Skip to comments.Wanted by the Fertility Police
Posted on 10/24/2001 9:08:40 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
click here to read article
As it is (the way I have been fixed up...LONG story) I will be lucky to have another one...
And don't quote adoption to me...thats another sticky issue for me (I myself am adopted.)
Someone with two children asked me once how "I did it"?
I told her the secret that every mother of a large family knows..the first 2 are "the work" by the time you get to 3 they raise each other..
Our pastor has 5 girls,I loved watching his wife bond the girls..each of the "older" ones had a younger one "help" with
I have 5 boys and two girls..the girls are ten years apart...but as adults they are very close
The secret? My oldest daught tells me she feels like "mom" to the younger one..she changed diapers,taught her color and to count.
I really beieve a large family is easier to raise,because they are less self centered and demanding..sharing isnt an option it is a necessity.....We had 9 people in out home when the kids were young and 1 batheroom..you learn patience and considerstion very quickly *grin*
Any money I get back by deductions was money I paid in. It does not come from "the rest of the taxpayers."
Social Security and Medicare do, however, come from "the rest of the taxpayers."
And what you term "projection, " I term "calling a spade a spade."
Social Security is a classic Ponzi scheme. When it was first instituted the elderly and others close to retirement got back far more than they paid in. After many decades of transferring wealth from younger generations to older generations, that's no longer the case. Now virtually everyone who retires and receives Social Security is far worse off than if they'd been able to invest their money privately instead of having it taxed away. Sooner or later Social Security will either go bankrupt or have to be drastically modified to reduce/delay benefits. Any rational person who can do simple arithmetic will not expect Social Security to be there (at least in anything resembling its current form) for his or her retirement 20 or 30 years from now. So don't try to rationalize large families who get taxpayer-financed benefits by pretending that they'll pay it back via Social Security.
I do count myself in the Julian Simon economic camp that believes more human beings are a net benefit for a free-market society, in that they grow the entire economic pie. More hands and brains and technological progress historically do not use up natural resources, they generate more useable resources. Contrary to Malthus, overpopulation is not an inevitable long-range problem. Indeed, the more advanced the society, the more that population tends to stabilize or even decline due to individual choices (i.e., more parents find it advantageous to concentrate their personal time and resources on just a few childeren).
That's why I say I have no problem with people who choose large families. It's not my personal preference, but this is supposed to be a free society. There are advantages and disadvantages to large families, and the overall impact of a somewhat higher population growth rate is more likely to be beneficial rather than harmful.
So have a large family because you enjoy a large family or because you believe that's an important value and if you can afford a large family. Just don't have your large family at my expense, or make me subsidize your preference. If I save money by having fewer kids, that's my money, not yours to take (via government taxation) so you can afford to have more kids. As long as we respect each others' rights and free choices, we can all get along.
Or even HATEFUL.
Mom seems happy, Dad is gainfully employed, and the kids are, for the most part, GREAT kids. I feel it's none of my business how many kids people have (as long as they aren't on the public dole). Live and let live, in this case.
I think I would have said, "Yes, but I'm not sure what causes rudeness."
I see welfare families getting taxpayer funded benefits.
I see large Christian families getting not a dime.
Furthermore, I see large Christian homeschooling families paying school taxes but using no public school resources.
As far as I'm concerned, I see large Christian families being good for the economy, and not being a drag on the tax base.
Can someone illustrate this "don't expect the government to raise 'em" mentality among the subgroup of large families we are discussing here, i.e., families that are open to life and more children because of moral/religious convictions (not because each new kid means more for some welfare queen's SSI check.)?
If not, quit bringing up the whole issue of government funding of these particular large families.
See my post # 60
I have news for you. This has been going on along time. I was born in the 1960's and come from a family a five children. I distinctly remember this type of reaction whenever we all went out together.
The concept of poverty versus overpopulation needs close scrutiny. Poverty can be defined as too many people for the resources available in a geographic region. When we see humans living in poverty, we feel a certain solidarity with them. Our consciences tell us of our duty to help them out of their misery with food, shelter, infrastructure, and the means to develop their economy. [remember the beatitudes, and Christ's criteria for the last judgement, i.e., when did we see you hungry and feed you, see you naked and cloth you]
Remember that verbal engineering always precedes social engineering. By calling poverty by a new name, "overpopulation," we remove the burden for their suffering from our conscience. No longer do we feel the need to feed them. We now can say, "It's your fault. If you'd just stop making babies, you wouldn't be living in poverty. Your suffering is your own creation." So instead of corn meal, we ship them condoms. Instead of antibiotics, we send them IUDs. Instead of the blessing infrastructure would bring, we send the curse of infertility.
I was in love with a wonderful woman, married, gainfully employed and paid my own way so whose business is it? Now my wife is 31 but looks 24 and when she goes out with the kids people whisper, "how old do you think she was when she started having kids?"
It is amazing how in a couple of generations children can go from being a blessing to being a social embarassment.
The only qualification I will add to that is that the women who chose to do so came from fairly well-off backgrounds, and could expect some financial help from their parents.
It's a lot harder for a woman to make that decision if she or her husband have large student loans upon graduation.
For those families which fit your above description, we are in complete agreement. There are, however, plenty of large families in this country which do wind up leeching off other taxpayers. Some happen to be Christian (of one variety or another), and some are of other religions. Their religion is totally irrelevant to those of us taxpayers who are victimized by having our money siphoned off to support their large families. I don't think it's unreasonable for people in this country who have few (or no) children to react with skepticism to those with lots of children, given the typical high cost of raising children. It is certainly not unreasonable to recite the pro forma proviso that large families are fine only so long as the parents can afford it and aren't trying to make others pay for their preferences.
As I previously indicated, I do not believe that "overpopulation" per se causes poverty. In a free society with a free market, having more people generally means more brainpower and more technological progress and greater production and a steady increase in the average standard of living. Which means less overall poverty.
That being said, the consequences for a specific family of having more children might very well turn out to be poverty. It depends on the skills and circumstances of the parents. If they do not have the income to feed or care for the children they already have, and yet they continue to have more children, then they are indeed responsible for their own (and their children's) subsequent poverty. And no, that is not my fault, that is their fault. In that case their suffering is their own creation. And I certainly do not feel the need to feed them.
Having two children you find it is easier than having just one. You are a little busier. You get nothing but smiles as you announce that you have two and if you happen to have a boy and a girl you have reached perfection in the eyes of the world.
Having three children you find out that having three gives you a sense of what a family really feels like. In the eyes of the world you are still close to that state of perfection and you will be humored for your 'mistake'. Yes, you know what causes that.
Having four children you are a little busier than when you had three, but when everyone is at the kitchen table eating breakfast you say to yourself, "I can't believe I have four kids." And you smile. This is also where you begin to try the patience of your family, friends and acquantences who think you are nuts. Fending off the scoffers by this point just becomes a point of irritation.
Having five children, you take on the feeling, "Well, what's one more." You are already doing the work. What is an extra bed or pair of shoes? By this point, you are immune to the naysayers.
Having six children, well what's one more?
When my husband's aunt had 5 or 6 of her eventual 13, a lady asked her if she had ever heard of Planned Parenthood. His aunt just looked at the rude lady and replied, "Yeah, I'm the president." :-)