Posted on 11/02/2014 2:24:16 PM PST by Morgana
There really is no such thing as having “only” one or two children, because having babies is not a numbers game. Rather, it has to do with welcoming souls into the world, however many there may be.
Sadly, Margaret Sanger, who came from a large family herself, failed to see babies as individuals with the potential to improve society and instead saw them as probable burdens to themselves and society. “The immorality of large families lies not only in their injury to the members of those families but in their injury to society,” wrote Sanger in a chapter titled “The Wickedness of Large Families”.
But here is a look at some remarkable people that the world would never have known if their parents had abided by the sociological dictates of a post-Sanger U.S. national average (2.01 children per woman or less) – and society is certainly thankful they didn’t:
Benjamin Franklin, 8th child (of 17)
If some people today had a say then, they would likely conclude the Franklins had their hands full well before Benjamin came along. But this internationally respected inventor, natural philosopher, diplomat, writer, publisher, and statesman was one of the most influential Founding Fathers of the United States.
Harriet Tubman, 5th child (of 9) Born into certainly less than ideal circumstances, this Maryland slave girl fought for her freedom and the freedom of others as a conductor of the Underground Railroad, and also served as a spy, cook, nurse, and scout for the Union Army during the Civil War.
Grace Kelly, 3rd child (of 4)
One of America’s most classy and beloved actresses from the Golden Age of Hollywood also became Princess of Monaco and a mother of three children.
Frank Capra, 7th child (of 7)
It’s not surprising that the director of It’s A Wonderful Life and other touching American classics came from a large family. What better way to learn how precious and unique each life is, no matter how many! There are no accidents.
Tim Tebow, 5th child (of 5)
The baby from a difficult pregnancy whom medical experts forebode to a life of disability grew to be one of America’s most popular athletes. Tebow helped lead Florida to a national championship and became a Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback.
Paul “Bear” Bryant, 11th child (of 12)
This second-youngest of a dozen in a poor family grew to become a football coaching legend who developed the winning tradition of one of the most influential legacies in sports, the Alabama Crimson Tide.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, 7th child (of 7)
Mozart, the youngest of seven, was a musical prodigy, creating timeless masterpieces that are still performed and cherished today.
Clara Barton, 5th child (of 5)
The American Red Cross was founded by this courageous little sister who braved the Civil War battlefields to save soldiers’ lives.
Frederick Douglass, 4th child (of 6)
Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey (he later adopted the last name “Douglass” after reading a Sir Walter Scott poem) was likely not only a younger sibling but a child conceived by rape on a Maryland plantation. His resilient mother, Harriet Bailey, was a woman of strong intellect despite a life of slavery, and this trait was clearly imparted to the man whose oratory is a timeless contribution to American governance.
Princess Diana Princess Diana, 4th child (of 5)
The compassionate and outreaching Princess of Wales was dubbed “the people’s princess” by Prime Minister Tony Blair, and she mothered Great Britain’s future King William V.
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd child (of 10)
One of America’s founders and Renaissance men, Jefferson was an inventor and architect and wordsmith. He authored the Declaration of Independence and served as Virginia Governor, Minister to France, Secretary of State, Vice President, and finally 3rd President of the United States. Alexander Fleming, 7th child (of 8)
This second-youngest of eight was a Nobel Prizewinning microbiologist for his role in discovering the antibiotic properties of penicillin. Can you imagine a life of infections before the availability of antibiotics?
Louis Pasteur, 3rd child (of 5) We have the third child of a poor tanner to thank for providing an Tableau_Louis_Pasteureffective way to protect us and our pets against the fatal rabies virus and a host of other diseases through the process of vaccination.
Harvey WileyHarvey Wiley, 6th child (of 7)
America’s “Crusading Chemist” pioneered national food safety by advocating the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, outlawing dangerous food additives and requiring companies to label their products accurately.
There are plenty more individuals that could be added to such a list. Whom would you include?
It is also worth considering that regardless of birth order, large families often provide an enriching environment of personality that positively influences even the oldest siblings. I personally attest to this as the eldest of 9!
Sarah Palin not worth mentioning on FR?
St. Catherine of Sienna, who among other things persuaded the Pope to return to Rome from exile in Avignon, was the 24th of 25 children.
The “Quiver Full” movement has the right idea, and other Christian sects need to adopt a similar outlook on life.
This almost has to be done in Christian communities, because the culture at large uses any number of means to discourage more than a minimum number of children.
Every expectation and demand puts pressure on potential parents to limit their number of children. Often this amounts to materialistic demands, that children must have this and that and the other, or they are being “deprived.”
Only in a mutually supporting community, where the focus is away from materialism, is the pressure lifted.
Frankly, this is a non-argument.
How about the 11th kid that was never born to a 10 child family? The one that would have found the cure for all forms of Cancer?
Or the 12th, who would have discovered Warp Drive?
There are an infinite number of children with an infinite number of possible lives for all married couples.
Or suffice it to say, I have never understood this particular argument for fecundity.
I guess you are correct.
After all, where were the mass murderes and serial killers, et al, in the order?
Not just materialistic, but individualistically proud. We shouldn’t turn this into a kind of reverse moralism where we robotically shame those with few or no children, or even go celibate (we can’t always know why). But humans were put here for God’s loving glory and if the love capacity is there for many children, it is only right by God to follow suit.
>>After all, where were the mass murderes and serial killers, et al, in the order?<<
Child 10 of 10? Should have stopped sooner?
Of course, we all know about 7 of 9... NOT a mass murderess.. ;)
>>ut humans were put here for God’s loving glory and if the love capacity is there for many children, it is only right by God to follow suit.<<
That is an example of a good argument for fecundity. There are others, including propagating values, maintaining national identity and strength (witness Japan which may soon collapse), and others not so much rooted in “if it wasn’t for...”
Another factor: expectations and standards for children working have changed in modern years, and not all to the absolute good. In their sympathy over dangerous sweathouses that paid nearly nothing, liberals have well nigh legally abolished the last bastion of big-family collaboration, the family farm.
I have lots of problems with woman having kids which they then expect me to pay for with my tax dollars.
Over-rigidity can kill what would otherwise be a good love-based exhortation.
The displacement of old fashioned charity by faceless entitlements has erected this moral hazard (or maybe we should say, dug it).
In a sense the kids do have jobs, although warped: each is a money sponge for the family.
>>Over-rigidity can kill what would otherwise be a good love-based exhortation.<<
Being child-free can be from a lot of situations, such as getting married late in life
Strangely, my younger brothers and sisters do not agree. ;-)
Or other misfortune that has introduced delays in being reasonably marriageable (as opposed to a baby daddy or a welfare queen). Nobody is saying to be stupid here. But if love can not drive the whole thing, might as well hand the keys over to the devil and tell him he’s won, all hail hate. (However, yes it can. But it needs people willing to believe it even in the face of difficulties.)
>> Nobody is saying to be stupid here. But if love can not drive the whole thing, might as well hand the keys over to the devil and tell him he’s won, all hail hate. (However, yes it can. But it needs people willing to believe it even in the face of difficulties.)<<
A little strong there, but there are good arguments for Christians to have little ones, when it makes sense.
Sadly, not the thesis of the OP...
Of course, Ben Franklin, and presumably his siblings and contemporaries,left home at an early age.
The world would have missed out on me (third of three).
We could paraphrase and say that yes, it is worth the trouble to persevere in difficult family situations. That’s a principle which applied to Ludwig Van Beethoven. To be born in a family that is poverty stricken, his mother diseased, earlier siblings died young or stillborn, many modernists would advise abortion.
And to be fair even Ludwig did not escape misfortune — this great musician went so completely deaf he could not hear his own concerts. But you don’t see him pondering suicide either.
I don’t suggest answers that take the love out of the situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.