How many children do you think is too many to have?
There is a woman on the island where I live who survives only on benefits and now has 14 children. She openly admitted she got jealous when her 16 year old daughter got pregnant last year. The Husband left her a couple of years back, and most of her children say they are fed up of having to look after their siblings. So how many is too many, and should we have to pay for other people to have as many children as they wish to? This woman admits she just 'likes being pregnant and having children', yet she is in government housing and even got breast implants out of benefits she had saved up.
How many children will you have? Sometimes by choice and other times by chance; what is the right size family for you? read more
for me, too many is when the family income is no longer sufficient in providing the needs, especially the basic needs, of the family..
Agreed.In large families, there is little money for the rudiments, let alone anything.Typical large families often have to depend upon outside charities in order to have the things they need.Many kids in large families have to work p/t.to help.
I think this is a matter of personal tolerance as well as financial situation. Obviously if your making 1300.00 a month having 14 kids is absolutely ridiculous, however having 4 is reasonable (and will motivate you to earn more lol)....
I'm about to have my first child (just found out!), I've raised 5 kids in various relationships over the years, more predominantly the last two, Riann and Hailey in my last (6 years before my current) relationship and they are still in my life. So I'm running into this with experience, and I can't wait till Chloe is born!!
I think people who have kids and can't financially take care of them without welfare or government (our taxes essentially) are incredibly selfish and irresponsible. Luckily in California there is now a 3 year law- you can only be on government assistance for 3 years in your lifetime- beyond that your on your own (bout time!)
In the island I live in,(Millionaire Island) next door to Millionaire Island that Misty lives in) , is a Woman who has 11 children and her best friend has 10. I think these two are great people and parents. When my boys were kids at school they would skip breakfast,causing agro., much later I discovered they and a few more were all breakfasting at the womans house.
A better woman than me I think ! A dozen+ kids for breakfast in the 'morning' what a nightmare.
My take on it is if that's what you want 'the more the merrier' unlike today where a lot of people are just too dam miserably/selfish and have to do this and that before considering being a parent.
More fool them ! We have had so much fun with our 3 kids and hopefully they are passing happiness and fun, along with education,to the kids they now teach.
I could give lots of figures about the 'benefits' that statesmen and royals and hangers-on of royals get who have never ever seen a soiled nappy from a child ! leave mothers alone -it's up to them
I think it all depends on the situation. I have five, all boys, except for my age, wouldn't mind having five more. There are so many factors involved such as family stability, financial stability, temprament, patience, etc. For some poeple one is one too many.
I think stable parents on a good income that is not acquired through goverment benefits should be able to have as many as they wish. I wish there was a way to implement a benefit system that dictated how many children the government are willing to support. If the parent(s) are unemployed I think children should be restricted to at most 3 for which they may claim full benefits. Thereafter I think there should be a substantial reduction in benefit for subsequent children. There are two problems with this:
Any body that deals with the welfare of children would be up in arms and saying that children will suffer greatly.
There would be a huge outcry as in the western world 'the rights' of people include personal choices and limiting full benefit to 3 children would be seen as taking away the rights of the subsequent children to the same quality of life as their siblings.
What the government must know by now is that there are a lot of parents out there who spent their children's money on things other than their children!
Its a dilemma.
Personally I think two kids is about right, but that's just my personal opinion. Every child should have at least one sibling. My mom was an only child, and she hated it. I personally think that people should focus more on adopting or fostering children. There are so many unwanted children in the world, its untrue.
I can't believe people like that exist on Guernsey, it just doesn't seem like the place to find people relying on government handouts and having as many kids as possible to 'reap' the benefits. When I was last there, it seemed like the most affluent place I'd ever been to.
Sadly it is no myth, there are plenty of people who have very little money on Guernsey, and we have our own fair share of 'rough' council house type housing estates. A large percentage of islanders are far from 'affluent' (ourselves included).
Hi JKenny, honestly there are many people here on the poverty line, and there are many who take the 'mickey'. Certainly we have our own load of people who 'sponge' of the states and we have plenty of council estates that are full of people on benefits who choose not to work. Guernsey may have a large amount of affluent people, but bearing in mind the prices of rents etc to live here, a huge amount struggle (us among them even without children). We pay well over UK rents (ours is currently £875 GBP a month for a tiny place in need of major modernisation and damp proofing). We don't have children together, and as the average flat here is over £240,000 to buy (even in a nasty area), we are mostly on a losing wicket. Hubby is on a very good salary even by Guernsey standards (he works in finance) but we still can't afford a place. Those working in 'normal' jobs have no chance! There are many opportunists who see their best bet is to have lots of children and get a 'States House' for a rental of £27 a week.
Sorry I won't be able to reply again as I can only comment once on a question due to the way HP answers section is set up. Hope I covered how Guernsey really is in this answer
I believe 1-4 children is adequate for parents to provide children with the individualized love and attention they need. Also, at these numbers, children can be financially provided for. Parents can aptly exercise a span of control over this number of children.
Parents CANNOT effectively raise than 4 children alone. Any number of 5 and more children, oldest children are often enlisted or enforced to raise their younger siblings. In medium large, large, and very large families, oldest children are often parentified children. They are the ones who raise their younger siblings, forfeiting their childhood and adolescent years.
Oldest children in medium large to very large families spend their childhood saddled with adult responsibilities that they age psychologically beyond their years. Many oldest children in medium large to very large families become weary, oftentimes resenting, even hating their parents, by placing such a burden on time. Many parents of medium large to very large families EXPECT their oldest children to raise their younger children. Of course, this is PURE SELFISHNESS on the part of these parents.
Also the larger the family, the more socioeconomically impoverished the children are with its myriad disadvantages. Parents of large families oftentimes are unable to provide their children with the bare rudiments, let alone anything else. Large families oftentimes depend upon outside charities for even the necessities such as clothes and other rudiments. Children in large families have to work p/t to supplement family income.
Children in large families AREN'T treated equally in terms of parental attention. Older children are discarded by parents as they believe that such children don't need their attention and love. Meanwhile the younger children receive MOST, if not, ALL of the parents' attention. In large families, some will receive love/attention while others are benignly neglected or worse.(wrote hubs on this subject).
Children in smallest families(1-2 children) fare the best. They receive individualized parental attention and love.Small families have more monies allotted for cultural and intellectual activities.They also have ample opportunities to develop and use their utmost human potential. Children in smallest families aren't discarded like those in larger families.Oldest as well as youngest children receive parental attention.They also have the MOST opportunities to develop educationally and in other ways.
What an excellent answer. You got my vote for the 'Best Answer'.
Thank you so much. I really believe that the smaller the family, the better it is for all involved, particularly our precious children. No child should be forced to be a parent while still a child-that to me is highly abusive.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 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 living standard, even socioeconomic penury and poverty? Countless studies...
by Nichol marie 3 months ago
Do you know someone who is prejudice of larger families?Why do some people have an ignorant belief that moms of large families cannot be the same as moms with one or 2?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 months ago
Why do parents of large to very large families tend to delegate the raising of the youngerchildren to the oldest sibling? Many parents from large to very large families (6 or more children) state that they have little or no part in raising their children, they purport that they...
by Money Fairy 4 years ago
Do you think a woman with more than 8 children has a mental problem?Isn't it just a little insane to have so many children? Unless you are a gazillionaire how on earth could you afford so many children? And how much time would you really have to spend with them ?Just curious if anyone else thinks...
by Therese Miller 5 years ago
How many children is too many?The Duggars are on their twentieth child and I think that if the Mother does not go through menopause soon we will be seeing a few more little Duggars around.
by Jami Johnson 3 years ago
Who's smarter the first born or the second born (or the third or forth)?I always hear, the first born child is smarter because they have more attention from the parents.... or the second born is smarter because of the older brother/sister, etc... So what do you believe? Are the first born children...
Copyright © 2018 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. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|