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?
Add Comment Share This
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?
celeste | 1 year, 5 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
cls | 1 year, 5 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
Marney Cullen | 1 year, 5 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
Philippa | 1 year, 5 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
kate | 1 year, 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
celeste | 1 year, 5 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
Courtney | 1 year, 5 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
Cecily | 1 year, 5 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
Marie Gettings | 1 year, 5 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
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.
Jenn | 1 year, 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
1 2 3 > Last » (26 pages)