 is no different than any other kind of over-consumption, i.e. wrong. nt

[ileus]

216. Ther # you can afford

[lastliberalintexas]

221. We're well on our way to 10 billion people

on this planet, and yet even intelligent, thoughtful progressives on this site are disagreeing with the idea of controlling population growth? Wow.

[RC Quake]

223. In my 20's I would have said 3...

Now, in my 40's I say 2...and each of them must have fur and 4 legs.

Some days I feel blessed never being able to have children. After reading some of these posts, this is one of those days.

[Bridget Burke]

231. If the Kanes had asked, I would have counseled moderation.

But they didn't. They are free to have as many kids as they can handle; they seem to be doing OK.

The story says the family is "bucking a national trend." That is, most people have far fewer kids. That's good news, isn't it?

[WritingIsMyReligion]

250. Why the fuck does anyone want that many kids?

THAT's what I'll never understand. Is trashing the planet not enough without adding to the surplus population?

[Nikia]

270. My grandmother chose to have 6 and her brother had 9

After growing up with no cousins, their mother (their father died when my grandmother was 5), one uncle who never married or had children, and one set of grandparents who lived until my grandmother was a teenager. Despite their small extended family, their grandparents talked constantly about their ancestors and value of family. They also grew up around people with bigger families. They chose to have bigger families and were happy with their choice. I think that my grandmother is doing better after the death of her husband (my grandfather) than if she had fewer children. They regurly drop in various times during the week because they want to, not because they feel obligated like some only children do when they have a widowed parent.
I know that it would not be good ecologically if everyone did that. It isn't good ecologically either for everyone to commute an hour to work in an average car or worse either. I am simply explaining why someone who choose to have many children, who didn't feel that it was required of them.

[rug]

253. Every third child should be required to smoke.

[devilgrrl]

254. We had a family of eight across the street?

:shrug:

[Caoimhe]

255. This thread CRIES OUT for this poster:

[LWolf]

256. There are so many answers to that question.

For someone like me who values having more undeveloped habitat for the rest of the species we share the planet with than human developed or controlled land, water, and air, no one couple should have more than one child until we can get the human population down to where we don't take up so much space.

For loving, emotionally stable people who have the resources to provide a safe, healthy, nurturing home and childhood, those who truly love spending their time interacting with children, "enough" is however many they can manage without impacting the quality of care and life.

For those people who don't like interacting with kids and sharing their lives with them, zero sounds right.

For those people who have not dealt with their own baggage, and are not stable and well-balanced enough to offer a safe, healthy, nurturing home birth - adult, zero until they reach such a state.

For those who know that they don't want kids, zero should be socially acceptable.

For those who want kids to fill their own lacks and needs, or to gain personal power, or to use as tools against others, zero.

For the rest, however many they can love and care for without decreasing quality of care and personal time spent with them.

I just don't have one answer.

[cmf]

257. My personal belief

I think that having more than two biological children is environmentally irresponsible. If you want more children to love, try adopting one of the many children in need of loving parents.

I don't think that we should go to the length that China has to limit growth. But I wouldn't mind changes in the tax law to encourage people to limit the number of biological children that they have and to encourage more people to adopt.

[dropkickpa]

260. I'm one of 6 kids, the only girl

I come from a long line of staunch liberal democrats. My parents are in no way religious. They CHOSE to have all of us. And, I have to say, I couldn't imagine it being better. Of course we had the typical squabbling that happens when you get more than one kid in a room (they don't even have to be related), but I loved it. Hell, I still love it!

I don't get how the Lugo family are spending so much on groceries, that lady must be the junk or "boutique" food queen. My parents certainly didn't spend that much and we never wanted for anything. Okay, we didn't get steak regularly (like the people in the article seem to) except on very rare occasions, but we ate healthily and well (not to mention half of us were vegetarians growing up anyway). We didn't generate half as much garbage as the neighbors with just 1 kid (could tell that on garbage day), we didn't get 400 toys a piece for christmas ($4,000 christmas budget?!?! what the fuck are they buying these kids, and how much of it are they buying???), we didn't recieve a steady stream of toys and junk throughout the year, we'd only ever owned one vehicle (most grocery trips were done during the day via bus by mom, her choice), and mom certainly didn't do 7 loads of laundry a day :crazy: (is this woman changing their outfits 3 times a day or something??). My family was never into the whole conspicuous consumption thing (still aren't).

My oldest brother and his wife are childless by choice (there were some health issues, so they chose to stop trying). The next has 1 son and another on the way, in addition to his wife's daughter from a previous relationship. I have 1 and definitely want more, but now isn't the time for it. The younger sibs are all early - mid 20's not thinking about kids yet, but 2 of them would definitely like them in the future, the other isn't sure.

We didn't grow up with a "mememe" mentality. I learned social responsibility at a very young age, believing we should do what we can to help improve the lives of our neighbors and to help those in need. My parents home was refuge for MANY kids who were cast out of their homes for being freaks, "fags", and just not fundie enough (this was in Texas). Because the family was the size it was, my parents always said "What's 1 or 3 more hurt?". They never turned away a single child in need of safe shelter, and, in fact, we still bring "strays" home for holidays and such all the time. But, judging by many of the posts in this thread, apparently, my family is responsible for a litany of evils, from killing the earth to being selfish.

Anytime discussions veer into the "they should be stopped somehow" realm it sends a serious chill up my spine. I blow a gasket the minute anyone tries to tell anyone what they can do with their body, and this occasion is the same. I have practiced a great deal of restraint in this post. I am sorry, any time supposed liberals start spouting off about how there should be some sort of governmental control (be it through restrictions or some sort of penalties), I shudder to think of the next step. Authoritarianism is NOT something I plan on asking my legislators to embrace. We're too damn close to it as it is.

[Stu DeBeouf]

261. Eight is Enough

If it works for Dick Van Patten it's damn well good enough for anyone.

[citizen snips]

264. four or three

over-population is becoming a problem I think limits should be set.

[Coventina]

265. If you want a bunch of kids, adopt.

Stop overpopulating the planet!!!

That's all I have to say.

[bling bling]

268. I think it's enough when you need TWO vehicles to fit them all.

If you've got so many kids that it takes TWO vehicles with two drivers to transport them all, then I think it's time to call it quits. If there's an emergency and only one parent is home that parent should be able to pile all the kids into the vehicle without putting their safety at risk. And in my state you have to have a child safety seat up to age 8.

But that's just my opinion. To be honest, I really don't care that much about the issue. People can have as many kids as they want to as long as they can handle it financially, physically, and emotionally.

[Dastard Stepchild]

273. For me? 2 or 3 would be tops.....

I just don't think I could personally handle any more than that. I don't like ruckus. And some of those would probably come by way of adoption. And this also supposes that my spouse is willing since he will be providing the majority of the care. :)

But other people? As many as you can financially, emotionally and cognitively handle.

[Evoman]

274. I'm going to put it in perspective for you people.

"During lag phase, bacteria adapt themselves to growth conditions. It is the period where the individual bacteria are maturing and not yet able to divide.

During the exponential phase, the number of new bacteria appearing per unit time is proportional to the present population. This gives rise to the classic exponential growth curve, in which the logarithm of the population density rises linearly with time (see figure). The actual rate of this growth (i.e. the slope of the line in the figure) depends upon the growth conditions, which affect the frequency of cell division events and the probability of both daughter cells surviving. Exponential growth cannot continue indefinitely, however, because the medium is soon depleted of nutrients.

During stationary phase, the growth rate slows as a result of nutrient depletion and accumulation of toxic products. This phase is reached as the bacteria begin to exhaust the resources that are available to them.

At death phase, bacteria run out of nutrients and die."

From Wikipedia "Bacterial Growth".



See this? This is what is goig to happen to us. This is what is going to happen all the precious children you have. They are all going to starve, or die in resource wars. Unfortunately, there is no way to stop it.

It happens in EVERY case where there is exponential growth. And unlike other animals, we can't just move to another environment. THERE IS NO OTHER FUCKING ENVIRONMENT.

Either we, or our children, or our grandchildren, are going to starve to death because we have no control. All of our fucking reason, all of our fucking techonology, and all of our fucking "intelligence" isn't going to mean ANYTHING, because we have to many goddamn baby factories out there.

[mainegreen]

284. Aww, don't let science and harsh reality get in the way of our cotten candy views!

:thumbsup:

[pstokely]

278. Don't have more than you can afford

It costs less to raise 2 kids than it does to raise over 8 kids. If you want a big family, adopt. Parents of large families probably save lots in babysitting.

[JVS]

280. If the kids get fed and aren't abused, I don't care how many people have