Why do people in financial need plan to have more children?

[annandatje]

That's not the way NFP works. You would only abstain while fertile, that's not a celibate marriage. But that's not the topic, the topic is people having children they can't afford. And BC fails, with me, it failed 6 times. I actually think I'd have done better with NFP, because then I'd at least have known when I was fertile.

 

I used NFP for seven years and generally was content with it until it became increasingly difficult to read fertility signals due to certain changes in body as I aged. However, I knew quite a few women who allegedly used barrier methods if they decided to have relations during fertile times. Without getting graphic, others managed to have physical relations in a manner that would not result in pregnancy.

 

NFP is wonderful for teaching about the awareness of the body's fertility; my own daughters learned it in homeschool health class even though it may not ultimately be their choice of contraception.

 

Of course fertility control methods fail. Not much in life is a certainty. Birth control fails when it is used conscientiously but a pregnancy results anyway. Assuming a woman does not desire pregnancy, using bc once in awhile or not at all and hoping for luck is carelessness and would not be considered an accident. However,I do not think anyone should be inquiring whether a pregnancy was intended or not except a healthcare provider.

 

Frankly I am grateful that women now generally have access to family planning methods so they do not have to be celibate or have to limit their sexual activity to acts that will not result in conception. I was born into a time and place where women did have to abstain from physical intimacy to avoid pregnancy. Nowadays women with health problems for whom a pregnancy would be dangerous can continue to be sexually active with their husbands. Women who for any reason don't want to conceive can continue sexual activity if they desire with a low probability of conception.

 

Most people do not cease driving because of they want to avoid serious auto crash at all costs. In a country where widespread public transportation is not available, they prepare by learning driving skills, getting licensed, not driving while impaired, not driving in inclement weather, etc. I suppose they could bike or walk to work but that is not always feasible either. Life is risky.

 

People having children they cannot afford? As I said earlier, the human reproduction system functions regardless of the responsibililty level of the couple involved. Who in their right mind would not prefer that children are born into families who can meet their basic needs for love, nutrition, shelter, and education? The couple are the ones who have to deal with the stress (and rewards) of unintended reproduction. Frankly I do not fret about whatever public assistance a child born into struggling family uses. I do not consider that government waste but rather an investment in our future.

[Juniper]

So you say. I say you are making some pretty big assumptions. But hey, what if they did know they were barren? Should they take themselves out of the marriage pool? Could one spose sue the other for not entering into a contract honestly? I find your statement quite cruel, to put it mildly.

 

Where on earth did you read that into her statement!!!!

 

Seriously, Hive Wars is an understatement! :(

 

 

 

 

........off to go hug my 7 year old. :(

[Impish]

So you say. I say you are making some pretty big assumptions. But hey, what if they did know they were barren? Should they take themselves out of the marriage pool? Could one spose sue the other for not entering into a contract honestly? I find your statement quite cruel, to put it mildly.

Uh...I don't know where you're getting this idea from, at all.

 

HOWEVER...I think if someone knows they're unable to have children and chooses to hide that from their future mate, then they're guilty of huge betrayal and deception, and I don't know of many ppl that would be able to forgive something of that magnitude.

[Murphy101]

Using birth control is common sense if you do not want a pregnancy yet wish to continue in a non-celibate marriage.

 

Using birth control is common sense if you are okay with being the 1/100 people who get pregnant even with perfect use. (1% risk is no comfort if you are the 1%). If those risks aren't acceptable and you might ever want kids in the future - I suggest abstaining.

 

You is a general you.

 

And I'm well aware no one has to take my suggestions.

I'll be happy to crochet them a baby blanket anyways.

:)

[Lisbeth]

Most of the people I know who are doing well with a lot of children planned for them. Ie, wife worked 10 years, they saved all of her income, she then quit to raise the children. Then those people have to listen to others complain about HAVING to work and use daycare because there is no choice. Or struggling to feed the kids. In MOST cases there is a choice - it is called preplanning.

[Murphy101]

Most of the people I know who are doing well with a lot of children planned for them. Ie, wife worked 10 years, they saved all of her income, she then quit to raise the children. Then those people have to listen to others complain about HAVING to work and use daycare because there is no choice. Or struggling to feed the kids. In MOST cases there is a choice - it is called preplanning.

 

Waiting 10 years even if they married at 18, means not having kids until she was 28.

Most consider me rather fertile and I married at 18. If I had waited until 28, I would only have 4 kids by 39. Are you calling 4 children "a lot"? Not snarky. Some do.

 

And I'm unusual. I don't know anyone who has more than 3 if they didn't have their first before age 28/30. Truth is their fertility is sharply declining once they hit 28, so it is unlikely, tho certainly not impossible, for someone who waits until 28 or later to have a large family.

 

Really having a large family is not something a person can plan. They can avoid it, but they can't make it happen. It requires all the stars of fate lining up to have more than 5 naturally. Marrying young + being getting pregnant young + repeated fertility + staying married + continued decent health ++++.

 

Baring several multiple birth pregnancies, it is very unlikely someone who doesn't even get married or start having children until they are 28+ years old will have more than 5 children. Most won't have more than 3. And many won't have more than 0-2.

 

I have no issue with someone waiting to have children. I don't think I didn't work my butt off when I was younger. It's a different work than building a savings account, but we sure weren't sitting around eating bonbons waiting for dh to fertilize me so we could get rich off the dole.

 

I don't think either is better or less work. Just different. *shrugs*

 

[Impish]

I'm kinda lol'ing at fertility declining after 28. I've had 3 kids and expecting my 4th from age 32+. I wonder how many I'd have if my fertility wasn't in decline!

 

(I realize that statistically, the statement is accurate, I'm not debating the valdiity of it, just thinking of my own situation)

[Murphy101]

I'm kinda lol'ing at fertility declining after 28. I've had 3 kids and expecting my 4th from age 32+. I wonder how many I'd have if my fertility wasn't in decline!

 

(I realize that statistically, the statement is accurate, I'm not debating the valdiity of it, just thinking of my own situation)

 

 

Lol. I know. Exceptions to every rule and all that. Welcome to my somewhat exclusive club. :)

[Impish]

w00t! I'm in a club!

[Crimson Wife]

I don't know anyone who has more than 3 if they didn't have their first before age 28/30.

 

 

I do know a couple moms like this. One was trying for #3 and wound up with #3-5, conceived naturally. Another had 5 kids in 6 years, not sure if she was naturally super-fertile or had medical help. However, these tend to be the exceptions, and I don't know anyone with 6+ kids who didn't start in their early-to-mid-20's.

[Impish]

 

She said:

There are many people that are barren, and can't have children and this is not to say that they can't get married--how would they even know such struggle was facing them?

 

...it's the attitude of" I'm not saying they can't get married, because how would they know thet were even barren." What if they were barren, or disliked kids, or never wanted kids,etc. Is marriage fine, or not necessary. Should they live in sin, since marriage is for kids? Does she actually mean kids should be born to married people only, or the act of getting married is mainly for kids. There is a difference, and that's what I was asking. The war cr@p is in your head on this one, sorry.

 

Sorry, but I still don't see how Martha's statement can be construed as saying nobody should get married *unless* they intend to procreate.

[cathmom]

I'm kinda lol'ing at fertility declining after 28. I've had 3 kids and expecting my 4th from age 32+. I wonder how many I'd have if my fertility wasn't in decline!

(I realize that statistically, the statement is accurate, I'm not debating the valdiity of it, just thinking of my own situation)

 

Lol. I know. Exceptions to every rule and all that. Welcome to my somewhat exclusive club. :)

 

 

Lol... Had one at 18, 2 in my twenties, and 4 in my thirties. So much for declining fertility!

[justamouse]

 

 

It wasn't Margaret who answered that way to me.

 

I did not say that people who cannot have children shouldn't get married. You are purposely misconstruing my answer.

 

Look, I know you don't like me, and I could care less. But don't misinterpret what I say and then build a strawman out of it.

[Murphy101]

What if they were barren, or disliked kids, or never wanted kids,etc. Is marriage fine for the barren, or not necessary. Should they live in sin, since marriage is for kids? Is it just as worthy to marry for other reasons, for just love between two people?

 

Hmm. Love isn't about getting only what you want or like. Thus neither is marriage. If the natural result of a marriage is sexual relations and the natural result of sexual relations is some level of risk of pregnancy - then a couple that loves each other has to be willing to accept that risk or reconsider if they should be getting married. Because a couple getting married should be willing to accept any and all tribulations that may happen in their lives together. Sickness, financial woes, the in laws and so forth, which includes the risk of pregnancy and yes, the risk of no pregnancy should one be unable for some reason. They don't have to actively seek pregnancy. (NFP is an option even if they are RC.) But it would be unrealistic to refuse to accept an inherent risk of marriage.

 

I suppose they could abort or she could remove her uterus. The one I cannot fathom a couple that loves each other doing. The other seems rather drastic to me bc I cannot fathom purposely removing a healthy functioning part of my body to avoid the risk it might someday work. But otherwise, even perfect use of birth control means accepting some level of accepting of pregnancy risk.

 

Does she actually mean kids should be born to married people only, or the act of getting married is mainly for kids.

 

Ideally, kids would only be born to married couples. Obviously we don't live in an ideal world. Obviously that doesn't mean not being married means a child should be allowed to be born.

Marriage is primarily a spiritual contract and a social contract. Even in most secular regards, marriage is viewed as a social good for both women and their children. And I think it a social good for men as well.

 

Love is a living act that grows. Two individuals grow into a marriage. That love tends to grow into a child. So no, marriage is not mainly for kids. Kids are simply the natural byproduct of love between a man and a woman.

 

I see. I'll have to change my view then, from cruel to medieval-ish. It does explain a lot, though. Thank you.

 

Well I'm glad it doesn't seem cruel to you any longer. I don't see the medieval in it. Pretty sure I'd not survive as a woman in medieval times. Too mouthy. ;p

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree and disagree with Martha and mouse. Having male/female regular sex *is* accepting a risk that a pregnancy will result, I got pregnant on Depo-Provera, a highly reliable form of birth control. My mom got pregnant with an IUD. We are a fertile bunch. There is a risk of pregnancy with sex, that is just a cold stone fact.

 

I know someone who does not want kids...at ALL. She has told me that if she got pregnant, then she would have an abortion. Personally, I think someone who feels that strongly needs to look at permanent options for both partners (she is married and there are good reasons for marriage that have nothing to do with children). My dh's step-brother and his wife didn't want kids, so they both had surgery. Both partners having surgery is pretty much a sure thing.

 

I disagree that marriage or sex is *wrong* for people who are needing financial help. Kids are good for society, societies with declining birth rates get into trouble. That is why some countries pay women to stay home and have babies.

[thebacabunch]

 

I do know a couple moms like this. One was trying for #3 and wound up with #3-5, conceived naturally. Another had 5 kids in 6 years, not sure if she was naturally super-fertile or had medical help. However, these tend to be the exceptions, and I don't know anyone with 6+ kids who didn't start in their early-to-mid-20's.

 

My best friends mom had 5 kids and didn't get married unitl she was 35. All natural with no fertility treatments.

 

I had as many as I could, which was only 3. I had my first at 27. My husband worked his tail end off to get an engineering degree so he could support a family. I think more men should be encouraged to work hard so they can support a family. I know that sounds old school but the happiest families I know have succesful husbands and sahm. It is still possible.

[Tenaj]

Lol... Had one at 18, 2 in my twenties, and 4 in my thirties. So much for declining fertility!

 

Yep. Here I had two in my twenties, three in my thirties and three in my forties :) And my first wasn't born until I was almost 28.

[Murphy101]

I disagree that marriage or sex is *wrong* for people who are needing financial help. Kids are good for society, societies with declining birth rates get into trouble. That is why some countries pay women to stay home and have babies.

 

 

Wait. I never said I thought it was wrong.

 

Personally, I don't even think it is wrong if they are starving in dire war torn 3rd world countries with famine.

 

What I have wanted to point out is the logic of birth control being held as the definer for what is deemed "responsible" seems flawed to me. It seems lacking to judge a lack of birth control, but not judge the actual causes of the problem. Especially when various birth control all fail to some level.

[justamouse]

I agree and disagree with Martha and mouse. Having male/female regular sex *is* accepting a risk that a pregnancy will result, I got pregnant on Depo-Provera, a highly reliable form of birth control. My mom got pregnant with an IUD. We are a fertile bunch. There is a risk of pregnancy with sex, that is just a cold stone fact.

 

I know someone who does not want kids...at ALL. She has told me that if she got pregnant, then she would have an abortion. Personally, I think someone who feels that strongly needs to look at permanent options for both partners (she is married and there are good reasons for marriage that have nothing to do with children). My dh's step-brother and his wife didn't want kids, so they both had surgery. Both partners having surgery is pretty much a sure thing.

 

I disagree that marriage or sex is *wrong* for people who are needing financial help. Kids are good for society, societies with declining birth rates get into trouble. That is why some countries pay women to stay home and have babies.

 

 

 

No, *Exactly*. 6 of my pregnancies were on BC. I totally get failed BC and that's exactly what I'm saying.

 

sex= babies, even when you're not planning them. So don't put yourself in the position of having them (no sex or sterilization) if you don't want them. Does it reduce the risk? Yes, but for many people it's just Russian Roulette.

[Mrs Mungo]

Wait. I never said I thought it was wrong.

Personally, I don't even think it is wrong if they are starving in dire war torn 3rd world countries with famine.

 

Sorry, it seemed like you were saying that there are ideal circumstances, which to me casts a shadow on other circumstances.

 

What I have wanted to point out is the logic of birth control being held as the definer for what is deemed "responsible" seems flawed to me. It seems lacking to judge a lack of birth control, but not judge the actual causes of the problem. Especially when various birth control all fail to some level.

 

I think judging *any* of these decisions while expecting people not to judge you and your choices is sort of ridiculous. I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

No, *Exactly*. 6 of my pregnancies were on BC. I totally get failed BC and that's exactly what I'm saying.

sex= babies, even when you're not planning them. So don't put yourself in the position of having them (no sex or sterilization) if you don't want them. Does it reduce the risk? Yes, but for many people it's just Russian Roulette.

 

And I was agreeing with you on that point.

[Mommee & Baba]

I use to be very judgmental. I"m living next to a person who believes that having more than 2 kids is silly and says very hurtful things along the lines of "why would you want to have more kids, be GRATEFUL for the 3 you already have". I've had to brush those comments aside.

 

I have a friend who has a gorgeous handful of children and continues to want and try for more. They aren't on goverment assistance but they have a very limited budget. I use to think that families like that were simply silly for wanting or trying for more.

 

Fast forward to now. My dh is 42 and said that he wanted to be done having children by the time he hit 40. Our last dc was born before he was 40, as our youngest will be turning 4 in February. I was certain after DD#2 I was DONE, then when she turned 4 I longed for just ONE more. Our son was born a year later. I was certain that the pregnancy, labor, delivery, & first year experience with him I was DONE!! I even tried talking dh into getting the procedure done. Here we are again....almost 4 years after my ds was born and I'm WANTING one more! Everyone around me knows that I was 100% DONE having babies. I never brought it up to my dh as I knew his stance on the situation of his age, our car situation, & we are living on a VERY TIGHT budget. Yet my longing for another didn't end. Finally it came up recently and although my dh smiled and said he'd love to have more children....his realist side came out. We have a car that fits ourselves and our 3 kids SQUISHED inside. Having another child would mean that our car that will be paid off in March would NO LONGER suit our family. My dh would be able to drive that car to work still, BUT it would mean that car payment wouldn't go away but be replaced with a NEW car payment! I got rid of all baby related things as I was CERTAIN I was done. I breastfeed, cloth diaper, sew, and thrift shop. I have NO concerns about providing the basics needed. My dh is just worried that I won't know when I've HAD enough and can't handle anymore children. I'm 30, so he feels that I'm at a great age to have another one. He however feels like it'd be silly financially since we want to move across the U.S. to be with his family but we're stuck in a home we can't get to sell.

 

Do I think that all those reasonings should keep anyone from trying to grow their family, NO. We wouldn't be using any goverment assistance. However, we'd be having to be even MORE FRUGAL than we are now!

 

Do I think that those having more children WHILE depending on assitance should continue to have more children? I really feel it's not my place to judge as I'd like to not be judged either! I know there are families I see that are very ugly with their children and even though they have a handful and carrying one on their hip while pregnant swiping their food stamp card with children wearing clothes that are too small and the kids look as though they need a bath...I find it hard to NOT want to be judgmental. I am thankful for ALL the organizations that OUR family can DONATE to that helps families like the one I mentioned. Even though my dh doesn't make a HUGE income we STILL find ways to help others even if it means we go 2 weeks without our favorite gluten free vegan animal crackers that cost almost $10 a bag!

[Jennifer3141]

 

 

No, *Exactly*. 6 of my pregnancies were on BC. I totally get failed BC and that's exactly what I'm saying.

 

sex= babies, even when you're not planning them. So don't put yourself in the position of having them (no sex or sterilization) if you don't want them. Does it reduce the risk? Yes, but for many people it's just Russian Roulette.

 

Wait.One.Minute.

 

You had SIX children on BC?? And it never occurred to you to speak with your doctor or pharmacist about that? So you've got this big family you were trying to PREVENT???

 

What the heck??

[[email protected]]

OK. And...now we're done.