Society and Large Families

[1PeaceMaker]

This thread is like a part 2 of the pruned thread I used to have, called "does society approve of large families?"

Do you think society sees large families as an asset?
Do you think they are an asset?

Families come in all types and sizes, but in this thread we are discussing families that defy the small family model, specifically. A family that has 3 kids would be considered a mid-size family, and one or two seems like an ideal held in the minds of a few.

So far, we have exceeded 3 children by a bit. Someone recently asked me how I felt about having my 8th this year considering that some people believe in the overpopulation myth and might consider me irresponsible. My answer is I feel joyful about the kids and not a bit guilty for letting God gift them to us.

To those afraid of overpopulation, don't fear me and women like me. I don't even have to argue against the overpopulation myth to make a case against fearing the impact of very large families.

It could never be the norm to have so many. Very few women have 8 children in a lifetime, and that's despite the fact that there are many more child-bearing age women that would love to have a dozen but can't.

In the United States in 2013, 2.8 percent of live births were the fifth child in the family, 1.5 percent were the sixth or seventh child, and 0.3 percent were the eighth child and over [3].

http://www.uptodate.com/contents/grand-multiparity

Consider that 2% of Americans are twins and you can see that .3% is nothing to worry about.

 

[HisServant]

Only if you have the means to pay for all the social services (including school) until they reach adulthood.

I am against child tax credits (you should not get a break for imposing additional burdens on our schools, etc.).. whereas people that decide to remain single should benefit from that choice via lower tax rates.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Only if you have the means to pay for all the social services (including school) until they reach adulthood.

I am against child tax credits (you should not get a break for imposing additional burdens on our schools, etc.).. whereas people that decide to remain single should benefit from that choice via lower tax rates.

Do you think that the small number of children in this country from very large families are less worthy of subsidization than the small-family children majority?

Your food, gas and other common items are subsidized on a large scale to keep the economy running. All are entitled to equal access.

 

[HisServant]

Do you think that the small number of children in this country from very large families are less worthy of subsidization than the small-family children majority?

Your food, gas and other common items are subsidized on a large scale to keep the economy running. All are entitled to equal access.

I think every citizen should be allowed a subsidy and that it should be divided up among their underage children, since it's their choice to have the kids.

That way your choices are never a burden on society... Christ would want it that way too. Why should other people be paying for your choices?

If they do not use the subsidy, they should be rewarded.

Seriously, if you do not have the means, and need to ask society for assistance, you are being selfish.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I think every citizen should be allowed a subsidy and that it should be divided up among their underage children, since it's their choice to have the kids.

Children are an economic asset on a wide scale. Each child has equal value to society.

What's more, they are not a choice. One fifth of couples cannot bear children. They cannot choose. Others get pregnant despite birth control. They cannot choose.

Those who do not have children will be more of a burden on society as they retire, not less.

That way your choices are never a burden on society... Christ would want it that way too. Why should other people be paying for your choices?

Aside from the incorrect assumption that children are choices, let's examine why we should pay for children in general or subsidize one another. Christ wants us to love one another and to feed the hungry, etc. That's the spirit.

If they do not use the subsidy, they should be rewarded.

Parents are more productive and contribute more to the economy when they have more children to take care of. They should be rewarded for stimulating the economy.

Seriously, if you do not have the means, and need to ask society for assistance, you are being selfish.

It is not selfish to provide for God's children. We should equally care about all the little ones.

 

[chrysostom]

What's more, they are not a choice. One fifth of couples cannot bear children. They cannot choose. Others get pregnant despite birth control. They cannot choose.

Those who do not have children will be more of a burden on society as they retire, not less.

this is so true
and
it is also obvious to some of us

 

[The Horn]

Overpopulation is NOT a "myth . " People who say that the entire population of the world would fit into a tiny area are guilty of a half truth .
Technically it would , but there is only a limited amount of water , fuel, food and other necessary resources , and they are not infinite .
Furthermore, there are vast areas of the world which are totally uninhabitable, or which could only support very small populations .
Deserts, arctic regions etc . There is only a limited amount of inhabitable space on earth and populations are spreading into areas once inhabited only by animals, which is creating serious ecological problems .
I'm no tree-hugging environmental wacko ; just realistic .

 

[chrysostom]

Overpopulation is NOT a "myth . " People who say that the entire population of the world would fit into a tiny area are guilty of a half truth .
Technically it would , but there is only a limited amount of water , fuel, food and other necessary resources , and they are not infinite .
Furthermore, there are vast areas of the world which are totally uninhabitable, or which could only support very small populations .
Deserts, arctic regions etc . There is only a limited amount of inhabitable space on earth and populations are spreading into areas once inhabited only by animals, which is creating serious ecological problems .
I'm no tree-hugging environmental wacko ; just realistic .

are you assuming a minimum standard of living?
and
what would that be based on?

 

[HisServant]

Children are an economic asset on a wide scale. Each child has equal value to society.

I disagree, children coming out of today's schools and current family model are more of a burden than an asset.

What's more, they are not a choice. One fifth of couples cannot bear children. They cannot choose. Others get pregnant despite birth control. They cannot choose.

People CHOSE to have sex.. so they must deal with the consequences of those CHOICES.

Those who do not have children will be more of a burden on society as they retire, not less.

Only if they are selfish and do not provide for their own retirement. If they do plan, then they are no burden at all and actually an asset to society.

Aside from the incorrect assumption that children are choices, let's examine why we should pay for children in general or subsidize one another. Christ wants us to love one another and to feed the hungry, etc. That's the spirit.

Christ also does not want you to have physical children. Our children are the ones we lead to the Lord.. if we have large families we are focused on caring for them instead of the lost.... large families are the sign of a very selfish christian who is trying to get out of doing the hard work of leading others to Christ and instead are rolling the dice and hoping their children turn out right. Contrary to popular myth, the Apostles were VERY clear about this.

Parents are more productive and contribute more to the economy when they have more children to take care of. They should be rewarded for stimulating the economy.

FALSE, large families and the crazy obsession that people have their children these days have ruined our society... volunteerism and contributing to society is at an all time. The reason good people don't run for political office anymore is they are tied up with their families.
I am president of the borough council where I live and trying to get people to take away from their families to volunteer to do park cleanup, help with street clean up, assist for community day and a host of other activities is like pulling teeth. The are busy shuttling their kids between soccer camp, baseball road games, band practice, etc.. etc... etc..

It is not selfish to provide for God's children. We should equally care about all the little ones.

That is your choice and you should bear the financial costs alone. Trying to justify it by saying its better for the economy and all is a cop out... and frankly disgusting.

1 Timothy 5:8

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Overpopulation is NOT a "myth . "

That's easily debatable.

But even if you supported the idea of overpopulation you don't see modern big families as creating a problem do you? Those families that have more than a half dozen are really rare for multiple reasons.

What possible crisis could that tiny percentage of "surplus" children create in society?

I'm no tree-hugging environmental wacko ; just realistic .

Let's test that theory out: Do you think the only child in a small family is using more or less resources than a child in a large family?

 

[chrysostom]

8 or 9 kids with a father is not a burden
but
one without a father is
black fathers matter

 

[The Berean]

I know a young Christian couple with four children. The father is in his early 30's and the mother turned 30 recently. She told me recently that she sometimes gets stares from other people when they see her with her four kids. She even gets negative comments from women telling her she should have not have had so many kids. People today just are not used to seeing large families.

A lot young women are sold on the idea of spending their 20's (their peak fertility years) chasing a career. Then suddenly they wake up one day in their late 30's to mid 40's wanting kids then having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments. I've have seen how motherhood is a transformative experience. I can think of 5-6 women I know who had high powered STEM careers then after having children quit their careers to become full time mothers. All of them told me it's the best decision they ever made.

I read this article last year about how having large famileis is becoming a status symbol among the wealthy.

The ultimate status symbol for millionaire moms on New York's Upper East Side is not what you'd expect

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I disagree, children coming out of today's schools and current family model are more of a burden than an asset.

An aging population is an economic crisis in the making. And you couldn't possibly mean that children in today's world are worth less than children from a previous era. Do you?

People CHOSE to have sex.. so they must deal with the consequences of those CHOICES.

You brought up Christ earlier. Do you think Christ wants us to stop reproducing or have as many as we can so he can have/redeem them for all eternity?

And from a secular point of view, why incentivize infertility when imploding economies and aging populations are currently such a problem?

Only if they are selfish and do not provide for their own retirement. If they do plan, then they are no burden at all and actually an asset to society.

You speak as though you have more control than you do. Bank accounts and retirement plans have been wiped out for many in recent times. Your attitude is cold comfort for them. But children can care for their aging parents and love is a stronger currency than cold hard cash.

Do you really want to lean on money in your old age instead of love and reciprocity? And with supply and demand, how do you get the care you need when there is a shortage of young care-givers?

Christ also does not want you to have physical children.

That contradicts a lot of the Bible. And does disrespect to His children. Blessed is the man that has his quiver full of them, he shall not be ashamed.

Our children are the ones we lead to the Lord..

Then we must lead our children to the Lord. And indeed, it says that if we train them up in the way they should go they will not depart from it.

There are not enough laborers for the harvest. When you train up a child to harvest for Christ you multiply your own energy for Him.

if we have large families we are focused on caring for them instead of the lost....

I think my husband and I have seen first hand that we can serve the lost and preach the gospel while still having kids. But I've noticed that I get farther on that point with my own children more quickly than I do with incorrectly raised individuals. In my own garden I can prepare the soil for planting and harvest, vs sowing as I walk across other fields where some seeds grow and many more are choked out.

large families are the sign of a very selfish christian who is trying to get out of doing the hard work of leading others to Christ and instead are rolling the dice and hoping their children turn out right.

That's pretty judgmental. I've seen enough people with large families minister to God with kids in tow to know you are wrong.

Contrary to popular myth, the Apostles were VERY clear about this.

Cite?

FALSE, large families and the crazy obsession that people have their children these days have ruined our society...

On the one hand, you describe parents as faithless, careless dice-rollers and now as obsessed. Which is it? Might it not be either, especially depending on the individual families?

Also by what reason or evidence do you make that assertion?

volunteerism and contributing to society is at an all time. The reason good people don't run for political office anymore is they are tied up with their families.

If they are good, then their families are not a waste of time. Good people don't have the same ambitions as greedy people. But as for volunteerism, I've seen lots of that from large families. How many large families do you know?

I am president of the borough council where I live and trying to get people to take away from their families to volunteer to do park cleanup, help with street clean up, assist for community day and a host of other activities is like pulling teeth.

Most of the young parents you describe are not raising more than 3 children. Many have only one.

The are busy shuttling their kids between soccer camp, baseball road games, band practice, etc.. etc... etc..

Their personal choice, I guess. There's more than one way to manage a family.

That is your choice and you should bear the financial costs alone.

People don't let you do that when you have many children. They want a part of the action and don't wait for you to ask for things. From grannies, friends and neighbors to total strangers.

Trying to justify it by saying its better for the economy and all is a cop out... and frankly disgusting.

If it's really better for the economy it's not a cop-out, it's the truth. And if it's the truth it's not disgusting, is it?

1 Timothy 5:8

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Then all modern Americans would fall into that category by your standard, or your net is too broad. Your common foods and fuels are subsidized already. School for all children is subsidized.

Large families do provide for their own on the whole, and others pitch in, often without giving the family a chance to refuse the gifts.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

8 or 9 kids with a father is not a burden
but
one without a father is

I disagree. If my husband died tomorrow the kids wouldn't suddenly become more of a burden. They'd just have something to cry about.

I feel the same about kids from broken homes. It's hard losing a parent, but the kids are just as valuable after the fact.

 

[HisServant]

An aging population is an economic crisis in the making. And you couldn't possibly mean that children in today's world are worth less than children from a previous era. Do you?



You brought up Christ earlier. Do you think Christ wants us to stop reproducing or have as many as we can so he can have/redeem them for all eternity?

And from a secular point of view, why incentivize infertility when imploding economies and aging populations are currently such a problem?



You speak as though you have more control than you do. Bank accounts and retirement plans have been wiped out for many in recent times. Your attitude is cold comfort for them. But children can care for their aging parents and love is a stronger currency than cold hard cash.

Do you really want to lean on money in your old age instead of love and reciprocity? And with supply and demand, how do you get the care you need when there is a shortage of young care-givers?



That contradicts a lot of the Bible. And does disrespect to His children. Blessed is the man that has his quiver full of them, he shall not be ashamed.



Then we must lead our children to the Lord. And indeed, it says that if we train them up in the way they should go they will not depart from it.

There are not enough laborers for the harvest. When you train up a child to harvest for Christ you multiply your own energy for Him.



I think my husband and I have seen first hand that we can serve the lost and preach the gospel while still having kids. But I've noticed that I get farther on that point with my own children more quickly than I do with incorrectly raised individuals. In my own garden I can prepare the soil for planting and harvest, vs sowing as I walk across other fields where some seeds grow and many more are choked out.



That's pretty judgmental. I've seen enough people with large families minister to God with kids in tow to know you are wrong.



Cite?



On the one hand, you describe parents as faithless, careless dice-rollers and now as obsessed. Which is it? Might it not be either, especially depending on the individual families?

Also by what reason or evidence do you make that assertion?



If they are good, then their families are not a waste of time. Good people don't have the same ambitions as greedy people. But as for volunteerism, I've seen lots of that from large families. How many large families do you know?



Most of the young parents you describe are not raising more than 3 children. Many have only one.



Their personal choice, I guess. There's more than one way to manage a family.



People don't let you do that when you have many children. They want a part of the action and don't wait for you to ask for things. From grannies, friends and neighbors to total strangers.



If it's really better for the economy it's not a cop-out, it's the truth. And if it's the truth it's not disgusting, is it?



Then all modern Americans would fall into that category by your standard, or your net is too broad. Your common foods and fuels are subsidized already. School for all children is subsidized.

Large families do provide for their own on the whole, and others pitch in, often without giving the family a chance to refuse the gifts.

I depends, if things are subsidized by USE taxes, then its basically fee for service, which is the way I would like to see our schools funded.... if you have a kid in school, you pay. But the current way of funding it through real estate taxes is patently unfair. It causes people to have to lose their homes and move when they retire.

Now as far as having children.... in the New Testament.. we know the following.

1.) Paul pleaded with people NOT to get married... unless they couldn't control themselves.

2.) He told people that IF you were married it was good not to have sex for mutually agreed upon lengths of time... and only come back together and have sex when you were tempted.

3.) Elders were limited to one wife to reduce the size of their families.

4.) First Corinthians talks about how our duty first is to the Lord and our families are second... that single people are encouraged to remain that way so they can serve the lord and that those that are marred are more concerned about their families and it is a shame.


Altogether, the New Testament has a very dim view on marriage and its impact on impairing the ability of us to serve him.

Fewer people getting married = fewer children... and the motivation Paul gives to us should encourage us to have fewer children if possible.

As far as large families... My dad is one out of 8, my mom, one out of 11, I have 60 first cousins... I've been around lots of large families.

I had two children, then took steps to not have any more. Both my children are married and have 2 children and have taken the same steps. 2 is enough.

 

[elohiym]

I know a young Christian couple with four children. The father is in his early 30's and the mother turned 30 recently. She told me recently,that she sometimes gets stares from other people when they see her with her four kids. She even gets negative comments from women telling her she should have not have had so many kids. People today just are not used to seeing large families.

I get mixed reactions. Fortunately where we live there are many people who come from large families, so they generally react positively.

 

[john w]

I have officially locked down this "thread."CLOSED. EOT. RIP.DOA. Chapter 11 bankruptcy. NO ENTRY.

 

[HisServant]

I have officially locked down this "thread."CLOSED. EOT. RIP.DOA. Chapter 11 bankruptcy. NO ENTRY.

So... you are advocating 3 a piece?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I depends, if things are subsidized by USE taxes, then its basically fee for service, which is the way I would like to see our schools funded.... if you have a kid in school, you pay. But the current way of funding it through real estate taxes is patently unfair. It causes people to have to lose their homes and move when they retire.

That's a separate issue from very large families. Children from large families are only a tiny slice of the tax burden. This family here has 8 but none have been a tax burden on the school system, despite the property taxes we pay. So we pay for our children's homeschooling and other people's kids as well. If you consider how much money we've spared the school system this way, it's a teacher's salary worth or more every year at this point. Not all kids are a tax burden with school usage.

Now as far as having children.... in the New Testament.. we know the following.

1.) Paul pleaded with people NOT to get married... unless they couldn't control themselves.

2.) He told people that IF you were married it was good not to have sex for mutually agreed upon lengths of time... and only come back together and have sex when you were tempted.

3.) Elders were limited to one wife to reduce the size of their families.

4.) First Corinthians talks about how our duty first is to the Lord and our families are second... that single people are encouraged to remain that way so they can serve the lord and that those that are marred are more concerned about their families and it is a shame.

1. was for a "present trouble" in the time and place where Christians were highly persecuted. Those sects of Christianity that don't breed rapidly die out; study the Shaker religion for more information.

2. You have reversed the advice to minimize sexual contact. But even if you did that, the passion that would force them back together would happen when fertility was at it's peak. That's no birth control.

3. That's a disputed interpretation of the context. Regardless, it has no bearing on female fertility, and that's the context that matters.

4. Serving the little ones is serving Jesus, is it not? Did Paul not describe women saved in childbearing and did the Bible not describe how having a child was part of Enoch developing his walk with God? When you see a baby, you see an innocent kingdom dweller, and that can lead you to seeing your own Father in a new light.

Altogether, the New Testament has a very dim view on marriage and its impact on impairing the ability of us to serve him.

I disagree, since serving our children is serving our Father in heaven.

Fewer people getting married = fewer children... and the motivation Paul gives to us should encourage us to have fewer children if possible.

Paul never disparaged children coming into this world. He said women could be saved in the process of mothering.

As far as large families... My dad is one out of 8, my mom, one out of 11, I have 60 first cousins... I've been around lots of large families.

Have you told these surplus people how you feel about them?

I had two children, then took steps to not have any more.

I hope your kids took that as a compliment.

Both my children are married and have 2 children and have taken the same steps. 2 is enough.

In my teen years I was raised by a couple who had two sons who both died in separate car accidents before marrying or having children. Now the husband is dead and the wife is a childless widow. Their family line is over. I don't believe 2 is enough.

And I don't believe it's nice to tell people that they were a mistake or a burden, or surplus.

Obviously, God didn't want more than 2 kids from you, and I'm sure He had His reasons. But I wouldn't use that as the gold standard.

 

[The Berean]

I get mixed reactions. Fortunately where we live there are many people who come from large families, so they generally react positively.

The young mother I mentioned told me that on occasion she gets "lectured" by crazy feminists who tell her she wasted her life having too many babies and not having a career.