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

[mommymilkies]

No? Here is some Pre-Hobbit awesomeness.

[mommymilkies]

Ok, you made me do it.

[mommymilkies]

I love those dot chip things. What are they even called? I raise your cupcake and offer...

 

Aidan Turner for my Hobbit and Being Human geek friends.

[justamouse]

I was going to give you the win when you called it coo...

 

 

But this?

 

 

I think I love you.

 

Ok, you made me do it.

[Murphy101]

I love those dot chip things. What are they even called? I raise your cupcake and offer...

 

Aidan Turner for my Hobbit and Being Human geek friends.

 

Oh girl! I finally got the latest Being Human UK version streaming on Netflix and they killed off everyone except the ghost?! New walk guy is so-so. But the new vamp is just annoying. And Mr Weasley? Really? smh

[Impish]

 

I think people of strong character and determination handle what they must regardless. I think those people can be found in many demographics.

 

If anything I think we confuse learning curve with falling apart. There is a lot about being rich I don't know and I'm pretty sure I'd look like an bumbling idiot on how to get about in that environment. I bet the wealthy turned poor feel the same way. There are many social and economic differences is how those disparate demographics live their daily life that would feel over whleming to anyone thrust into a different class.

No, I'm thinking of specific ppl I've known irl, that never really faced adversity. Seriously, the kind of folks that you'd swear were born w/horseshoes in orifaces of your choice. Smooth sailing all the way to adulthood, never anything worse than the usual colds and flu to deal w/.

 

And then, one day, job loss. And they really did have a horrific time of it, more so than others I'd seen, b/c they've never really had to deal w/a serious challenge like that before.

 

I don't see it being an economic class thing, so much as different ppl experience different life paths, and some prepare us for different things more so than others. And if you've never really dealt w/adversity in small ways, suddenly getting hit w/a job loss or other larger adversity I think is harder than for someone that's experienced a series of challenges along the way.

[mommymilkies]

The feeling is mutual, justamouse. :D

 

I know, Martha! They killed off my Mitchell. Whoops, I mean Mitchell. I love Tom, though. He's so hilariously innocent. I just got my hair cut like Alex last weekend. Hal has kinda grown on me, and I had this absurd and unexplainable crush on Cutler because of the way he talks. I was so sad that Annie is gone, though. :(

 

I about died laughing at Mr. Weasley's parts. S hilariously inappropriate as a HP fan. ;)

[Slartibartfast]

 

 

I will take two please.

[Murphy101]

 

No, I'm thinking of specific ppl I've known irl, that never really faced adversity. Seriously, the kind of folks that you'd swear were born w/horseshoes in orifaces of your choice. Smooth sailing all the way to adulthood, never anything worse than the usual colds and flu to deal w/.

 

And then, one day, job loss. And they really did have a horrific time of it, more so than others I'd seen, b/c they've never really had to deal w/a serious challenge like that before.

 

I don't see it being an economic class thing, so much as different ppl experience different life paths, and some prepare us for different things more so than others. And if you've never really dealt w/adversity in small ways, suddenly getting hit w/a job loss or other larger adversity I think is harder than for someone that's experienced a series of challenges along the way.

 

 

I don't know that I agree. Sure dealing with adversity can build character, but many people don't have much character to build. And it does both ways.

 

For example, people who win lotteries tend to file bankruptcy just as much as rich people in general. (keep in mind donald trump has filed bankruptcy several times)

 

Also when studying how the poor spend money vs how the rich spend money, it is not necessarily true that the poor are worse money managers than the rich. For example when grocery shopping, the poor can often tell you what ever item in their cart is worth and be very close to the total. Rich people usually can't and for some reason get very flustered and upset about having to figure it out. Poor people often feel the very same way about calculating expenses more than a few months to a year out. That doesn't mean either are not good with money. In fact, both might be excellent with money in different ways that suit the needs they are used to meeting. In fact, poor people tend to be very savy shoppers and hard bargainers. But the skills they use to do that don't transfer over multiple payscales. You don't bargain shop the same in .. Idk where to suggest SAKs? As you would in Kohls. And their skill is dependent on knowing their market which takes lots of time to develop. I know what a good deal is on many things on sight with very little active thinking going into it. But change what my market is, and I have to reinvest a lot of time into figuring it out. The same would be true for someone going from very well off to very hard times. They went from knowing how to shop and budget and who to network with to maybe not knowing diddly. If they have a support frame, hang in there, and are pointed in the right direction - they will probably be fine. But that's a lot of big ifs. And the same is true of someone winning the lottery too.

 

But the important thing you note is suddenness. Over time, people can adapt much faster, smoother. Suddenly? They are going to be a fish floundering out of water for a year or more. In either economic direction.

 

No, I'm not a financial guru by any stretch and I have never known a 6 figure income or wealth.

But I find the differences between economic classes and how they literally do not function the same to be fascinating. So I read about it. A lot. Some day, when I'm maybe 100 years old, I might get a sociology degree. ;)

[Joanne]

W

 

From what I remember, though I'm not going to go back and read through every single post, it has not actually been claimed by any Christians on the thread that God puts children into horrendous circumstances on purpose just so that they can suffer. .

 

 

How about this one, from upthread:

 

 

I read a beautiful quote in the book Disability and the Gospel about how God uses adverse circumstances like a sculptor uses a chisel to reveal the beautiful statue hiding inside the block of marble. He uses all things (even suffering) to glorify Himself.

 

There are millions of children I'd love to tell they will be "beautiful statues" someday.

 

But I can't, because some circumstances stink from beginning to end.

[Elinor Everywhere]

Does this make everyone else coo with good feelings?

 

Ooh, me!!!

[justLisa]

*stabs thread repeatedly*

 

"DIE THREAD!!! DIE!!!"

 

I'm sorry sis, you weren't loud enough

 

DIE THREAD DIE!!!!!!!!

[justLisa]

Seriously that's the largest font we are allotted. That sucks. How do we yell?

[justLisa]

WAIT, while I'm at it. Does this thread win longest since the new board? Oh and yay, I have more than 5000 points

[mommymilkies]

 

 

I'm sorry sis, you weren't loud enough

 

DIE THREAD DIE!!!!!!!!

but then where will I use these pictures? I'm pretty sure it's a requirement for these to be on any thread longer than 400 posts. It should be law.

[Georgiana Daniels]

WAIT, while I'm at it. Does this thread win longest since the new board? Oh and yay, I have more than 5000 points

 

Quit hogging all the points!

 

LOL, jk. I had to say that because I have next to none :p

[weaver_67579]

Here's another question: Why do some people who have the means to support a passel of children only have 1 or no children. Why don't they start having more babies, since they can clearly support them?

 

See, to me, that question makes just about as much sense as the original question.

 

I DH and I have mostly been financially conservative and have made mostly responsible life choices. We have 3 and can afford more financially. Below are our reasons for stopping at 3

 

It is not just about finances.

1.-I'm not sure I would have my sanity if I had more. I'm not sure I have it now every day. I am way too type A.

2. -I also have horrible pregnancies that leave me on the couch-with the last one for the whole pregnancy.

3. -We can likely provide college education for the 3 we have, probably not any more than that.

4. -I don't think I could provide the individual attention I think my kiddos deserve with a larger family It is a stretch now. (see reason #1)

5. -DH was raised in a larger family. He is the oldest and he missed out on a lot of things because he was often responsible for taking care of the younger ones and/or the farm chores. Before any knickers get in a knot- I was also raised on a farm and had to do chores. We live on one now and the kids do chores. I am talking about the parents and other kids leaving for family reuninons and such and DH and next youngest brother being left home to do the chores. As for babysitting the kids-I am not saying olders should have nothing to do with littlers (our older(s) do help with the younger(s). I am talking of nearly every day while the parents do chores and when they all went somewhere-DH was left to look after all the kids-and often the other kids from wherever they were. We just didn't want this for our children and think that with a large family-it's way too easy to rely heavily on the older children for help. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS WRONG-ONLY THAT DH AND I DID NOT WANT THIS FOR OUR CHILDREN since he didn't really appreciate it.

6. At nearly 43, I'm just feeling too stinking old to have another and DH does too.

 

One thing that does get my knickers kind of wadded is the "I have them because they are a blessing" kind of like if people choose not to have any more-they don't. -well that is why I have mine too. Just because someone isn't quiverfull minded-does not mean they think that children aren't a blessing...

 

As for the op-I don't understand it either. My Dad died when I was 3 and sister was 6 months. Mom worked 2 sometimes 3 jobs to keep us off of welfare. I was raised to believe that nobody owes me anything and that I am responsible for the care of my own family. I do not believe it is responsible to purposefully have another child when living on the charity of others. I cannot fathom why anyone would think it is ok. I know others disagree and that is ok with me.

[Murphy101]

5. -DH was raised in a larger family. He is the oldest and he missed out on a lot of things because he was often responsible for taking care of the younger ones and/or the farm chores. Before any knickers get in a knot- I was also raised on a farm and had to do chores. We live on one now and the kids do chores. I am talking about the parents and other kids leaving for family reuninons and such and DH and next youngest brother being left home to do the chores. As for babysitting the kids-I am not saying olders should have nothing to do with littlers (our older(s) do help with the younger(s). I am talking of nearly every day while the parents do chores and when they all went somewhere-DH was left to look after all the kids-and often the other kids from wherever they were. We just didn't want this for our children and think that with a large family-it's way too easy to rely heavily on the older children for help. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS WRONG-ONLY THAT DH AND I DID NOT WANT THIS FOR OUR CHILDREN since he didn't really appreciate it.

 

None of mine had ever changed a diaper until my oldest begged to at 12. I don't think it was until baby 10 that I had ever let any of my children do what I felt is my job - wash, feed, clothe, diaper babies. and it isn't even daily. A couple times a week maybe one of them will change his diaper or clean him up after a meal before I can get to him. Usually without asking me first. :/ sneaky. :)

 

I am certainly all for EVERYONE in the family having chores and I certainly understand the olders needing to be good examples - but there are no third or fourth sibling parents in this house. I was the youngest in my family and swore I wouldn't do that because I saw the resentment it put in older siblings. And that was only with 4 kids. I see large families get this, sometimes validly. But I see parents of 2-4 who IMO put way too much sibling responsibility than I would be comfortable with on their older kids in a regular basis. I have no idea why that seems to be very much acceptable among 2-4 siblings, but not 5+.

 

If you or anyone else don't want a large family, then that's not a problem for me. But don't blame it on these things or what your parents did. Please. You are not your parents and there is absolutely no reason anyone has to parent their kids the way they were parented. I don't. Dh doesn't. Others don't have to either. :)

 

As for the op-I don't understand it either. My Dad died when I was 3 and sister was 6 months. Mom worked 2 sometimes 3 jobs to keep us off of welfare. I was raised to believe that nobody owes me anything and that I am responsible for the care of my own family. I do not believe it is responsible to purposefully have another child when living on the charity of others. I cannot fathom why anyone would think it is ok. I know others disagree and that is ok with me.

 

Okay I hear these tales all the time. Grew up with it. Been there done/doing that ourselves.

 

But here is what I want to know.

 

Do people think because they suffered it's only right that the next generation be just as screwed and desperate? Why is that the default?

 

I hear those tales and remember our own tribulations and instead of thinking it's a badge of honor, I think it was a sign of a depraved society. Of course people who have no other choice do whatever they have to do to survive. That's really not some sign of character in and of itself. Doing it with grace and integrity is more a reflection of character to me.

 

I don't think wanting a society that is kinder to the struggles of families for my kids to raise future grandchildren in means I don't want them to work hard, love their kids, and be people of good character. It is very possible to want both.

[SwallowTail]

I haven't read the entire thread, and I know folks on this page just want it to die, but I wanted to interject one or two of my thoughts on the topic.

 

I don't care how many children choose to have, but I admit it irks me to see people posting for years on message boards about how poor and desperate they are, only to see them turn around and have more babies on purpose. It makes no sense to me.

 

But even more than that, I feel frustrated by the ones who are persistently poor, neither spouse has any education or training to help give them hope of ever rising above being poor, and their marriage is miserable (mean/controlling/abusive/neglectful husband usually) , and *they* come on posting about possibly being pregnant or wanting another baby. My mind seriously boggles when I see that (not at this forum, as I haven't been around long, so don't feel as if i am speaking about you).

 

In contrast, in the town in which I live, it is trendy for the super educated and upper middle class crunchy families to have as many children as they can.

[Impish]

Martha, that concept boggles my brain.

 

Wolf was in industrial sales/marketing. One guy had been there for decades, and brought his newly grad from high school son in to work w/him.

 

He and Wolf were chatting at one point, Wolf asked if the ds was there for the summer, saving for college.

 

Guy got all huffy, his son wasn't going to college, this job was good enough for HIM, so it was good enough for his ds.

 

Neither of us understand that thinking at all. We want BETTER for our kids than we have/had.

[SKL]

Martha, that concept boggles my brain.

 

Wolf was in industrial sales/marketing. One guy had been there for decades, and brought his newly grad from high school son in to work w/him.

 

He and Wolf were chatting at one point, Wolf asked if the ds was there for the summer, saving for college.

 

Guy got all huffy, his son wasn't going to college, this job was good enough for HIM, so it was good enough for his ds.

 

Neither of us understand that thinking at all. We want BETTER for our kids than we have/had.

 

I can think of quite a few people like that.

 

One that comes to mind is my mom's best friend, who had a very high IQ. At least one of her kids is a genius. She told all of her kids that she would not put a penny toward their college education (or support them through it) as she did not feel it was necessary. As far as I know, none of her kids has a college degree. My mom, who was way poor and had twice as many kids as her friend, was at a loss to understand her friend's position.

 

Interestingly, the genius son happens to coincidentally be sending his kids to the same highly-rated Lutheran school my kids attend. I'm guessing he plans to send his kids to college if he can.

[Impish]

Well, I don't plan to pay for my kids post secondary education, barring a financial miracle. Even if I only had ONE child, I couldn't afford it, so I really don't see a parent's financial support being needed to do so. However, the *mindset* that it's unneccessary I think is far more of an impact than a parent that doesn't help financially.

 

So much boils down to attitude/expectations. Kids will live up (or down) to them, imo.

[BarbecueMom]

Martha, that concept boggles my brain.

 

Wolf was in industrial sales/marketing. One guy had been there for decades, and brought his newly grad from high school son in to work w/him.

 

He and Wolf were chatting at one point, Wolf asked if the ds was there for the summer, saving for college.

 

Guy got all huffy, his son wasn't going to college, this job was good enough for HIM, so it was good enough for his ds.

 

Neither of us understand that thinking at all. We want BETTER for our kids than we have/had.

 

 

Jumping in and getting further off topic, I see this pop up sometime in the relationship between my mother and I. She always says she's proud of me, of what DH and I have accomplished, and I believe it, but I still see the hurt and jealousy at times. There are so many experiences she had struggling through single parenting and poverty that she realizes I may never share. Taking a baby home from the hospital with no help from another parent, coming home each day wondering if the water or electric will still be turned on, fearing the past due bills in the mailbox, bounced checks and debit card declines, an empty fridge with no money to fill it, foreclosures and repossessions and bankruptcy. I went through these things as a child, I've never been through it as a parent and it's possible I never will.

 

Part of it is the pain of knowing I'm making my decisions based off what I learned not to do rather than a good example growing up.

 

It's sort of like an immigrant child who adapts to the new culture and language, but inadvertently puts up a wall between him and older family members in the process. Over and over on these threads, you see, "If you haven't lived it, you don't get it." I can only assume, based on my situation, that no matter how much a parent doesn't want to see an adult child repeat their struggle, there has to be some sort of similar divide.

[Murphy101]

I don't get it as far as my attitude either. And it's the worst the lower the income is? It seems? I know some of it is fear of inadequacy maybe? Fear that if the kid does better they will think their parents are less somehow? Idk. I do know it's an awful cycle that needs to be broken for the next generation to have a better society than previous.

[weaver_67579]

None of mine had ever changed a diaper until my oldest begged to at 12. I don't think it was until baby 10 that I had ever let any of my children do what I felt is my job - wash, feed, clothe, diaper babies. and it isn't even daily. A couple times a week maybe one of them will change his diaper or clean him up after a meal before I can get to him. Usually without asking me first. :/ sneaky. :)

 

I am certainly all for EVERYONE in the family having chores and I certainly understand the olders needing to be good examples - but there are no third or fourth sibling parents in this house. I was the youngest in my family and swore I wouldn't do that because I saw the resentment it put in older siblings. And that was only with 4 kids. I see large families get this, sometimes validly. But I see parents of 2-4 who IMO put way too much sibling responsibility than I would be comfortable with on their older kids in a regular basis. I have no idea why that seems to be very much acceptable among 2-4 siblings, but not 5+.

 

If you or anyone else don't want a large family, then that's not a problem for me. But don't blame it on these things or what your parents did. Please. You are not your parents and there is absolutely no reason anyone has to parent their kids the way they were parented. I don't. Dh doesn't. Others don't have to either. :)

 

 

 

Okay I hear these tales all the time. Grew up with it. Been there done/doing that ourselves.

 

But here is what I want to know.

 

Do people think because they suffered it's only right that the next generation be just as screwed and desperate? Why is that the default?

 

I hear those tales and remember our own tribulations and instead of thinking it's a badge of honor, I think it was a sign of a depraved society. Of course people who have no other choice do whatever they have to do to survive. That's really not some sign of character in and of itself. Doing it with grace and integrity is more a reflection of character to me.

 

I don't think wanting a society that is kinder to the struggles of families for my kids to raise future grandchildren in means I don't want them to work hard, love their kids, and be people of good character. It is very possible to want both.

 

 

I never said I didn't think anyone could do a large family well. DH and I don't think we would be good candidates for large family living. The reason you quoted wasn 't the only reason on our list and it was primarily a reason DH didn't want a bunch. I didn't either, but more for #1-I'm just not interested in having a large family. It does not suit my personality and I'm pretty sure I couldn't do it well. I already know I don't have to parent the way I was raised. I don't and I was 1 of 2 children. I also agree that smaller families can have the same problem-and I don't agree with that either. I love the idea of everyone contributing to the family-we all do here. How you were parented can leave it's mark on you though and I think it colors the way a lot of people parent-good and bad. That can include following in their footsteps or choosing to do things differently. Some go so far as to be polar opposites.

 

As for the story of my family... hmmm I don't know as I suffered. It was our life. It was part of what molded me into the person I am. I don't find that my I am screwed or desperate-quite the opposite actually. I find that the adversity of my childhood made me a very can-do kind of person. Where I see people whine and complain about situations-I am thinking about how to solve them and move on. I hope my children also learn the same kind of attitude-not being a victim, thinking about their life choices and trying to make ones that move them forward even if they are the harder choices at the time, delayed gratification... My mother wouldn't consider what she did a badge of honor-she would say she was just doing what she needed to do. I see it merely as what life was for me growing up. They weren't society's problems. They were ours and Mom worked her bum off to solve them. I think she did a pretty good job and I admire her for doing so. I do think that expecting others to pick up the tab for what your choices are does show a lack of character. That is not to say that people don't need a hand up sometimes. It is more of the attitude I see sometimes that showes the lack of character to me... that some think they are entitled to whatever they want...at the expense of others. I am not down with that.

 

I also want my children to have good character, love their families and be responsible. The world should be a kinder place. I didn't read every post-but I sure didn't see anyone I thought was unkind in what I did read. I didn't see the op single anyone out when asking the question. I think some have taken the question way personally. I don't understand the thougth process of someone making that choice either-seemed like a valid question to me. Just because I may not agree and I say so - doesn't indicate I was feeling or being unkind. Some people take disagreement and assume there is some kind of personal attack-and that is not necessarily the case. I have no problem disagreeing with a lot of people and still being great friends with them. I also do not expect them to agree with me on well... most anything and don't take it personally if they don't.

[justamouse]

 

 

5. -DH was raised in a larger family. He is the oldest and he missed out on a lot of things because he was often responsible for taking care of the younger ones and/or the farm chores. Before any knickers get in a knot- I was also raised on a farm and had to do chores. We live on one now and the kids do chores. I am talking about the parents and other kids leaving for family reuninons and such and DH and next youngest brother being left home to do the chores. As for babysitting the kids-I am not saying olders should have nothing to do with littlers (our older(s) do help with the younger(s). I am talking of nearly every day while the parents do chores and when they all went somewhere-DH was left to look after all the kids-and often the other kids from wherever they were. We just didn't want this for our children and think that with a large family-it's way too easy to rely heavily on the older children for help. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS WRONG-ONLY THAT DH AND I DID NOT WANT THIS FOR OUR CHILDREN since he didn't really appreciate it.

 

 

 

See, now that's the weird part, because the family that I know that is THE most guilty of making the older raise the younger? HAs two kids. And the older CANNOT WAIT to get out of Dodge.

 

That is the fault of parenting, not too many kids. Period. My family is a team, meaning we care for the house together (within reason) but they have never had to parent their siblings or physically take care of them like that. Heck, the olders hardly even babysit the youngers.

[Murphy101]

Weaver - I wasn't asking you to justify why you don't want a large family. I think I even said I have no issue with people not wanting a large family.

 

Tho my post was in response to yours, it was more of a general response of something I hear frequently.

 

Many people think my dh had a large family because he hated being an only child. No. Not really at all.

[Izzy]

 

I don't care how many children choose to have, but I admit it irks me to see people posting for years on message boards about how poor and desperate they are, only to see them turn around and have more babies on purpose. It makes no sense to me.

 

But even more than that, I feel frustrated by the ones who are persistently poor, neither spouse has any education or training to help give them hope of ever rising above being poor, and their marriage is miserable (mean/controlling/abusive/neglectful husband usually) , and *they* come on posting about possibly being pregnant or wanting another baby. My mind seriously boggles when I see that (not at this forum, as I haven't been around long, so don't feel as if i am speaking about

 

 

Exactly this. I was a part of a large family forum for years and I saw this all. the. time. It was shocking how many were on some type of govt. assistance. I have no problem with large families, obviously since I am one, but if you can't take care of the ones you have you probably should think twice about having more. It's basic biology...sex causes babies no matter how poor or rich you are. I'm a Christian but the "God opening and closing the womb" seems like a cop out. Again, not this board but a different one.

[I.Dup.]

ugh, is this thread over yet??

[weaver_67579]

ugh, is this thread over yet??

 

 

hehe-you could stop looking at it :tongue_smilie:

[weaver_67579]

Weaver - I wasn't asking you to justify why you don't want a large family. I think I even said I have no issue with people not wanting a large family.

 

Tho my post was in response to yours, it was more of a general response of something I hear frequently.

 

Many people think my dh had a large family because he hated being an only child. No. Not really at all.

 

 

no worries-just thought I would clarify. I'm pretty live and let live. I have friends/family with many, with a few/one and with no children. None is better than the other and I admire each of them for doing a good job with what their choice is.

[weaver_67579]

 

 

See, now that's the weird part, because the family that I know that is THE most guilty of making the older raise the younger? HAs two kids. And the older CANNOT WAIT to get out of Dodge.

 

That is the fault of parenting, not too many kids. Period. My family is a team, meaning we care for the house together (within reason) but they have never had to parent their siblings or physically take care of them like that. Heck, the olders hardly even babysit the youngers.

 

As I posted elsewhere... I didn't say nobody could do a good job with a large family or that all used the older children to care for the youngers or that it doesn't happen with smaller families. The #5 on the list is based solely on what DH experienced growing up, how he described it to me and how it colored his view of having a large family-and being poor to boot. I also grew up poor, raised by a single mom. Those things, in turn, have colored how we choose to run our home and finances. Since I only had 1 sister-I have no clue what it is like in a large family-other than as an in-law. I also am not interested in having one and never have been. For most of my reasons you can see the other #'s on the list... :D

[Elinor Everywhere]

 

hehe-you could stop looking at it :tongue_smilie:

 

It's like picking at a wound...you can't help yourself. :lol:

[lea_lpz]

I know that this is a controversial and potentially offensive question to some, but I still want to understand.

 

Why do people who are already struggling financially and rely on help from others still plan and have another baby?

 

A family we know who's family supports them becuase the husband is way underemployed (and in the current economy unlikely to get better prospects soon) is pregnant with their third child and the mom says they had planned the pregnancy and had been 'trying for a while'. I have to admit to being quite shocked. It seems very irresponsible.

 

Here there is no financial aid for them from the government, so things like additional child benefits and food aid, etc don't come into play.

 

hmmmm.....I've had some familiarity with this topic.

 

Here are my thoughts, if a couple is not on public assisitance, and if they are only able to get by with the help of family, it does seem like the most respectfull thing to do would be to not have anymore children until you could support your current family and were not quite so strapped before having another child.

 

I think it all depends on the situation. When we were ttc with out youngest, we were doing quite well for being a young couple living only on one wage and financial aid and my work study job (I was in college), so the plan was to live on one income for me to to take a year off of school after graduating and then attend graduate school. We had sat down and had a budget and felt comfortable that we could live on one income and provide for our daughter, a new baby, and my stepson when he was at our house / still pay child support, etc. But, I got pregnant in the summer of 2009, and two months after I conceived, sh*t hit the fan, my dh was out of work for 3 months, draining our savings we'd intended to use to buy stuff for the new baby and to not worry about not receiving financial aid after graduating (we were not taking out loans), and after he'd gotten a new job, he would often have bad weeks, where he'd only get 20 hours of work or so. He's a mechanic and was being paid per job, so if no jobs came in, he could just be at work waiting for work to come in. Anyhow, yes, there were times were we had depend on family in order to fill in the gaps, but we tried to keep this to an emergency situation. When I had been pregnant with my last child, we had planned on having another child probably within a year or two of having the last one, and maybe even a fourth together, but when we were struggling so much off and on the last 3 years, we decided not to have any more children at this time. For the last six months, our luck has changed. My dh got a job that pays an hourly wage and has plenty of over time available and got a substantial raise. We no longer struggle or need the occasional help of family and can breath a little, but am not sure we're quite feeling confident enough to take a leap and try to conceive just yet. But that's me and my family. I don't have the scenarios some others described, such as struggling with fertility. I'm young so times on my side and we got pregnant with the first two in the first cycle attempts (we weren't even trying for the 1st child).

 

As for the brother in law, parents taking care of sister story, perhaps the brother is exagerrating the amount of help that the parents give this couple. It's hard to know if you are hearing things second hand. While in my family, it would definitely be frowned on if someone planned a baby despite being able to afford it, an accidental baby would be different. Also depends on the family dynamic between the grandparents and the daughter. Perhaps the grandmother doesn't mind helping them as a young family and has the means to do so. Or perhaps she provides extras for her grandchildren but the parents are meeting the basic needs of the children? As a young family, we have had up and downs; we've always been able to meet their basic needs, but extras are luxuary that we sometimes can afford but in general can't. A lot of time grandma and grandpa enjoy giving the children these extras such as swim lessons, clothes, toys, etc, but they aren't necessary. They'd be ok if they could not take swim lessons or ballet or whatever. They'd also be ok without the "extra" clothes, because I always am able to get them a reasonable amount of seasonal clothes and a good pair of shoes (even if sometimes that means I am going to get all the clothes at a second hand store), and although they don't have a massive amount of toys, they do have a reasonable amount of them and can count on at least a $50 gift from us on their birthdays and Christmas. But I think this is a common scanerio with children, with grandparents, if they have the means, often providing "extras" and taking pleasure in this.

 

People who mention paying for college, providing the best, etc., well, if those are your family values than do what you feel is right. I personally don't believe providing all of those things for your children are going to build character. Helping put yourself through school does.

 

But there is a distinct difference between choicing to be childfull and probably doing with less but meeting the needs of your children and selves modestly without family or government aid (or only as an occasional safety net for tough times) and having children knowing that your unable to support your own current children and planning on continued help from family in order to support future children.

 

How do we even define ttc or accidental pregnancy? That's what I am wondering....

Is it accidental only under the circumstance that the couple used a form of birth control and it failed (such as the women took the pill every day at the same time and still got pregnant, or they used a condom and the condom broke?) Or is there more of a grey area, such as, is it still accidental if the couple ran out of condoms and decided to use withdrawl method a little sucker made it upstream? Or if perhaps like a lot of moms out there, mom takes the pill when she remembers, sometimes in the morning, sometimes before bed, but almost daily, only occasionally skipping a pill and then doubling up but gets pregnant? Is that "accidental"?

 

What's trying? Monitoring your ovulation peaks and trying every day your at your peak? Not taking any form of bc and yet not specifically intending to get pregnant and maybe even avoiding sex during ovulation but maybe not really following the NFP model to the tee either? Getting prenant than would be "accidental" or "ttc"?

 

I just mean it gets a little blurry the lines, at least to me.....

 

Some food for that. Isn't there a stastic that like half of all pregnancies are unplanned? If 50% of pregnancies are "accidents" then why do you think that rate is so high? There seems to be a pretty fine line between "accidents" and carelessness....yes, accidents happen, but if taken correctly most bc had a 97% to 99% effectiveness rating, not 50%, because, well then why would we even bother if it had a 50-50 chance of working?

[Audrey]

 

 

Many people think my dh had a large family because he hated being an only child. No. Not really at all.

 

 

 

That goes both ways. My dh didn't hate being part of a large family, but he had no desire to repeat that. That's not the same sentiment at all.

 

Martha, your large family is your luxury. My small family is my luxury. That goes both ways, too. It just doesn't look the same.

[Amy Jo]

Don't make cupcakes. Make this cake instead:

 

Holiday Vodka cake

 

I'm so glad I opened this thread, I laughed so hard I cried. I might need to make these, but I'd have to get drunk first to actually drink the Vodka, so that might be a bad start...

 

(Oh, and LOVED the kilt pic too! Thanks whoever posted it.)

 

As to kids... well for our 2 planned ones we were in an okay situation - not rich, but supporting ourselves. And the 2 unplanned came at "bad" times -- but still a blessing. I mind my own business.

[Crimson Wife]

There are millions of children I'd love to tell they will be "beautiful statues" someday.

 

But I can't, because some circumstances stink from beginning to end.

 

 

But earthly suffering has an end, eventually. No matter how abjectly miserable someone's earthly life is, there is a better one waiting for him/her someday with Jesus, the saints, and angels in Heaven. Christ in Matthew 5:3-12 (the Beatitudes) talks about how those who suffer will be rewarded in Heaven if they keep faith in Him.

 

If you want to argue with Scripture, that's a conversation you need to be having with God, not me or any other human.

[mommaduck]

I was responding to the assertion that a family of 6 making 31k would be middle class. I don't think poor = not middle class but I seriously question the veracity of the stated claim that a family is middle class on such a low amount.

 

Also, I've worked with people who become crippled or have died due to hunger, lack of shelter and lack of healthcare. I'm tired of people hinting that poverty is always worse elsewhere than here. East St. Louis anyone? Dying of dental related heart disease? Getting beat to death by frat boys because you are sleeping under a bridge and are easy to kill and hard to be considered important or missing? Yes, bleak and SERIOUS poverty does exist in US.

Thank you!

[nmoira]

But earthly suffering has an end, eventually. No matter how abjectly miserable someone's earthly life is, there is a better one waiting for him/her someday with Jesus, the saints, and angels in Heaven. Christ in Matthew 5:3-12 (the Beatitudes) talks about how those who suffer will be rewarded in Heaven if they keep faith in Him.

 

If you want to argue with Scripture, that's a conversation you need to be having with God, not me or any other human.

 

My father did just that. He couldn't reconcile how a just God could play such petty games, so he gave back the ticket; a man with a third grade education who probably had never heard of The Brothers Karamazov. Me, I just never believed, and I've never regretted it.

[lea_lpz]

Eeewww.....: this is gettin' ugly.....

[annandatje]

... As for the story of my family... hmmm I don't know as I suffered. It was our life. It was part of what molded me into the person I am. I don't find that my I am screwed or desperate-quite the opposite actually. I find that the adversity of my childhood made me a very can-do kind of person. Where I see people whine and complain about situations-I am thinking about how to solve them and move on. I hope my children also learn the same kind of attitude-not being a victim, thinking about their life choices and trying to make ones that move them forward even if they are the harder choices at the time, delayed gratification... My mother wouldn't consider what she did a badge of honor-she would say she was just doing what she needed to do. I see it merely as what life was for me growing up. They weren't society's problems. They were ours and Mom worked her bum off to solve them. I think she did a pretty good job and I admire her for doing so. I do think that expecting others to pick up the tab for what your choices are does show a lack of character. That is not to say that people don't need a hand up sometimes. It is more of the attitude I see sometimes that showes the lack of character to me... that some think they are entitled to whatever they want...at the expense of others. I am not down with that......

 

Delaying of gratification is generally considered virtuous by some of the same people who consider it selfish when applied to human reproduction. I agree with the poster pages back who stated essentially that the planners in life are the ones more likely to hold off until they feel they are ready mentally, financially, and emotionally to start a family, whatever their parameters are for readiness.

 

Also we are shaped by our personal history. Living among third world rural (very remote region) and urban poverty conditions in a wealthy country can have a profound impact upon a woman's reproduction decisions. Yes, it can indeed convince her to delay reproduction until (1) she gets a functional education that will result in marketable skills so that she will be able to care for her children in event of divorce or widowhood (2) finds a man who has the means, desire and commitment to support the size family they both desire (3) can move out of a zip code that is not always in the top 20 for violent crime in the U.S. I guess number 3 could be loosely interpreted as delaying childbirth for "wanting real estate." Sure, bad stuff can still befall the family but they've reduced the odds against them.

 

The reasons listed above, for some women, will outweigh the fact that fertility declines and disorders increase in childbirth in 30s and beyond. For some women, simply wanting a family is not reason enough to start one.

 

Seeing certain things leave a permanent mark on one's psyche: malnourished infant with distended stomach, naked toddlers outside in cold weather, women's bodies worn out by uncontrolled reproduction and malnutrition, kids dying from tooth infections that spread to heart, kids dying from sinus infections that spread to brain, kids with vitamin deficiency diseases, kids with whopping cases of internal parasites, families living in shacks with no indoor plumbing or heating, snow blowing through the cracks in the boards, women who have no options to leave unfulfilling marriages because they cannot support the children they have and because they have no education or marketable job skills, generational familial retardation, domestic violence. Of course, these conditions are not because of children, but the children nonetheless are the ones that suffer. Plenty of these families had love; some of them had only dysfunction because they did not have fortitude to endure generational soul-sucking poverty.

 

Fortunately nowadays birth control is generally available to those women who wish to use it. Fortunately citizens and our government do not get a say in when women decide to reproduce. The human reproduction system functions regardless of a couple's circumstances.

 

Weaver_67579, assuming I am correctly interpreting your position on public assistance, I disagree with it. Once the baby is here, I truly believe that the concept of fairness goes out the window. We need to do whatever we can, both as a government and as an extended family member, to insure that all children have access to adequate nutrition, shelter, and education. Whether parents behaved in a responsible manner (according to whatever authority would decide what constitutes responsible - that's a scary scenario) should not have impact on the assistance a child receives.

[weaver_67579]

 

 

Weaver_67579, assuming I am correctly interpreting your position on public assistance, I disagree with it. Once the baby is here, I truly believe that the concept of fairness goes out the window. We need to do whatever we can, both as a government and as an extended family member, to insure that all children have access to adequate nutrition, shelter, and education. Whether parents behaved in a responsible manner (according to whatever authority would decide what constitutes responsible - that's a scary scenario) should not have impact on the assistance a child receives.

 

The op was about purposefully having more children you cannot afford-not taking care of the children you already have. That is what I am speaking of.

[Murphy101]

Delaying of gratification is generally considered virtuous by some of the same people who consider it selfish when applied to human reproduction.

 

I never said I consider it selfish to avoid pregnancy.

 

What *I* said was if a person truly feels they are not ready to start a family, then they should reconsider doing things that make families. Things like getting married and or having sex.

 

Why is it was think it irresponsible to get pregnant, but it is not irresponsible to engage in the activity that causes it? Do you also think delayed gratification theory should apply to not dating, getting married, or having sex until one is "ready" by whatever measurement of ready they might use?

 

Because otherwise this is not about delayed gratification at all.

 

It's about judging that X amount of pregnancy risk is acceptable, but Y amount of pregnancy risk is just irresponsible.

And that makes no sense whatsoever to me especially when we are discussing truely dire circumstances.

 

And that completely ignores the issue that delayed gratification in this regard can often mean no gratification at all when they are older.

 

Fortunately citizens and our government do not get a say in when women decide to reproduce. The human reproduction system functions regardless of a couple's circumstances.

 

Agreed.

[justamouse]

So are you also saying the reason for marriage is mainly to give birth to childen?

 

 

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?-- but yes, marriage is for children. It is by far the safest environment for a child to grow up in, one that supports and builds community and one that upholds the pinnings of society.

[justamouse]

I never said I consider it selfish to avoid pregnancy.

 

What *I* said was if a person truly feels they are not ready to start a family, then they should reconsider doing things that make families. Things like getting married and or having sex.

 

Why is it was think it irresponsible to get pregnant, but it is not irresponsible to engage in the activity that causes it? Do you also think delayed gratification theory should apply to not dating, getting married, or having sex until one is "ready" by whatever measurement of ready they might use?

 

Because otherwise this is not about delayed gratification at all.

 

It's about judging that X amount of pregnancy risk is acceptable, but Y amount of pregnancy risk is just irresponsible.

And that makes no sense whatsoever to me especially when we are discussing truely dire circumstances.

 

And that completely ignores the issue that delayed gratification in this regard can often mean no gratification at all when they are older.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

:iagree:

Man, you totally ate your wheaties this morning.

[Murphy101]

So are you also saying the reason for marriage is mainly to give birth to childen?

 

Nope. I'm saying most married people have sex, thus marriage tends to lend itself to procreation. Thus if one is against irresponsible procreation, then one should reconsider doing activities that lend themselves towards procreation - such as sex and or marriage or whatever other scenario tends to also mean having sex that has whatever rate of pregnancy risk.

 

Relationships where sex is involved have a risk of pregnancy.

So if one wants to completely avoid pregnancy, it makes sense to avoid relationships that will involve an expectation of doing something that has a risk of pregnancy.

[annandatje]

Nope. I'm saying most married people have sex, thus marriage tends to lend itself to procreation. Thus if one is against irresponsible procreation, then one should reconsider doing activities that lend themselves towards procreation - such as sex and or marriage or whatever other scenario tends to also mean having sex that has whatever rate of pregnancy risk.

 

Relationships where sex is involved have a risk of pregnancy.

So if one wants to completely avoid pregnancy, it makes sense to avoid relationships that will involve an expectation of doing something that has a risk of pregnancy.

 

Marriage can provide warmth, closeness, and many more benefits besides childbearing. You seem to be advocating celibate marriages unless a pregnancy would be welcome. Personally I appreciate the scientific advances in contraception, including NFP and surgical sterilization, that allow fertile humans to still enjoy benefits of physically intimate relations but have some semblance of control over their family size.

 

I guess in the end it all comes down to risk management and what level of risk one is willing to undertake. Some forms of birth control allegedly can provide up to over 99% contraception rate. There is a wide continuum between uncontrolled fertility and abstinence. Some people may totally avoid engaging in certain desired activities because of possibility of unwanted outcomes. Others will mull over the situation with a risk/benefit analysis, and, should they choose to engage in activity, take whatever steps appropriate for them to reduce risk to a manageable level and develop a backup plan to handle any unintended consequences. Some people decide that cooking in a lead crockpot or driving a car, even without limiting physical and mental conditions, is too risky for their comfort. For others, skydiving or mountain climbing may be the cutoff.

[Murphy101]

Marriage can provide warmth, closeness, and many more benefits besides childbearing. You seem to be advocating celibate marriages unless a pregnancy would be welcome.

 

I'm advocating common sense. Pregnancy is indeed about risk. Don't play the odds unless they can accept the risks. That simple. I am not advocating celibate marriages unless a couple wants to avoid any risk at all.

 

..that allow fertile humans to still enjoy benefits of physically intimate relations but have some semblance of control over their family size.

 

I think semblance is the big word there. If they want actual assured control, I highly suggest not doing what causes it.

 

I guess in the end it all comes down to risk management and what level of risk one is willing to undertake.

 

That's exactly what I've been saying all along.

[annandatje]

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

[justamouse]

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

 

 

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.