Valid reasons for delaying or ceasing reproduction

[bettyandbob]

A child's true needs are very simple- a sufficient amount of nutritious food; clean water to drink; clean air to breathe; clean, age- and climate-appropriate clothing; a safe dwelling that meets basic living standards; medical treatment when needed; and most importantly, love.

 

 

You are truly blessed to live in a world where nutritious food is easily accessible, instead of a world where nutritious food means a very specific medically prescribed diet that greatly increases grocery budgets.

 

You are blessed to live in a world where simply breathing clean air is free and a child does not need medical devices and prescriptions to be able to breath.

 

Obviously in your world medical treatment as needed is not daily and is not impacting needs of any other child in the family.

 

You cannot impose the ideals of your world on others. You apparently have no idea what it is like to live with the constraints others have. You keep suggesting that others are choosing amenities over children. Some people are choosing to have the ability to keep living children living.

[bettyandbob]

I also don't get how anyone can suggest certain things are items of luxury. Perhaps in some families children can share a room. However, if child has a disability and needs a room just for medical equipment then no. And even with "hidden" disabilities the need for a separate room can take importance in maintaining the health of everyone in the family. For example, a child with sensory issues may be better off with solo sleeping arrangements. It may be best to have a teen with anger and depression have his/her own room as well. My guess is these judgements that this is a luxury though are coming from persons who have no experience living with these issues and may even believe such issues are not "real".

[littleWMN]

I also don't get how anyone can suggest certain things are items of luxury. Perhaps in some families children can share a room. However, if child has a disability and needs a room just for medical equipment then no. And even with "hidden" disabilities the need for a separate room can take importance in maintaining the health of everyone in the family. For example, a child with sensory issues may be better off with solo sleeping arrangements. It may be best to have a teen with anger and depression have his/her own room as well. My guess is these judgements that this is a luxury though are coming from persons who have no experience living with these issues and may even believe such issues are not "real".

 

Agreed. Special needs dictates a lot. Our oldest two share a room but one of ours (with sn) has her own room b/c she doesn't sleep well at all. She also has very few items in her ro b/c she destroys them. She also will most likely need a lot of assistance as an adult and that = money. She will likely either live with us or on some type of assisted living program. She needs therapies and it costs either for those or for the extra insurance to get them. She (and I) are on a special diet that is costly, etc. The list goes on.

[Carrie12345]

A child's true needs are very simple- a sufficient amount of nutritious food; clean water to drink; clean air to breathe; clean, age- and climate-appropriate clothing; a safe dwelling that meets basic living standards; medical treatment when needed; and most importantly, love.

 

Children do NOT need: their very own bedroom all to themselves; designer clothing purchased brand-new; expensive music and sports lessons & equipment; trips to Disney World or other expensive vacations; fancy electronic gizmos; and all the other consumer luxuries that the typical American family lavishes on their precious 1 or 2 children.

 

It absolutely breaks my heart to see material goods valued more highly than children so often in our society.

 

Obviously I don't think families should have more children if they truly cannot afford to meet those children's basic needs. 6 children and relying on government handouts is definitely not preferable to 2 that the family can support itself. But many, many families in this country could easily make room in their budgets for 2 instead of 1, or 3 instead of 2 if they were only willing to forgo luxuries and adopt a more modest lifestyle.

 

I have to admit, I'm giggling. People IRL would be rofl to hear someone respond to me with the above.

There's HUGE spectrum of "luxury" between your two lists. Personally, I would be devistated if all I could match was your first list. Also personal, none of my kids has their own room, and I've never taken them to Disney. In fact, we haven't had any vacation trips in over 5 years. And, yes, partly due to the expense of two more children.

 

As a mother who homeschools, has 5 children, an organic garden, makes her own laundry detergent and hangs clothes to dry, drives a nearly 9yo car, cooks mostly from scratch, has purchased one $15 pair of sneakers for herself in 6 years, and can't remember her last hair cut or dye job (and all happily by choice), I absolutely take issue with being quoted in a post claiming that the choice to not create more children is due to overvaluing material goods! :001_huh:

[AngelBee]

I'm all for big families and had as many children as I could without literally dying (four live births), but I'm a little taken aback by the talk about people being able to afford large families if they'll just stop being materialistic consumers. That may have been true in the past but I don't think it is still true.

 

In my world we are coming to the end of 2011, a year marked with financial disaster. We're coming up on 2012 which will probably yet another year of financial disaster on a global scale.

 

I don't know about everybody else, but I'm having a bit of a hard time feeding, clothing, and sheltering my four children. I'm going broke every time I buy food. Two of my children need shoes. I'm putting off minor but needed until the (hypothetical) spring construction rush.

 

And guess what? I'm middle class! Low end, but still firmly in the middle class. Most of my friends of all ages are in similar worrying circumstances. If they aren't fighting hard to raise their children, they are living frugally to save for their own retirement or providing for elderly relatives who are struggling.

 

Not a time for a baby boom. Not in my neighborhood. We're just trying to take care of the people who are here.

 

This talk about selfish people with 1.3 kids and multiple trips to Europe every year is so yesterday. Our generation may never see that norm in America again.

I think this plays out differently in each family. We are in the poverty level for the state of MN. We are broke! But I want for nothing. We are not receiving assistance besides WIC.

[AngelBee]

Write more in bit. Can't type well on here

[sewingmama]

Updated post: What I meant to ask was if you wanted one or more children, what kinds of circumstances would cause you to either delay it or completely forego it?

 

We are in this circumstance right now. I would like to have 1-2 more children - the reasons why it has been delayed or will possibly not happen include

 

Age - I'm 37 and it is proving harder to get pregnant

 

M/C - I've had 2 since I had my last baby for no real reason - if I ever get pregnant again there is a risk I would M/C again.

 

Health - I have some wierd undiagnosed autoimmune thing going on. Doctors can't pinpoint it yet -it may have something to do with the M/C - if it takes a long time to sort it out -well - refer to reason #1

 

If these things weren't an issue then I wouldn't be delaying.

 

There are other small issues -we would need a bigger car and we don't have the money etc but in our eyes those sorts of issues are something we would work around and wouldn't cause us to delay in and of themselves - the big three I first listed are the real reasons.

[QueenCat]

A child's true needs are very simple- a sufficient amount of nutritious food; clean water to drink; clean air to breathe; clean, age- and climate-appropriate clothing; a safe dwelling that meets basic living standards; medical treatment when needed; and most importantly, love.

 

Children do NOT need: their very own bedroom all to themselves; designer clothing purchased brand-new; expensive music and sports lessons & equipment; trips to Disney World or other expensive vacations; fancy electronic gizmos; and all the other consumer luxuries that the typical American family lavishes on their precious 1 or 2 children.

 

It absolutely breaks my heart to see material goods valued more highly than children so often in our society.

 

Obviously I don't think families should have more children if they truly cannot afford to meet those children's basic needs. 6 children and relying on government handouts is definitely not preferable to 2 that the family can support itself. But many, many families in this country could easily make room in their budgets for 2 instead of 1, or 3 instead of 2 if they were only willing to forgo luxuries and adopt a more modest lifestyle.

 

And some of us see the good in giving our children the luxuries we can afford. We all make different choices, based on what is best for our family and our children. Just because we choose a lifestyle which allows music lessons doesn't mean we're materialistic & place luxury over loving children.

Edited January 1, 2012 by CathieC

[3littlekeets]

Wow. I'm really surprised that people think other people should be having kids and find money for them. How about world resources? How about the unwanted children who are already on this earth? We are overpopulated as it is. We breeders are to blame. I have 3 great kids that I adore, but my goodness, our need/desire for biological children is a bit over the top. In truth, I believe my God would have been happier had I chosen to raise waiting children and provide them with the love and resources I have rather than feeling compelled to add to the gene pool.

 

All this said half-facetiously, but with a grain of "my" truth :D

[PinkInTheBlue]

Our reason is financial. I want to be able to provide a good lifestyle, a room of their own, vacations, theatre classes, skateboarding expenses, etc. We teach and practice gratitude but, yes, I have 3 because I want to have the money I have to do what we do and save for the future.

 

I have no problem with that. I do not feel people should be required or feel required to have as many children as they can. I don't see any reason to force people to reproduce virtually no matter what. I think couples should have the number children they choose and can afford. I know others have religious reasons for their numbers and that's their relationship. I'm just stating mine. :D

 

My reason are financial and I'm very, very happy with the size of my family. (I loved being pregnant. For that reason alone I could have wanted a huge family :) )

[Mommyfaithe]

Any reason - financial, emotional, physical. I do not believe anyone should have children who is not ready/capable on all those fronts of caring for those children in a loving and secure manner. And IMHO, God had no intention otherwise when he mandated, "Be fruitful and multiply." I believe that was intended in the vein of a blessing, not a coercive requirement.

 

:iagree: with this...especially on the front of caring for children in a loving and secure manner.

Faithe

[QueenCat]

Our reason is financial. I want to be able to provide a good lifestyle, a room of their own, vacations, theatre classes, skateboarding expenses, etc. We teach and practice gratitude but, yes, I have 3 because I want to have the money I have to do what we do and save for the future.

 

I have no problem with that. I do not feel people should be required or feel required to have as many children as they can. I don't see any reason to force people to reproduce virtually no matter what. I think couples should have the number children they choose and can afford. I know others have religious reasons for their numbers and that's their relationship. I'm just stating mine. :D

 

My reason are financial and I'm very, very happy with the size of my family. (I loved being pregnant. For that reason alone I could have wanted a huge family :) )

 

This is exactly how I feel, and why we only have two. Except I don't do pregnancy very well once I hit about 30 weeks :( We think it is is good for our kids and our family to travel, participate in certain activities, etc. If others would rather not do these things, and would prefer to have more children instead, fine... their family, their choice.

[Catwoman]

Children do NOT need: their very own bedroom all to themselves; designer clothing purchased brand-new; expensive music and sports lessons & equipment; trips to Disney World or other expensive vacations; fancy electronic gizmos; and all the other consumer luxuries that the typical American family lavishes on their precious 1 or 2 children. ...

 

But many, many families in this country could easily make room in their budgets for 2 instead of 1, or 3 instead of 2 if they were only willing to forgo luxuries and adopt a more modest lifestyle.

 

But why should they have to adopt a more modest lifestyle if they simply do not want more children? Speaking only for myself, I think I am a pretty decent mom to my one ds, but I know my limits. I have no desire for more children. I don't have the patience nor do I have the interest in raising more that one child.

 

Does my ds have all of the "luxuries" on your list? You bet he does, and more, and my dh and I are very fortunate to be able to afford to give him these things and to know that he won't have to worry about how to pay for college or a car, or whatever else he needs as he grows up. I'm sorry if you view this as being materialistic and somehow anti-children, but believe me, there are many of us who simply aren't cut out to be the parents of large families. Making the decision not to have more children is not being selfish; it's about being realistic and knowing your limitations.

 

I don't think it is any of my business whether a couple has no children, one or two children, or has several kids, and frankly, I am surprised at some of the negative and judgmental attitudes posted here regarding those of us who only have one or two children by choice. That kind of attitude is quite hurtful. I love reading the threads here about everyone's kids and their new babies and how excited they are when they find out they are expecting a new arrival, so I would hate to think that people think less of me because I only have one child.

[annandatje]

I'm all for big families and had as many children as I could without literally dying (four live births), but I'm a little taken aback by the talk about people being able to afford large families if they'll just stop being materialistic consumers. That may have been true in the past but I don't think it is still true.

 

In my world we are coming to the end of 2011, a year marked with financial disaster. We're coming up on 2012 which will probably yet another year of financial disaster on a global scale.

 

I don't know about everybody else, but I'm having a bit of a hard time feeding, clothing, and sheltering my four children. I'm going broke every time I buy food. Two of my children need shoes. I'm putting off minor but needed surgery until the (hypothetical) spring construction rush.

 

And guess what? I'm middle class! Low end, but still firmly in the middle class. Most of my friends of all ages are in similar worrying circumstances. If they aren't fighting hard to raise their children, they are living frugally to save for their own retirement or providing for elderly relatives who are struggling.

 

Not a time for a baby boom. Not in my neighborhood. We're just trying to take care of the people who are here.

 

This talk about selfish people with 1.3 kids and multiple trips to Europe every year is so yesterday. Our generation may never see that norm in America again.

 

At the time we had our children, we were confident that we could easily pay for a bachelor degree at a state university or possibly a private university. Tuition outpaced inflation, and the stock market took a nosedive. Now my salary goes toward paying education expense. I am truly glad that I never stopped working at least part time seasonally.

 

Like you, when I look around, I see worried people struggling to provide basic needs. Frankly my children are likely to have a lower standard of living than what they grew up in, so it is a good thing that we lived frugally.

[Mommy22alyns]

 

I don't think it is any of my business whether a couple has no children, one or two children, or has several kids, and frankly, I am surprised at some of the negative and judgmental attitudes posted here regarding those of us who only have one or two children by choice. That kind of attitude is quite hurtful. I love reading the threads here about everyone's kids and their new babies and how excited they are when they find out they are expecting a new arrival, so I would hate to think that people think less of me because I only have one child.

 

 

:iagree: My goodness. Assuming that we only have 2 kids because we want the "high life"? Insulting.

[Veritaserum]

Dh and I want to foster relationships with our children that will last into adulthood. At some point, due to personalities as well as other needs and stresses, we realize that we have to stop having children in order to meet that goal. We could financially afford a few more children, but the emotional cost would be unacceptably high for parents and children both. This baby is number six and we knew when we chose to conceive that six would be our last. We are ready to focus all of our energy and resources on our existing children. If we have a surprise baby in the future we will of course love that child. But we are content and feel that we are at our limit.

 

Crazy, stressed out, exhausted parents aren't evenly replaced by a few more siblings. :)

Edited January 1, 2012 by Veritaserum

[regentrude]

But many, many families in this country could easily make room in their budgets for 2 instead of 1, or 3 instead of 2 if they were only willing to forgo luxuries and adopt a more modest lifestyle.

 

Could maybe - but why should they?

Why do you consider it better if they have more children rather than fewer?

There is no shortage of humans on this Earth, our species is not at the danger of becoming extinct.

[PeacefulChaos]

No one has the right to decide the standard by which people should have children.

If someone wants to give their kids all separate bedrooms, they usually have their reasons. Trust me. It's not a 'status' thing. It's not a materialistic thing. Sometimes, kids need their own rooms. Not all the time. And if it isn't possible, it isn't possible. But to try to push a personal opinion onto someone else, to say that if they have a desire to provide this for their children, they are being materialistic, is just ridiculous imo. If someone wants to take their kids on vacations to Disney or anywhere else, good for them. Did it ever occur to you that it is for the experience? We all are aware that kids will be fine without that experience. But who are you to determine that for someone to WANT that experience for their children, they must be materialistic and care too much about status?

Absolute hogwash.

 

ETA: I was a little too fired up to remember to address the issue of the MANY, ALREADY born children who need homes. Lets not forget that there are plenty of them, before we get high horsey and preach at people for not wanting to have as many biological children as they can possibly produce.

Edited January 1, 2012 by PeacefulChaos

[JumpyTheFrog]

A child's true needs are very simple- a sufficient amount of nutritious food; clean water to drink; clean air to breathe; clean, age- and climate-appropriate clothing; a safe dwelling that meets basic living standards; medical treatment when needed...

 

Well, we know a family with 10+ kids. One was found to be gluten intolerant, so the chances are, at least a few others kids also are. I suggested the mom get them all tested, but she didn't want to spend $300x10 to find out. They all eat a very high carb diet, because their food budget (as of 2-3 years ago) is $700 a month for all of them, which means little meat in their diet. I would be very suprised if many of them don't wind up diabetic in the future.

 

The dad earns a decent salary, but they still have to limit everyone to one shower a week to keep the water bill reasonable. I don't think that's generally enough for teenagers to not stink.

 

While they can afford a house that isn't cramped, they will be in trouble if many of the kids need braces. If they'd had a smaller family, they could've comfortably fit in a house that cost at least $100,000 less than the one they bought.

 

The most expensive things for kids are the things not listed by the poster I quoted: braces, college/vocational training or money to start a business, etc. Often I think that when people say they "can't afford" more kids, they aren't talking about feeding little kids, but the larger expenses of teenagers and college students.

 

While college may not be a necessity like food is, think how many hard-working families are in poor financial condition because of student debt or not ever having been trained in a job with reasonable pay or room for advancement. This makes it even harder for their kids to get a decent start in life, financially.

[*Lulu*]

Well we could have continued to procreate. I mean my uterus isn't damaged from its many years of service. But my overies have never been into playing nice, (PCOS), my vascular system is already banged up, and there is a VERY high risk that I would need 6-8 weeks of bed rest to carry another baby to term. (Spent 8 weeks on partial bed rest with last child, still had several scares and ended up delivering early.) All that, coupled with a very scary delivery with our next to last child that DH is STILL a little freaked out by, really pushed us to make a long term choice. Still DH had to shove me the final mile b/c I hadn't come to grips with the long term implications of my health issues.

 

I am thankful for each of my blessings, and I love them far too much to put our entire family through what another pregnancy would mean. I also recognize that 75% of our non-secured debt is directly related to medical costs for myself, as well as the specialists that were needed for DS4 his last few months in-utero and his first few months of life.

 

Should the surgical measures we took fail, we would embrace the unexpeted and adapt. Just as we would if any other member of this family had an unexpected health need. I am not naive about the cost it would carry and the toll it would take on our entire family. Would we love that unepected child? Absolutely, every bit as much as those already here. However, I am not so stuck on the loss of my familial ideal that I cannot enjoy the reality of what we have.

 

As for everything else I started to type out about judging family size........

 

 

Let's just leave it at bless your heart and shut my mouth.

Edited January 1, 2012 by BLA5

[rhreinke]

The decision to have children is so individualized that only that couple could say what is right for them. It is a life long choice that a family makes. I my self am struggling with convincing my DH to have another child. I am not the type to just go ahead and take matters into my own hands, I know that raising a child takes a dh help if not a village as the saying goes. Anyhow, my dh has given the okay this coming year as long as we make enough money. It has always come down to finances for him and I know that is logical. But, if everyone waited until they had enough money we wouldn't have children. Right? Or at least not until we were too old to play with them.

 

For the last two years this question to have or not to have more children has plagued me. I really feel like it is a perfect time to have another child. I just hope we agree to this year. My kids are getting older and I don't want them to be too far apart in age. I love that my first two are so close as friends.

 

I can't stress how this is such an individualized issue, I mean for couples that is. No one can make that decision for you. I know that all too well.

[Free]

Those luxury material goods will quickly get worn out and/or broken but family is forever. On people's deathbeds, no one regrets the stuff that they didn't buy- but they do rejoice in leaving a lasting legacy through their descendents.

 

No I don't value leaving a lasting legacy through my descendants. I do value a life well lived, a life spent creating happy memories with my only son be it through simple homely activities or expensive vacations.

[Negin]

When either person in a couple decides they don't want to have children, or the couple decides they are financially unable to support more children.

I mean, really, are there any invalid reasons to cease having kids? If someone has a reason for not wanting more, that should be it.

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

I always believe that kids need many things, but just the basic four are:

1. Time

2. Energy

3, Patience

4. $$

If I'm lacking in any of those 4 and others, I would not have any more. Off to read all the replies. :)

[Free]

I don't really understand how it is selfish not to accommodate people who don't exist.

:lol:

 

My main reason for not having more children is I don't want to feel like a sleep deprived idiot for any more of my life and I figure I've got another year of that left at least.

 

Rosie

Absolutely! :D

[Negin]

Could maybe - but why should they?

Why do you consider it better if they have more children rather than fewer?

There is no shortage of humans on this Earth, our species is not at the danger of becoming extinct.

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

[Negin]

Well, I'm almost 44 now and it would just be awful to get pg now. :glare: My pregnancies were both really difficult. It wouldn't be fair on our dc. I would be on bedrest and have to stop homeschooling. The whole thing would be an absolute nightmare. Not fair on the family at all. But I knew that when we stopped at the age of 31. :)

I love having two and that's great for us. Just focusing on the two we have - and that's often no easy task. I know myself and my own limits. :)

 

I don't really understand how it is selfish not to accommodate people who don't exist.

:iagree:

I know. Really. :lol:

 

Interestingly, many of the people who think finances and not being able to afford more children is NOT a valid reason to stop reproducing are the same ones who complain loudly about families receiving government assistance.

They would likely say that people on assistance should not keep having children if they can't afford then without assistance.

So true. ;) :lol:.

 

How about world resources? How about the unwanted children who are already on this earth? We are overpopulated as it is. We breeders are to blame. I have 3 great kids that I adore, but my goodness, our need/desire for biological children is a bit over the top.

This. :)

 

Our reason is financial. I want to be able to provide a good lifestyle.

Us too. I don't want to lower our standard of living. I don't think it's fair on them. I don't want our dc to have a lower standard of living/much lower standard than what dh and I grew up with.

[coffeegal]

A child's true needs are very simple- a sufficient amount of nutritious food; clean water to drink; clean air to breathe; clean, age- and climate-appropriate clothing; a safe dwelling that meets basic living standards; medical treatment when needed; and most importantly, love.

.

 

I would add: and the education/training to be a self-sufficient adult in their society. It's possible to squeeze another child in, but a responsible parent also needs to ensure they'll be able to launch the child into adult life. The requirements to do so change from society to society.

 

Children with special needs who will not be independent adults also need to be provided for indefinitely. A responsible parent will make plans for these children's adulthood. :grouphug:

[Iucounu]

Those luxury material goods will quickly get worn out and/or broken but family is forever. On people's deathbeds, no one regrets the stuff that they didn't buy- but they do rejoice in leaving a lasting legacy through their descendents.

Sure, but not everything above subsistence-level living is a "luxury item".

 

I want to give my children a good life, and I'm not about to restrict the learning materials, experiences, and attention I give them out of a notion that my mission in life is to have as many children as possible. I also think that it's desirable for children to have their own rooms.

 

You might find the link I posted interesting. It shows clearly that not everyone can afford to continue having children. The fact that you homeschool means that you're more privileged than a great many families, where two parents must work to provide for the family. Not everyone has stacks of disposable cash lying around so that they can feel "free" to procreate at will.

 

Crazy, stressed out, exhausted parents aren't evenly replaced by a few more siblings. :)

:D Edited January 1, 2012 by Iucounu

[annandatje]

No I don't value leaving a lasting legacy through my descendants. I do value a life well lived, a life spent creating happy memories with my only son be it through simple homely activities or expensive vacations.

 

:iagree:

[annandatje]

I would add: and the education/training to be a self-sufficient adult in their society. It's possible to squeeze another child in, but a responsible parent also needs to ensure they'll be able to launch the child into adult life. The requirements to do so change from society to society.

 

Children with special needs who will not be independent adults also need to be provided for indefinitely. A responsible parent will make plans for these children's adulthood. :grouphug:

 

:iagree:

[Ester Maria]

In my opinion, people should only have as many children as they can successfully parent - on all levels. That includes down-to-Earth financial considerations, just as much as it includes considerations that even we are rich enough that the former are not really an issue, we are still limited beings with finite time and emotional resources.

 

Some people cannot parent successfully even one child; others can parent half a dozen seemingly effortlessly without neglecting any. People are different. Children are different, too. I do not see an ethical problem with having less or more children than somebody else's ideal picture - I only see an ethical problem with having children whom you cannot parent, whom you neglect, to whom you cannot provide basic living expenses, etc.

 

Everything else is a matter of personal preferences and priorities. Some people wish to hold a certain standard of living which they can have with two children, but not so with six. Other people's priorities may not include those people's standards for what is a "normal" part of childhood, but they may still have happy and well-cared for children. Some people's "ideal life" pictures does not include children at all. All are fine in my eyes.

[Negin]

Sure, but not everything above subsistence-level living is a "luxury item".

I want to give my children a good life, and I'm not about to restrict the learning materials, experiences, and attention I give them out of a notion that my mission in life is to have as many children as possible. I also think that it's desirable for children to have their own rooms.

Very well said. :)

[Cammie]

Could maybe - but why should they?

Why do you consider it better if they have more children rather than fewer?

There is no shortage of humans on this Earth, our species is not at the danger of becoming extinct.

 

 

AMEN.

[Cammie]

No I don't value leaving a lasting legacy through my descendants. I do value a life well lived, a life spent creating happy memories with my only son be it through simple homely activities or expensive vacations.

 

 

And Amen to this too!

[Crimson Wife]

Could maybe - but why should they?

Why do you consider it better if they have more children rather than fewer?

There is no shortage of humans on this Earth, our species is not at the danger of becoming extinct.

 

Aren't you from Germany? That country, and many others in Europe and Asia, are facing a "demographic winter" because women's fertility is far below replacement levels. No country has ever had long-term economic growth simultaneously with a shrinking population.

 

Demographic winter is a real threat even here in the U.S. because the native-born population already has an average fertility rate below replacement level. The only thing that has kept us above 2.1 so far has been the higher fertility rate among immigrants. However, the biggest drop in the birth rate in recent years has been in Hispanic women, so it's unclear how long we'll be able to rely on them to keep our country out of demographic winter.

 

All the individual decisions to have 1 child instead of 2, 2 instead of 3, and so on add up to a very serious economic problem for our country. :(

[Crimson Wife]

The most expensive things for kids are the things not listed by the poster I quoted: braces, college/vocational training or money to start a business, etc. Often I think that when people say they "can't afford" more kids, they aren't talking about feeding little kids, but the larger expenses of teenagers and college students.

 

My dad got braces as an adult as did many others of his generation. Just because the social norm now is for parents to foot the bill doesn't mean it HAS to be that way.

 

My IL's didn't pay a dime towards my DH's college, and he put himself through Stanford with no loans. He cobbled together scholarships to cover 98% of the cost and worked part-time and in the summers to cover the rest. And I have to say that he was far more dedicated to his studies than most of our classmates whose tuition bills were paid for by Mummy and Daddy.

[Impish]

*haven't read through the thread*

 

To answer the title question, whatever reason a couple has for delaying/ceasing reproduction is a valid one.

 

Nobody has the right to question it in any way, shape, or form.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

My IL's didn't pay a dime towards my DH's college, and he put himself through Stanford with no loans. He cobbled together scholarships to cover 98% of the cost and worked part-time and in the summers to cover the rest. And I have to say that he was far more dedicated to his studies than most of our classmates whose tuition bills were paid for by Mummy and Daddy.

 

I worked my way through a state university with no loans. The ability to do so for many students is no longer possible without having a crushing debt load to begin their new lives. Comparing what our generation did to today's is silly considering college tuitions have outpaced inflation and income expectations by a vast amount.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Aren't you from Germany? That country, and many others in Europe and Asia, are facing a "demographic winter" because women's fertility is far below replacement levels. No country has ever had long-term economic growth simultaneously with a shrinking population.

 

Demographic winter is a real threat even here in the U.S. because the native-born population already has an average fertility rate below replacement level. The only thing that has kept us above 2.1 so far has been the higher fertility rate among immigrants. However, the biggest drop in the birth rate in recent years has been in Hispanic women, so it's unclear how long we'll be able to rely on them to keep our country out of demographic winter.

 

All the individual decisions to have 1 child instead of 2, 2 instead of 3, and so on add up to a very serious economic problem for our country. :(

 

Birth is below replacement rates but the population is still growing in the US, and I personally don't feel the need to have more kids just to alleviate a supposed economic threat as described in a bush league documentary.

[3littlekeets]

Birth is below replacement rates but the population is still growing in the US, and I personally don't feel the need to have more kids just to alleviate a supposed economic threat as described in a bush league documentary.

 

I agree. I feel like more people could help out our country's problems by adopting waiting children. We could be removing state responsibility, as well as raising productive future citizens whose lives are more bleak in foster care.

[nmoira]

Aren't you from Germany? That country, and many others in Europe and Asia, are facing a "demographic winter" because women's fertility is far below replacement levels. No country has ever had long-term economic growth simultaneously with a shrinking population.

 

Demographic winter is a real threat even here in the U.S. because the native-born population already has an average fertility rate below replacement level. The only thing that has kept us above 2.1 so far has been the higher fertility rate among immigrants. However, the biggest drop in the birth rate in recent years has been in Hispanic women, so it's unclear how long we'll be able to rely on them to keep our country out of demographic winter.

 

All the individual decisions to have 1 child instead of 2, 2 instead of 3, and so on add up to a very serious economic problem for our country. :(

Are you suggesting that the only way the human race can continue to improve its lot is through population growth? Do you see that ever being potentially unsustainable? Can the rate of population growth ever be too high domestically or globally? I'm choosing not to challenge your facts here, as I'm just curious about your conclusion based on them.

[Ipsey]

I agree. I feel like more people could help out our country's problems by adopting waiting children. We could be removing state responsibility, as well as raising productive future citizens whose lives are more bleak in foster care.

 

I agree.

 

The challenge here is that so many people are willing to accept a supernatural element that will take care of all of this in the future. Jesus will return, God is in control, people will just pick themselves up by their boot-straps, etc.

 

The economic hardships are only going to grow worse as there are more and more children without stable homes, educations, opportunities, and communities who actually give a rat about them. It's just easier to accept it on faith that producing more children will just even it out or make it all better.

 

Wishful-, faithful-thinking. . . without the thinking.

[Catwoman]

My dad got braces as an adult as did many others of his generation. Just because the social norm now is for parents to foot the bill doesn't mean it HAS to be that way.

 

It also doesn't mean it CAN'T or SHOULDN'T be that way, right? (I'm assuming here that the parents can afford to foot the bills.)

 

My IL's didn't pay a dime towards my DH's college, and he put himself through Stanford with no loans. He cobbled together scholarships to cover 98% of the cost and worked part-time and in the summers to cover the rest. And I have to say that he was far more dedicated to his studies than most of our classmates whose tuition bills were paid for by Mummy and Daddy.

 

I am wondering why you seem so resentful toward parents who pay their children's expenses and provide them with luxury items. Why is this a problem for you? (I'm honestly just curious -- not trying to start a fight!) You seem very bitter toward parents who spend a lot of money on their kids, and I can't understand why anyone would care what other people are doing with their own money. They aren't stealing your money to pay for their non-essentials; they are making a choice of how to spend their own money.

 

I honestly don't want to offend you, because I know from many, many other threads that you're a very nice and kind person, but someone who didn't know you from other discussions may be interpreting your posts in this thread as being quite unkind and judgmental, because it sounds like you're saying that everyone needs to have as many children as possible, and that it's wrong to indulge our children if we can afford to do it.

 

Again, please don't think I'm trying to be mean. It's not my intention at all! :001_smile:

[Rosie_0801]

No country has ever had long-term economic growth simultaneously with a shrinking population.

 

 

So? No country can grow economically forever and ever anyway. Imagine the conditions of the rest of the planet if one country managed it.

 

(This is making me think of that Red Dwarf episode with Lister and the electricity bill. :p)

 

Rosie

[eternalknot]

Those luxury material goods will quickly get worn out and/or broken but family is forever. On people's deathbeds, no one regrets the stuff that they didn't buy- but they do rejoice in leaving a lasting legacy through their descendents.

 

You're right - on their deathbeds, people rejoice in their legacy of descendants rather than regret the stuff they didn't buy.

 

But let's talk about those descendants; the one who didn't choose the life they were born into. What might their regrets and rejoices look like?

 

I come from a large family. Large families are the norm for my culture. I adore all of my brothers and sisters. We're a very close-knit family, and there is no real family drama to speak of. Sharing rooms didn't bother us, lack of privacy didn't phase us, working as teenagers to support the family wasn't a big deal, and all of the other things that go with being part of a big family. No big deal, we're all fairly well adjusted (if I do say so, m'self!)

 

And yet, it's not just about the material things that we couldn't afford. In fact, we had a very good life. We traveled the world, we had college and weddings paid for, we aren't your typical large family in that regard, I suppose. There were other non-tangible issues that come from being part of a large family, that influenced us. None of us have large families; the biggest is my sister's family of five kids, and she's done.

 

Why is she done? As great a job as our mother did, all of us feel that we would have liked more of her time/energy. In talking with her frankly, she wishes for the same. She wouldn't un-do any of her kids (well, she's supposed to say that - right? LOL) but she encourages each of us to know ourselves and our situations and to make good decisions. To her, a good decision is one that's well-thought out; it's not one that results from a moment of passion ;).

[Negin]

worked my way through a state university with no loans. The ability to do so for many students is no longer possible without having a crushing debt load to begin their new lives. Comparing what our generation did to today's is silly considering college tuitions have outpaced inflation and income expectations by a vast amount.

:iagree:

 

I personally don't feel the need to have more kids just to alleviate a supposed economic threat as described in a bush league documentary.

Yep. Me neither.

Such a weird reason, I think - to keep reproducing in order to alleviate economic problems. :confused:

 

Are you suggesting that the only way the human race can continue to improve its lot is through population growth?

I know :confused:. I'm curious to see the answer to this also.

 

Wishful-, faithful-thinking. . . without the thinking.

Yep.

 

I am wondering why you seem so resentful toward parents who pay their children's expenses and provide them with luxury items.

You seem very bitter toward parents who spend a lot of money on their kids, and I can't understand why anyone would care what other people are doing

I felt this way also when reading the post. :001_huh: Why such negative feelings?

 

So? No country can grow economically forever and ever anyway. Imagine the conditions of the rest of the planet if one country managed it.

(This is making me think of that Red Dwarf episode with Lister and the electricity bill.)

Rosie

Very, very true. Never has. Never will.

Now I need to go and find out what the Red Dwarf Episode is all about ... :D

 

You're right - on their deathbeds, people rejoice in their legacy of descendants rather than regret the stuff they didn't buy.

Yes. So true.

And, may I add, who's to say that people can't equally rejoice in having one or two versus having many? Why would having lots and lots and lots increase one's joy? Why not be content with having one or two? People measure joy differently. I know that for me, personally, having more than what I can handle would never, ever bring me joy. It would just drive me out. of. my. mind.

Reminds me a bit of college. There were those students who could handle taking a gazillion courses every semester. Either they were in a rush to get out (financial reasons, usually), or, quite honestly, they could handle a very heavy course load (more power to them). Or, maybe some were trying to prove something. Who knows?

Then, there were others who preferred to take a more moderate approach and to focus more on quality and achieving a higher GPA.

I prefer quality. I know that if I have a a gazillion kids, I cannot focus on them. My quality of parenting would decline. Not that it's the best right now. :lol: I think it's key to know oneself and to know one's limits.

Finally, there are fabulous individuals and couples who never have children for a whole host of reasons. They're wonderful, kind-hearted souls. Is this to say that on their deathbeds, since they have no descendants, nothing could bring them joy? Wow. What if their lives are otherwise full - love of a spouse, extended family, friends, selfless deeds? :001_huh:

 

it's not just about the material things that we couldn't afford.

None of us have large families; the biggest is my sister's family of five kids, and she's done.

Why is she done? As great a job as our mother did, all of us feel that we would have liked more of her time/energy.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. :)

This describes an aunt of mine to a t. 8 kids. None of my cousins (her kids) had large families. None, in fact, had more than two. I remember my cousin telling me how she has no recollection of being with her mom alone. None. There were always others around. That's pretty extreme. But the dynamics definitely change with more and more kids, and not always in a positive way.

As I said before, IMHO, every child deserves at least four things:

Time - as mentioned here

Energy

Patience

Money

Edited January 2, 2012 by Negin in Grenada

[SonshineLearner]

I see the difference between "birth control" and "pregnancy control" to be a serious difference. Using something like http://www.lady-comp.com/en/ is a method I think fine. I don't have a problem with anything that doesn't let the sp*rm be fertilized. (so some other things thought of as b/c would be an issue with me because the baby isn't allowed to properly grow/implant) BC pills which have an abortive/non-implantation backup would be something I wouldn't want to use, and would advise my children not to use. (C*nd*ms, or other things like this would be fine)

[Haiku]

The fact that there are millions of children in need of adoptive families.

 

Tara

[QueenCat]

Why is she done? As great a job as our mother did, all of us feel that we would have liked more of her time/energy. In talking with her frankly, she wishes for the same. She wouldn't un-do any of her kids (well, she's supposed to say that - right? LOL) but she encourages each of us to know ourselves and our situations and to make good decisions. To her, a good decision is one that's well-thought out; it's not one that results from a moment of passion ;).

 

I like the wisdom your mom has shared with you. She is right on about what makes a good decision!

[Mommy22alyns]

So? No country can grow economically forever and ever anyway. Imagine the conditions of the rest of the planet if one country managed it.

 

(This is making me think of that Red Dwarf episode with Lister and the electricity bill. :p)

 

Rosie

 

Oh my gosh, Rosie, I love you!!! Red Dwarf is brilliant and it's so rare to run into other people who know it!