Why people have so many children?

[rootX]

It is always wonderful and mesmerizing to see how happy a mom gets whenever you ask how her baby is doing and she goes into lengths explaining every single detail including changing diapers. One I encountered had only one baby at that time and were financially stable.

 

[Reshma]

I don't understand why someone in the first world would want more than 1-2 children. Even now, some people prefer to have more than 3 children.

The world population is not uniformly distributed and Asian countries like India, China and the South-east Asian countries comprise roughly 50% of the world's population! In such countries, I think it would be highly stupid to have more than two children (I would say one is enough). Both my parents come from large families but my parents and their siblings chose to have smaller families (1-2 children). But that doesn't seem to be the case with everyone.

But the situation seems different for sparsely populated nations like Australia and Canada and they are forced to rely on immigrants for human resource. Japan is facing a negative population growth with a high aged population. In fact the Japanese government is encouraging couples to have more than 2 children.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Raising your own child and observing someone else are entirely two different experiences. Having been in both situations, raising my children has made me a better person. Many parents who do raise children also go through an amazing transformation of their perspectives that make them a better person.

So one of the advantages of having children is that it makes you a better person. A better person in what ways?

but a parent who has the dedication and love to raise a child NEVER regrets it.

I'm sure a lot of parents in the process of raising children regret ever having the children in the first place. Most won't say it, but I'm sure a lot think that way. The cons of having the child for them is that their entire lives are rearranged. The pros are they may or may not become "better" sometime in the distant future.

 

[rhody]

I think that creating/nurturing/raising children is a great gift and a huge responsibility. That being said, part of me wonders a bit, (one can never truly know what their motivation is) is the case with Jim and Michele Duggar whose family has now grown to 19 children: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting#cite_note-9" and whose kid's names are (see list below), with Michele having been pregnant almost continuously for the last 22 years ! I don't even know where to begin, except to say that she must "like if that is possible, being pregnant, and can handle stress and multi-tasking better than most of us'". Beyond that, I have nooo idea...

1 Joshua James March 3, 1988 (1988-03-03) (age 22)
2 Jana Marie January 12, 1990 (1990-01-12) (age 20) Birth via C-section[18]
3 John-David
4 Jill Michelle May 17, 1991 (1991-05-17) (age 18)
5 Jessa Lauren November 4, 1992 (1992-11-04) (age 17)
6 Jinger Nicole December 21, 1993 (1993-12-21) (age 16)
7 Joseph Garrett January 20, 1995 (1995-01-20) (age 15)
8 Josiah Matthew August 28, 1996 (1996-08-28) (age 13)
9 Joy-Anna October 28, 1997 (1997-10-28) (age 12)
10 Jedidiah Robert December 30, 1998 (1998-12-30) (age 11)
11 Jeremiah Robert
12 Jason Michael April 21, 2000 (2000-04-21) (age 10)
13 James Andrew July 7, 2001 (2001-07-07) (age 8)
14 Justin Samuel November 15, 2002 (2002-11-15) (age 7)
15 Jackson Levi May 23, 2004 (2004-05-23) (age 5) Birth via C-section, featured in a Discovery Health special
16 Johannah Faith October 11, 2005 (2005-10-11) (age 4) Birth featured in a Discovery Health special
17 Jennifer Danielle August 2, 2007 (2007-08-02) (age 2) Birth featured in a Discovery Health special
18 Jordyn-Grace Makiya December 18, 2008(2008-12-18) (1 year 4 months) Birth via C-section, featured in a regular season episode
19 Josie Brooklyn December 10, 2009(2009-12-10) (4 months 16 days) Birth via emergency C-section, featured in a TLC special

Rhody...

 

[Kerrie]

I think that creating/nurturing/raising children is a great gift and a huge responsibility. That being said, part of me wonders a bit, (one can never truly know what their motivation is) is the case with Jim and Michele Duggar whose family has now grown to 19 children: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting#cite_note-9" and whose kid's names are (see list below), with Michele having been pregnant almost continuously for the last 22 years ! I don't even know where to begin, except to say that she must "like if that is possible, being pregnant, and can handle stress and multi-tasking better than most of us'". Beyond that, I have nooo idea...


Rhody...

I think this situation is of course extremely rare, but it has always struck me as a publicity stunt more than anything.

 

[Kerrie]

So one of the advantages of having children is that it makes you a better person. A better person in what ways?

I'm sure a lot of parents in the process of raising children regret ever having the children in the first place. Most won't say it, but I'm sure a lot think that way. The cons of having the child for them is that their entire lives are rearranged. The pros are they may or may not become "better" sometime in the distant future.

Maturity, patience, tolerance, acceptance, compassion.

Those who regret having children are most likely not ready for the responsibility of children. I think you are speaking from a viewpoint of disliking the responsibilities and obligations-which clearly you do not want in this time in your life. Kudos to you for recognizing this, but millions of people in this world obviously think the rewards of raising children is higher than the responsibilities.

 

[rhody]

I think this situation is of course extremely rare, but it has always struck me as a publicity stunt more than anything.

Kerrie,

Are you saying that from the beginning when they had say 5 children that they (husband and or wife) needed attention, recognition, etc... the dynamics of all of this blow my mind, that they hatched a plan like this ? I consider myself practical, rational (at least most of the time, hehe).

According to their wiki page (take that for what it is worth) they are entirely self sufficient, not in major debt. I hope this is the case. I can't imagine a case of (Octo 8 * 2 + 3) parents ! If I had to make a pro/con checklist for having this many children, I can't think of so many things on the plus side that would ever in my wildest dreams convince myself that I could pull it off successfully. It is beyond comprehension...

Rhody...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The number of children per couple is a difficult number to work with because a significant percentage of the population forms more than one couple during their child bearing years. It is simpler to consider the number of children per female. It is obvious that an upper limit of 2 children per female for an extended length of time will cause a decline in the population because of the number of women who would have 0 or 1 child.

 

[Kerrie]

Kerrie,

Are you saying that from the beginning when they had say 5 children that they (husband and or wife) needed attention, recognition, etc... the dynamics of all of this blow my mind, that they hatched a plan like this ? I consider myself practical, rational (at least most of the time, hehe).

According to their wiki page (take that for what it is worth) they are entirely self sufficient, not in major debt. I hope this is the case. I can't imagine a case of (Octo 8 * 2 + 3) parents ! If I had to make a pro/con checklist for having this many children, I can't think of so many things in the plus side that would ever in my wildest dreams convince myself that I could pull it off successfully. It is beyond comprehension...

Rhody...

I think it is quite obvious they want attention for their large family. Whether it is monetary, or to just show the world they have a loving, close, religious family, I don't know what the motivation for attention is of course.

At this point I can imagine that there are so many children that are old enough to help out that the *overwhelming* feeling for mom and dad has subsided. I have a 13 year old who is wonderful about helping with my 4 year old, which is why I came to this assumption.

 

[Kerrie]

The number of children per couple is a difficult number to work with because a significant percentage of the population forms more than one couple during their child bearing years. It is simpler to consider the number of children per female. It is obvious that an upper limit of 2 children per female for an extended length of time will cause a decline in the population because of the number of women who would have 0 or 1 child.

Very good point!

 

[Jack21222]

The number of children per couple is a difficult number to work with because a significant percentage of the population forms more than one couple during their child bearing years. It is simpler to consider the number of children per female. It is obvious that an upper limit of 2 children per female for an extended length of time will cause a decline in the population because of the number of women who would have 0 or 1 child.

And this is bad because...?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And this is bad because...?

I place no moral value on it, it's just a fact. However, there is a downside to population decline and the details are well known. For instance, without enough young working people to pay into social security, your parents will have to move in with you. That's enough to scare most people into supporting the social security, liberal immigration policies, end-of-life counseling, and large families.

 

[pallidin]

For instance, without enough young working people to pay into social security, your parents will have to move it with you.

Hmmm... never thought of it that way. Good point!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Hmmm... never thought of it that way. Good point!

That should be "in with you". I edited my post accordingly.

 

[pallidin]

Right, I read it that way(move in with you). I'm used to spelling/grammar/context mistakes from others and myself.

 

[rootX]

I place no moral value on it, it's just a fact. However, there is a downside to population decline and the details are well known. For instance, without enough young working people to pay into social security, your parents will have to move in with you. That's enough to scare most people into supporting the social security, liberal immigration policies, end-of-life counseling, and large families.

1) Would you prefer brilliant immigrants or dumb locals? Quality matters as much as quantity.
2) Can people raise kids better if they can spend more time on the kid? If yes, less is better than more.
3)

because of the number of women who would have 0 or 1 child.

Educated/rich families tend to have less kids .. Are you saying that poor families should prefer more children so that can balance with less children in educated/rich families.

 

[DaveC426913]

People always say how children are a miracle and a blessing and how wonderful and glorious and whatever else it is. But that's not saying anything.

Clearly, it's not saying anything you understand.

Because you cannot empathize, does that mean it is to be dismisssed?

Or put another way: is the lack of understanding considered their inability? Or yours?

If someone wants to list the advantages of having a child, they'd have to use more quantifiable terms.

Why?

Even saying it's their "best" decision, isn't saying anything. "Best" is vague and almost always needs to be elaborated on.

And elaborating is bad how?


You are making a classic mistake: you see something that you do not understand, so you dismiss it as invalid (i.e.: "isn't saying anything", "have to be more quantifiable", etc.). Bzzt.


Having children often translates directly into joy, without intervening steps. Often, it simply fulfills the very thing that gives meaning to the lives of people. How do you quantify that?

Trying to quantify it is kind of like determining your personal worth simply by examining your salary or counting your material goods or determining the beauty of a painting by looking at its price tag.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Clearly, it's not saying anything you understand.

Because you cannot empathize, does that mean it is to be dismisssed?

Or put another way: is the lack of understanding considered their inability? Or yours?

Calm down. Don't get your feathers ruffled until you understand what I'm saying.
My point is it's just like saying something is "better". Saying something is better doesn't explain anything. If I said my bike is better than yours, you'd need me to elaborate in what way it's better.

Why?

Because just like my bike analogy, "better" needs to be elaborated on. If I said my bike is better and you asked for me to elaborate how it's better, "is the lack of understanding considered my inability? Or yours?"
By your reasoning, if you don't automatically understand what I mean by "better", when I say "my bike is better", then that's your problem.

And elaborating is bad how?

When did I imply elaborating was bad? That's the exact opposite of what I said. My entire post was advocating more elaboration.

You are making a classic mistake: you see something that you do not understand, so you dismiss it as invalid (i.e.: "isn't saying anything", "have to be more quantifiable", etc.). Bzzt.

I'm simply asking for further elaboration. If you ask someone why they did something, and they say "because", that should be good enough? You can't ask for further elaboration on anything lest you be the one who just doesn't understand?

Having children often translates directly into joy, without intervening steps. Often, it simply fulfills the very thing that gives meaning to the lives of people. How do you quantify that?

Things happen for a reason. Saying it's ineffable doesn't cut it for any other topic, so why is this one any different?

Trying to quantify it is kind of like determining your personal worth simply by examining your salary or counting your material goods or determining the beauty of a painting by looking at its price tag.

Personal worth can be quantified. Are you saying we can't say whether Gandhi had more personal worth than Hitler, since we can't put a price on a human being?

 

[DaveC426913]

My point is it's just like saying something is "better". Saying something is better doesn't explain anything. If I said my bike is better than yours, you'd need me to elaborate in what way it's better.

Not really, no.

A more apt analogy would be my "I prefer my bike to yours". You can ask for clarification, but not getting does not allow you to invalidate the claim. And your understanding or even acceptance is not required.

I refer you back to this:

... children are a miracle and a blessing and ... wonderful and glorious...

This statement (pretending that it is a legit person saying it, and not you putting words in a fictional person's mouth) requires neither defending nor quantifying.

But that's not saying anything.

This is an expectation on your part, because you did not get an answer you like.

By your reasoning, if you don't automatically understand what I mean by "better", when I say "my bike is better", then that's your problem.

If you prefer your bike to mine, and I don't understand why you feel that way, that's my problem, yes.

I'm simply asking for further elaboration. If you ask someone why they did something, and they say "because", that should be good enough? You can't ask for further elaboration on anything lest you be the one who just doesn't understand?

You weren't asking; you were dismissing the claim as inadequate for your purposes.

Things happen for a reason. Saying it's ineffable doesn't cut it for any other topic, so why is this one any different?

Because such things as what gives our life meaning do not require defending.

Personal worth can be quantified. Are you saying we can't say whether Gandhi had more personal worth than Hitler, since we can't put a price on a human being?

Really? So quantify it.

So far, the only comparison you used is "more"; that is not quantification, that is qualification.

 

[leroyjenkens]

A more apt analogy would be my "I prefer my bike to yours". You can ask for clarification, but not getting does not allow you to invalidate the claim. And your understanding or even acceptance is not required.

Well then this is about people's freedom to say whatever they want without having to explain themselves. But then that automatically excludes them from any discussion about it, which is what this was.
We were discussing the pros and cons of having children. The "pros" being that they're a blessing and a miracle. In a debate, that requires elaboration.
I could just as easily say it's a blessing NOT to have kids.

This statement (pretending that it is a legit person saying it, and not you putting words in a fictional person's mouth) requires neither defending nor quantifying.

Well it's not referring to someone specifically, but are you honestly going to tell me that you've never heard a child referred to as a "blessing"?

This is an expectation on your part, because you did not get an answer you like.

It's not about an answer that I like, it's about an answer that says something. If you ask me how old I am and I answer with "Cheetah", I'm sure that's an answer you're not going to like. It's a nonsensical answer, yet by your reasoning, it should be acceptable. The problem doesn't lie with my nonsensical answer, it lies with your expectation of an answer that at least includes numbers.

If you prefer your bike to mine, and I don't understand why you feel that way, that's my problem, yes.

First of all, why do you keep changing "better" to "prefer"?

But regardless of that, if we're trying to resolve whose bike is better in a legitimate discussion, "I prefer mine" doesn't automatically win. There has to be a reason why I prefer mine, it's not ineffable. Just because it's my preference doesn't exclude it from needing elaboration, IF you're in a debate about it. That's the key. In every day life, I don't need to explain anything I say or do, but that won't fly in a debate.

You weren't asking; you were dismissing the claim as inadequate for your purposes.

I was asking. I was asking for further elaboration. If you want to call that dismissing the claim as inadequate, then I guess that's what I did. If I ask for elaboration, then it obviously follows that the claim must be inadequate for me to need elaboration.

Because such things as what gives our life meaning do not require defending.

Theists say the same thing about religion yet that topic is debated frequently.

Really? So quantify it.

So far, the only comparison you used is "more"; that is not quantification, that is qualification.

So you're saying Hitler and Gandhi are equal in worth until someone can prove otherwise? Or that it's impossible to prove it?

And "more" is a quantity.

 

[Huckleberry]

So one of the advantages of having children is that it makes you a better person. A better person in what ways?

I'm sure a lot of parents in the process of raising children regret ever having the children in the first place. Most won't say it, but I'm sure a lot think that way. The cons of having the child for them is that their entire lives are rearranged. The pros are they may or may not become "better" sometime in the distant future.

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do? If they tell you they don't regret it you wouldn't believe it anyway, so the only testimony that matters are your own and those of people who agree with you. You defend the surety of an infallible position by demanding quantifiable love.

This is one of the ways that having children can make people better. It forces parents to care about someone other than themselves. They rearrange their lives around the needs of their children and come to find that their children have personalities and opinions separate from themselves. The idea is frightening for some people, some parents included, that the opinions of others may make a difference in their lives; that they are responsible and accountable for the well-being of another person.

Sometimes things are better after they are rearranged. From your perspective it may not appear so, but your perspective, and mine, are inconsequential to how parents love their children.

This reminds me, Mother's Day is coming up soon.

 

[MarCn]

I think because not all people can give more time for them.

 

[Kerrie]

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do? If they tell you they don't regret it you wouldn't believe it anyway, so the only testimony that matters are your own and those of people who agree with you. You defend the surety of an infallible position by demanding quantifiable love.

This is one of the ways that having children can make people better. It forces parents to care about someone other than themselves. They rearrange their lives around the needs of their children and come to find that their children have personalities and opinions separate from themselves. The idea is frightening for some people, some parents included, that the opinions of others may make a difference in their lives; that they are responsible and accountable for the well-being of another person.

Sometimes things are better after they are rearranged. From your perspective it may not appear so, but your perspective, and mine, are inconsequential to how parents love their children.

This reminds me, Mother's Day is coming up soon.

Perfectly stated :)

 

[DaveC426913]

Well then this is about people's freedom to say whatever they want without having to explain themselves. But then that automatically excludes them from any discussion about it, which is what this was.

They are excluded because they are not here. We only have your paraphrasing of what "some people" are saying, and it's extremely vague and biased. You are setting up your own target, doomed to fail, then shooting it down.

We were discussing the pros and cons of having children. The "pros" being that they're a blessing and a miracle. In a debate, that requires elaboration.

Again, they are not here. You are acting as both sides of the debate.

This is analagous to trying to have a discussion with a Creationist wherein the Creationist gives you Evolutionist arguments in his own words, then shoots them down.

Well it's not referring to someone specifically, but are you honestly going to tell me that you've never heard a child referred to as a "blessing"?

See above. You present your own case for your opponent, then shoot it down.

It's not about an answer that I like, it's about an answer that says something. If you ask me how old I am and I answer with "Cheetah", I'm sure that's an answer you're not going to like. It's a nonsensical answer, yet by your reasoning, it should be acceptable.

No. I think you will find that most people intuitively understand "blessing" and "miracle" and such. I believe you are the exception.

First of all, why do you keep changing "better" to "prefer"?

Because "prefer" is subjective. Like parents thinking that having children is a blessing.
I don't need to defned my preference for a bike, just like I don't need ot defend my beleief that children are a blessing.
"Better" is less subjective; it contains a comparison.

IF you're in a debate about it.

Which these hypothetical people you refer to are not.
The argument you are presenting to us is not from any real entity; it is from some people you have interacted with and whose mouths you have put words in. That doesn't mean it's not true, it simply means you holding up a pupper stuffed with rags and telling us to treat that as a real debating opponent. it's not; it's just a few statements.

That's the key. In every day life, I don't need to explain anything I say or do, but that won't fly in a debate.

One does not debate with statements; one debates with opponents.

So you're saying Hitler and Gandhi are equal in worth until someone can prove otherwise? Or that it's impossible to prove it?

No, I am saying their worth is not quantifiable, though it is qualifiable.

And "more" is a quantity.

And what quantity is it? Give me a number please.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do? If they tell you they don't regret it you wouldn't believe it anyway, so the only testimony that matters are your own and those of people who agree with you. You defend the surety of an infallible position by demanding quantifiable love.

I've had plenty of people tell me they wish they waited to have children. That's a regret.

They are excluded because they are not here. We only have your paraphrasing of what "some people" are saying, and it's extremely vague and biased. You are setting up your own target, doomed to fail, then shooting it down.

I'm setting up a target that I've seen before and shooting it down. What's the problem? I never claimed anyone here had that position, so it's not a straw man.

Again, they are not here. You are acting as both sides of the debate.

That's not the point. You were defending the phantom when you came in here, and now you're just saying that my debate with the phantom doesn't matter.

This is analagous to trying to have a discussion with a Creationist wherein the Creationist gives you Evolutionist arguments in his own words, then shoots them down.

So you're saying that a creationist wouldn't describe evolution accurately? Then that means you're saying it's not accurate when I say people call children blessings. Is that what you're saying?

See above. You present your own case for your opponent, then shoot it down.

I didn't attribute that argument to anyone here, so I don't see why you have a problem with it. Unless you think that's what I did, which I didn't.

No. I think you will find that most people intuitively understand "blessing" and "miracle" and such. I believe you are the exception.

And they understand that it means what? Could you explain what they mean? And remember that repeating the word itself isn't an explanation as to the meaning of the word.

Because "prefer" is subjective. Like parents thinking that having children is a blessing.
I don't need to defned my preference for a bike, just like I don't need ot defend my beleief that children are a blessing.
"Better" is less subjective; it contains a comparison.

Given the context of a debate, you would need to explain why your preference is the way it is. Otherwise there's nothing to debate.

Which these hypothetical people you refer to are not.

They may be. I never said they weren't, and since I made them up, I can say that they're in a debate.

The argument you are presenting to us is not from any real entity; it is from some people you have interacted with and whose mouths you have put words in. That doesn't mean it's not true, it simply means you holding up a pupper stuffed with rags and telling us to treat that as a real debating opponent. it's not; it's just a few statements.

I'm using them as an example of what's acceptable in a debate and what's not. Their explanation isn't acceptable. I don't see a problem with doing that.

No, I am saying their worth is not quantifiable, though it is qualifiable.

Why isn't it quantifiable?

And what quantity is it? Give me a number please.

It's not an exact number, just like "few". But they can both be used to indicate a quantity.

 

[Huckleberry]

I've had plenty of people tell me they wish they waited to have children. That's a regret.

That is a far cry from...

I'm sure a lot of parents in the process of raising children regret ever having the children in the first place. Most won't say it, but I'm sure a lot think that way.

They regret being unprepared for children, not ever having them in the first place. This regret doesn't support your argument.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why isn't it quantifiable?

It's not quantifiable because you cannot assign numbers to it.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

Quantify Ghandi's worth versus Hitler's. Give me numbers (even if you make them up) that meaningfully show specifically how much more Ghandi is worth to the world than Hitler.

Alternately, quantify the emotional or spiritual effect of children on parents.

 

[GeorginaS]

Have you ever heard a parent calmly claim that they regret having their child? If not, then how can you be sure that a lot of them do?

No, I've not heard many parents calmly claim that they regret having children. Have you seen the stats on child abuse and neglect by their own parents? Have you lived with a parent who could barely tolerate the sight of you while telling anyone who would listen how much they "loved" being a parent? There are far, far too many damaged grown-ups who were harmed by their parents and far too many children currently being harmed by their parents to say there exists any universal test or standard for parents having little to not regrets about having procreated.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Kids are fun. They're fun to make and fun to watch and fun to see become real people.

I have to say, my only regret about fatherhood is that I only had one.

 

[Huckleberry]

No, I've not heard many parents calmly claim that they regret having children. Have you seen the stats on child abuse and neglect by their own parents? Have you lived with a parent who could barely tolerate the sight of you while telling anyone who would listen how much they "loved" being a parent? There are far, far too many damaged grown-ups who were harmed by their parents and far too many children currently being harmed by their parents to say there exists any universal test or standard for parents having little to not regrets about having procreated.

I have lived with a parent like that. Have you?

I never implied that parents "love" being parents or that there is a universal standard for testing whether parents regret having children or not. I implied that the overwhelming majority of parents love their children, and that basing an opinion the testimony of parents is better than basing it on an infallible, unsubstantiated and ultimately inconsequential opinion.

Where does the idea that because some parents are unhappy that they regret having children come from? Raising children isn't easy, and some people are dreadfully unprepared for the task. Just because circumstances are difficult and some parents don't cope well doesn't mean they regret their children, and just because a parent abuses their child doesn't mean they don't also love them.