RE: How many kids should a person have

[The Straight Story]

Myself, I have 5 kids. 3 with my x wife (who has since passed on, she had one more after we split with her new husband), 1 with an x GF, and one with my wife - and I also have 2 grand kids.

I have never had any kids myself (being that I am guy and all...), the women who had them made a choice to keep them (which I supported).

I am pro choice when it comes to reproductive rights, from having kids to not having them.

During my travels on the net I have come across some who think that reproductive rights should be restricted for one of two reasons:
1. Because they see abortion as murder
2. Because they see 'too many' births as harming us all

This all goes deeper though to me than just this issue - it goes to the heart of freedom for all versus how your life and actions impact mine and so they should be regulated for the common good (though I would cite the Amish and such here who tend not to rely on others and can feed their own with minimal impact, but that is another discussion entirely).

So how do you feel - should a woman be allowed to have as many children as she wishes, or should she be regulated based upon a belief that her having kids negatively affects the rest of us - and does that open a whole new can of worms?

[UndertheOcean]

1. My personal opinion right now is let life sort itself out

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. laws and ethics are not the same thing necessarily

laws are the minimum ethics we have to keep to have a functional society

i do not believe we should mandate how many children a woman can or cannot have

however i do believe its unethical for an educated person to have a large number of children. the population is a major cause of global warming. we have limited resources and every person having a large number of children is an unsustainable way of living.
its selfish to do this to the human race and to future generations.

however our rights over our reproductive organs and bodies are absolute.

[UndertheOcean]

4. Nothing is absolute..

That wasn't true in medieval times , and it may not be true in the future . Truth is the projection of our world view into the chaotic world. Meaning we have to constantly fight for what we maintain to be an "absolute
right" , but once our rights are in conflict with the survival of the species , life will sort itself out , and the price may be terrible.


what can we do then other than be fatalistic ? we can use our intelligence to lessen the suffering , rather than leave our fate to blind forces.


Population control , through statutory means , is a future reality , no matter how we ideally think of it . But we still can and should ease the suffering through that transition too.

Doing nothing is surely not ethical.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. education is the answer. just because we dont want to really educate people

doesnt mean its not the answer

education is inversely correlated with population growth

[UndertheOcean]

8. Yes , there's a problem though ,

See , the more educated tend to be the more affluent . And more affluent people consume much more resources .

The consumption rate per capita is crux of the matter.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. i think investment in education would lower birthrate.

and would prevent legislation of womens bodies.

consumption can also be decreased if we wanted it to, as is we dont care about it.

seperate issues.

[JitterbugPerfume]

12. that is an individual choice

and none of our business

It reeks of eugenics

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. people shouldnt have more children because the world cant sustain it, reeks of eugenics

especially people who are well educated?

i think if anything my argument, is antieugenics

[JitterbugPerfume]

20. I didn't mean to sound so shrill

of course people should be personally responsible

[codjh9]

26. The world CAN'T sustain it, though... too many people are exacerbating just about

every problem the world is facing today. Overconsumption is a problem too - i.e. everyone's burden on the earth isn't equal, and the US is one of the worst - but every person is using resources, and we've got 6.7 billion today as opposed to 1 billion less than 200 years ago. That level of growth is utterly unsustainable.

[misanthrope]

21. I concur. Well said**nm

**

[Gormy Cuss]

25. That's how I see it too.

Although I believe that "educated" needs to be defined here as aware of the role that a high global population plays in the environmental stress. The world population increased rapidly in the 20th century and even though the rate has slowed a bit in recent decades, the sheer numbers are sobering.

The UN estimates are that the world population was
* 1 billion in 1804
* 2 billion in 1927 (123 years later)
* 3 billion in 1960 (33 years later)
* 4 billion in 1974 (14 years later)
* 5 billion in 1987 (13 years later)
* 6 billion in 1999 (12 years later)

It's hard to say that there's some magical limit of children that would be right for every individual but it's pretty hard to be educated about the impact without seeing that the buck needs to stop somewhere, so why not here and now, and why not with me?

[shraby]

3. Since every person is different

that is a personal decision each one has to make. I made mine and others should have the freedom to make theirs.

[FedUpWithIt All]

5. I have four and that is really all i need to be concerned with.

I find it very bothersome when people talk out one side of their mouths about women's rights when it comes to abortion and then out the other when a woman chooses to have more than a certain number of children.


The same goes for those who scream about life when they advocate loose and broad wars that kill innocent children.

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

Population reduction is not the ONLY way to reduce the harm being done to our planet. My families footprint is rather low for an American family, four children notwithstanding. I know of people with no children who CONSUME (travel, large vehicles/homes, exotic foods, tons of tech gadgets...)like there is no tomorrow.

If everyone would spend more time concerning themselves with cleaning up their own impact as much as possible the world would be a much better place.

[slackmaster]

7. However many they end up having is the right number

:shrug:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

9. Personally

I think that if the choice not to procreate were as respected and honored as the choice to procreate it would balance out. As a childless-by-choice person, I cannot tell you how many times I've had to defend my life to co-workers, acquaintances, and even perfect strangers. I'd estimate a lot more often than the average person with a large brood, though I know there are rude people weighing in on that as well. If it were simply okay not to be a parent, and people weren't pressured by family or their culture or their government to procreate ("How can you be so selfish!" "You owe me grandchildren!" "Gawd says to be fruitful and multiply!"), AND contraception and good sex ed were readily available, I think a lot more people would opt out of parenting and there would be no call to limit the size of families of people who wanted children.

Let's face it, a cursory glance at the TV news or papers reveals that a LOT of people are unfit parents who probably didn't want their kids. And that's just the awful tip of the iceburg. Think about all the people out there who may not physically abuse their kids but clearly don't care for them too much. I've gotten in trouble for pointing this out on DU before. Some people seem to think that because their fiercely protective parental instinct kicked in while they were pregnant, or when the squalling newborn was placed in their arms, that their experience is universally applicable. It's not. Therapists are kept in business by all the people for whom it was not the case.

Just my $.02.

[foxfeet]

18. I've never understood that "How can you be so selfish?" BS. n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

19. I know. If I'm so "selfish" then why do they want me to be a parent? nt

[mitchum]

30. Actually, popping out kids can be seen as selfishness masquerading as "virtue"...

"Come marvel at and applaud this glorious extension of...ME!!!"

[foxfeet]

37. And I fear there's a good deal of that going around. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. We just adopted 2 more cats. Easier to herd, and cheaper to feed.

And, they don't need diapers.

[Beregond2]

10. Rationally,

no one should be having any kids until the planet's population gets down to about one fourth what it is now. Every single problem we have has it's roots in overpopulation. But it is useless to talk about reproduction and reason in the same breath. The need to breed seems to be as hardwired as the need to breathe.

[The Straight Story]

15. but would you, if you could, translate that into legislation

or do you think it should be?

[prayin4rain]

11. as many as you can provide a safe and nurturing environment for. n/t

[question everything]

13. Some judges think so

see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=226x6727

The problem, of course, is that those whom others want to regulate are the poor who can barely support themselves, or who abuse their children and it is up to society to help mother and child.

Yet, Roe vs. Wade should hold for both terminating and keeping a pregnancy.

[EFerrari]

16. I don't think it's about the number of kids.

(I have two and would have had three if Nature hadn't changed her mind.)

It's about people who have to blame the victims every time.

Why didn't they evacuate?

Why did they talk to that cop?

Why did they enlist?

Why did they have those children?

Why did they buy that house?

Why did they come here?

Why did they live with that man?

Why did they shop at CostCo?

It's like clockwork.

[sinkingfeeling]

22. I still cling to the decades old, 'zero population' thing. You reproduce yourself and call it quits.

You're a guy so you have to have some help. Two kids per couple = each person reproducing themselves.

[Greyhound]

23. Not a governmental issue at all IMO. Society can, and I think should, exert

pressure to inhibit rampant breeding since we have more than enough people already, but again, that's just me.

[LeftinOH]

24. Nobody "should" have kids. People ought to WANT them -and not simply

produce children because everyone else is doing it -or because thats what the family expects of you.

[shanti]

42. unfortunately

that's what happened during the (first) baby boom. people had kids because they felt they had to, not because they particularly wanted them. my father is a prime example and has even said that he didn't really want kids.

i hope our kids (the boomer's kids) don't follow this path.

[alfredo]

27. No more than they can eat at one sitting.

[mitchum]

31. LMAO!

nicely done :)

[alfredo]

40. Thanks, it's a family recipe.

[hyphenate]

28. A woman has the right to have as many

children as she wants, except when the cost of the care and upkeep of said children is forced upon the public coffers. We already have enough kids in a social system which is never fair to them--why reward a mother who keeps on having babies she cannot support simply to get more money out of the system? And the foster care system in this country downright sucks. Just ask any one of a million children who are in that system.

Yes, Welfare is a safety net and it works when people need it, but we should not be supporting second or third generation Welfare recipients! That is one of the few things I will argue to the death on, having seen many abuses of it. People just shouldn't be using their children for monetary gain!

I would LOVE to see fundie women have their tubes tied after their second or third child. We really don't need any more Duggar families out there, and I think we will soon reach the maximum we need for service personnel in the near future. ;) (For those who can't see obvious humor in this paragraph, DO note the wink emoticon)

Although truth be told, we see all these fundie types protesting women who get abortions, but I honestly think the majority of these bitches would never be the type who would adopt the many children in the foster system (many who might be biracial and handicapped or older)--they all want only perfect, white babies, and nothing less will do. If a child has some problem, it's "screw you" to them.

I do think that educated women have less children than their less educated counterparts, and that really seriously skews the gene pool. Undereducated women are also less likely to have pre-natal care, the means to support a larger family, and a firm idea of what having a child can be like. Sort of like having a dog or a cat and regard it as "property" instead of an intelligent, living creature. Too often people enter into having a child and try to wing it instead of becoming more involved with what will face that child years later. Some spontaneity is all right, but inconsistency is one of the reasons children get so fucked up during their lives. Some rules need to be applied in order to set boundaries.

I don't think everyone is cut out to be a parent, rich or poor, educated or uneducated. I think there are MANY bad mothers are out there, and I wish there was some kind of a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, but if there is such a way in the future, we are a LONG way from it.

[Lyric]

33. Wrong. The "Welfare Queen" is a Repuke myth.

Women do not have babies in order to milk the system for more money. When AFDC was replaced by TANF, many states chose to implement something called a "family cap." In family cap states, women who have additional babies while receiving TANF benefits do NOT receive an increase in their benefits. The expected result was that birthrates in families receiving welfare would decline. However, this did not happen.

While rates among welfare recipients did decline between August 1992 and July 1995, the researchers found that the rate of decline was "virtually identical" for women subject to the cap and for a control group that continued to receive a benefit increase if they had another child. Among both groups of women, birthrates fell from 11% in 1992-1993 to 6% in 1994-1995, a trend, the researchers noted, that also was "consistent with birthrates in the general population in New Jersey." The results did not change when the researchers controlled for the age and race of the nearly 8,500 women studied.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/01/1/gr010110.html

If welfare recipients were really having babies just to get more welfare money, then logic says that when such an outcome was no longer possible, they would have ceased producing children. In fact, they did not. The truth is that there was never a problem with "welfare Moms" having oodles of babies to begin with. For every "welfare Mom" you see who's walking around with five kids, there are five more who only have one, and four more who only have two.

Some other statistics from 2002 (the most recent I could find):

Average number of persons in TANF families: 2.5
Average number of recipient children: 1.9
50% percent of TANF families had only one child
Only 1 in 10 TANF families had 3+ children

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/annualreport6/chapter10/chap10.htm#families

Half of all TANF families have only one child. 90 percent of them have three or less. Nobody's having babies for bucks, so stop perpetuating that nauseating right-wing myth. It's a racist myth at heart--something the right-wing dreamed up to subtly frighten white America, because the majority of welfare recipients are racial minorities, and there's nothing white America fears more than non-white women having lots of babies.

Welfare recipients are not cartoon stereotypes--they are human beings with complex problems that there are no simple answers for. As for your "uneducated women are breeding and fucking up the gene pool" comment--bullshit. Education isn't an inherited trait. There are plenty of extremely intelligent people who are also poor, because they had few opportunities and no resources to do anything WITH that intelligence. There are also a hell of a lot of "educated" morons. Try a little less sanctimonious stereotyping and a little more compassion.

[fed_up_mother]

34. Women don't have babies in order to get welfare, but some do get pregnant

knowing they have no means of supporting the child. Or as the case may be - children. It's not a matter of purposeness, as much as it is a case of carelessness.

[dana_b]

36. yes.

I'm sure we've all met people like this and really there is not a damn thing we can do about it. Nor do I feel it's my business - unless harm comes to the child(ren).

How many children should a person have? It's all up to that person. I'd love to say just one per couple (to give our planet a break) but I can't. It's not up to me or anyone else here.

[Lyric]

50. That is completely absurd.

"Some do get pregnant knowing they have no means of supporting the child."

This implies that women "get pregnant" all by themselves. I say that most women who are pregnant tend to think that the fathers will help them support the child--a reasonable expectation, I might add, although in this day and age, one that seems less and less likely to work out.

I got pregnant by a man I was engaged to, who later inherited half a million dollars and abandoned both me and our baby to go live in another country. I've never seen him since. Was that my fault? I was engaged to a man who had the means to support our family, and HE backed out and ran away like a selfish coward. I chose to keep the baby, because I *wanted* the baby, and because I still loved him and hoped that he'd come to his senses--again, I'd bet that this is not an unusual hope among women. It didn't happen for me. Not by MY choice, but by HIS.

So now we blame women for the selfishness and cruelty of men? I suppose women should somehow be psychic, now. :eyes:

[hyphenate]

47. Au contraire

My comments are based on real, verifiable statistics within MY OWN LIFE. I have personally seen incredible abuse of the welfare system with my own eyes, across the board racially and across the board based on educational standards, as well as horrendous abuse of children.

One of my sister's friends had a working husband, three kids, and bilked the Welfare system for several years. Someone finally reported her and her husband, and they ended up having to repay the system.

Another one of her "friends" had severe psychological problems, was a drug addict, and had a husband who lived with her off and on. The final linchpin in her life was when she repeatedly stabbed her elder (of 2) sons and they finally convicted her of abuse.

A family I went to work for in one of the projects was sitting around waiting for their welfare check--father, mother and children. There was NOTHING wrong with the father. Instead of sitting around, he should have been out working. And the apartment was filthy: cockroaches everywhere. I told my agency if they didn't get me out of there, I was going to quit. They finally got me out.

A SIL had several babies which "mysteriously" died of SIDS. DSS took her fourth one, and that was it.

I could sit here and write down incident after incident for quite some time, but the point I began with was that my comments about Welfare and about child abuse are from personal experience, and not apocryphal. And BTW, the general race of the women (and men) in my life are Caucasian, so there is little racism involved. I know the seedy underside of society from my life, and not from rumors or innuendo. My mom never was on Welfare, but we were never rich, and she welcomed the food help enormously at times. To this day, I despise Velveeta cheese, peanut butter and whatever other horrid foods she got from the system.

Granted, most of my experiences come from before Welfare "reform" but I know only too well what can be done to manipulate the system for gain.

On the other hand, I've had experiences of my own: after my second heart attack, when I lost my insurance, I tried to apply for Medi-Cal, to only be told I wasn't "disabled." And I finally lost it with the social worker, and said, if I had been a pregnant teenager coming in to apply I'd have no trouble getting the health care I needed. She went on to tell me that if I thought the "coverage" was better in another state I mentioned, they would give me a one-way ticket to go there.

Your comment:

Welfare recipients are not cartoon stereotypes--they are human beings with complex problems that there are no simple answers for. As for your "uneducated women are breeding and fucking up the gene pool" comment--bullshit. Education isn't an inherited trait. There are plenty of extremely intelligent people who are also poor, because they had few opportunities and no resources to do anything WITH that intelligence. There are also a hell of a lot of "educated" morons. Try a little less sanctimonious stereotyping and a little more compassion.

That is NOT what I said. My comment was:

I do think that educated women have less children than their less educated counterparts, and that really seriously skews the gene pool. Undereducated women are also less likely to have pre-natal care, the means to support a larger family, and a firm idea of what having a child can be like. ....Too often people enter into having a child and try to wing it instead of becoming more involved with what will face that child years later. Some spontaneity is all right, but inconsistency is one of the reasons children get so fucked up during their lives. Some rules need to be applied in order to set boundaries.

Which reads quite a bit different from your interpretation of it.

I've lived most of my life in the city, but strangely enough, the stories I mentioned are fairly equally divided between the city and the suburbs. It's never a geographical matter, but more related to the educational level and financial level of people. Having the desire to know something, too, is a factor: some people just don't want to put any kind of effort into learning, and while the knowledge of biology, birth control and parenthood is free and available, some people just refuse to learn it. People just don't want to think that natural law applies to them, and instead of getting help, they ignore the situation.


I don't live above the economic level of many of the people on welfare--I collect my disability, and that's that. I've used food stamps, I've gotten fuel assistance, and even had state disability before my SS-Disability kicked in. I've had a lot of help from family and friends over the years, but more importantly, I DID have a great education. So what if it isn't exactly rosy right now--I will manage to survive if I have to. But I can't look at Welfare or other government handouts as being the anodyne of the "unwashed masses" as some people do--I have to look at it as a facet of my own life, and of the people around me. It's not very lofty, but it is real and it's my experience.

[Lyric]

49. I could care less about your anecdotes.

I have plenty of anecdotes myself that contradict yours completely, because I am currently poor, have plenty of neighbors and family members who receive welfare (or have in the past) and I have *never* seen abuse of the system. Not ever, not once. I've seen plenty of abuse BY the system, but never the opposite.

Did you not consider that perhaps your personal experience isn't a good enough reason to viciously stereotype and villify welfare recipients, because maybe, just maybe, your personal experience is really atypical? I'm sure my own experience isn't 100% typical either, but I didn't base my argument on my own experience--I provided objective facts and data.

As for your accusation of misinterpretation--when you start talking about "skewed gene pools" in association with a rant against poor people, there are only so many ways to take it, and pretty much all of them are ugly and cruel. The rest of that quoted paragraph by you was little more than judgemental, blame-the-victim tripe based on resentful opinion instead of reality. I have an acquaintance who spouts the same thing nearly word-for-word, because he once applied for assistance while in the midst of a tough spot, and was turned down because his assets were beyond the limit (he owned a car worth more than $1000.) Now he bashes welfare recipients every time the subject comes up, because it's obviously *their* fault that the system couldn't help him.

So where were you at when you saw people having babies to get more money? Which state was it? How long ago? If you intend to use your own anecdotes as "evidence," it's only fair to allow a bit of scrutiny.

[EFerrari]

35. Hitler had the same idea. n/t

[prayin4rain]

48. What does education have to do with genes??? n/t

[blues90]

29. Considering the population now .

I think people should look real hard at how many people there are in the US alone and if they can still find a secure job or afford the basic needs.

Then you have certain religions telling the people birth control is wrong , well look around fools , your choice affects everyone and everything.

I certainly don't see a bright future now for many children and it seems it will only get worse.

We in the US use most of the worlds resources and have the worst medical and schools now days.

No one can tell parent what to do but I do feel people should slow the birth rate down to close to zero, by birth control and thinking and planning far ahead.

[nonconformist]

38. I've been getting shit from a few people because I'm pregnant with my 3rd

Generally shit of the passive-aggressive, snide sort.

My husband and I have been married for over 14 years and we have a 13 year old and a 10 year old, and now a "bonus baby" due in November.

I have to say, the reaction I've gotten from some people is really hurtful and distressing. You would think I'm pregnant with our 15th kid or something.

[Mind_your_head]

43. Don't fret, really! People say the stupidest things sometimes.....

I had two daughters and when I was pregnant with my third child I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW many people said, "I'm sure you're hoping for a son". My TRUE reaction/thought was, "No, not really".... I was thinking, 'I already have all of this girl stuff, I really enjoy my girls, I *know* what to do with girls/what they enjoy and I wouldn't even know what to 'do' with a boy NOW. (I had a third daughter, btw :-) )

Congratulations on Number 3! God always "saves the best for last" - just like the wine at Cana! Enjoy your new little one when he/she arrives - don't let those hurtful comments of some people diminish/steal your joy!

Peace,
M_Y_H

[undeterred]

39. Well I am female and I don't have any, don't want any.

Unfortunately not everyone thinks that is ok. People do not always respect my choice and think it is selfish or inferior to theirs.

Edit: I've actually had people suggest I get pregnant so I can get the states health insurance, which is never available to childless single people.

[Dorian Gray]

41. Let women

or families decide what is right for them.

[entanglement]

44. Almost perfect, except you didn't ask if they should be breastfed in public or not

:evilgrin:

[rucky]

45. 1 or 2 would be responsible.

but I don't hold it against anybody for having more.

we really need more sex education worldwide, access to birth control, and I think we can control this without a bedroom police.

cooperation from the Pope would really help, too.

[asdjrocky]

46. This tells me, that you, like the Republicans, need to learn how to pull out.

Just kidding. I think how many kids someone has is a personal thing that is up to them. I've got two daughters, ten years apart from two different women. It does sometimes seem that the dumb people have all the kids, while the smart ones keep it to one or two these days.

[earth mom]

51. I agree with those who said we need to be aware of population control-so 1 per person, if that.

This poor planet of ours can barely handly the population we're got now.

People really need to start admitting there is a problem instead of being so damn self absorbed and selfish.

[flvegan]

52. I cannot believe this wasn't an epic flamefest.

Everyone must be worn out after the debate last night.