Posted on June 9, 2008 by Kathy McManus in All, Children, Environment, Ethics, Parenting Comments (110)
Having a Third Child
Pamela Paul wants a third child.
Writing in the Washington Post about her desire to have a “sprawling” family like the one she grew up in—“with seven brothers, real and step”—Paul mused about the high cost of raising a child these days: $204,060 according to a new federal estimate.
In many expensive American cities and suburbs, Paul noted, a third child has become “an ostentatious display of good fortune,” on behalf of the decreasing number of parents who can afford to feed, clothe, and educate the “luxury good” known as baby number three.
But while Paul considered the economic impact of having a third child, some irate readers excoriated her about what they say is the environmental impact of a bigger family.
“The oceans are dying, the oil is almost gone,” wrote one reader. “Large families are criminally irresponsible in such a desperate time.”
“More than two kids per couple means you are not just replacing yourself on the planet,” wrote another. “You are claiming more of the Earth’s resources for your family simply because it will be ‘fun.’”
Selfish…stupid…killing the planet with your overproduction of children. The baby shower of criticism stunned Paul, who wondered in a follow-up article why she—who viewed herself as a responsible mother who recycled, conserved water, and didn’t even have a car—was being accused of “destroying” another mother: Earth. “Golly,” Paul wrote. “I’m not even pregnant yet.”
“The days of big families should be over,” responded a critic. “Get a dog from an animal shelter instead.”
Tell us what you think: Do you believe that having a third child brings the pitter-patter of little feet, or the destructive carbon footprint of the future? When it comes to having more children, is three an irresponsible crowd?
Comments (110)
Skip comments
Third kid destroying the planet?
I am a stay at home mom…I recycle, conserve electricity and water. We also only have one car, and only drive it when totally necessary. I know childless couples who drive ten times the amount of miles each month than I do. I also just had my third child. Yes, its expensive to have three. I assure you, I and my husband provide for them well. According to this article, I am overproducing children and taking more of earth’s resources for my family for fun. The earth has provided well for its creatures since the beginning of life on earth-so, I seriously doubt that we are all going to cease to exist if couples choose to have a third child. What about the people out there who don’t plan on having four, or five, or even just three-but have multiples? Do we suggest to these people that they have any child over two killed in utero?
RE: Third kid destroying the planet?
More than one child in utero
My suggestion is that if a couple is able to conceive naturally then any number of children should be allowed to develop. However, the number of people finding methods around infertility such as in vitro is wrong. There is a natural selection process and if couples choose in vitro and then have twins, triplets or more, they are putting a drain on resources.
I also think that if children are raised to be responsible citizens this will actually help the environment. There are too many children being raised by irresponsible parents. This will continue to drain our resources.
And another makes 4...
I have four children, ranging in age from 4 to 17. Like Celeste, we recycle, conserve electricity and water, and in addition have our own garden, compost, and prefer to line-dry our clothes instead of using the dryer. We use public transportation or bike if we can instead of using our car.
It’s not a question of children, or how many (there are many families in the Midwest with more than four), it’s a question of being good environmental stewards, and that’s not something the majority of society is really willing to do. They prefer to blame it on general overpopulation, rather than take a look at their own personal lifestyle of excess and consumerism.
I don’t apologize for my 4 children. They’ll grow up being far more environmentally responsible and self-aware than the majority of people I see out there now on a daily basis.
Saying 'others do worse' is no excuse
The single most effective thing an individual can do to help the environment is not to have children. It is important to recycle and to avoid using private cars, but there is a point beyond which a person cannot easily reduce his or her individual footprint any further. We still need to eat and to wash and to keep warm in winter. We still need to get to work, even if by public transport. To reduce our net footprint further requires looking at the other factor in the equation: the sheer number of people. Saying ‘I know childless couples who are less environmentally friendly than me’ is no excuse for having a big family. You have an obligation to do everything you can as an individual to help the environment and to set an example to others. Having no children, or fewer children, is a part of that responsibility.
RE: Saying 'others do worse' is no excuse
How about the larger vegetarian family?
I strongly disagree with Philippa. No one needs to make “an excuse” for having a big family. To suggest so is absurd. The point is to live in a sustainable way, no matter what the family size. Since most other countries consume far less despite having larger families, this disproves the idea that family size is the problem
Some sources state that more water is used to produce one pound of beef than is required for a person to shower for an entire year. By that measure, no one needs to worry about my children taking hot showers as no meat has ever passed their lips. More than 1/3 of the energy consumed in the United States each year is used for meat production, which is enough to keep us all toasty all winter long. Even with four children, with us all being vegetarians and intentionally living in a smaller house and driving the most efficient car possible, I daresay my family is using a sustainable amount.
RE: Saying 'others do worse' is no excuse
Let me guess.....
Let me guess… -you are pro abortion -you are a member or future member of PETA -one of your favorite movies is An Inconvenient Truth – you drool every time you see a Prius – you drool and shake all over when you see a Prius with a Coexist bumper sticker on it -you like KoolAid
I would suggest to you that a bit of research would do you a lot of good because obviously you have done nothing more than view Al Gore’s work of junk science and demagoguery (feel free to look up that last word, I won’t tell Al).
It’s interesting that you weep over the future of the earth, but most likely, you have no problem whatsoever with killing an unborn child created in the likeness of the one who made it. I know….let’s just all have as much sex as we want to with whomever we want to and if a baby happens to show up, we’ll just get rid of it – now that’s convenient! Very responsible.
And just so you know, we do not belong to the earth, it belongs to us.
RE: Let me guess.....
Unrelated
I don’t get how this had to do with Philippa’s post at all.
I may have 4 kids, but I believe in many of the causes you mentioned- like animal rights, clean hybrids, and abortion rights. Surprised?
Maybe the problem is that we are making faulty assumptions about others. Maybe, as others said, if we looked at ourselves and how we could improve thing, we wouldn’t be so quick to blame others for the condition of our planet.
Having kids, I think more about the condition of our planet and our obligation to keep it clean than I did before I became a parent.
RE: Let me guess.....
WOW!!
I second everything you said…. I think your comment speaks directly to much of the ignorance occurring on this site….. THANK YOU for speaking inconvenient truths.
“We do not belong to earth, It belongs to us.”
RE: WOW!!
Sigh.
You’re being ironic, I hope. The earth does not belong to “us”. We are only borrowing it for the spate of time we’re here. It must also be here for future generations, and if we care anything about our own survival, it must be here & functional for the other organisms that maintain our ecosystem for us. With the loan of this planet and the creatures on it comes a responsibility for stewardship, and for conservation in the deepest sense of the word.
RE: Saying 'others do worse' is no excuse
i agree with phillipa
I agree with Phillipa. Just because other people are not environmentally friendly doesn’t give you an excuse to have a large amount of kids. I also agree with the vegetarian thing. I just
sadlydon’t have the willpower to be vegetarian. I don’t understand why people can’t recycle, use public transportation, etc. and have only one kid. I have no problem with abortion, if a kid has no memories or consciousness, it isn’t a human being. If the baby is unwanted then killing it isn’t hurting anyone. The environmental- carbon footprint- isn’t the only issue. Its just irresponsible to have a lot of kids. One is enough! you shouldn’t have a lot of kids unless you work on a farm… It’s pretty obvious that an only child will turn out better; more personal time with parents; more money for braces, college; if your worried about your kid’s social skills then make sure they have friends; if you have 4 kids- can you always spend time with them? How often do you have to work? Do you have time for yourself? Can you remember every child’s name?? Seriously, if you have 5 kid’s do you know there hobbies? Likes and dislikes? What they want to be when the grow up? Is one of them a druggie and you don’t even know it? is one of them failing science class? Is one of them suicidal because they feel alone and have no parents to realize they need help? Come on, if you have a lot of kids then you’re either a stupid person or a secretly selfish person.I don’t agree with in vitro, just adopt for god’s sake! I’m a 14 year old and I’ve figured this stuff out. Why hasn’t everybody?
RE: i agree with phillipa
I am the youngest of nine children. My father died when I was 2 and my mother raised us all by herself. She now has 34 grand children and she knows each ones name, hobbies, favorite books, and foods not to mention all her own children’s likes and dislikes. She worked her tail off teaching us about God, how to take care of the earth, and live healthy happy lives. I’m 21 years old and married with a newborn baby girl, and I will continue in my mothers footsteps. If anyone thinks this is irresponsible please tell me why you think so.
RE:
Exceptions to every rule
It’s a wonderful she didn’t die of stress. It’s great she was able to raise you all well. What was the point in it? Are you trying to out breed intelligent people? I am absolutely confused. I still think that the majority of people could not pull it off. Give me one reason why anyone would NEED that many kids. World is over populated and it will level off someday. But what will level it off? Disease? Starvation? Just plain running out of room? What about the world as it is? National parks, rainforests, etc. Or are you one of those people who believe in an apocalypse? I don’t understand the point.
RE:
Another question
With that many kids, did you guys eat macaroni and cheese for dinner every night? How about peanut butter jelly sandwiches for every meal? I’m sure your diet was as healthy and varied as orphanages daily rations. I still don’t see why you NEED that many kids. I keep hearing reasons for why people shouldn’t or about how it’s not that bad. I just don’t see why you would even want to have that many kids. Let alone see the purpose.
RE: Another question
Haven’t you ever heard that when a child is born that some one dies. I believe that to be very true. It has happened to me every time shortly before everyone of my kids were born. I heard of someone that either I knew, or someone I knew dying. You say just because we have kids the world is being over populated. What about the people that die every day. You say quit having kids and let the world die then what are we fighting for with all the conserving this and conserving that if we aren’t trying to make the world a better place for future generations. i.e., the kids now and and future.
RE: Another question
I came from a family of 6 kids and no we didn’t eat mac and cheese for every meal or pb&j;. We had good home cooked meals. I don’t know what my moms reason for having that many kids was but I am now an adult and I have 4 kids of my own and wish I could have had a 5th, but God gave me my 4 wonderful beautiful babies and I cherish them all and I had that many because I love kids and I wanted them. My kids brought joy to my life. There are many reasons women choose to have the number of kids they have. I wanted them cause I love them and I enjoy taking care of them and it is nice when you get home after a long day at work.. yes I work even though I have 4 kids. To come in and be able to see them and know that no matter what, they are there to love you and will no matter what you do. I love my kids and that is why I had them, all 4 of them and I don’t think you can consider innocent kids as the ones that are killing the planet. They learn from the adults in their lives.
RE:
I think you are going to be a wonderful mother and that you had a wonderful strong woman for a mother and if it is god’s will then you will have as many kids as you want. Good luck in your life as a mother of many kids
RE: i agree with phillipa
well at the age of 14 you really no room to talk. I happen to know everything there is to know about my 4 kids. i know their names, Ii know what they like and dislike and i know where they are all at at every second of every day. Maybe you have see irresponsible parenting in your life, but there I don’t think I would want to go back and grow up all alone. A child needs humans their own age around, it really helps. My four children have their very best of friends at home with them thus i have no worries where they are at, and what they are doing , I manage to work a 40 hour work week and still have time to go home and spend with them and catch up on their day. That is why we work when they are in school and we are at home with them when they get out, or very shortly after. My kids don’t go without my time and they are very conservative in what they do and what they see.
RE: i agree with phillipa
Untitled
You are too young (I feel) to be passing such judgment on others. I have 3 children and am pregnant with my 4th and last. My oldest being 9 yrs older than my next oldest (he’s 12 and she’s 3). I was a single mother with him from the age of 18 months until he was 5 and I never had time to spend with my ONE child. Now that I am remarried and have 3 children I am home with them all day. I am home for my son when he gets home from school and I spend all day with my 3 yr old and 18 month old. I spend every possible minute with my children and am very happy. My children are very happy as well. My oldest is not much younger than you and he is not deprived of anything. He has his own computer, Ipod, phone, PS3 and we don’t eat PB&J;or mac and cheese for every meal (like you stated in another comment). We do eat much better than an orphanage as you referred to another womans families eating habits.
I know all their names, weights and lengths at birth, birthdays, eye and hair color, clothing size, favorite foods, shows, songs, etc. I know when my oldest had a rough day at school and we sit an take time to talk about it. He is not suicidal like you suggested. We don’t necessarily agree on types of music or clothes, but I love him and all my children, even my little girl not born yet. My little ones have a friend to play with all the time and they are even involved in gymnastics and music class each week. We don’t neglect our kids just because we have more than one. I am sorry if you feel that people with more than one child can’t or don’t have the capability to care for or love their kids. Most of my friends and neighbors who have more than one child are good parents and have happy kids. They eat well rounded meals too. You need to think a little more about how you come across if you want to sound like you gave your responses some thought. I remember being your age (18 yrs ago) and I hated my family and thought my parents did not care about how I felt or what I thought. I was the only child and I still felt the way you said kids with siblings feel. Strange that a teenager would feel like that…..
RE: i agree with phillipa
problems.
Dustin, I see a lot of problems with your post and I will chalk it up to youth and inexperience. When I was 14, I suppose I felt I knew everything, too.
When you have even one child, you give up your “time for yourself”. Every minute of your life, you have your child or children in the back of your mind. It isn’t about just you anymore, no matter how many or few kids you have.
You are also falsely assuming everyone is in the same financial boat (in addition to assuming all large families are tearing up the planet), but not all families who have 4 or more children are poor. Some of us can afford them, including fully funding college.
I stay home with them full-time, so I daresay I know what is going on in their lives. I know my kids. I know their names. They all have different interests, personalities, and desires for the future.
RE: i agree with phillipa
I also agree with phillipa
We need to adopt (overall) rates of reproduction which give us zero population growth: this means two children per couple, on average. There are too many people on the earth already: primary resources – safe & nutritious food, housing, and potable water – are strained; the oceans are polluted and full of plastic trash, fisheries are crashing & the fish themselves are tainted with mercury and PCBs. There is already a good deal of human misery and suffering globally. Climate warming will most likely exacerbate this. While it is arguable that “the earth has always provided for all of the people on it” (note that in the past, human lives were nasty, brutish, and short for most people) the earth has never had to provide for so very many of us. Indeed, I often wonder & worry about what sort of planet we’re leaving for all of these children (both wanted and unwanted) that we bring into the world. What will be left for them, and for their descendents?
RE: I also agree with phillipa
Just one question how do you ever imagine making sure that each couple only has 2 children. What about all the divorce in this world. If you are a young woman and you want to have children with your new husband and he already has 2 with his ex then you are trying to say that she just cant have kids?????? You all just need to let us women who have their large family have it, because I know I can take care of mine and I have for 4 1/2 years and I will continue to care for them.
RE:
Clarification
The operative word is “on average”. A woman who marries or partners someone who already has children can certainly decide to have a child… or not. There will always be people who, by choice or accident, have a few more children than replacement numbers, and there will be people who have no children at all. Furthermore there is (in my opinion) no just or humane way of mandating a one or two child policy – while it has worked in China, it has also resulted in abandoned children and selective abortions of girls. What we must do is strive in our own lives and as a society to limit population growth to what the planet can support, and also encourage policies – especially the education of girls – that will help limit population growth in the third world. As a population biologist and a parent, I worry for the future of my own children (I have two) and the world they will inherit. It already is a more resource-limited & crowded world than the world I knew as a young person.
RE: Clarification
blended families
Lauren is certainly right. “Step mothers” (kind of an ugly term) who marry men with children should have children if they want to.
Fertility rates are based on females, even though this seems sexist to some.
Coercive practices that limit fertility are inhumane. Yet the threat of overpopulation has
been publicized since the 1960s—and some women seem to ignore it.
RE: i agree with phillipa
You think you have...
You think you have it all figured out, but in 10 years you’ll look back and your point of view WILL change.(it will trust me) And in another 10 years your point of view will change yet again.
It’s all based on learning experiences. Experiences that at 14, you haven’t lived. Oh, believe me, I had to deal with some very “Grownup” issues when I was your age. I have gone through some experiences that would shock you, and through it all, I learned that I didn’t know it all and I STILL do not know it all!
I will be 30 in 6 months and I know I have yet to learn many things…its part of growing. Nobody knows everything. But I’m glad you at least have strong convictions and stand by them. Whether they are wrong or not isn’t up to me. You’ll see.
Untitled
So, if Americans have no or only one or two kids, then do you believe that the rest of the world will follow suit? It’s easy to point fingers, but few take responsibility for the environment.
It's all in how you raise them....
Philippa, I think that is one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever heard. If everyone had children and taught them how to treat the earth with care, we’d have a lot less problems than we do now. As far as I’m concerned, a family with 4 children that compost, recycle, conserve energy, walk or ride bikes is less of an issue for the environment than most of the single adults I know. The problem is, there are too many “old dogs” who continue “business as usual” and aren’t willing to make these sacrifices. You can’t teach an old dog new trick and unfortunately, we got a lot of those “old dogs.” Thankfully, we can make such a huge impact if we teach the next generation how to be good stewards.
But it can’t stop there. This problem is EVERYONE’S responsibility.
Two or fewer reasons
I deliberately stopped at two children 45 years ago and have not regretted it. Each of them stopped at one child. Many effects of overpopulation are very visible, although some are not as obvious.
RE: Two or fewer reasons
Thank you.
I now have a slight bit of faith in human kind. Thank you Cecily for showing that not everyone in the world is absolutely dense.
It's a personal choice
The number of children one decides to have is based on a number of factors. In short, it’s a personal choice. Reproductive freedom of any kind is still protected. I personally grew up with a Zero Population Growth mentality and was determined to have two children; I gave birth to three.
I’m not sure it’s up to me to make the decision for anyone else on the number of children they wish to have. I know in my case, there is enough love to go around.
Should I not have my 4th??
I am 32 and currently have 3 children ranging in age from 12-1 1/2 and am expecting my 4th. My oldest is from my first marriage (my first husband passed away 10 yrs ago) and my other 2 (and the one I am carrying) are from my husband now. We are not irresponsible environmentally. We don’t drive a huge SUV like so many others here in So Cal, we recycle, don’t waste water and rarely use the A/C or heater. I teach my children to take care of the earth and my oldest one is helping teach my younger kids. Someone was saying that having more than one or 2 kids hurts the earth, but I have seen those with no kids leave a bigger negative impact than those with 5 kids. My aunt and uncle are in their early 40’s and they choose to have no kids. They don’t recycle, they run the AC all day and night, they drive huge SUV’s and trucks (they have 6 cars between the 2 of them). Their pool is heated all year long and they waste food like it is cool. My uncle’s reason behind this is that they don’t have kids so they can afford to be irresponsible and he makes fun of my household for doing what we do. I just think that it is up to the individual to choose how many children they want to have and to also be responsible and try to leave the world a better place than we left it.
RE: Should I not have my 4th??
Oh, yes, do have the child.
Your child is already among us! Celebrate his or her arrival and continue to be a steward of the earth.
Congratulations, by the way.
Betsy #5 of 7 responsible siblings
RE: Should I not have my 4th??
Thank you and most definitely have your child. I am a young mother of 4 children and only stopped having kids because of my husband’s health. More power to you if you want to go on and have a 5th.
RE: Should I not have my 4th??
Blessed again
I am Ashley; I am engaged and expecting my second child. If a mother and father have a child that they did not want and allowed that child to raise themselves then no they should not have multiple children. That would just be beyond uncalled for. However, a mother and father who love their child and work day and night to educate their as to how to be a better member of society then they should have as many as the good lord will allow.
It almost sounds as though some people do not understand that raising five negatively impacting beings for every one to two conservative children and yeah you are going to have a negative impact on the world. Now, say that five conservatively raised children are brought into the world for each pair of poorly trained members of society. Would it not become more natural for the world to have a more conservative look on life?
For those of you that say you are so overly concerned with over populating the space we have why have children at all? Why would you contribute to the growing population? Even if you are only having one or two children how can you speak as though you are so much better than those of us that chose to ruefully disregard our apparently superior counter parts in this society by having as many children as we want? Why is it that you have children at all? With as overcrowded as the homeless shelters and orphanages are why not adopted if you are so concerned? Why is it that most of the people we see who take that stand have either no concept of reality and what it takes to raise a family or have been so afraid of failing at the attempt that they try to criticize those of us that love their families and respect every gift we are given?
My daughter may only be 18 months but she can sing her ABC’s count to 5 and tell me her full name. She also says “please” and “thank you” and knows to excuse herself after dinner. She says bless you and throws trash in the trash can. She goes with mommy to volunteer, or deliver dinners to the elderly in our neighborhood. So far we have been blessed with one wonderful future member of society and expecting the next in the end of April. We have decided with living in Michigan and the current economic state worsening daily to raise our community not just our own family.
The entire planet is a shared ground, not owned more by those that can buy more of it? Unless the entire planet can learn to co-exist and each individual can pull their heads out of the clouds and treat each other as though we are truly all equals then the natural pecking order will come into play. Those that know how to live a modest lifestyle will make it through, be it famine, drought, disease, plagues, or a natural disaster, there will come a day when the greater luxuries are lost and we are taken back to a life of co-dependence which will bring about a simpler life for those that make it through.
Remember history repeats itself, the dinosaurs are said to be extinct however it has been made very clear that many of the animals we see today are just descendants, that would mean that many died yes but some survived to continue populating the earth and to grow and develop to the allowances the earth provided. All children would have a greater respect for life if they knew how to survive without being able to run to the store for bread, or run up the block to get a burger? I am not saying to ignore these luxuries just not to allow your children to depend on them? Teach them to embrace life not just survive it!
Overpopulation is a myth
Please, please educate yourselves as to the real issues that will destroy our planet. Having children is NOT one of them. (See Steve Mosher’s books and articles on the myth.)
I cannot believe people are so lacking in generosity. The gift of a child is truly the greatest benefit in this life. There is always room for one more—regardless of the existing number.
RE: Overpopulation is a myth
Life is a Gift of Love
Having a “large” or “small” family is not the issue. Its giving and receiving with gratitude and love that will help everyone in the world become better stewards of this beautiful, plentiful planet. If all children whether they have many or no siblings, are raised and taught to be selfless (generous and giving) and loving to others, they will come to realize that being environmentally friendly will be the only way to live because it helps and supports others as well as themselves.
5 and proud
I cannot believe as usual we are criticized for how many children we have. I have 5 kids. I live in a small house, drive used cars, eat left overs and consume a lot less than people with less children. I cannot tell you how many families with 1 or 2 children live in huge homes (think of forest wasted) drive huge brand new luxury cars and other consumptions. Don’t blame the lack of resources on me. Check your own appetites and stop blaming loving families who know the value of spending, conserving and sharing.
RE: 5 and proud
Amen to that...
Amen to that Maureen. Just where does anybody get off even trying to dictate how many children a woman can have. I myself have seven (all boys) and we reuse, recycle, and conserve at every given opportunity. My boys are resourceful, and know the value of conserving the earths resources. I applaud the women in this world who have enough to give to a large family. Family is a gift, and the love you give and receive is well worth it. I agree: Quit blaming loving families who have many children, and check yourself at the door. Who knows maybe I’ll have a couple more, oh wait.. is that ok with you?? And anyway…just who are you, that you think you can decide for me?? The only person who knows the appropriate size for a family, is the family itself. We all need to worry less about what others are doing and look a bit harder at ourselves.
Subdue and replenish
The Christian Bible tells us to go forth and multiple, and then subdue the earth. Many people forget that we are to ‘replenish’ it. I believe many large families actually help the environment; they reuse clothing and items that 1 and 2 child families don’t (there’s none of this “well I’m going to buy it, this is the only child I’ll have” mentality). Large families tend to plant gardens, reuse, repair rather than replace, and to teach THEIR offspring these guidelines. Let’s face it, large families use more cloth diapers, reuse clothes, and “do without”. You rarely see soccer-mom mentality in families with a large number of kids.
I have 5, and don’t regret it for a second.
moderation
I’m the oldest of three boys. We were all planned (the youngest just came sooner than expected), and we all grew up with recycling, reusing, and lots and lots of handmedowns. Or handmeups, firstly in the case of my youngest brother, who was always bigger than the middle one, and now both of them now that they’re bigger than me. There was an awkward few years in there where me, both brothers, and my mum were all wearing the same size jeans, which made sorting laundry rather interesting. One of my best friends as a kid was an only child. She loved coming over to our house because there were other kids to play with. Another good friend was the third of five siblings. She was a middle child in every sense of the word, and having not heard from her in a few years, I only hope that she hasn’t ended up in jail.
Having lots of planned kids is great. Unplanned kids, not so much. If you’re planning your kids, odds are that you’re thinking about economics and impact and making sure you’re raising them right. Just getting pregnant is a bad idea, and can lead to unwanted kids. Even if the kids aren’t unwanted, they might not be getting everything they need due to a lack of planning. My middle-child friend shared a closet bedroom with the baby for years, starting at age eight or nine. That’s too young to be dealing with a crying baby during the wee hours of the morning. And that family was financially secure. If a family isn’t, they might not be able to feed all their kids, keep them clothed, send them to school. Birth control is a good thing. Plan your kids.
With my 4th
I am pregnant with my 4th (totally unplanned). I was my nursing my 1 year old full time and using contraception properly, but this little girl is on her way anyway. Just because she is unplanned does not mean she is unwanted or that we don’t have room for her or money to take care of her.
We are certainly going to have to tighten our belts a little bit now, but we have a nice sized house (everyone has their own room right now) and she and my 3 yr old daughter can share a room and be just fine. The room is more than large enough for both of them (plus the baby will be with me in my room for a couple months). A child being unplanned does not mean that they can’t be a blessing too.
The only part that is going to be hard for us (and the reason we were trying not to get pregnant at this time) is that my husband deploys for Iraq one month before the baby comes and won’t be home until she is 6 months old. Other than that we will be just fine. Not all unplanned pregnancies are a bad thing.
Qualifier
Fair enough. The finished post actually left out a word, which altered the meaning slightly, for which I do apologize. Obviously my statements aren’t meant to apply to
everyfamily, and in your defense, youwereplanning your kids even if your plan did backfire. I’m sorry to hear about your husband, and I hope he comes home safely.The refrigerator's hum
I grew up as an only child living with my aunt (whom I called mom), grandmother and father after my 20-yr old mother flew the coop (I was merely a toddler). Attending Catholic school in a very Irish-Italian-German neighborhood where the average family was three or four and hearing classmates commenting about siblings and teachers reminiscing about siblings made me extremely singled out. I didn’t enjoy coming home to a house where I could hear the hum of my refrigerator, while my grandmother either watched her novellas or read celebrity Spanish magazines.
Selfishly speaking, I am now relishing in my third (planned) pregnancy, while enjoying the noise, mess and chaos of my precocious little girls. The company that they provide one another is priceless. Sure we do the best to recycle, save money and by no means are we rich. We know that tough financial times are ahead, but having that third child is an expression of what we lacked as children (my husband is an only child as well). My eyes well up in tears of joy, disbelief and gratitude when I look at the family that I have now. This is far beyond anything I have ever imagined. Call it selfish, eco-hostile, extravagant, you name it. But to be rest assured that someday, when my husband and I are gone, they will have someone to turn to in times of need. Their newborns will have biological godmothers when they are baptized. Nothing else matters to me. Like I said to my husband before conceiving number one, “think it through, because I am NOT raising an only child! Better to be child free.”
Impersonal view
Could we look at this impersonally for just a couple minutes?
First, let’s focus on the future and not blame any poster on this board for his or her viewpoint.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau the current U.S. population exceeds 304 million. If population growth continues at the current rate, the will be more than 439 million U.S. residents by 2050.
Yes, the need for conservation must be addressed but no matter how conscientious posters on these boards are, they cannot parent every child in the nation.
RE: Impersonal view
Impersonal view
You are correct, Cecily. Those of us posting cannot parent every child in the nation. However, only larger families are being attacked here as the problem. No one is saying anything about irresponsible families with no children or one child. There is an assumption that these people are more responsible just based on their decision to not have children. I think we are all just trying to point out that the problem is lack of personal responsibility, not family size.
It's about choices
I had three children. I tell folks I had to change husbands to get the girl I always wanted! When my 2nd hubby and I were first married, he said he wanted six kids. I told him, fine, I’ve had the first three, go nuts. He changed his mind.
We were poor. No, we were DIRT poor. Our combined income the first year of marriage was $9000. At no time in our lives did we hold less than one job apiece, usually two. We raised our kids to believe in themselves, to rely on each other, to educate themselves, and to be a thinking, responsive participant in the world around them. We eschewed Welfare and grew a garden, harvested and canned produce, and raised our own chickens. We had our own backyard weather station that we built. We went to museums and spelunking, and camping, on our vacations.
Now all adults, our children do not want to have children. and that is perfectly all right with me – I have no drive to be a doting grandmother. Our children remember what it was like to be poor, to hang out clothes, to work twice as hard as anyone to get as far. They put themselves through college while working full-time jobs. They are tough and independent, responsible and hardworking, and all want different things out of life – careers, good solid stable home environments, and enough food to eat and money to pay the bills. Hooray for them.
Hubby and I just retired to a farm, a big old farmhouse where we can invest in the things we love; organic gardening, his small engine repair shop, lots of land for cattle and chickens again. Around the corner from us is a family of seven. They are angry at us for buying this property, because they wanted it but could not afford it. Their house is much smaller and two children sleep on the porch with a space heater. Their church supplies them with enough food to last them through the end of the month… mother is a stay-at-home Mom, and dad holds one job.
My point is simply this – as long as you are aware of the consequences of the choices you make, and are willing to accept them, then have as many children as you can support. It isn’t anyone else’s business if you have twenty or twelve or two or none. Your choices are your responsibility.
I am so tired of hearing about people being responsible for everything from global warming to carbon footprints. When will folks stop talking as if a “consensus of opinion” were real factual, provable science? Scientists who prate about global warming can’t explain a sudden cooling spike in the eighties, but everyone with common sense can – Mt St Helens erupted, which caused ash to be deposited in the upper atmosphere and caused global temperatures to cool the following year. There are more things causing the changes in the earth’s temperature than the human occupancy – and many of those are uncontrollable by man. To blindly point fingers at parents and say that they are the cause is as foolish as saying that Al Gore invented the Internet. We are in the end of a mini-Ice-Age – and there isn’t anything that the Mormon with 12 kids in Utah can do about that.
As long as a parent is fully cognizant of the expenses, problems, joys and sorrows that having another child (and another, and another!) bring, it is no one else’s business. Mind your own business.
RE: It's about choices
Rock on, girl
I have read several of your posts, and agree wholeheartedly with every one of them. Thanks so much for giving your opinion, and letting other level minded people know there are others with sense out there! If people would just use what brains they have and mind their own business, then the world would be a much better place! Thanks again!
Lots of two or fewers
When demographers calculate fertility rates, they usually consider only biological children.
In 2004 the Census Bureau ran a side-study of women 40-44 years old (therefore most would have completed childbearing,)
Slightly more than 71% had given birth to two or fewer children (including zero).
That’s a big voting block.
Untitled
I don’t really know what to say that I haven’t already said but this….
every family is different and every woman has her own wants and dreams when it comes to having kids.
I have 4 wonderful beautiful babies, 3 girls and 1 boy and I would not change it for anything in the world. My kids have never gone without and they have always had someone to play with ( two oldest are twins conceived naturally ) I wouldn’t know what it is like as a only child because I am the youngest of 6 but i do know when i was the only one left at home i felt miserable not having someone there to talk to or get help with homework from. All my kids are close enough and age that they we probably always have at least 2 of them at home. I agree with you if you don’t want to have kids then don’t. but don’t be down on those of us that decide to have more then you think we should. I see a lot of what a lot of the mothers of 2 or more were talking about. I live in a house just big enough for my family and drive a car just big enough. I don’t have a huge home with unused space and a car big enough to haul everyone in the neighborhood around. My brother-in-law has one kid and he has a full size truck and his wife, an SUV and they live in a 5 bedroom 3 bath house that has a huge kitchen and dining room and 2 living rooms. That is more space then they need, but they have it and waste the energy to heat and cool it through out the year wasting more energy then I do in my family of 6. I don’t look down on them let them do things their way and i will do things my way. I think part of the anger of those with 2 kids or fewer or maybe none at all is that they either can’t have any and cant afford or they cant have anymore. I love my four I have and wish I could have more but health problems stopped that from happening. Now I have my family and I love them all the same and I know how hard it is to care for them and I have to say that you are a very strong and courageous woman if you choose to have more then just 1 kid because it is hard, but in the end it is all well worth it and I would do it again if I could.
Having children is not irresponsible... not raisin
Our focus needs to get off of our “carbon footprint” and back on our core values as a society. Who are we to judge whether someone should have another child or not. What of those who follow religions that leave the deciding of childbearing to God? Are they less responsible than those who don’t follow a religion or follow a different belief?
I venture that most of the people who have posted here against having more than 2 children either do not have children and/or are from a small family. I am the youngest of 4 and the mother of 2. We live very eco-friendly; compost, recycle, efficient cars, minimize driving. But does that factor into the decision to raise another child?
The question should be, are you able and willing to take on the responsibility of raising another human being? Are you willing to make the sacrifices you will need to make for the next 20+ years?
The earth needs more good citizens. What it doesn’t need is irresponsible parents and finger-wagging naysayers.
Increase in "two or fewers"
Since I posted the stats obtained from the Census Bureau for the 2004 side study, a new report for 2006 has been released. It shows an increase in the number of women 40-44 (therefore presumed to have completed their families) who had two or fewer (including zero) biological children in 2006. That percentage is now 71.7.
Questions
The good that could be achieved for our children and grandchildren if we coupled ecological life styles, and population stabilization followed by gradual decline is already apparent.
According to the Census Bureau, the U.S. will add 134 million people over the next 40 years.
Where is the clean water going to come from? (Some areas are already planning to recycle toilet water.)
Where will children be educated? (Some public school systems are already failing.)
Where will people live? (Are we going to continue to demolish habitats for housing developments?)
RE: Questions
Population is mostly increasing thru immigration
Right now, this is a silly argument. In the US, the average family has 1.9 children. That is, if it were not for immigration, we would not be adding to our ranks, but decreasing our population size as we go.
I support legal immigration (after all, it’s how my great-grandparents and DH’s grandparents got here). As for where the housing will come from, at least where I am, there is lots of available housing. Water? Not a problem in the Northeast. Public schools? They are a problem whether you have 200 students or 1000. The problem there is not population.
As for clean water, we SHOULD and DO recycle toilet water and wastewater. They are called wastewater treatment plants and/or septic tanks. That’s what they do, and they do quite a good job at it. Our water is some of the cleanest, purest in the world.
As for areas that have drought issues, perhaps they need to charge more for water. Price water as the commodity that it is, and people will naturally conserve or move to places where water is cheaper. We pay for water where we live – quite a bit – because we have to pay for our well.
Funny how in the rural community that I live in, you never see ChemLawn trucks, lawn services, built in sprinklers, or people washing their cars. We all are aware of the available water. Yet in the ‘burbs” where water is plentiful, automatic sprinklers go on on rainy days and people pour chemicals on their lawns to get perfect grass.
If you’re concerned about water, housing, and education, those are three issues that have very little to do with families deciding to have a third child.
RE: Population is mostly increasing thru immigration
Silly argument
Gosh, Melissa: the U.S. total fertility rate right now—according to several sources—is 2.1.
Water, housing and education might not have anything to do with your childbearing decisions, but will be of concern to other people’s children when they grow up.
RE: Silly argument
Gosh, Cecily, you're right
Gosh, Cecily, you’re right, the rate just recently came out at 2.1, from a sub-replacement rate for the past several years (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122002725_pf.html).
I fail to see, however, how available housing (which we have a glut of in the US), water (depending on the region), and education factor in to the decision to have more than two children.
How many children do you have? And how do you justify telling others how many children they should have?
RE: Gosh, Cecily, you're right
housing, water, education, children
More people leads to more housing being built (not NEEDS to be built;but WILL be built.) This encroaches on animal habitats. Here we have one suburb that has an annual deer cull. Every year deer are shot right next to swing sets. The subdivisions keep expanding though.
More people increasingly results in the need for desalinization plants and wastewater treatment plants. This also encroaches on animal habitats.
When a public school system becomes too crowded and staff spends more time trying to discipline than teach, some parents transfer their children to private or parochial schools. The tuition for secondary schools here starts at $9000—affordable for one or two, but less affordable for more.
As stated in a previous post, I have two children. Each “child” has one child.
Although I have what appears to be a minority opinion on these boards, I must ask how you justify exponential population growth.
RE: housing, water, education, children
Needs versus will
As long as there are developers, there will be more housing built – regardless of the need or the growth of the population. Throughout history, we’ve seen instances where development has continued in spite of a glut in the housing market or a decline in consumer spending.
As far as waste water treatment plants encroaching on animal habitats, I daresay that if you looked at public land/property growth versus private development, you would find that by far the biggest culprit in animal habitat destruction is development. Much of the problem is our desire for bigger homes. I knew many large families when I was growing up who lived in smaller homes than my friends with 1-2 children live in today. When people live in 2000+ sq ft homes for a family of 4, that’s excessively encroaching on wildlife habitats.
If people are concerned about the quality of their public schools and are worried about the cost of tuition at public/parochial schools, then you’ve just solved our “problem” of large families!
After all, if we assume all people behave rationally, and we are arguing about people “choosing” to have more children (not those with unintended pregnancies, which is a separate issue), then people who are concerned about the cost of education will naturally select to have fewer children.
I “justify” population growth by arguing that in my faith, the decision on whether or not to have children (and how many to have) rests primarily in God’s hands, not man’s. And about 1/6th of the world’s population would agree with me on that point.
RE: Needs versus will
developers.
Developers will develop until they run out of money. We do need laws, taxation and “user fees” that foster ecological behavior. But, if there are fewer buyers (people), they will run out of money faster.
Not all people with zero or one or two children live in huge houses or drive gas guzzlers. Some even carry out the eco-friendly practices stated on these posts.
RE: Gosh, Cecily, you're right
Justification
The author of the article that led into this discussion was trying to decide whether or not to have a third child. My arguments are in the “con” column.
RE: Population is mostly increasing thru immigration
Water, housing and education
If future water, housing and education “have very little to do with families deciding to have a third child”, we are on the skids.
RE: Questions
I guess in all your figuring
I guess in all your figuring you some how for got to figure that people die everyday as well. Just because a mother is bringing a new child into the world doesn’t mean that the population is grown that much. Maybe one or two people died that day – have you ever thought about that?
RE: I guess in all your figuring
birth and death rates
U.S. birth rate
14.18 births per thousand
U.S. death rate
8.27 deaths per thousand
Big families???
One thing to consider here is that the people who are having children indiscriminately and who, in a great many cases, have no intention of providing any sort of home for those children are not among the people responding to this collective conversation.
I once passed through an orphanage as a part of my job. I had to spend considerable time there and, on one occasion, saw a counselor holding a very angry youngster while they sat at the breakfast table. Later, I spoke with the counselor and he explained that that child had been found as a virtual infant crawling naked amidst the garbage in a tenement in the Bronx. They noted in the case file that he probably survived by eating scraps of garbage off the floor and had to be treated for what appeared to be insect and rodent bites. That child probably survived thanks to the staff at the orphanage.
Birth control and abortion issues aside for the moment, it is safe to say that sexuality in our current society approaches the level of importance as a social status indicator that it formerly reached during the high point of the Roman Empire.
I think creating and raising a family is a great life work and, to the extent that it is taken very seriously and approached with careful thought and planning, should be unrestricted by anything other than ability to see it through.
I recently met and am now good friends with a couple who have adopted and raised somewhere in the vicinity of 18 bilingual children, some with serious LD and other problems, all of whom were confronted at an early age with abandonment if one form or another.
RE: Big families???
Adoptive and step parents
The “Two or fewer” philosophy refers to biological children. Adoptive and step parents, of any number, don’t cause problems. They solve them.
RE: Adoptive and step parents
For Cicily
I agree with you entirely. My question is, simply stated, isn’t it better to concentrate on the huge number of unplanned conceptions, especially those resulting in a child that is totally uncared for and in the worst recorded cases abandoned, than to impose restrictions, however conceptual, on people who can afford, both financially and emotionally, to have and raise a large® family.
I am not suggesting, and I hope my remarks do not indicate that I was, an avoidance of responsibility by anyone in so far as family size is concerned or, most importantly, that relatively affluent, educated people are somehow elite and should do whatever they wish.
I am hopefully pointing out what my personal life experience has led me to believe, that being, that children are born every day in the gutters, tenements and empty lots of the world and many of them grow up to be adults the hard way. I’d like to see real statistics on that population because that might prompt some affirmative action, education and, perhaps, consequences for irresponsible pregnancies.
RE: For Cicily
unplanned pregnancies, poverty
Yes, Pasquale. You are absolutely right. I will see what stats I can find.
Any issue as complex as population growth requires a “chip away” approach. If the numbers of unplanned pregnancies and children born in poverty could be reduced, there might not be a population growth “problem”.
RE: For Cicily
unplanned pregnancy, poverty
While this entry probably does not belong in this discussion of personal planning to have a third child, it is interesting.
Further, these statistics do explain an increasing factor in population overload, and may shed some light on “tenement births” and unplanned pregnancies.
TEEN AGE PREGNANCY:
Unfortunately, this subset includes 19 year olds;that’s how they group them. (Still, a 19 year old having a second or higher birth order child is alarming.)
4.5% of 15-19 year olds had a first child; 1.5% had a second child;0.5% had a third child, and 0.2% had a fourth child.
POVERTY:
33.2 births per 1000 were to women whose annual family income was less than $10,000.
89.5 births per 1000 were to women whose annual family income was $10,000 to $14,000.
154.5 births per 1000 were to women receiving public assistance.
(Source: U.S. Census Bureau—Fertility of American Women 2006)
RE: unplanned pregnancy, poverty
Cecily; Statistics
Thank you for taking the time to share these statistics. I agree that this discussion started out on a different plane, but I think this information will put the discussion on solid ground. As a teacher for at risk students, it was not uncommon at all to have 18 year old girls in my class who already had three children.
Think of the children
I was raised in a large family of 7. My childhood consisted of a lot of chores and babysitting and limited personal time with my parents. As a result, I vowed at a young age to limit the amount of children I bring into the world. One per adult is a good standard. Aside from overpopulation issues, think of your children. As parents, we want to love and nurture our kids and prepare them to be successful, responsible adults. My mother loved babies. She was not as interested in the older kids. The result was each of us struggling to put ourselves through college, no extra curricular activities, family vacations etc. Most importantly, there was a lack of individual attention. How can you really know your children and give them the best chances for a healthy stable life when your time is spent just corralling a brood. I recently heard news of a classmate who was pregnant with her 12th child. They are all being home schooled. I feel very sorry for those children.
RE: Think of the children
Corralling a brood
I know that I am capable and willing to care for and KNOW each of my 3 (almost 4) children. My oldest is 12 1/2, my next is 3, and my youngest for now is 18 months. I am not planning on having a 5th. Once this little girl is born I am getting “fixed”. I am now a stay at home mom and my 12 yr old goes to middle school in our neighborhood. He goes to dances and plays football. My 3 yr old is in gymnastics and my 18 month old is in a mommy and me music class. We are by no means wealthy. My husband is in the Marines so our budget is snug. We do make sure our kids have what they need and in most cases what they want too.
I don’t feel like I am corralling anyone or anything when I go out (although Disneyland was a little rough last month). I just feel that if you are capable and willing to properly care for your children, then you should by all means have them. As far as the chores go, my oldest is always telling my 3 yr old how envious he is because she is going to be able to have someone to take turns doing the dishes and vaccumming with. I always saw my friends with siblings having less chores than I did being alone. They were always involved in things and I seemed to just hang out. I am sorry that you and your 6 siblings had it so rough. I would have been jealous as a kid of you.
RE: Corralling a brood
I totally agree with you jenn. I have 4 kids and they are well taken care of and I really don’t consider it as corralling, either. I hope your husband comes home safe. And good luck with your new baby girl.
RE:
The point I was trying to make, Jenn and Anna, was that when planning a large family, parents need to ask themselves honestly if they are able to give enough one on one time to each of their children. Do you have the means to support them and educate them in a way that prepares them for a successful life? It seems, the corralling bit struck a chord and the most important point was individual attention and nurturing. Please don’t misunderstand me, I love my siblings. I have just chosen to limit my family size to better care for my children.
RE:
Untitled
I am very capable and willing to care for my children and give them the full attention they need and want. I am better able to spend time with my kids now than I was when I was raising just my oldest. He is 9 yrs older than my next child and she gets more one on one mommy time than he ever did at her age. This is because I am staying home with them now and I worked full time when I had him. I am here when he gets home from school and I am here to make his breakfast in the morning which I was never able to do before. We do have the means to support them and do our best to give them a good education. My oldest is the lead singer in a band and is involved in Kickboxing. My 3 yr old is in Gymnastics and my youngest is in a Mommy and Me music class. We make sure that they are all well provided for. We go on family vacations and do overnight trips to Disneyland regularly (which they all love). My husband is in the Marines so his time is limited whether we have 1 kid or 3 (almost 4). I just think that a person can be very able to nurture and give individual attention to 4 children.
You chose to have the number of children you have and I can choose to have my 4 (my original plan was to have 3 but even with properly used contraception and nursing my 18 month old I am blessed with my little girl who will be here in December). Neither one of us is a better parent based on the number of children they have. That is just ridiculous.
RE:
I give my children one on one time and I alternate with taking just one of them places with me. if I have to run to the store 3 out of the 4 stay home with dad and I take one with me — that allows for a quick trip and also to spend some time together. The older ones take turn helping me cook and clean and also to help me with the baby. That gives me quality time with them and also teaches them to cook and to clean and the responsibilities of being an adult when the get older
RE: Think of the children
I am very sorry that you had a rough life when you were young but not every mother and family is that way. My children range from 4 1/2 to 8 months and they get equal attention from me and their father. I don’t agree with having kids if you cant or won’t take care of them, but if you are willing to then I don’t see a problem with it. And those of us that choose to have a big family shouldn’t be criticized about it.
RE: Think of the children
reply to think of the children
I am sorry that this is your only idea of big families.
I was #3 out of 11 children and I can tell you something loving about each of my siblings because I was one of their caretakers not because I had to, but because I was blessed with that opportunity. We also were home educated and LOVED every minute of it.
I now have been married 12 years and have 6 blessings (so far :-) that we are homeschooling, because we believe that our children are not here to fill some need for us but are souls that will live forever and it is our immense responsibility to train them!!! So to anyone who says you can not possibly know each of your children if you have more then 2, I say, RUBBISH!!! I have been on both ends. Also my children are sooooo excited when we give them a new sibling because they know a baby is the richest blessing that God can give!!!
Preventing Unwanted Future Pregnancies
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that 14.1% of all births were “unwanted”* at the time of conception. Of this 14.1%, 26.6% of third or higher births were “unwanted” at time of conception.
(*does not include “mistimed”)
Pasquale has already introduced the topic of teenage pregnancies.
Many non-teenagers would agree that—whether you want one or three or six children—limitation can be very hard to pull off.
Even some women who are admonished by their religion to “be fruitful and multiply” must, at times, take breaks to preserve their health. Women whose religions do not permit artificial methods of conception control often must deal rigorous charting activities, and use some tools. Counseling and tools for natural family planning methods can cost money. (Has anyone heard of “FAM”?)
When you start talking sterilization, shots four times a year, or pills you are talking about big costs. Even condoms and spermicides aren’t cheap.
If your health insurance or your state’s Medicaid doesn’t cover these things, the costs can be formidable.
Even if you qualify for Medicaid