Do you strongly believe that poverty and its related ills in the United States would be drastically eradicated, if not eliminated if people were more responsible regarding family planning and limited the number of children from 1 to 4 children per family? There is a very strong correlation between large families and poverty. Children from large families (6 and more children per family) are more likely to be impoverished than children from small families. In relation to this poverty, is poor nutrition, medical care, low academic achievement, and few, if any, socioeconomic opportunities to get out of poverty. Also with these impoverished conditions, there is a strong likelihood of indulging in activities which will invariably result in future incarceration of some kind. Besides that, children from large families are least likely to complete their education as they have to drop out of school to supplement meager family income thus the cycle of poverty continues for yet another generation.
Interesting question, though I question our ability to limit family size. Would you sterilize any woman with 4 children? Mandate adoption for the 5th child? Just how that would be accomplished is a little murky.
But you also seem to think that a correlation between large families and poverty is a causal one - large families cause poverty. This, too, is questionable - is poverty instead a cause of large families? With nothing else to do, is the answer to make babies? Is it because hard lives have always produced more children to share the load, to the point that it is almost inbred into us? Does poverty result in more family time, more love and caring with the result more children are desired? Does poverty result in a desire for more children to take care of home duties while parents work?
Lots of possibilities, and none of them indicate that large families cause poverty even though it might seem counter intuitive to think otherwise.
Grace, I have stood on that soap box all my adult days. It seems only logical that birth control would be the first step on an agenda to curtail hunger, lack of education and inevitably, poverty. My husband's cousin and his wife work in third world countries to help the poor. When I told them I thought birth control should be the first step to eradicate hunger, they said, "But, the families need the children to work the fields." I wanted to help them understand the obvious, that if there were fewer children, they would not need big fields with which to feed their children. Smaller families do not insure a better education or economic opportunities, but I still
believe their chances are increased when there are fewer children contending for the same commodities.
DJ, the large family has its own aberration. Its consciousness, mentality, mindset, and psychology are vastly different from small families. Parents of large families(speaking of the United States now) must be educated to the detriments of large family life. Such a life is harmful to parents and particularly to children. Children in large families do not receive individualized parental care and attention. The older children are discarded in favor of the younger ones. If the older ones aren't discarded, they are pressed into the service of their parents and younger siblings.
Large families are impoverished socioeconomically. This means that they receive some type of aid via relatives, government supplements, and/or other charities. The only nutritious meal that many children in large families consume are oftentimes through school food problems as their parents can ill afford to nourish them properly as nutritious food are beyond the socioeconomic parameters of the typical large family. Such families exist on the socioeconomic periphery of society.
Darling, this schtick has gotten a bit stale.
Surely there are other groups of people your forum persona loathes besides people with more than one child, poor people, and the uneducated. You can reinvigorate the gmwilliams trollery with some new targets, how about
people who put the toilet paper roll on backwards
people who cough into their fist instead their armpit
Good going, Grace!
I can not imagine why anyone would write such trash.
You, are a classy lady, my dear. Brovo!
Why thank you, Mr. Anderson.There is such a thing as unprofessional actions and behavior. Such actions and behavior are more in line with adolescence than adulthood.
Why is she not reprimanded by the Hub staff?
It is a shame for people like her to be allowed to speak so harshly
of another's writing.
I thought we had monitors that looked out for bad behavior.
Really a shame.
Mr. Anderson, it is against HubPages TOS to harass and cyberbully another hubber in the comments, question/answer, and particularly in the forums. Mr. Anderson, continue with the discussion at hand.
Mr. Anderson you are one of those who possess class and refinement. God bless. Proceed with the discussion at hand, you have made some excellent points before the "interruption".
There is nothing in the TOS about calling spade a spade. Your posts are not genuine and you have been flagged many times by many users as a trouble-maker. Good day!
It is best that you mind your own business and tend to YOUR OWN affairs instead of interfering with mine. .Have a BLESSED day..........you NEED it!
P.S. If you do not agree with this post, PLEASE DON'T stop by.
Freedom of speech eh? Then I am free to post anthropomorphic hotdogs with holiday spirit.
Btw, this hotdog came from a very large family in a lower socioeconomic bracket and he did not go to college. He was fired from his job for being lazy. And he doesn't care what you think about him and his life choices.
-1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, you truly believe that people have the right to make irresponsible choices, not realizing that ultimately it is the taxpayer who foot the bill for such irresponsible people. That is why there should be mandatory birth control and penalties instituted for people who refuse to act responsibly regarding family planning(this is the United States). Children suffer from such irresponsible parenting. You are an educated person and should know better. I should not have to spell out such things to you. Even a high school student comprehends the negative socioeconomic ramifications of large family life on children i.e. juvenile delinquency, low academic achievement, having to forgo higher education, and continuing the poverty cycle of their parents. This insanity of irresponsible breeding has got to stop. Good day. I see I have not gotten through to you. Educated people know that having more children than one can provide for socioeconomically is not only irresponsible but immoral.
What you refuse to acknowledge that American taxpayer dollars go to indigent families whose parents are either too unintelligent or too lazy to use proper birth control. These "parents" (if one can call them that) have children that they are unable to care for socioeconomically. Those children have no health care. They depend upon charities for things that other children normally have. Poverty is seen as a normative lifestyle for children of large families. They even accept and revel in being impoverished, having NO DESIRE to improve themselves educationally nor socioeconomically. In fact, they view educational and socioeconomic advancement as unnecessary, even evil. The psychology of the large family is totally aberrant and pathological in scope as opposed to small families who teach their children the importance of education and socioeconomic advancement. However, why am I wasting my time talking to you? As my late father stated some people REFUSE to learn. I will discuss this subject with people who believe as I do and believe in family planning. I have studied and dealt with children from large families including extended relatives and it isn't pretty at all. ..In the United States excluding some extenuating circumstances, there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for anyone to be poor, uneducated, and have a negative lifestyle of having more children than they can support, putting such children into poverty with scant or no socioeconomic nor educational opportunities which is the height of selfishness, if not stupidity on the part of the parents.
Biggest single problem is that you don't recognize any goal but your own. Those that place a higher value on family, love, sibling relationships, etc. above money have no place in your world, yet those people exist in droves and frankly produce a happier and generally more productive populace than the social climbers ever will.
To wake up to reality, the world and society increasingly belongs to the moneyed and educated. For the most part, even in this precarious economy, the moneyed and educated have the goods. They have a legacy to leave their children and will have socioeconomic and educational opportunities. They call the shots more or less. Those who are less moneyed and educated have plenty to worry about. In any swoop, the less moneyed and educated could be penniless and homeless. It does not mean a good fig how much family one has. If all are poor and homeless, what good does family do, huh? They will not be able to help each other. Now, let's see who will come to the rescue to help them. Yes, the moneyed relative from the small family whose parents had the foresight to plan judiciously so that h/she have the educational and socioeconomic opportunity. H/she has the money to pull the poor relatives from large families out of their socioeconomic quagmire which the relative got into because of irresponsible, stupid, and selfish parents who did not have the foresight to practice family planning. Am I getting to you now? If you all are poor and living in the street, family counts for naught. It is MONEY! Have a wonderful night, I know I will.
Another rude awakening, the moneyed and educated in America will soon become tired of the poor, knowing that there is no excuse to be knowingly and willingly poor. There will be cuts in social programs. However, there will be a way for the poor to be useful. Yes, prisons where there will be mandatory work for the indigent. Already in some places, homelessness is considered a crime and those who in debt are seen as criminals in some states. America is becoming less and less tolerant of poor people, especially irresponsible poor people. Poor people, especially poor children will be increasingly left behind because they do not have the tools that middle and upper class people and children have to succeed in our postindustrialized, computerized society. Large families were fine in more rural and agrarian times; however, in the 21st century, large families are an eyesore, a relic from less modern times. Small families are more in line culturally and socioeconomically with the postmodern, 21st century. Educated and intelligent people already know this and plan accordingly. I learned such lessons from my parents and from observation. It is NEVER good to be poor and wanting and money is THE MOST important thing, even over family. Family can turn against you but money NEVER does. Good discussion though.
You're quite welcome and you have reinforced mine tenfold!
If more people thought as I did, there would be very little to no poverty in the United States. Everyone would have a qualitative solidly middle class life and/or better. There would be NO POOR people in America and the problems and pathologies associated with being poor and impoverished. Being poor and impoverished is a NEGATIVE condition. Poverty can caused the most evil in history, remember that.
What creates a poverty mindset is this:
A feeling of no control over one's life.
Now, if you raise ten children with the feeling they have control over their lives and teach them HOW to have control over their lives and provide a way for them to develop the skills necessary for having control over their lives, well, then, their lives are valuable to themselves and society, so what is the problem? In my mind, the issue is really about quality rather than quantity.
I would rather stand on a soapbox advocating appropriate and adequate education for every single child one has. I would rather advocate the parent's responsibility to provide ways for every single child to assume control over his life as he becomes an adult through fostering the child's creativity, care and concern for others, self sufficiency, interest in life and first and foremost, JOY of life! which translates into enthusiasm!
If adult(s) cannot do this for one child, they shouldn't have any.
Thats what I think about the matter.
So many Americans fail to see the solution to poverty in the United States and it is right under their noses. Poor Americans are poor because they make wrong, negative, and mindless lifestyle choices. They do not have the concept of future nor mature thought processes. They merely act instinctively and without reason. They want what they want and do not care about the ramifications of their actions upon themselves and their future generations. Also, many poor and impoverished Americans have large/very large families and that onus puts their children at an immense socioeconomic and educational disadvantage. As a result of such impoverished conditions, some of these children turn to crime. There have been correlations between large families and juvenile delinquency and other crimes. John Gotti who came from a very large family, went into crime as a teenajger. Mark Wahlberg, actor and also from a very large family, admitted to committing crime as a teenager.
Many of such children go into crime for money and to receive the attention that they did not receive at home. If the number of children were limited from 1-4, the percentage of poor and impoverished children in the United States would be drastically reduced, if not eliminated. Children from smaller families have more monies allocated to them for things beyond the rudiments. They also have money for a better quality of life, more socioeconomic, and educational opportunities which children from large families will never have. Children from large families for the most part are consigned to being poor and impoverished and because they do not go to college and other forms of tertiary and advanced forms of education, are relegated to dead end jobs and the poverty cycle continues generationally.
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
In the United States and in first world nations, with the increase of education. there has been an increase in the number of small families. There is a correlation between high intelligence, education, and small...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
(6 or more children per household) in the postmodern, 21st century United States, being fully cognizant of the fact that they will be subjecting their children to an extremely rudimentary and primitive socioeconomic...
by Justamama5 years ago
Anyone here have a "large family"?What is considered large?I have ten.
by Stacie L3 years ago
After suffering a devastating miscarriage in December 2011, Michelle Duggar is trying to get pregnant again with her 20th child. The 19 Kids and Counting reality TV mom says she and husband Jim Bob Duggar are hoping to...
by James Smith17 months ago
Are you sure it is not your own finances that you are most concerned with?
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
The large family of 6 or more children is becoming outmoded. The large family usually have a diametrically different culture and milieu to that of the small family. Parental interaction is rare...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.