Big families?

[HottyToddyChick]

So.... because people can't take care of themselves and provide for their families, other families that can take care of themselves have to abstain from having children?

And then you get into how many is too many? Can I have 2? What about 4? 6? 8? What's the cut-off for "too big"?

 

[Goat Whisperer]

So.... because people can't take care of themselves and provide for their families, other families that can take care of themselves have to abstain from having children?

And then you get into how many is too many? Can I have 2? What about 4? 6? 8? What's the cut-off for "too big"?

They don't have to do anything, I am just saying they should consider cutting it off at some point. I think the duggers would have been just as happy with 10 as they are with 17.

 

[Anie]

Hunger, disease, conflict... is not something which is going to ever be solved, it's a mechanism used by nature to keep the strongest societies alive. If you don't like it... then I guess you have a problem with nature since no matter what, everything is going to have to balance... have's and have not's...

Huge families isn't the problem... since if that were the case, then I guess we should all die for the sake of the world being a better place.

Yes that sounded a bit blunt...

 

[Sneakiecat]

Where do you think the surplus comes from? Not enough demand.Why isn't there enough demand to send it to the stores? Because no one is buying it. Why don't people buy it? Because they don't need it. Why don't they need it? Because they don't have large families.

Not enough demand because we way over produce food. We can safely feed all of our population and then some. That extra is what we send. Not stuff that's been sitting around a warehouse because, damn it, people aren't buy as much food.

 

[HottyToddyChick]

This is a free country though. You can't just take away someone's right to reproduce. It would never fly in this country.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Hunger, disease, conflict... is not something which is going to ever be solved, it's a mechanism used by nature to keep the strongest societies alive. If you don't like it... then I guess you have a problem with nature since no matter what, everything is going to have to balance... have's and have not's...
/quote]

Might not ever be solved, but at least we can find ways to decrease them.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

This is a free country though. You can't just take away someone's right to reproduce. It would never fly in this country.

I never siad we should make it a law, I said we shouldn't encourage it.

 

[HottyToddyChick]

I don't think anyone is encouraging it. I think, as a society, we are fascinated by things that are unusual, and, particularly as Americans, things that are larger than normal. That's why these shows are on. It's entertaining, and I think a lot of people who see them share some of the same views as you. And it probably keeps a lot of them from thinking that having 6 kids is a good idea. I still think I'd like to have a large family, not 17 kids or whatever, but I think that it's awesome to always have someone to turn to and someone to confide in.

 

[Anie]

Might not ever be solved, but at least we can find ways to decrease them.

By having no kids... sorry but human nature works differently than that. Darwinism still exists... it's also necessary.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

By having no kids... sorry but human nature works differently than that. Darwinism still exists... it's also necessary.

lol first that's not how darwanism works, and I didn't say we should get rid of kids, just have less of them

 

[Sneakiecat]

lol first that's not how darwanism works, and I didn't say we should get rid of kids, just have less of them

Survival of the fittest. If you can reproduce, have lots of them because you never know how many are going to last to reproduce. Modern medicine has made it less of a need but it's still human nature.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Survival of the fittest. If you can reproduce, have lots of them because you never know how many are going to last to reproduce. Modern medicine has made it less of a need but it's still human nature.

It is much less of a need, most kids grow up to have a chance to reproduce... which is why dwarnism didn't make much sense.

 

[333halfabeast]

I disagree... VERY MUCH! I came from a big family and I plan to have a big family. I really want 6 children like my Mom had.

My Dad was a Law Partner and is now a Politician and we have a large family that is happy.

This is just my cousins and aunts and uncles and sisters and brothers.

And here is my immediate family (minus Dad)

 

[Sneakiecat]

It is much less of a need, most kids grow up to have a chance to reproduce... which is why dwarnism didn't make much sense.

Like I said, modern medicine has lessen it but it's still a basic human need to reproduce. That's why sex is so enjoyable. It makes us want to have more, and that increases our chances to have kids. Darwinism doesn't stop because we live longer now.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

We can still fight natural urges, just because it is natural to want to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex, it doesn't constitute rape

Well then, I guess it's best to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Sneakiecat]

I never said anything about having sex with someone who doesn't want it.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Well, I suppose it's true that big families have a positive effect on the economy. But I still think they have a negative one on aid. And since I don't really understand the connection between aid and the economy, I can't form my opinion much further.

 

[Butterfly]

OK, allow me to offer my perspective... and please keep in mind, I live in a "third world country"

Abrianna, what do you know of the 'lesser developed nations'? Do you know that it is quite common for those in dire poverty to have way more children per family than those who are more affluent? Looking at the world around me... my peers are likely to be 2 child families, where the people living in informal settlements are far more likely to have in excess of 5 children (none of which they can afford to clothe, feed and educate). Birth control is freely available from the state in many different forms, so it's not a case of them not being able to afford protection.

Do you think it is fair to imply that people who can actually afford their children should limit how many they have in order to be able to send aid to nations who breed like bunnies even though they cannot afford the children they produce? Keep in mind that it is likely that every single child born to these large families will become a tax payer, contributing to their country, where these large families born in poverty will probably never become tax payers in the same sense, since government offers tax breaks to those who are disadvantaged.

Furthermore, you have a problem with the Duggars, but think that "Jon and Kate plus 8" are fine (Since they have multiples)... if I was to have a problem with large families, I would most certainly target Jon and Kate first... keep in mind that their multiples are 'created' via IVF, something that they also didn't "need" as you put it.

Personally, I have no problem at all with large families.

 

[LV426]

People should just stop breeding for the next 10 years. On the entire planet.

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm not saying we should make it against the law to have more then 3 kids or something, I'm saying that we shouldn't encourage these families to waste our resources on their 17 kids, by giving them a tv show and tax breaks.

There was a time when people were not allowed to get married until they could support a spouse, much less kids. I guess we can talk "laws" as we start to run out of food.

I've always been bugged you can spit out 10 kids and not have to pay any more into the public school system than someone who has no kids. The time for big families is long over (traditional reasons: promote your religion, work the farm).