Valid reasons for delaying or ceasing reproduction

[Rosie_0801]

I also believe that too often in our society the decision not to have another child is for purely selfish reasons. I constantly hear people say "we cannot afford to have another baby" when it actually just means that they'd have to give up the lavish lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. :thumbdown:

 

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

 

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

[justamouse]

For health risks, I would postpone.

Edited December 31, 2011 by justamouse

[Carrie12345]

I worded my original post poorly. I should have asked what reasons would make you not reproduce even if you had desire to do so. Obviously simply not wanting children is reason enough to not reproduce, and I personally do not consider it selfish at all to decide not to reproduce as long as your partner is in agreement with you.

 

We had intended to have a larger family but originally stopped because of the demands of a special needs child. Ultimately we served kids in ways other than bearing them ourselves.

 

Other reasons that I would stop in spite of wanting another: financial constraints that I could not reasonably foresee overcoming in near future; inability to adequately provide food clothing and shelter for existing children; time limitations; physical or mental health issues in either partner that would impede properly caring for child; knowledge of a high likelihood of passing along a significant genetic defect or disease; living in an area where war and/or genocide were occurring; living in an already unhappy unsatisfying marriage.

 

Ahh!

Well, we delayed after #3 originally b/c we weren't certain whether or not we wanted more, but that turned into delaying b/c I had my hands VERY full with a young aspie and two lovely but DIFFICULT toddlers! I was already over my limit. #4 wound up sneaking in after I had some issues with my birth control. Fortunately, the girls calmed down a slight bit right before he was born.

 

The next delay was a combination of having my hands even more full, money getting tighter and tighter, and our house getting smaller and smaller. That delay turned into a decision to close up the baby shop for those same reasons. Dh's work schedule kept interfering with his urology appts. #5 managed to sneak in there!

 

Shop is now truly closed. Both of us have a tiny area in our hearts that would still like to have more. At this point, I don't believe we could provide the life we want to more kids, and that's more important to me than the little "wouldn't it be nice" that sometimes creeps into my head.

 

If we're in a position to provide a good life to another child some day, I'll be thrilled to offer it up to an existing child in need of a loving family.

[Carrie12345]

I haven't read all the responses, but if after careful prayer, there is a serious reason that makes the couple unable to handle having another child at the current time, I believe it is perfectly acceptable to postpone pregnancy. If circumstances do not change, then it could be postponed indefinitely.

 

I am 100% against predetermined arbitrary limits on family size (the "one and done" or "two and done" phenomenon).

 

I also believe that too often in our society the decision not to have another child is for purely selfish reasons. I constantly hear people say "we cannot afford to have another baby" when it actually just means that they'd have to give up the lavish lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. :thumbdown:

 

If I were to have another baby (enter all superstitious acts to ward off jinxes here), I'd have 5 kids who would have to give up quite a bit. Regardless of whether my lifestyle is lavish or not (which is all subjective, anyway), it is not selfish of me to cease to make more babies in order to give my existing kids what I want them to have.

I'd argue that it's more selfish to continue making mini mes for my own pleasure without consider the impact on the first few.

[annandatje]

..

Edited December 31, 2011 by annandatje

[annandatje]

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

 

:lol:

[justamouse]

I realize I have no control over how the thread flows. However, my intent was that the members who respond would discuss only what circumstances would result in them choosing to delay or stop childbearing.

 

I incorrectly and optimistically assumed that people would not take it upon themsevles to decide whether other peoples' real or hypothetical choices were valid.

 

I have to admit that when you first asked, things like genocide never entered my mind. I guess in that way I'm just an American who doesn't worry about having to live through things like that. My life is soft enough that the only reason I wouldn't would be for health reasons (of anyone within the family, not just myself).

[SheilaZ]

We chose to stop reproducing because I didn't want to risk death or having a very pre-term baby.

Selfish...maybe. I think my husband and sons need me more than they would another sibling. Plus we already have 2 special needs children and I was "advanced maternal age" when #4 was born.

So we had lots of reasons for saying, "stick a fork in us, 'cause we are done!"

[Audrey]

:iagree: The couple we ran into last night who has nothing and relies on others to provide for literally everything in their life from food to clothing to housing should probably not be talking about bringing more dc into this world. :glare:

 

 

 

There are a lot of people who fall into this category -- where they are dependent on others for housing, food or other basic necessities. Yet, they will vehemently defend their right to reproduce at will.

 

I am certainly not saying I agree with them (I most certainly do NOT), however, I'm sure some of them could give you reasons why they feel that reproducing under those circumstances is fine, in their opinion.

[Audrey]

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

 

 

 

:lol: You have a wonderful way with words. I agree with the statement, as well. I can assure you I feel no obligation or responsibility whatsoever to any people who do not exist.

[Pretty in Pink]

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

 

Ha ha! What she said. :D

[Iucounu]

I... believe that too often in our society the decision not to have another child is for purely selfish reasons. I constantly hear people say "we cannot afford to have another baby" when it actually just means that they'd have to give up the lavish lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. :thumbdown:

Rosie makes a good point. How is it selfish to keep from procreating? That's probably less selfish here in the US, I'm guessing, as one will be less of a tax burden on society in order to spread one's genes. Is any financial reason okay in your view? Would it be okay, say, if a family were staying with friends due to inability to get decent jobs, and were eating ramen?

[WiseOwlKnits]

For us, it was the third Hyperemesis pregnancy. I've lost between 35 and 50 pounds with each pregnancy and this last time it was suggested that I consider a therapeutic @b0rti0n because of the toll it was taking in my body. (I didn't and actually switched doctors because of the suggestion.)

 

But after getting pregnant while using fertility awareness (which we'd used for many years to prevent successfully), we decided we needed something more permanent so I didnt get pregnant and so sick again. So DH got snipped last month.

[KungFuPanda]

I've watched one son lose his ability to walk. If I chose to have more children, knowing there is a 50% chance any son of mine will have Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, I don't see how I could live with myself. It's unfair enough without risking it intentionally.

 

It's been my experience that the people who are adamantly against BC are NEVER the same people who have lived with the reality of caring for a child with a chronic, debilitating, and fatal disease.

[StephanieZ]

I've watched one son lose his ability to walk. If I chose to have more children, knowing there is a 50% chance any son of mine will have Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, I don't see how I could live with myself. It's unfair enough without risking it intentionally.

 

It's been my experience that the people who are adamantly against BC are NEVER the same people who have lived with the reality of caring for a child with a chronic, debilitating, and fatal disease.

 

 

((((hugs))))

 

Sometimes just a few words say so much.

[bettyandbob]

It's been my experience that the people who are adamantly against BC are NEVER the same people who have lived with the reality of caring for a child with a chronic, debilitating, and fatal disease.

 

:iagree:

 

Also, I really don't understand how anyone could say my determining I cannot afford another child is my selfish way of keeping up my lavish lifestyle. I get my haircut at a barber once a year, we own two vehicles that are over 10 years old with greater than 100K on them. We did go to Disney once 4 years ago and that will never happen again. We haven't had a vacation as a family since. If our family was larger, we'd probably give up helping our dc cover in state tuition for college. (helping, not fully paying for) We don't have retirement to give up, because there is very little retirement savings to begin with. I guess it's amazingly selfish of me to want to give the children I have a start on their adult lives by assisting with their education.

[Soror]

Agreeing with Chucki- I don't believe there is a valid reason for artificial bc.

[Pamela H in Texas]

I don't believe there is a valid reason for artificial bc.

 

For YOU? Or for anyone ever?

 

I put in my post that I think any reason a couple has is a valid reason. JMO.

Not all methods are appropriate IMO and NONE are appropriate for ME.

[Soror]

For YOU? Or for anyone ever?

 

I put in my post that I think any reason a couple has is a valid reason. JMO.

Not all methods are appropriate IMO and NONE are appropriate for ME.

 

I'm sorry but I just really don't want to get into this discussion. My thoughts/opinions are in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church. What any individual couple does is between them and God. I am not the judge of anyone on this earth and I don't see the benefit of discussing that in this context. (I hope that doesn't come across as rude- I'm sure however I've found a way to offend someone).

[SailorMom]

I don't think it is a great idea to turn this into something religious. The mods are not happy with religious threads at present.

 

 

Oh - I'm sorry! Ya know, I guess I've never, ever met anyone that hasn't made the choice to not use B/C who wasn't making this choice in a religious context. And many of the answers here already brought religion into it..... Kinda assumed the whole thread was religious in some way, at least for about half of the people responding.

Edited December 31, 2011 by SailorMom

[Iucounu]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/pf/cost_raising_child/index.htm

 

How's not having an extra $10,000 or more of post-tax income count as a reason? Is not having disposable income to spend on a new child a lavish lifestyle? Let's say it were a choice between having another child and homeschooling, or having another and having adequate time with existing children, for someone who'd have to get an additional job-- still no valid reason? Like it or not, for many people the fullness of a quiver is regulated by hard economic realities.

[NittanyJen]

I developed a life-threatening condition during both successful pregnancies. Both babies were delivered by emergency inductions, slightly pre-term. There is no known prevention or cure for the condition, which can strike at any time during pregnancy, and can kill anywhere from 20-50% of mothers who develop it.

 

I always wanted a big family. I absolutely love being pregnant, and I love babies and the baby and toddler stage. But after a lot of heartbreak, I decided I really have an ethical obligation to my existing children to keep their mother alive, at least by not taking stupid and avoidable risks.

 

For us, birth control is that joke about the guy drowning in the ocean who keeps waving away various rescue options, screaming, "No thanks, God will save me!". He of course drowns; gets to the pearly gates, and demands to know what happened. God replies, "Hey chuck head, I sent you a raft, a rowboat, and a yacht, what more do you want?"

 

Everybody has to listen to their own heart and do what they feel is correct.

[SailorMom]

I've read all the replies, and did not see this addressed, but I may have missed it....

 

What about those of us with spouses in the military? We are single parents all the time (myself - about 6 months a year), we move all the time....

We decided very early in our marriage to only have two, but were open to changing our minds. However, I can't imagine having had more than two with him gone so much - especially homeschooling and dealing with all the extracurricular activities on my own.

I know there are many large military families - but I do think it is something many of us consider in planning.

[chepyl]

We chose BC to delay having anymore children for a few years. We were starting two businesses. We needed to delay for our sanity and the well being of our other two.

 

My Mom always says, "You get the kids God means for you to have." It took 5 years of surgery and fertility drugs for my parents to have me, with my sister.....my Mom was of the pull. Have have two cousins who were born after their Moms had their tubes tied. I also know some post vasectomy kids.

 

Whatever a couple chooses is up the them, but no bc is 100%.

[sunflowerlady]

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.

[PeacefulChaos]

If I were to have another baby (enter all superstitious acts to ward off jinxes here), I'd have 5 kids who would have to give up quite a bit. Regardless of whether my lifestyle is lavish or not (which is all subjective, anyway), it is not selfish of me to cease to make more babies in order to give my existing kids what I want them to have.

I'd argue that it's more selfish to continue making mini mes for my own pleasure without consider the impact on the first few.

 

:iagree:

We knew a family who was in bankruptcy, could barely feed the children they had, and still wanted to have more. Why? Because they wanted a girl. :glare:

So they got pregnant, and thank goodness, they had a girl. Hopefully they are done now. I'm not trying to be mean, and I know it's up to each family, but we were close enough to this situation to know from firsthand experience that enough is enough.

Hopefully they realize that. The mom loves being needed by the 'baby' - right now the 'baby' is 2, so hopefully in another year when the 'baby' grows out of that she won't try to have a new one. :svengo:

[KungFuPanda]

:iagree:

We knew a family who was in bankruptcy, could barely feed the children they had, and still wanted to have more. Why? Because they wanted a girl. :glare:

So they got pregnant, and thank goodness, they had a girl. Hopefully they are done now. I'm not trying to be mean, and I know it's up to each family, but we were close enough to this situation to know from firsthand experience that enough is enough.

Hopefully they realize that. The mom loves being needed by the 'baby' - right now the 'baby' is 2, so hopefully in another year when the 'baby' grows out of that she won't try to have a new one. :svengo:

 

I have met a few women who have trouble coping with mourning the loss of that baby phase of their lives. You can put it off for years if you just keep having babies, but eventually you go through the reality that you will never have another baby. That twinge of sadness isn't always a sign that you're not finished.

[Audrey]

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.

 

True, but it seems that many who lambast those on public assistance will give a free pass to those living off of the assistance of family, friends or churches.

[cindergretta]

:iagree:

We knew a family who was in bankruptcy, could barely feed the children they had, and still wanted to have more. Why? Because they wanted a girl. :glare:

So they got pregnant, and thank goodness, they had a girl. Hopefully they are done now. I'm not trying to be mean, and I know it's up to each family, but we were close enough to this situation to know from firsthand experience that enough is enough.

Hopefully they realize that. The mom loves being needed by the 'baby' - right now the 'baby' is 2, so hopefully in another year when the 'baby' grows out of that she won't try to have a new one. :svengo:

 

I don't think anyone should judge anyone else for having or NOT having more children. As close as anyone might be to a situation, it still isn't "cool" *IMO* to judge their child - bearing choices. It is a slippery slope. I love having my large family and tons of dc and I love my dear friends who chose to have a vasectomy before their wedding. It truly is an extremely personal process and discussing it in generalities is interesting and eye - opening. But judging any individual or group of individuals for having or not having more kind of proves that no one can ever "win" these types of debates. Some believe this while others believe that and no one changes their minds. :D

 

I know a family who filed bankruptcy and had to move to another state for work. They had a baby AFTER the bankruptcy. Now, 7 years later, with that baby and the two they already had, they are quite well off due to other choices made since then. No one can see the future or know what is the right course for another family. :)

[annandatje]

I've read all the replies, and did not see this addressed, but I may have missed it....

 

What about those of us with spouses in the military? We are single parents all the time (myself - about 6 months a year), we move all the time....

We decided very early in our marriage to only have two, but were open to changing our minds. However, I can't imagine having had more than two with him gone so much - especially homeschooling and dealing with all the extracurricular activities on my own.

I know there are many large military families - but I do think it is something many of us consider in planning.

 

That is a situation that I did not think of when listing what circumstances would cause me to delay or stop reproduction. When one parent has to be away so much of the time, the other parent is a defacto single parent with all the extra work that that entails.

 

Another reason that would make me stop is having a spouse who is uninvolved in his children's lives by his choice. Of course, I am sure we generally try to determine prior to marriage if a man will be a good father.

[PeacefulChaos]

I don't think anyone should judge anyone else for having or NOT having more children. As close as anyone might be to a situation, it still isn't "cool" *IMO* to judge their child - bearing choices. It is a slippery slope. I love having my large family and tons of dc and I love my dear friends who chose to have a vasectomy before their wedding. It truly is an extremely personal process and discussing it in generalities is interesting and eye - opening. But judging any individual or group of individuals for having or not having more kind of proves that no one can ever "win" these types of debates. Some believe this while others believe that and no one changes their minds. :D

 

I know a family who filed bankruptcy and had to move to another state for work. They had a baby AFTER the bankruptcy. Now, 7 years later, with that baby and the two they already had, they are quite well off due to other choices made since then. No one can see the future or know what is the right course for another family. :)

 

This is true. I think it was a very personal thing for me, to watch people continue to have children just because they wanted the opposite gender of what they already had. When I got pg with DD (before we knew what we were having), I wasn't in it to get a girl, but it seemed like everyone who heard we were expecting would say 'thought you'd try again for a girl, eh? You know you guys don't have girls!' (Out of IL's 12 grandchildren, 3 are girls). It bothered me. When we found out we WERE having a girl, we got 'Finally getting your girl!' like it was the best thing ever. It made me SO mad. To the point that I hated the thought of having a girl. I couldn't stand the way people were acting like one was preferable over the other - insinuating at the same time that we should be disappointed if we had another boy! The thought of it still just makes me burn inside. So I think my main problem was a personal issue with their choice. But again, it was their choice, not mine. :)

I do still think that women need to be mindful of why they want more children, though, too. It's like a PP said, there is always a little bit of sadness knowing its the last one. I think some people mistake that for 'not being done'.

[pfamilygal]

I do not believe there is a valid reason to use artificial birth control.

 

Well, my uterus partially ruptured during the c/s with #5. #6 was delivered 5 wks early and the doc didn't even have to use a scalpel on my uterus. It was so thin it tore with his hands alone.

 

So we decided that instead of dying during another pg, I would have my tubes tied. I saw continuing to be alive to parent my children as a good reason to use artificial birth control (I am an NFP failure, given that I was very irregular). I would have loved more kids and we plan to adopt.

 

But I'm only 35. Abstinence for 15 yrs vs. life-threatening pregnancy seems like a bad idea.

Edited December 31, 2011 by pfamilygal

[annandatje]

Well, my uterus partially ruptured during the c/s with #5. #6 was delivered 5 wks early and the doc didn't even have to use a scalpel on my uterus. It was so thin it tore with his hands alone.

 

So we decided that instead of dying during another pg, I would have my tubes tied. I saw continuing to be alive to parent my children as a good reason to use artificial birth control (I am an NFP failure, given that I was very irregular). I would have loved more kids and we plan to adopt.

 

But I'm only 35. Abstinence for 15 yrs vs. life-threatening pregnancy seems like a bad idea.

 

I would not be willing to remain celibate in that situation, nor would I expect my husband to. I would have made same decision you did. Glad everything turned out well in the end.

[AngelBee]

With my third and last pregnancy I had severe blood clots in my legs. The pregnancy put a lot of stress on my body. My greater saphenous veins in both legs are now completely insufficient. I would love to have more children but it could be deadly for me. My husband had a vasectomy.

 

:grouphug:

[AngelBee]

I wasn't wanted, but I'm here and glad I am :001_smile:. Life is a gift.

 

Amen! :001_wub:

[bettyandbob]

You know what I wasn't "wanted" either. But once I arrived I was loved. How do I know, my mother has actually told me. And when you consider the spacing between me and my older siblings it's pretty clear I was not expected.

 

Everyone here knows that no bc is 100%, with the exception of abstinence.

 

I would not reject a pregnancy or child that arrived despite efforts otherwise. The question was about using artificial bc (which in my mind does not include termination of pregnancy, but perhaps other do include it).

 

The truth is there are lots of "surprise" babies who are still loved and cherished. I do not think it wrong to try to prevent pregnancy and still know you would love another child.

[PeacefulChaos]

You know what I wasn't "wanted" either. But once I arrived I was loved. How do I know, my mother has actually told me. And when you consider the spacing between me and my older siblings it's pretty clear I was not expected.

 

Everyone here knows that no bc is 100%, with the exception of abstinence.

 

I would not reject a pregnancy or child that arrived despite efforts otherwise. The question was about using artificial bc (which in my mind does not include termination of pregnancy, but perhaps other do include it).

 

The truth is there are lots of "surprise" babies who are still loved and cherished. I do not think it wrong to try to prevent pregnancy and still know you would love another child.

 

:iagree:

[kiana]

You know what I wasn't "wanted" either. But once I arrived I was loved. How do I know, my mother has actually told me. And when you consider the spacing between me and my older siblings it's pretty clear I was not expected.

 

Everyone here knows that no bc is 100%, with the exception of abstinence.

 

I would not reject a pregnancy or child that arrived despite efforts otherwise. The question was about using artificial bc (which in my mind does not include termination of pregnancy, but perhaps other do include it).

 

The truth is there are lots of "surprise" babies who are still loved and cherished. I do not think it wrong to try to prevent pregnancy and still know you would love another child.

 

YES. This.

 

I am currently on the pill. If it slipped, I would assume that God meant me to have a child at this point and would welcome the child. But this would be a very bad time, finance-wise.

[Crimson Wife]

If I were to have another baby (enter all superstitious acts to ward off jinxes here), I'd have 5 kids who would have to give up quite a bit. Regardless of whether my lifestyle is lavish or not (which is all subjective, anyway), it is not selfish of me to cease to make more babies in order to give my existing kids what I want them to have.

I'd argue that it's more selfish to continue making mini mes for my own pleasure without consider the impact on the first few.

 

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.

[AngelBee]

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.

:iagree:

[Iucounu]

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

It's not (among people that procreate) that material goods are valued more highly than children overall, but simply that some things that are nice to have-- and often to share with one's children-- are valued more highly than having lots of children just because it's feasible. Standard of living matters to many people, not just packing as many children as possible into each room in the house. Having many children is a fine thing to do, but why pass judgment on others because they want a better life, and to them that means something other than maximum possible family size?

Edited January 1, 2012 by Iucounu

[Crimson Wife]

It's not (among people that procreate) that material goods are valued more highly than children overall, but simply that some things that are nice to have-- and often to share with one's children-- are valued more highly than having lots of children just because it's feasible. Standard of living matters to many people, not just packing as many children as possible into each room in the house.

 

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.

[kiana]

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.

 

But why *should* they?

 

They make the decision for their family, and you make the decision for yours.

 

Your choice is your business, and their choice is their business.

[littleWMN]

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 couldn't quote your whole post from my phone, but you are writing all of that to a mom that has two more kids than you do. :confused: I didn't read anywhere in her post that she values material possessions more than life.

Edited January 1, 2012 by littleWMN

[KungFuPanda]

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.

 

 

This depends upon the child. Some children have true needs that involve very expensive prescriptions and doctors, home modifications in the thousands, and equipment for getting around and meeting their basic nutrition and hygiene needs. Don't get me started on the price of adaptive vehicles.

[Slipper]

This depends upon the child. Some children have true needs that involve very expensive prescriptions and doctors, home modifications in the thousands, and equipment for getting around and meeting their basic nutrition and hygiene needs. Don't get me started on the price of adaptive vehicles.

 

I was thinking the same thing. We don't seem to have good luck with our family genes. :) We wanted a huge family but decided that we should stick to our three and provide the therapy, medical needs, diets and home modifications that are needed. If God intends for us to have another, it will happen. We'd love to adopt or at least foster when our two younger are a bit older. (Our oldest will live with us until she moves into assisted living).

[Lang Syne Boardie]

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.

[Bluegoat]

I think part of the issue with the general trend of having few children in order to maintain a high standard of living is that it isn't in the end just a matter of one families choice, totally unrelated to everything else.

 

I think most of us can see to what degree consumerism really infects our culture. Even if we are aware of it and try to guard against it, for most of us a standard of living that would be considered very good throughout history would be a real come down for us. Even the crunchiest of the granolas tends to define herself by what she owns or doesn't own. I know that children really need good relationships more than music lessons, but the idea of not giving my kids music lessons makes me feel like a bad mother. Not to mention all the environmental and structural evils caused by consumerism.

 

I think that there are real connections to our economic system and these kind of negative societal structures. I think that there are forces out there that want to encourage us to become consumers to the highest degree possible, and convince us that if we can't give our kids all kinds of material goods, we are failing, and that somehow material goods will satisfy us, one day. I think they want our kids to grow up with enough material goods that they believe this too. I think they want to encourage as many paid workers as possible to increase paid production, and that too makes larger families difficult.

 

It is usually going to be impossible to comment on why other specific families make their choices, unless they are way off the deep end. But I think looking at social trends in general in relation to having fewer kids, that is something it is reasonable to wonder about. Because I don't think it is usually because they don't want to overburden the environment. It is because we are almost required to spend a lot on non-essentials that can really mask the essentials; because we have few community supports in parenting; because we often can't get by on one income even if we want to.

 

I don't think it is being judgmental to think this way.

[butterflymommy]

I've used BC during the first year if my baby is exclusively BF... beyond a year we usually stop. BFing is so important to me, and my milk dries right up when I conceive. My kids all have varying degrees of asthma and eczema so it's imperative to me that I nurse them at least a year if at all possible.

[Parrothead]

And sometimes couples have small families for no reason other than that is all they can have.

 

I don't think people should judge something like family size. What one sees as selfish consumerism may be nothing more than a deep seated pain that will never be healed.