Community Chat

[ThinkingOutLoud]

---

@occasionalrain wrote:

---

@beckyb1012 wrote:

I think that today with all that is available and still a family chooses to have a large family the answer is simple, lots and lots of love and patience.  Having more than 2.5 children does not equate to stupidity.

---

No it equates to greed, taking more than their share, and disrespect for our planet.

---

Balogna!!

[GenXmuse]

I have enjoyed being able to control the number of children I have and feel very privileged to have grown up with that ability that wasn't available to my grandmothers but I'll refrain making blanket statements about women who have more children or decide to have none. Viscious. 

[occasionalrain]

What I meant by more than their share was that they use more natural resources that can't be replaced, no matter how much money one has. Large families take up more than their share of land fills, contribute more to pollution.

It's also presumptuous to believe one's genetics are so special we need more people with them in the world.

[RedTop]

My ancestry is primarily all big families, as in 10+.

[proudlyfromNJ]

Small. Have 3 siblings. Have 9 cousins. Mom had a brother and sister. Dad had a sister. Edited to add, I have no kids. Never wanted any.

[DrakesMomma]

I am one of 10.  I dislike it.  A lot.  Nothing ever belonged to me.  Even after I had a job and bought things with my own money.  As adults we are not close.  I am ok with that. 

I have one.    

[CANDLEQUEEN]

My Dad was the oldest of 8.

My Mom was an only child

My husband was in the middle of 9 children

I have 3 sisters and 1 brother

My husband and I have two daughters! I would have liked to have had 3, but satisfied with what I have!

I love big families, and on my dad's side we have family reunions quite often and they are so much fun!

[Porcelain]

When I hear of a family that large nowadays, I tend to assume it has to do with religious beliefs. It's not always that way, though.

Edited to add: Or very fruitful fertility treatments.

There are some large families that include a lot of adopted and foster children, which is wonderful.

[PreKteacher]

@occasionalrain 

Large families do not necessarily use more resources than small families. Some small families live in larger homes, drive more miles, fly more frequently, buy more goods, produce more trash, and do other things that cause more environmental damage than large families. 

[Starpolisher]

---

@occasionalrain wrote:

What I meant by more than their share was that they use more natural resources that can't be replaced, no matter how much money one has. Large families take up more than their share of land fills, contribute more to pollution.

It's also presumptuous to believe one's genetics are so special we need more people with them in the world.  

@occasionalrain

---

Sorry, I just can't resist!

Sounds a lot like what the rich do to me!

As far as having  "special genetics", I believe there was a leader in Germany that thought that way!