No, I don't think it is right for any government or society to say that every couple should have only one child. If parents are able to support and educate their children, they should be able to have as many as they like.
I'm single and have no kids, but I have brothers and sisters who have plenty for our family! I think it's up to each person, but I don't think it's a good idea for example to have kids that you're not prepared to look after and support. Some couples may not want to have any kids. It shouldn't be forced, otherwise where would the love be?
At least one, if possible. Being a parent is a fantastic experience, one that I wouldn't trade for anything else in the world.
My mother was an only child and she said it was simply awful. To make up for it, she had five! Having brothers and sisters is a good frame of reference for learning how to share, make friends, fight and make up, communicate and live with other people.
After my son, no children came immediately. When it looked like we were only going to have one child, I was hard pressed to have another because I knew it would be better to have at least one more, which we eventually did.
Some folk expressions I've heard - One child amounts to "none", two children amounts to one, and three children - now you are in good shape!
I have also heard "Jedan, vrijedan" - which translate to mean, only one child, but worth their weight in gold!
It's a personal decision, but no, I think just one child is not enough (but again, better than nothing!)
I absolutely agree with you on this.
Being a single child is truly awful. I see my cousins grow up without brothers and sisters and it's quite tragic. The act of sharing & caring that children with siblings learn through their childhood is price
we are free to make our own decisions, right or wrong, but I will say that it would be better for the world if they did the earth is overpopulated and at the rate we are going it won't be able to continue sustaining life. Lack of food, land and natural resources is the guaranteed result. People need to think of the well being of the entire world rather than just their immediate family after all you do want your children to have a future don't you. Adoption would be an awesome alternative to having more than 1 child, there are a lot of needy children.
That was my exact thought when I posted this question. Thank you for bringing that up.
There are a lot of needy children in the world, but it is also something to think about that many industrialized countries are not having enough children to maintain their populations. Germany for example, now gives financial incentives to have kids.
That's a rare situation though Brett, take a look at China and India to name a couple. As a whole the population is way over capacity in this World. I think the economy, fuel prices, and food costs are proof of that.
Good answer. I also think that sometimes it's better to put the future of your species ahead of your own.
No, but I think adults should stop to consider how many kids they want and if they can afford to care for them. It seems that many people have unprotected sex and the female ends up pregnant with a child she isn't in a position to care for.
The answer depends on the angle. If looking at the health of the earth and the financial security of the earth, yes, it would make sense. But, at a familial level, it certainly seems that more than one is the current preferred norm - it fits in with the American vision of "family" and does seem to have some benefits from a social and interpersonal growth perspective.
At the same time, as some of the responses have demonstrated, we have a culture that supports the notion that multiple children is better and that people should strive (often times against the odds) to have children that are biologically theirs (often at great expense). In fact, we are negligent at providing the education and resources (contraception) that would help reduce the population. A cultural shift, one that promoted thoughtful planning about parenting, that promoted openness about sexuality and contraception, and that encouraged adoption as a normative, healthy alternative to biological parenting, could help change people's deeply grounded views on the "ideal" family.
You are right. I think that education about 'family' aspect of life is very important to have a healthy society in due course.
I think the idea of having multiple children is left over from when there was a family farm to run. All hands were needed then. Now there really is no need for a large family, but the idea is stuck in people's minds.
Large/very large families were fine in more agrarian times. However, there are still remnants that in this pronatalist culture. There is STILL residual prejudice against childfree and 1-child families. Did a hub on this subject, check it out!
I think people should be allowed to have as many children as they can love and provide for. I do not think it right though, when additional children equates to additional money given from the public dole. It's hard enough for me to support my own children, why should I be taxed to support the children of those who don't work?
This one is very tricky. Just in the USA there are over 500,000 children in foster care that would love to be adopted. Over half won't ( I was one that didn't). We certainly could use parents who adopted. With that said our foster children have nothing to do with who has how many children and is directly related to who is having children that shouldn't. If bad people would stop having children we would no longer have unwanted children.
I am a mother of 3. I am capable of providing, teaching, and loving all 3. Yet I know some who keep wanting to become parents with no thought of what it takes to raise them. If we put more focus on parenting ability not how many one should have, we may have a solution to the over populating, crime rates (since foster children are more apt to go to jail), and wasted tax dollars (can you imagine how much money government spends on over 500,000 children).
It is entirely up to you on how many children you choose to have, as a family one should plan and budget for their kids.
I don't think that we can limit the amount of children people have. It's a natural freedom and enforcement of such a thing would be very ugly. (I'm pretty sure we all know how bad that could get from our history books)
That said, I think the "replacement factor" is something I do think people should consider on their own but know that they won't really. I assume that your thought behind the question concerns overpopulation but the fact is, no one's thinking about the population when they're makin' babies.
No way - how sad would that be for them to grow up without the fun of having brothers . sisters to play with - learn to share toys etc with, I have 1 older brother & younger sisters ! We have 3 daughters & I wouldn't change it for anything .
Kids are routinely packed off to day care. They learn to share toys and get along with the same pack of children every weekday there. Then they go to school and many will be in after-school care with the same pack of children.
Nothing's sad about being an only child. Only children do not have sibling drama and are free to develop into their highest human potential. Only children are NOT lonely. Such "logic" here? Only children play w/other kids & do JUST FINE, THANK Y
No. But I believe that couple should make a certain amount of money before they are allowed to have more evil grin.
I come to that conclusion coz in my country people who can even afford to the basic need of 1 child have like 6 to 8.
They dont only burden their relative/people they know with guilt trip but they are committing a crime against their own child.
Yes. I do think it's time North America did something about over population. Now, rather than later. It would be nice to control population here before it becomes the huge issue it is in other countries already. There are already enough people on the planet, more than the Earth is able to support realistically.
All the pet friendly, animal lover people, yet it's still ok for people to have endless babies while the animals on the planet run out of habitation due to our need to keep expanding and taking over all the land to support our excess population. Seems pretty selfish and self centred, not animal loving at all.
No.But I do believe that if you plan to have children you need to plan how you will take care of all of their needs until they are able to do so for themselves. It is disturbing to see very large families and no one in the family is working. I am not talking about families where the breadwinner has been laid off for one reason or another. I refer to families where child after child is knowingly brought into a family that is in poverty.
That is typical of large and very large families. Parents of such families DON'T care about the children's welfare. Did many hubs on this. It is the parent's contention that the kids CAN take care of themselves.If they CAN'T, well tough!
When child after child is brought into a large family in poverty, I generally think, perhaps cynically, that half the reason for the child's birth is an increase in the welfare check.
Not in ALL cases look in the large family blogs & listen to parents& children. .Many blv that kids are preordained.They also blv that +kids make kids better.They see their family as A SOCIAL GROUP. To them, small families are unnatural for ki
Not necessarily - there are so many children without parents in this world and children dying of hunger-related diseases, that I feel that many of us would do well to adopt some of these unfortunate souls.
Under normal circumstances, I think freedom of choice is to be given. However, if there is a possibility of some health hazard of whatever kind that may threaten either the mother or the child, then the couple should think seriously. Another controversial issue is about population control and economic survival reason. Take China for example, it is a very hard and unpopular decision for the Chinese government.
I believe that married and responsible couples should have as many children as they wish to have. It's not the society's business to get involved in something like that: It is too personal.
I don't really feel there should be a limit on the number of children someone has. But what does need to be considered is if the child is truly wanted, can be afforded, and will not be put into any harm because of an addiction that someone in the child's life may have.
Although the planet is at his breaking point with overpopulation, each couple has desires about the number of children they want.
Many have one. The majority has a couple and others have a higher number.
No country should reach the point of the government establishing the number of children per couple like China.
Experience motherhood and all but in some countries only once.
Its a very good question and idea as well. Having only one child by every parents first of all will help the nation followed by the parents and finally the only child. With the ;present economy and average income of a human being, the child will get adequate attention, good education and will be mentally and physically healthy. Parents will not only secure the child's future but would also make their future more secured. If the overall population of a country is within the limit of economical growth, the country will prosper in every good field.
I think they should have as many as they like. This is of course from a natural point of view
I think it would be dangerous to our freedom as a government should not be able to dictate that. With that said; I will add that we have to get a permit to drive a car and many other things we do so why not a permit to have kids. I am half joking about the last sentence but if you really think about it you, have to show you have a minimum ability to drive. A child is the biggest responsibility most people will ever have. Just saying; no offense meant to anyone.
Nope. That would be a very lonely child and family. Also to reach the highest intelligence, there should be three children in the family. Plus it would help for retirement. Who will take care of the parents when they get older? One of the children instead of the government. It would solve a lot of problems in our country, but it would not solve the people problem on our planet.
My child is an only child and a straight A student, intelligence has nothing to do with family size
Intelligence can be based on how much time the parents spend with the children, encouraging them to pursue a higher education, etc. After the fourth child, parents can become very busy and the education can go downhill from there.
I can't argue with that, I would certainly think that the more children you have the less you would be able to put into their education.
DS, only children are highly intelligent. In fact, only children are high academic achievers because of parental interaction and investments. The more children per family, the less allotment for education, that's a well known fact.
I am an only child. Speaking from my own point of view, I am remarkably close to my parents. I never felt like I had to compete for their attentions like I have noticed in larger families. However, I have often been mistaken for a loner. Growing up, I had a tendency to spend way too much time on my own. I am way too self-reliant and my need for autonomy is great. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy meeting new people and being around people, but more outgoing people often label me as shy. When people get to know the real "me" they change their minds. I think my personality would have been different if I had at least one other sibling.
I agree sherrituck. I am an only child and I understand completely what you are saying.
Being an only child is the GREATEST thing in the world. Have undivided parental attention which paid emotional dividends. I would not change being an only child for the world. Being an only child made me reach out to others more.
Absolutely not ! There are enough things in life that are regulated and how many or no children a couple chooses to have is a personal matter. And should remain that way. It is bad enough that we have this permanent debate about abortion, that nobody is going to resolve and that will be around for ever, so please let's not ever allow anybody else to decide other than the two parents how many children they intend (or not) to bring into this allready no so newborn friendly world.
I agree that government shouldn't make a decision about the amount of children people have. But overpopulation is a very valid concern for society. If adoption was considered for more couples, I think it would help the need for people to feel like they need more children.
But speaking from my own experience, I'm an only child and sometimes it is too isolating not being able to have someone so close to me that I could trust and have a natural friendship with. However, I did benefit from not competing for attention or status and being able to have more choices about what I wanted to do.
One thing I do think that needs to be regulated are the fertility treatments some women employ because situations like Octomom should never happen. She was an errant case but the doctor should have done better in assessing her financial, social, relational, and psychological situations.
Simple answer? No. On a case by case basis (and there are probably DOZENS of scenarios which might instigate or compel this question, and *none* of them should be a ("whoopsie!" scenario!!!!!), such matters are between spouses (or co-parents), and maybe her doctor and/or her/their trusted clergy/religious counsel.
And (EXCLUDING!, by my moral compass, anyway, the "duhh...oooops!" scenario), as a hard and fast "law" which by its very nature at least contemplates society as a whole, it is neither the law's, the government's, or society's damned business.
No. Having children is a personal choice. Couples should have or not have children based upon their wants and their ability to (properly care) for them. Being an irresponsible parent is an act of neglect in my opinion. You have to not only know yourself, but also be very (selective) with whom you marry or bring children into the world with. Parents owe that to their children.
Parents of large/very large families HAVE kids based SOLELY upon WANTS. It DOESN'T matter whether THEY can or can't afford to do so.They have this inverse logic is that it is fine for their kids to grow up in want & poverty but THAT'S not importa
I believe that THOSE who want children should have them if they can financially, emotionally,and psychologically afford them.There are many people who do not want children and that is THEIR right not to do so.
People decide to have children when they can afford them financially, emotionally, and psychologically.They also should have the amount of children that they can effectively raise on their own and can effectively exercise a span of control. Many parents have large families, knowing that they can ill afford to raise such children financially,emotionally,and especially psychologically.This often results in oldest children raising their younger siblings, being deprived of experiencing their formative years because of parental selfishness.
Parents should have anywhere from 1-4 children.This is the perfect amount of children in which proper individualized parental attention can be given to each child. However, smaller families are THE BEST for the following reasons:(1) more monies are allocated per child for educational,cultural,and other intellectual activities,(2) of course, the individualized parental attention received,(3) more equal parity between children, and(4) the ratio of parents to children is either equal or greater than the sum of its parts.
In large families(6 + children), parents cannot exercise an effective span of control, thus having older children assume parenting duties. Large families tend to be impoverished with children receiving inferior nutrition and health care in addition to an overall poor quality of life.Children in large families tend to support themselves as the parents can ill afford to. Many children in large families are not sufficiently educated, having to quit school early to supplement family income. College and postgraduate education is a rarity for large families.
Children in smaller families (1-4) have the opportunities that children from large families DON'T have.They have monies for luxuries and do not have to live from hand to mouth.They have freer and less encumbered childhoods.They have the advantages that their counterparts from large families DON'T have Parents of small families are more educated, intelligent, and caring parents.They know the necessity of planning for their children. They know the inane folly of having more children than they can afford.They put THEIR children's interests and well being foremost.Parents of large families CARE about THEIR needs ONLY, not their children at all!
by sir_tallest 9 years ago
Is it okay for two brothers to date two sisters from the same family
by Money Fairy 6 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 Stacie L 6 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 be "blessed" with another...
by VC L Veasey 7 years ago
Why do have half brothers and sisters but not half sons and daughters?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
couples? It seems that in this strongly pronatalist society, there is still the underlying premise, the more, the better. People are continuously exhorted to have children by their parents, friends, religion, relatives, and the outer society. Oftentimes, many people have children much...
by Rumana 6 years ago
Do you think both (husband and wife) should work to live a better life?
Copyright © 2020 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 Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|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.|