I was wondering what members of TWW thought about people who decide to have really big families (6+ kids). What is the rationale/desire of having them, do you consider it socially responsible given the current overcrowding of the world, your own experiences in them, or if there should be limitations to prevent women like the OctoMom from acting as a baby factory on the governments dime.

My g/f's roommate who is her best friend here in wilmington, has an uncle and aunt, on her mom's side both have huge families. Each with in my opinion a mind-blowing almost entertaining background. The roommate's family is the 'exception' since she only has one brother.

The uncle has one kid with his first marriage but after remarrying is expecting his 8th (for a total of 9 kids) with the new wife. Kids ages 2,3,6,10,12,13,17,21. Supposedly the the parents complain about never having free time for themselves and being completely occupied in taking care of their herd. The little ones are wild, cuss, and the parents do not punish them for misbehaving "b.c they are acting like kids" for disrespecting their grandparents house down here at Carolina beach. Some people would say its their life let them do what they wish but the roommate tells me they are on food stamps off and on; as well as frequently get their cell phone and other services disconnected for late payments.

The aunt has 8 kids. I will give her credit b.c supposedly even after being a teen mother (19) has actually made her self a nice living as a real estate agent. She had 5 kids with her 1st marriage, 2 with her 2nd marriage, and a love child with another guy following her 2nd divorce. Her 3 oldest daughters all got pregnant before 20. Luckily the first two got married (at 18) before having a kid, the 2nd who got pregnant (at 17) had a shotgun wedding, but the third just had a baby at 17 (pregnant at 16 by a 21 yr old guy that lives at home , no job, and just got out of jail for a minor charge). Actually met the third daughter who 3 weeks after having the baby; came down to Wilmington (without the baby), to hang out for the weekend. Also the 4th daughter (15 yr old) has come down here to (run away) from home but she's not pregnant yet.

I just find these two families mind-blowing considering that i've met the grandparents and they are an average middle class couple with a house by the beach. Protestant but not overly religious and had three kids (one being the roommates mom). So its not like the aunt and uncle had a direct role model.

I just can not seem to rationalize or figure out the nutty mind set within these people that led to choosing to have such huge families in this modern time considering their non-lower class origins or overly religious upbringing. Guess they must have a devoted love for kids that i never could see myself having.

[Edited on May 17, 2009 at 6:41 PM. Reason : l]

5/17/2009 6:39:45 PM

without reading all that, no i don't particularly agree with huge families

5/17/2009 6:41:15 PM

without reading all that, no i don't particularly agree with huge families

5/17/2009 7:20:21 PM

without reading all that, no i don't particularly agree with huge families

5/17/2009 7:37:12 PM

Seeing as how white collar people have < 2 kids, having a shit load of kids ensures that your genes will take over the white collar class, meaning that your genes will be the boss of everyone. The fact that stupid people's genes are already winning out in sexual selection means that there is an opportunity for your genes to be the big fish in a little pond.


Think genghis kahn


[Edited on May 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM. Reason : Actually, the people in the first post do sound low class]

5/17/2009 8:08:00 PM

without reading all that, I see no problem with huge families

5/17/2009 8:20:04 PM

I'm amazed you can even keep up with all that. I think I have eleven cousins across my mom's five siblings, but I'm not sure. I had most of them over this evening and it reinforced my desire to remain childfree.

Hooray for sleeping in on weekends and disposable income!!

5/17/2009 8:33:55 PM

^ why are you so selfish?

5/17/2009 8:37:25 PM

I do not think that there is anything wrong with having a large family as long as you are able to provide emotionally and financially for each of your children. Unfortunately, there are people out there spitting out kids that they are unable to care for.

While I am only 1 of 3, I come from an extremely large family. My mother was 1 of 9 and my paternal grandfather was 1 of 12. It's wonderful having such a large extended family and I have heard mostly positive things about being one of such a large nuclear family. Though it was financially difficult, my mother had a wonderful childhood. When you have so many siblings, you always have a friend and someone looking out for you -- even as an adult.

5/17/2009 8:39:15 PM

I'm not selfish. I'm thinking of the environment!

5/17/2009 8:44:59 PM

Personally, I'd go insane if I had that many kids. I think I barely have enough patience to share with the two kids I would like to have some day.

5/17/2009 8:45:53 PM

HUR, maybe there is no rationale and they were all unplanned.

Quote :

"Hooray for sleeping in on weekends and disposable income!!"

5/17/2009 8:51:17 PM

My dad is one of 4.

My mom is one of 6

I am one of 4.

I will probably have 2 kids or so.

Most of my extended family have between 1 and 4 kids.

5/17/2009 9:23:03 PM

i think it depends on how you look at it. i think that if you look at it from a personal viewpoint and you are sane (or reasonably sane) and responsible and have enough money to care for several kids, then whatever, you probably think that you are doing the right thing and that as long as they provide their children with what they need, then no harm no foul. but then when you look at it from a social responsibility standpoint, you could probably argue that even having ONE kid is "selfish"

i mean there are crazy environmentalists that want to kill themselves and other people to save the earth.

and it isn't just the environmental impact i guess. you can also think about how every person is going to get sick, every person is going to age, etc etc.

but do we want to put a limit on having children and become like countries that we look down upon? wouldn't that be infringing on people's liberty? and biological desire? but it would also be advisable to encourage social responsibility. of course we can't even get people to stop littering so...go freedom?

but in regards to the OP, i think the whole octomom thing was the fault of a LOT of different people. i don't think that lady is sane at all. also, i'm kind of against in vitro fertilization just on principle. but that is just my personal opinion.

5/17/2009 9:32:45 PM

Yall need to have HUGE families for Social Security sake!!!

5/17/2009 9:39:38 PM

My mom is one of ten. My grandma had 8 boys and then two girls, my mom being the first girl. My mom didn't get to do as much as she wanted when she was a kid. So me being her only child she enrolled me in every activity she could and let me do pretty much whatever I wanted.

5/17/2009 9:48:20 PM

Quote :

"given the current overcrowding of the world"

Somebody's never driven across the country before.

5/17/2009 9:57:57 PM

but just because there is empty space doesn't mean the world isn't overcrowded???

i'm confused.

5/17/2009 10:01:48 PM

If there's empty space, is it overcrowded? Just because the lousy governments we install and support can't take care of us, does that mean we're overcrowded?

I'm not really feeling the argument, but I'm just saying.

[Edited on May 17, 2009 at 10:03 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2009 10:03:02 PM

one kid, two max

5/17/2009 10:09:11 PM

Quote :

"do you consider it socially responsible given the current overcrowding of the world"

This is not really the problem people make it out to be. The planet -- and this country in particularly -- is capable of sustaining a lot more people than it currently does, as long as things aren't managed with a Soviet or Maoist level of incompetence.

But as to the bigger issue in your post, I have no problem with people having as large a family as they can reasonably care for. Some sort of restructuring is necessary to prevent people from pumping out babies to milk the public coffers, I agree. But in contrast to your examples, I'm friends with one family that had six or seven kids (I can never remember -- haven't met all of them). All but one of those kids is a college graduate or on track to be one. The parents are middle class, and while they are Catholic they're not particularly religious as far as I've been ever to tell. They've never taken a dime of taxpayer or charity money.

As far as I can tell, their having a big family has served to increase the number of intelligent, productive members of society. And, among people who are at least a little responsible, large families mean a large support and contact network.

It all boils down to the same old common sense that gets thrown around so much: Don't get things you can't afford. That includes kids, and "afford" refers to responsibility as well as money.

Quote :

"Guess they must have a devoted love for kids that i never could see myself having."

Well, in terms of not being able to understand it, I'm with you -- I can sort of see why someone would want three kids, but after that it just confuses me. But, I also can't understand why anybody would watch anime, get off on feet, or be vegetarian, and I don't try to stop any of them from doing their thing as long as it isn't causing me a direct problem.

Quote :

"but just because there is empty space doesn't mean the world isn't overcrowded??? "

How do you define "overcrowded?" We have large tracts of open, habitable space. We have the capacity to produce a substantial surplus of food. So what's the problem?

[Edited on May 17, 2009 at 10:17 PM. Reason : ]

5/17/2009 10:14:51 PM

^^^ i think the people talking about the environmental side aren't really arguing about the government as much as like sustainability. like if we (humans) keep reproducing and consuming (esp limited resources) at the current rate then the earth will just explode or we'll all eat each other or something.

i don't really know, that is just what they say. oh so the point being you shouldn't have 12 kids you should maybe stick to 2 (but some people argue that that is even too many since that is like the average or whatever). or take one of the famliless ones that is already here. or something.

^ well yea we have large open spaces. so should we inhabit them? should we (US citizens) just have more babies since we can sustain them? OR should we just relocate like 3 million indian people to the midwest? or do we just not care about those people? i can never remember if we are nationalist, isolationist (if those two are different) or if we are trying to save the world. it is exhausting to keep up with.

[Edited on May 17, 2009 at 10:22 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2009 10:18:39 PM

^^^^Carrying capacity is something you might find interesting.

I think it's really irresponsible and selfish for people to have a lot of children, mostly because of the environmental impact their decision will have.

[Edited on May 17, 2009 at 10:22 PM. Reason : arrows]

5/17/2009 10:22:07 PM

I don't see what's so mysterious about why you have a lot of kids: for most people, the biggest impact they will ever have on anything in their lives is through their kids. Nobody is going to remember someone for their lives as a work drone. Therefore, popping out kids provides the biggest return on investment in terms of making your existence notable.

5/17/2009 10:32:20 PM

Quote :

"I do not think that there is anything wrong with having a large family as long as you are able to provide emotionally and financially for each of your children. "

agreed.

I'm 1 of 6 (10 years between youngest & oldest). Part of it was religion and part came from my parents' desire for lots of kids. They were able to provide everything we needed. Tons of relatives on mom's side - she is 1 of 9, grandma 1 of 14, etc...I think they needed lots of children to help on their farm back then. I love being from a big family but I cannot fathom raising 6 kids

[Edited on May 17, 2009 at 10:46 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2009 10:45:10 PM

Quote :

"do we want to put a limit on having children and become like countries that we look down upon"

If you are living on the gov't dime in subsidized housing,with foodstamps, and receiving a welfare check; I think Uncle
Sam has a right to 'discourage' you from having additional children that will cost espicially since these offspring
will be an additional cost under the child health care act.

Quote :

"Just because the lousy governments we install and support can't take care of us"

Uhh...

The role of the gov't is not to pamper you and provide you with a certain standard of living. This is YOUR responsibility. The
gov't only role in your welfare should be a temporary safety net to mitigate unexpected economic or situational crisises. Not
to be your lifelong supply line.

Back to my OP my roommate and temp roommate are cousins. Eventhough they each have 2 and 3 siblings respectively their extended family
is quite large. Not that i wish i had 2 more siblings or want 4 kids of my own; it kind of sucks that my extended family is
relatively quite small. My grandparents had 2 and 3 kids; with each of them having 2 kids. Kinda makes for a small extended family.
At the other extreme though during my California trip last month my buddy took me to the reception of the civil wedding (they are
having a ceremonial one in August) for his roommate. The couple was Hispanic but only the grooms family lives in the US
and was able to attend the post-wedding reception. His extended family alone though devoured almost an entire restaurant with 50+ people.




[Edited on May 17, 2009 at 10:54 PM. Reason : l]

5/17/2009 10:50:16 PM

just fire in the hole and see what happens.

5/17/2009 10:55:32 PM

Quote :

"If you are living on the gov't dime in subsidized housing,with foodstamps, and receiving a welfare check; I think Uncle Sam has a right to 'discourage' you from having additional children that will cost espicially since these offspring will be an additional cost under the child health care act."

yea try bringing that up to americans and see how many "F CHINA" responses you get

5/17/2009 11:04:59 PM

I've heard somewhere that the resource cost of raising one American child is five times the global average. I think we need to worry about creating a sustainable lifestyle before looking at limiting population.

5/17/2009 11:17:31 PM

My dad was one of 16
My mom was one of 3
I'm one of 2
My daughter is 1 of probably 1

[Edited on May 17, 2009 at 11:23 PM. Reason : also, IBHDBP (In Before HUR Starts Disparaging Black People)]

5/17/2009 11:22:49 PM

Quote :

"yea try bringing that up to americans "

Guess depends on what community. I'm sure a lot of the patriotic flag-waving blue collar republican card toting crowd would agree.

5/17/2009 11:45:46 PM

Quote :

"like if we (humans) keep reproducing and consuming (esp limited resources) at the current rate then the earth will just explode or we'll all eat each other or something."

Sure, if our population always increases forever then eventually we'll run out of shit on Earth. Can't argue against that. But the real question is -- are we close to that point? If we're not close, why do we need to start clamping down on breeding right now? Will we ever really have to clamp down, ever, or will increasing scarcity decrease the incentive to have many children?

Quote :

"oh so the point being you shouldn't have 12 kids you should maybe stick to 2 (but some people argue that that is even too many since that is like the average or whatever)."

Well it turns out that every woman having two babies leads to population shrinkage and, eventually, extinction. Two kids replaces two parents, but some kids are going to die before they have kids. I forget what the number is, but basically the replacement fertility rate is greater than 2.

Quote :

"well yea we have large open spaces. so should we inhabit them? should we (US citizens) just have more babies since we can sustain them? OR should we just relocate like 3 million indian people to the midwest? or do we just not care about those people? i can never remember if we are nationalist, isolationist (if those two are different) or if we are trying to save the world. it is exhausting to keep up with."

To be honest, very little of this makes much sense (especially the part about the Indians), but I'll do what I can.

1) I'm not saying that we should populate areas just because we have them. I'm saying that we can populate them a good deal more and still have room to make food. Since we can support big families, who are you to tell people they shouldn't?

2) If "indian people" means "people from India," it's not our job to run their country. India has room, too. It's a big country in terms of area, too, as is China. Both of these countries have poorly planned cities incapable of supporting large populations in their current fashion, but they do have places in their own countries where people can move. Of course, we've also moved Native American Indian people out to the midwest, and if that's what you're talking about then frankly I'm confused as shit.

3) We haven't been isolationist since WWII. Isolationist is different from nationalist, but they are not mutually exclusive. We do like to try to help the rest of the world, but it isn't our #1 concern and never will be.

5/18/2009 1:10:06 AM

i think it is atrocious
i have little desire to have kids at all, much less for multiple heathens
very socially irresponsible
any experience with children is usually thoroughly annoying
i wish, but i don´t think i can support those limitations at the current time

5/18/2009 1:20:19 AM

i think it is atrocious
i have NO desire to have kids at all, much less for multiple heathens
very socially irresponsible
any experience with children is always thoroughly annoying
i wish, but i don´t think i can support those limitations at the current time

5/18/2009 8:03:53 AM

I am definitely not a fan of overly large families (tho especially in welfare situations). Obviously a long time ago there was a point to having a big family in providing extra workers around the house/farm as well as other reasons. In today's world not so much. I definitely want kids but probably just 2; If I could have 1 boy and 1 girl like my parents had I would definitely stop there.

5/18/2009 8:21:28 AM

^3 probably because i wasn't being serious with the last part

5/18/2009 9:27:20 AM

Fumbler's mom is one of 9 or so. he has like 45+ cousins.

my dad is 1 of 5, mom is 1 of 2. my mom's brother has no kids, so no cousins on that side for me. i have 7 cousins on dad's side. i'm not close to any of them...barely know them at all.

it was such a different experience meeting chris's family. although there's so many of them spread out all over the country, they're very close. they get along. they like each other. i love it. we dont want more than 2 kids though.

5/18/2009 9:32:04 AM

I wanted a big family before I had any kids ... now that I have 2, and a 3rd on the way, I have realized that I was crazy for wanting such a life....


With that said, I dont think its socially irresponsible (or that overcrowding is even an issue) if you can feed those you bring into this world... If you cant take care of them, then you should have none.

3 will be a handful for us, and we are stopping there because there is really no reason why you should have more than a few kids... well... no good reason, unless you have a farm

5/18/2009 9:33:50 AM

damn dude, 3rd on the way? Congrats!

Better start cranking out some more iphone apps. They sure as hell don't pay us enough at crisco to support big families

5/18/2009 9:55:43 AM

my mom is the last of 10

my dad is an only child

im the last of 5

me and my wife have 2, planning on one more at some point

someone brought up the welfare arguement, when I was a single father going to college, just being the single father qualified me for some benefits, one time i was in the waiting room and an unmarried, unemployed woman with 3 kids at 19 told me i had no right to be taking her money (and her race has nothing to do with the arguement at hand, so dont ask)

im sorry but going to college to be able to support children later is better than sitting on your ass and having babies, i think that offended her

if anyone on here is a single parent trying to go to school, go to the welfare office, social services, etc, and get all the help you can, at least when you graduate and get a job, you will get to pay the system back unlike some people

5/18/2009 10:15:51 AM

^ you should have taken a crowbar to her ovaries.

5/18/2009 10:34:55 AM

Quote :

"unmarried, unemployed woman with 3 kids at 19 told me i had no right to be taking her money "

3 children at 19???
WTF
Let me guess did she live off of Method Rd.

5/18/2009 11:52:25 AM

Hey now, I used to live off Method Rd., and I don't have any unwanted children.

'Course, I got a lot of practice with the falcon punch, but . . .

Actually, come to think of it, in a year on Method Rd. I didn't really see many kids. Drug dealers and prostitutes and violence, yes. Kids, no.

5/18/2009 11:57:57 AM

i know of 4 families with lots of kids. all are very strong in their christian faith (not necessarily catholic) and have seen children as a blessing. and it's been their belief that they are just blessed with that many or felt that they should care for many children and adopt. one family i know had 5 kids (all girls) and then adopted 2 more (both boys).

i don't know what the parents of one family does (i've only heard about them through my fiance), but the 3 others that i know one of the parents is a doctor. in one family the dad is a lawyer and the mom is a doctor.

5/18/2009 12:02:24 PM

Quote :

"been their belief that they are just blessed"

They must have missed the birds in the bees talk as children that when a man loves a woman he puts his willy into her cha-cha and a baby is created.

5/18/2009 12:08:41 PM

To say that we have plenty of food so overpopulation is a mute argument ignores the inevitable problem. Human population, just like any population, grows at an exponential rate. That may be an increasing rate or a decreasing rate, either way it's exponential.

That means that no matter how bountiful the world seems today, over-reproducing will inevitably damn us to a resource-constrained world. No matter what. To not address the issue today only prolongs dealing with it for a future generation that is validly confronted with a population problem. This is a reality that is apparent today, was apparent 100 years ago, and will always be there. We have the option of dealing with it before shit hits the fan, or dealing with it after the shit hits the fan.

Really, I'm a fan of reproductive rights for all. If you're a person, someone raised you, so you should be able to raise your own. Unfortunately, the laws of the universe really don't give a flying flip about our whimsical thoughts on human rights. The 'rights' argument (for someone to have 8 children as long as they can take care of them), combined with physical limits may someday condemn billions of people to slow and painful starvation.

It also is a mute argument to say that things are stabilizing. Europe, for instance, developed and now has a low birth rate. So much so that the low birth rate is a problem. So this can just happen for everywhere and we'll all be saved right? Sure, but the real problem is like whack-a-mole. If you depress birth rates in one place by bringing about prosperity, then their neighbor may still continue to be undeveloped and sustain a population explosion. Again, an exponential just continues to increase as long as people have children above replacement rate. So whatever socio-economic conditions lead to larger birth rates will inevitably consume the entire world. Now what you Godless liberals?! And once again, our world is doomed to a slow and suffering path of starvation and wars for billions of people.

Oh well.

5/18/2009 12:10:57 PM

we're expecting our first child this december. the husband wants 3 total, i don't really want more than 2. i don't come from a big family and have no desire to have one.

as far as other people go, i feel like it's a bad idea (in general) but i typically don't have a problem with families that are about to emotionally/financially/physically handle a large family. But, obviously, those are few and far between now-a-days and i can't personally justify having more children than will replace the parents for future generations.

5/18/2009 12:34:51 PM

Quote :

"That means that no matter how bountiful the world seems today, over-reproducing will inevitably damn us to a resource-constrained world."

Yes, it will, eventually (if over-reproduction continues to be the issue). Eventually a lot of things will be a problem no matter what the population does. The Earth has a ticking clock on it no matter what. Eventually an extinction-level asteroid will hit the Earth. Why is it that we need to deal with this problem right now? You say it's so that we don't put the problem on "future generations." In order to accomplish that, though, you want to tell this generation and future generations how to live their lives. "Guys, fuck your freedom, this is for your own good."

Quote :

"We have the option of dealing with it before shit hits the fan, or dealing with it after the shit hits the fan."

Why is it inevitable that shit will hit the fan? I think that most people in the world, presented with a real choice (other than just not fucking, which we know doesn't work), will chose to have no more kids than they can adequately support. As the population grows, the price of certain necessities will eventually increase. That, in turn, decreases the number of kids that people can afford. Of course, in order for this to really work you've got to improve the availability of education and birth control in many parts of the world, and that's something I wholeheartedly support -- and something that's already happening.

So increasing prices leads to fewer kids, which eventually results in a shrinking or at least stable population. Accomplished without significant government intervention, mass famines, or bloody wars.

Quote :

"The 'rights' argument (for someone to have 8 children as long as they can take care of them), combined with physical limits may someday condemn billions of people to slow and painful starvation."

The sort of people who can adequately take care of eight kids are generally the kind of people that can recognize an imminent population problem and decide against having so many.

Quote :

"If you depress birth rates in one place by bringing about prosperity, then their neighbor may still continue to be undeveloped and sustain a population explosion."

But what should these areas with depressed birth rates do about their neighbors? Why do the populations in the US and Europe have to maintain small families and shrinking populations just because Bangladesh's birthrate continues to rise? In other words, what do these "other areas" have to do with our own family size?

Quote :

"So whatever socio-economic conditions lead to larger birth rates will inevitably consume the entire world."

If they exist forever, sure. But the trend of history seems to indicate that those trends don't continue forever. Europe used to be poor and backwards. Now it's not. In much more recent memory, India used to be a shithole. Now...well, OK, it's still a shithole, but it's not as much of one (and its birthrate has fallen off quite a bit since 2000). China used to be poor and backwards, and while parts of it continue to be, its most densely populated areas make it an economic powerhouse to which the entire world is beholden.

Poor countries don't stay poor forever, and rich countries rarely fall into abject poverty. There will always be a disparity, meaning there will always be "rich" and "poor," but I submit that there is an absolute threshold for social and economic development at which population growth reaches a stable and sustainable level. And sooner or later, everywhere on the planet will hit that threshold.

5/18/2009 12:55:35 PM

Quote :

"Why is it that we need to deal with this problem right now? You say it's so that we don't put the problem on "future generations." In order to accomplish that, though, you want to tell this generation and future generations how to live their lives"

I'll dump my oil into the drainage ditch if i wan to! Fuck the environment its not my responsibility to ensure its conservation! AM I RITE?

Quote :

"presented with a real choice (other than just not fucking, which we know doesn't work), will chose to have no more kids than they can adequately support"

Unfortuantly many people including religious bible thumpers and ignorant lower class members do not think of their life or the world
in such logical ways. this...

Quote :

"As the population grows, the price of certain necessities will eventually increase. That, in turn, decreases the number of kids that people can afford."

is thrown out the door when Tammie Sue can just mosey down to the social services office to pick up her welfare check after Billy Rae
lost his job and is not able to feed the 3 children.

Quote :

"So increasing prices leads to fewer kids, which eventually results in a shrinking or at least stable population."

How do you explain 3rd world AFrica?

Quote :

"US and Europe have to maintain small families and shrinking populations just because Bangladesh's birthrate continues to rise"

I think u are missing the thought train. Your average middle class family does not limit the chidren they have to 2 b.c they want
to offset Amjadin in Bangladesh's 10 kids.

Quote :

"the trend of history seems to indicate that those trends don't continue forever"

what trend is this.

Quote :

" Poor countries don't stay poor forever,"

Egypt must be like the Chicago Cubs of world economies. After doing well in 3000BC they have been slumping since.

thanks grumps for turning this into a soap box thread [/sarcasm]

5/18/2009 1:09:11 PM

Quote :

"birds in the bees"

birds AND the bees

but knock the "blessed" idea all you want...for some families it is religion that is their...

Quote :

"What is the rationale/desire of having them"

...rationale/desire for having a big family. gub'mint and overcrowding be damned...

5/18/2009 1:13:46 PM