Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After our first two were born, we kind of went back and forth about whether or not we were done; we were leaning toward being done because we were worried about being able to adequately provide for that many kids. It's easy when their little and all they really need is food, clothing and love... but their needs get more expensive as they get older. Number three ended up being unplanned and at the worst possible time, but at the same time it felt like someone was "missing" from our family until he came along. One kid was easy, two was a bit of a challenge, but three is plenty for us.
We have 4 but groups of two with lots of spacing. Two are grown, two are in elementary. I thought I wanted 2-3 MORE kids...and sometimes I still get that ache. But I more then have my hands full with what I have. I don't think more then two little ones at a time could get enough attention from me. I don't know how people do it! I don't doubt they manage and maybe even very well. So beyond the practical means of finances, cars, etc...for me two is my max to be able to be emotionally present and stay sane and present in my own life.
My hubby is older so I don't think there will be another set of two in my future but I may foster once these little ones spread their wings.
I often wonder about people who have 4+ close together,must figure they have different internal resources (hopefully) then me. I think once you can't afford your brood, you are depending on older sibs for child care, or they are running wild or you have totally lost yourself and turned into a slave then you have crossed your personal line of what is too much
Last edited by HighFlyingBird; 06-12-2015 at 06:58 AM..
We adopted one. My family tree looks like a lodge pole pine
The rationale is that the child grew up surrounded by adults, acted accordingly, is excelling in all endeavors encountered, and will be a true asset to society. People need to realize that kids are really, really expensive (if they are talented, and want to reach their full potential). Large families mean that the children spend much time with others close or near to their age... little mental stimulation, but a great deal of (questionable) social stimulation. I have encountered a few young adults that have escaped the 'large family' environment, but personally, feel that it is a detriment to their upbringing (unless you are on a farm and need the hands to run it).
LOL! I wanted two, then I wanted another but DH said "one's not enough and two's too many". As the youngest was graduating from high school I thought about my friend with six, and wondered how she/they kept up interest in school activities. (# 5 and 6 were around my kids' ages.)
You know, there was a family in my hometown with 18. I was friends with one of the older ones; the oldest guy. That's not how they did it. I met this guy at work, plus we "hung out" after work.
He probably didn't do childcare because he was a guy ...talk to the older girls in the family and you'd likely hear a different story.
Even if a couple has the financial resources to support a large family (more than five or six children) in today's society I think it is a rare couple that can give the individual attention to each child that they need. When you have a very large family, like eight, ten or more children, often the parents rely on the older children to care for the younger children far more than is appropriate.
In the super large families, like the Duggers, the older children may devote hours a day to child care & child rearing responsibilities. IMHO, these hours would be better spend playing games, studying, having a hobby or doing other child or teen activities rather than doing their parent's jobs.
IMHO, for most middle class families it is difficult to raise and support more than two or three children, especially if you want to help them through college.
Just because that is how the Dugger family operates doesn't mean that is how all families do. I know plenty of families with 6+ kids and NONE of them rely on the older kids to take care of the younger kids on a regular basis. Sure, sometimes the older kids babysit if Mom and Dad go out, but in our family of 3 kids, we did that too. It's pretty normal. As for time to care for the children, sure they do. If you had 8 all at once that would be different, but a 10 year old doesn't need as much care from a parent and that parent can allocate time for each child pretty easily with naps for younger children, older children helping cook or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkmani
Too large is 6 kids...
Most mini-vans and large SUVs and crossovers have captain chairs. This usually means 2 in the second-row and 3 in the 3rd row. This is why I say you should stop at 5.
ETA: Two will be max for me because (in my opinion) the world was made for families of 4.
So get a 15 passenger van.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
He probably didn't do childcare because he was a guy ...talk to the older girls in the family and you'd likely hear a different story.
None of the females from large families I know had any real responsibilities for younger siblings.
As long as you can care for and support your own family, there really isn't a set number. Some people can't afford one child, others could support 20+.
In the past, many of our ancestors had really large families. Child mortality was high, so ensuring that at least a few of your children reached adulthood, was a priority.
In agrarian families, having many hands made work light. Even in city families with a family business or a shop - older children could be counted upon to help out - and eventually to take over the business.
Today, the utility of an uber large family is questionable, from my perspective.
Some of the people who are mentioning how wonderful it was for their grandparents or parents to have large families are forgetting the points that sheena brought up.
Yes, my father grew up in a family of 9 children, but it would have been 10 (maybe even 11, I'm not completely sure) as he had siblings who died as infants. They were a farming family and no one went to school beyond 8th grade. His sisters took full time jobs at age 14 working as housekeepers/babysitters/"paid girls" for other families while the boys either worked on their farm or on neighboring farms.
My mother's mother had 9 children but 2 died as toddlers and I believe that at least two more babies were stillborn. They were also a farm family where every child started working full time, either at home or elsewhere as soon as they graduated 8th grade. My mother was extremely bright and started 1st grade at 4 years old. That caused a big problem because when she graduated she was too young to leave home to get a full time job. They solved the problem by having her repeat 8th grade (actually she acted more like an unpaid teaching assistant rather than redo the coursework) and then she left home to work as a full time live-in housekeeper/"paid girl".
So, IMHO, it is not fair to compare the large families of the past with large families of today because of the very different circumstances.
The OP specifically asked for our opinions on what was too large of a family, for each one of us. Personally, I don't see this as an attack on larger families, but simply the individual opinions of the individual posters on what they, personally, see as "too large." Your response to the other posters struck me as a tad defensive. If your opinion is "there is no such thing as "too large," that's fine. But others of us may have other opinions.
You make um you pay for um. I always wanted to have 12 kids. My wife always wanted to have a large family. We had 6. I don't have any problem with that either way. I am happy that our kids are growing up. Happy to be long past the diaper age. Three of the kids are done with high school as of this week. Big party at our home tonight. Can't wait. I am expecting 300 people and bet more show up. Our kids are popular. LOL
The truth though at my age (50) I can't wait for the last one to graduate in 9 more years. Looking for some freedom and fun with my wife. LOL
There is "too large" for me, but I don't really care what works for others. If they can afford and handle it, so be it.
We have four, and are open to one more, but not for at least a couple years. I'll almost be finished with grad school by then.
ETA:
We are NOT quiverful or even Christian or theists, so desiring a large family has nothing to do with any "procreation" principle. My mom was one of five, father one of four and stepmom one of 15.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but I may foster once these little ones spread their wings. 
...talk to the older girls in the family and you'd likely hear a different story.
