U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-27-2021, 09:46 AM
 
10,263 posts, read 6,327,244 times
Reputation: 27048

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyWest View Post
Selfish and narcissistic, the world is over populated and there are already so many orphans waiting for a loving home. There is no excuse with birth control easily available.
Funny how the people who yap about parents of large families being selfish and all the waiting orphans never seem to adopt any orphans. I'll admit, I haven't adopted any orphans either. But the people I know who HAVE adopted orphans--and there are quite a few--either could not have biological children, or already had 3+ biological children. Some couples have very large families including adopted children, because they can handle it and have a "the more, the merrier" attitude.

The ones who are self-righteous about how restrained and responsible they were in not having more than their allotted 1.78 children don't seem to adopt orphans.

Last edited by saibot; 02-27-2021 at 10:18 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-27-2021, 10:19 AM
 
2,059 posts, read 581,940 times
Reputation: 1296
So now people who adopt orphans are better than people who don't?

I know some people who chose to have 1 or 2 kids for various reason. For some that was all they could have, for some that was all they could afford, some worried about the future and what if they lost their job, some simply wanted just 1 or two kids. It seems a heck of lot more responsible.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2021, 07:46 AM
 
26,919 posts, read 24,355,596 times
Reputation: 24895
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyWest View Post
Selfish and narcissistic, the world is over populated and there are already so many orphans waiting for a loving home. There is no excuse with birth control easily available.
Have you stopped to consider where these orphans come from?
Statistics indicate 60% are due to parents having their parental rights terminated.
I'd bet these arent all parents with 15 kids.
On top of the children in foster care ~10% of kids under 18 are living with grandparents. I'd bet these arent all parents with 15 kids.
So whats more selfish and narcissistic, having 15 kids raised to adulthood by two loving parents who provide financially, emotionally and spiritually or having just one or two kids with or without a partner being unable or unwilling to raise them in a stable home and leaving them for the state to care for.

This family doesn't need an excuse, they aren't harming anyone, especially their own children.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2021, 10:04 AM
 
2,059 posts, read 581,940 times
Reputation: 1296
Default re

They're just harming the planet.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2021, 11:18 AM
 
26,919 posts, read 24,355,596 times
Reputation: 24895
Quote:
Originally Posted by msRB311 View Post
They're just harming the planet.
As has been said, the few couples that have 15 kids or large families are offset by those who have 1 or no children, so no it is not harming the planet. As well, as has been brought up previously, the world population growth rate is declining, has been since the early 60's.

You know what else is harming the planet, consumption, consumerism, our need for disposable everything, unnecessary travel, deforestation. The list goes on and on. Maybe people shouldn't live so long. Our life expectancy has doubled from 300 years ago. In the US the number of people 65+ has grown 34% over the last decade.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2021, 11:42 AM
 
10,263 posts, read 6,327,244 times
Reputation: 27048
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
As has been said, the few couples that have 15 kids or large families are offset by those who have 1 or no children, so no it is not harming the planet. As well, as has been brought up previously, the world population growth rate is declining, has been since the early 60's.

You know what else is harming the planet, consumption, consumerism, our need for disposable everything, unnecessary travel, deforestation. The list goes on and on. Maybe people shouldn't live so long. Our life expectancy has doubled from 300 years ago. In the US the number of people 65+ has grown 34% over the last decade.
Indeed. I'll bet that one person leading an very extravagant lifestyle uses as many resources as a conscientious, frugal family of 15.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2021, 10:56 AM
 
2,059 posts, read 581,940 times
Reputation: 1296
This mom apparently got a lot of flock for having four kids:

https://crafty.diply.com/6483068/mom...6JauM2iOtZw34A
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2021, 03:59 PM
 
351 posts, read 75,752 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053 View Post
No, back in the day, families of 10+ were not common.

https://www.melinadruga.com/family-s...20and%20Canada.

Family Size in 1910
During the 19th century, most families had seven children, but by 1900, the average had dropped to 3.5, according to the CDC.

Artificial forms of birth control were available, and natural methods were well known, but the sale of birth-control devices and birth-control education were illegal in the U.S. and Canada.

So how did couples control family size if birth control was illegal? Couples had to obtain things like condoms and diaphragms illegally, often importing them from overseas.

https://qz.com/1099800/average-size-...o-the-present/

Family size in the US peaked between 1860 and 1920 because infant mortality rates were declining while large families were still valued, according to Northern Kentucky University sociologist Joan Ferrante’s 1992 book Sociology: A Global Perspective.

From 1920, large American families began to dwindle. Ferrante says that American women stopped having many kids at that point due to industrialization, which created work for women outside the home and transformed children into economic liabilities rather than assets; the more kids in a family, the harder it was for a mother to go out and work.

In post-industrial America, the public perception of women changed. They went from being perceived as gentle, sentimental, and intellectually inferior to men, to being recognized as legally equal humans just as capable of voting, working, and aspiring to greatness beyond the home. Now, like men, women are “sent out into the world” to “ask for its smiles and favors.” Since gaining the world’s favors isn’t easy, there’s less time for kids and families have dwindled.

Women, Ferrante writes, began to consider their personal advancement in a new society, and that of their children. They became more strategic about childbirth. “Not only did the number of children born in the average family decrease, but the average age at which women had their last child decreased,”says the sociologist. “The mother’s median age at the time of her last child’s birth was 40 in 1850; by 1940 it had fallen to 27.3.”

By the mid-20th century, families with only one or two kids were the norm. In 1980, less than 0.5% of all households had eight or more children; that category thus ceases to appear on our chart above. In 2000, the six-child household disappeared. Meanwhile, households with two kids grew increasingly popular from 1920 on and remain common.
You are ridiculous and pompous and wrong. Catholics and Mormons have extremely large families STILL because of religious beliefs. It is only very recently that numbers have dwindled -- in the last 20 years maybe.

Stop your nonsense.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2021, 04:02 PM
 
351 posts, read 75,752 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot View Post
Yes, they were common, compared to today. The average family did not have 10+ children, but large families were common.

By the way, I do not find your sources credible. Take, for example, this poorly written sentence from your first link:

"During the 19th century, most families had seven children."

Can it possibly be true that more than 50% of families during the 19th century had exactly seven children?

The correct statement is that the average number of children per woman was seven.

Today, the average number of children per woman is about two. But we also know that many women have only one child, or none, and therefore many others have more than two, in order for two to be the average.

Saying that the average number of children was seven means that many women must have had more than seven children: eight, nine, ten or more. Because there were also women who only had one, two, or three, and there were certainly women who remained unmarried or were unable to bear children.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-us-1800-2020/

Agreed. This person is always quoting uncredible sources.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2021, 04:18 PM
 
2,059 posts, read 581,940 times
Reputation: 1296
Im an Irish catholic living in the Boston area and I can tell you that it isn't the norm for Catholics to have loads of kids. My parents had two. My moms siblings had 2 each, my dads siblings had 3 each. Those kids have gone on to have two each. At one point Catholics had a lot of kids but so did everyone else.

Mormons do seem to have a lot of kids still today.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top