And me and hubby will probably be childless.

lol

i jest.

little lover boys and nuclear unicorns running about, how can the world do without.

I think I have an internet mom hassling me for internet grandkids.

That is cute.

Of course that is selfish because I have three.

My logic is that my odds are pretty good that at least one of those kids will be able to take care of me one day! Two is a 50/50 chance and one is putting all my eggs in a single basket. 33% chance is good enough. Four gets to be wild when they are young and five is way too many for me!

Tax credits for the first three, tax PENALTIES for any over that...

It also seems like it would give some a foothold on the argument that "welfare queens" ought to suffer economic harm for having children while on public assistance.

And they are using more services then they are paying for.

We really need to stop families like the Duggars who are selfish enough to have that many children

Sure, it's their right but rights aren't free

If so then you have imposed criminal penalties just the same as those who would impose poll taxes would punish voters who refused to pay.

You would also be mandating the use of birth control. I know you probably don't like Catholics as a reflex but they aren't the only ones and it would be an interesting legal theory that says failure to use condoms or oral contraceptives are breaking the law.

And yes rights ought to be free. When people speak of freedom of speech/religion/conscience/press/choice they do not refer to having something provided cost-free for them but without interference from a bunch of moralist busybodies using the law to bully the rest of us into their schemes of "A Better Future, Today."

As for mandating birth control, I say yes - or at least strongly suggest it.

No one is forcing them to take birth control - but if they want to be like Britney Spears and literally shit out babies, we shouldn't have to pay for that.

I'd rather pay for First Class Hotel service for Death Row inmates than that

As for mandating birth control, I say yes - or at least strongly suggest it.

we shouldn't have to pay for that.

I don't see how any of this is relevant, especially the comparison to poll taxes.

Economic ability is a big factor, so is the "pace" at which you have them. How young you start and how old you "stop" are a major consideration. One child every 2 years for 10 years isn't really that awful if the money, and will, are there, and you start about 22. I do think that the "quiverfull" types don't think most of this stuff through until they are will into the process. I met a woman who had 1 child every year for 10 years starting at 22. Husband had the income to support it. But it's hard not to imagine some of the challenges such an arrangement might create, not to mention risks. A special needs child can really change the family dynamic fast.

Romney had the money, and family, to support such a choice. I don't know that much about Santorum in that sense. Family will be a big help in many ways.

As long as they aren't screaming and kicking the back of my seat, I don't care.

Me personally, I am happy at 3. My wife would like at least one more. A friend of mine has 6 and loves it. I also have a friend with zero and loves it. To each their own.

I agree.

But that's a personal choice that I don't feel comfortable imposing upon others, for obvious reasons.

Wouldn't it be nice if they felt the same way?

Not my decision. I can't comprehend a life like the Duggars, but it's theirs, not mine.

I've known families with just one kid, where that was likely too many. But, I am from a family of 9 - and I value each and every one. My parents by the way are not right wing - nor is the family of a close friend who was one of 13. My mom, college educated and brilliant, always wanted a large family.

Do you want to emulate Rick Santorum and think that you know what is better for people you do not even know? How would you feel if someone decided that you needed precisely n kids?

This is always an interesting pro-choice discussion.

That is all.

I wanted six children and my Wife wanted two. When I thought this way I could afford it.

So we compromised and had two. After all, She does the Heaving Lifting. And as far as affording it goes, She turned out to be right there too.

In the case of RW religious nuts, they have to out-breed the heathen non-white skinned hordes.

IF people follow these religions down to a T, of course then they will have a lot of kids. Certainly, the Catholic church does not believe in "artificial" birth control, so if a couple follows their teachings down to the letter, they will have very large families. I think the LDS (Mormon) church is the same.

Personally, I am an only child by choice and actually LIKED being ALONE. I would have been fine with only one kid, but my husband talked me into another, but more THAN TWO would have been too many for both of us.

I never would have married a man in the first place who wanted a quiverful of kids. No way.

...but I can't understand why anyone would want more than 2 or 3. Maybe I feel that way because I can't see spreading my attention and affection that thin.

I only have one.

but I don't think that dictating numbers of children is much of an idea.

Yes Yes people have the right and the choice and all that - as they should. But the rest of us have the equal - and far less societally impactful - right to make our own minds up whether we think their rightful choice has been made wrongly. Wrongly it could be on the basis of their own family dynamic, their ability to raise children with a decent life, even their environmental impact.

There's no set number where I personally start saying "boy did they really think this through?" in all cases. It could be at 1 for poverty-stricken drug addicts with no fixed abode, or for violent uncontrollably angry people say. But I guess for a typical working/lower middle class family I'd start raising an eyebrow at 4 and move up from there in "boy....?" level.

Yes I'm fully aware larger families can be very successful, and lower/zero child families not. It's a general answer to a general question. My own wife is from a batch of 5 and they all seem to be reasonably ok.

If your children are a source of frustration and resentment to you because of their overwhelming numbers; if you end up like the Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe who 'gave them some broth without any bread, whipped them all soundly and sent them to bed'; or if you cannot afford to provide for their basic physical needs, then you have too many. Moreover, having a large number of closely-spaced children may sometimes be too many for a woman's own health.

By such a standard, for some people one is too many; others can cope happily and effectively with ten or more, especially if they are not too closely spaced. It all depends on the parents' emotional, social, physical and to some degree financial resources, and on whether they actually want a large family.

Ultimately, it must be the parents' choice, even if I personally might think some parents have too many.

Presumably, the main reason why right-wing religious types have so many children is that many of them belong to groups that don't believe in abortion, birth control, or more generally in non-procreative sex. However, some people just genuinely want lots of children!

is many a woman who when faced with a divorce finds herself and her children in poverty. A child or the adult can get sick or die. Or we can just land in a depression.

Happened to me. I wanted a large family. Found someone who was able to afford it. We had 4 kids, provided for them well, had a nice home, new vehicles and my now-ex made 6 figures by the time we had our 4th. And then he cheated on me and left me after I had been a stay at home mom for 12 years. I had no education or job or anything. So, now I'm raising the kids all on my own, relying on child/spousal support, barely making it, and going to school full-time. Not easy and not the life I envisioned for me or for them. I probably would not have had 4 if I could have seen into the future, obviously (although I wouldn't give any of them up for ANYTHING now that they are here, they are my life).

totally but I too would have lived my life differently if I had known the future.

not "pro choice but only if I agree with someone's politics"

How many kids someone has (or doesn't have) isn't any of your damn business.

"what do you think?" and "what would you legislate?"

I don't see anyone suggesting that we take away the child tax credit over a certain number, for example.

I don't mind opinions so long as no one gets the idea that their opinion should supersede mine or yours on such a personal topic.

The entire modern entertainment industry is built on this, as is the vast majority of news.

Your rant may have a point if anybody were suggesting limiting the number by force. Haven't seen that yet. Without that, pretty sure any right to freedom of choice does not override any right to freedom of speech, including speech about choices.

how's 30 years of "choice" working out for you? the country is crumbling because the religiously insane, the stupid people who can't do math, the impulsive mentally ill who can't plan ahead...those are the folks having multiple kids

people who can do math in the real world have 1 or 0 kids, it takes BIG money to even have 2 kids

if you want a world that is colder, more full of hate, has less room for opportunity and freedom...by all means...support this concept of "choice" which is no choice at all but a world where stupid, ignorant "barefoot and pregnant" women who are dead from the neck up keep popping out babies and intelligent women have only one child

those 20 duggar children will all vote and they will outvote the decent, thoughtful, cares-about-the planet progressive woman's child

if you want a level playing field, you can't leave it up to some blind magical invisible hand, that bullshit is for the stupid people in the GOP to believe, we as progressives have an obligation to face reality

a world of 7 billion, where a great many people will never hold a decent job or have any chance of meeting their dreams because there just isn't enough "dream" to go around...we don't change that world by telling people, it's OK, honey, it's your "choice" to be octo-mom

the time to be loud and proud about objecting to stupidity is NOW, if not yesterday, i not only have the right to make a judgment about people who breed too much, if i care about this planet, i have an OBLIGATION to speak up about people who have too many kids

if i love this earth, it is VERY MUCH my business when someone has too many children

if i don't care, sure, it's easy to say "it's none of my business" -- if i care, it IS my business

having too many kids is stupid, cruel, and wrong, and to say of the rich man like romney, "well, at least he can afford it," it's still stupid, cruel, and wrong, the planet can't afford it, for each rich man's child takes an opportunity away from a poor or middle class child since the rich child is always given the first chance

was the father of 11 children. I told my daughter's that they should not have children just to have a large family but to consider the impact of the number of children on the entire family. I thought it was a good guideline.

Most importantly, are they good parents? How many can they afford? Those are the 2 most important factors, IMHO.

Some people shouldn't have any children at all, and some people manage to successfully parent 6 or more kids.

I came from a large family, and I'm not complaining. I can think of a couple of parents of one child who should have never had one.

make a statement regarding how many children.

Rights. I have 'em.

For others...it depends. If you need the help of the State to support your children than one is too many. If you can pay for them yourself, go ahed and have a couple dozen, I couldn't care less.

I made that decision.

It gave women a voice in determining their lives and advances in/and acceptance of contraception cinched the deal.

I have two by choice. I discovered I was a type 1 diabetic after my second daughter was born so I decided that was it for me. I didn't want to go through a risky pregnancy. I see the situation with the Duggars as very unhealthy. Mrs. Duggar puts her life at risk by having so many children and she is getting older. All for religious purposes and being against contraception. But making a law about it would be to Big Brother to me. I guess you cannot stop some people's stupidity.

(and so I have none of my own)

...but it's not my job to decide how many anyone else should have.

First, no one should tell another what is an appropriate size for their family. That's why we call ourselves "pro-choice."

Second, there's a certain amount of responsibility involved: Not just "Can I support x number of children?" but "Am I capable of fully caring for and providing a nurturing environment and an education for x number of children?"

And third, there's education. The more we become educated--both generally and specifically on the state of the planet--we will choose, of our own free will, to have fewer children.

I have no biological children. I have fostered kids and helped raise relatives' kids (my heart-kids), and I also mentor youth. That's because YOUR children are also my responsibility - they're going to be part of my community and my society, and I want to do what I can to see that they get all the love, care, and support they need.

is more than one can afford to feed, clothe, house, educate and perhaps most importantly -- love and guide!

For Mother Earth, I'd say 2 (zero population growth)

For me, personally, anything more than "two" is pushing the limit. Especially in today's economy. Contrary to what Rick Insanitorum says, *I* do feel that a secondary education (which type should be the individual's choice) is a necessity.

Also, contrary to what Jim Bob Duggar has publicly proclaimed, *I* believe that overpopulation is a legitimate issue.

Do I think that MY view should determine someone else's choice? Absolutely not. But I do believe that parents should be expected to provide for the needs of their children, and that consideration should be examined before having more children than they can reasonably provide for.

a couple replicating their number, which would be two, should be the limit. However, Catholics and Mormons are not the only religion guilty of this. Hassidic Jews also have large families as well as many Islamic sects.

That being said though, I wouldn't want family size to be legislated. I think people who want children and can afford them should have them, as well as those "selfish" couples, who don't want children, shouldn't be prevented from using the methods of birth control they want in order to remain childless. Women have to be empowered to regulate their fertility. Studies have shown that if women have complete access to family planning and a basic education to make informed choices, the population in those places promoting this stabilizes and often even goes down.

Beyond that is selfish, imo

and how many the wife is willing to have. I had 2 and that was enough.

With the world's population already at more than SIX Billion, it seems to me that any discussion of the number of children should start with recognition of the fact that there are ALREADY too many people.

We cannot feed the world's people now. Every hour, something like 25,000 people die from hunger.

There is not enough clean water for the world's people now.

There is not enough. Not Enough.

I'm not sure how many kids are "too many".

But I do know that unless we REDUCE the number of people we have on this planet, we are doomed.

The 1% will always be able to survive.

But the 99% will suffer.

Look up zero population growth

zero population growth?
noun
the maintenance of a population at a constant level by limiting the number of live births to that needed to replace the existing population.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zero+population+growth

Some people just aren't ever ready to raise one child, and other people can comfortably raise quite a few.

It's not just finances. One child will completely destroy the lifestyle of the childless couple unless said couple hires a full-time nanny. Being a real parent is very time-consuming.

For me personally, though, it's hard to imagine having more than two. Not because I think there's a certain number that is "too many," but because I can't imagine having any time for a life of my own with more than that number.

And the way things look to me right now...I am seriously considering forgoing having kids altogether. It's impossible for me to believe they would have a decent life growing up in this cess pit.

Maybe after they're all out of college, I'll say four...........

The Dugars seem kind of culty(if that's a word) to me. Just creepy.

Even if I may personally want fewer, and feel extremely sorry for Mrs. Duggar.... it's her choice.

If every couple had one kid, we'd be back on a path to sustainability.

It's not my business to tell you how many kids you can have, anymore than it is your business to tell me that I can't sleep with my own sex.

Can I tell everyone what sort of music they're allowed to like? That'd be wonderful, and looooong-overdue. (CLEAR YOUR IPODS, FOLKS, HERE COMES JERRY GARCIA!!!).

And pants. I need to do something about the kinds of pants some people wear.

I'm sure I've got more... wow! I'm excited! This is fucking GREAT!

Who am I say how many is the right number of children for another family?

I have three kids and I know plenty of people who think that's too many. I do have to admit when I heard Santorum had seven kids that seemed kind of nutty, but then again I already thought Santorum was a nut so I'm biased.

The right amount would be based on the couple. There are too many that have too too many kids. Some shouldn't have any. In most cases there is no reason to have more than 3 or 4.

But it also depends on which kids they have.

It really shouldn't be based on whether they can afford having kids. Money doesn't make good parents with good kids.

But the answer is two.

Except for Damian, of course.

If you have one, then that is cool.

If you have two, then you need to commit to having another within two years.

If you have three, then that is cool.

If the third pregnancy is twins, then either one of the twins should be aborted, or a commitment to having a fifth child is necessary.

As humans we'll discuss the over population of other species & even sponsor canned hunts to thin the herd, but we never talk about controlling our own numbers.

It's a choice issue, many say. Or they feel that as long as the couple can afford it, it doesn't matter how many children they have. Those may have been valid views at one point, but our species is reaching numbers our planet cannot support. It certainly cannot support 7 billion people living a standard US life style.

If we don't start discussing our numbers & putting limits on them, nature will do it for us & it will be harsh. Much harsher than if we would control ourselves.

For all the 'humans are pinnacle of the creation' that organized religion espouses, we are not so smart after all.

you can see it over and over again in this thread, people patting themselves on the back about how liberal they are to say "it's their choice," "it's none of my business," and so forth and so on with the kneejerk auto-liberal response -- the world may be eaten to death and thousands of species may die but, by damn, they can congratulate themselves on how broad-minded they are!

a liberal used to be a person who could think and who cared about the planet, not a guy who just chanted a different brand of crap cant from the conservative brand of crap cant

"it's none of their business" is a nonsense answer when the other side is out-breeding us by a large fraction, in a democracy of one person, one vote, if the stupid people and religiously fearful are doing all the breeding, the progressives and the thoughtful people get crowded out...how is that NOT my business? america has a deep culture already of hate against intellectuals and it gets worse every day, what is the whole tea bag movement about except for hate against people who aren't dead from the neck up?

it's very much my business that religious kooks are out-breeding sane people, and to say "it's their choice" is just giving up because the problem is difficult -- an intellectually lazy approach to the problem

seems to me it's our social responsibility to point out that having a large family does harm to the earth and takes a selfish share of the earth's resources, and the "it's their choice, it ain't my problem" crowd are abdicating their responsibility because they want someone else to be the bad guy who has the tough discussion about over-population

room for your kids. Think the planet has limitless room for humans? We are almost at the limit for how much food can be produced. Good luck to your kids having enough food if people keep having too many kids. The usable land for food crops has a limit. For that matter eventually they won't have enough fuel to farm anyway and much less be able to pay for that fuel. Maybe they can use solar energy to move tractors too. pffft

but I also think it's past time to consider the effects of overpopulation on the planet as a whole.

Nor is it yours or anyone elses. Goddess sake people, it's like you've never heard of Eugenics or you have and it just doesn't seem to make you at all nervous.

Not minding your own business.

That was the thought behind the Vatican banning birth control, to increase the number of Catholics in the world. It's all political.

There might be a huge problem if everyone wanted 20 kids but that's never going to happen. I guess I'd say someone had too many if they have more than they can take care of. Given my personal situation, I feel one is all I can afford. If I won the lottery, I'd want 3-4.

I would never make it a law.

It's not just about who can afford them, it's also about spending quality time with them and with both parents working or even if one is at home it's hard to give that attention when it's split more.

I have seen many larger families make the older kids care for the younger ones, not allowing them to just have their own childhood.

Just my opinion like I said would never force anyone else.

My only concern with too many is with overpopulation which isn't good for the kids themselves. Other than that, I don't have any judgments.

I knew I would be a crappy father. I knew I didn't have the tools to bring a kid into this world let alone the wisdom to raise them properly.

so at a young age, I made that decision. I've lived with it.

Sometimes I wonder, but I know myself well enough that that wonderment doesn't last long.