Isn't it irresponsible to have a large family because..

(***the following are questions and answers from LotsofKids.com, and I thought they were excellent information to those questioning my choice to have lots of kids.***)


...no one could possibly care for that many kids?

They can and they do. Quite well, too. Now, it does take some work, and wouldn't be considered the easiest job, but it's certainly not an impossibility. Feeding a crew simply means making more food and setting out more plates. Bath time just takes a bit longer and is in shifts. Reading a story to a group of your children is just as easy as reading it to one. Sure, you have less time to devote to each one daily, but you find quality time, and your children learn how to deal with less serious matters by themselves. While there may be a limit on time, despite misconceptions, there is not a limit on love. There are enough hugs for everyone.

There are many parents with 2 kids who have a hard time keeping up and caring for their children. In many ways it really isn't about how many kids you have, but how you parent, how you organize your time, and other factors. Another thing to consider is that large families were not uncommon 50 years ago. 50 years ago they had t.v., had telephones, and lived life very much like we do now. It was possible for people to care for 12 kids back then. With our advances and technology, theorhetically, it should be easier now. Of course, things moved at a slower pace back then, but that really doesn't change the fact that from a physical point of view, humans are very capable of caring for many young.


...they are a drain on society and the government?

There is a grave misconception that large families sit on welfare rolls, shelling out children to get more money. This is far from the truth. Large families are just like small families. True, there are some large families who receive government assistance, just like there are small families who are on welfare. For the vast majority, that is not the case. Large families have working parents, contribute to charity, and purchase goods with their own money. In fact, most large families are very efficient, and due to lack of support from society, tend to take on and do more for themselves. In general, they tend to ask for help less often.

That said, there is nothing inherently wrong if a large family is forced to go onto welfare for a while. Good people have found themselves in a position where they have needed to depend on assistance in order to get back on their feet. Just because a family has lots of children does not mean they are less entitled to this. It is unfair to view a small family that needs assistance as warranting compassion and pity, whereas if a large family goes on welfare it is presumed they caused their own problems and are sucking off the system. Unemployment and hard times can hit anyone, regardless of family size.


...the world is overpopulated and you are worsening the problem.

This is actually a myth. Many countries are struggling with a shortage of births and are offering incentives for people to have children. Granted, the United States is not in this situation...yet. Currently, we are at 0 population growth, meaning we are having enough births to replace those dying. However, birthrates have been declining for years, so it is conceivable that we will be in the negative birthrate soon and will be faced with problems in a few generations where there will not be enough young people to care for and support the elderly. This is not even to mention the problems it will cause for the already struggling U.S. Social Security system, which depends on the young paying in to support the benefits for the old. For some actual statistics on this issue, and to refute the idea large families are a serious threat to overall population, check out this LOK article.


...you are a drain on natural resources?

There is a strong argument that the greatest natural resource is the human mind. Many of the apparent shortages of the past were dealt with and eliminated by the advancement of technology, as individuals tackled and created solutions to looming problems. Large families simply expand on what every parent hopes and dreams for: that our children will contribute and help make the world a better place. It's much easier for a group of people to tackle a project than one person alone. Having lots of children gives the world a bigger pool of knowledge to help address those issues.

From a more immediate viewpoint, charging that large families are a drain is again a misconception. Most large families are very frugal. There is little waste, simply because less has to go a longer way. Food has to be stretched farther. Clothing is usually recycled through several children. Many cannot simply afford to use paper products, and thus cloth-diaper, use real napkins, etc. Some even supplement by growing their own food. If you were to compile 2 separate families of 4 and compare them with a single family of 8, in many cases you'd be surprised just how much less the family of 8 consumes as opposed to the 2 smaller families.

...because people should be in charge of their reproductive systems?

In an age where choice is touted, this question is one of the most curious. It is also one of the most presumptuous. Being in charge of your fertility is not exclusive to using artificial birth control. Many large families use one means or another to space pregnancies. Having a large family is a well-discussed, planned, and conscious choice, not simply a lack or failure of birth control. While it is true that some families do not do anything to impede fertility, there are many who use fertility charting and natural family planning, as well as those who use artificial means like the Pill or condoms. There are also parents who have taken measures to permanently prevent future pregnancies, but only after having made the choice to have 6 (or even 10) children. To say that most large families are not in charge of their fertility, and suggest that large families are the result of a series of unplanned pregnancies, is totally untrue and unfair. If one truly prides themselves on choice and freedom, it is absurd to criticize one for exercising their right and choice not to limit their family size.

...your children will not receive the attention they need from you, and they will be neglected?

The term neglected is pretty harsh. It is true that children in large families oftentimes do not get the one-on-one time their small family counterparts do. That hardly means they are being neglected. Again, this is yet another issue that is attached to large families, when it is actually an individual problem. Having a small family does not guarantee success. There are many parents who brag about how they provide for their children, yet in the pursuit of career and wealth, spend little time with their kids. From the outside, it may appear that that child and his one sibling are in a perfectly size family, yet the reality is they are receiving less attention than a child in a large family.

Another aspect that has to be considered is that not all attention need come from a parent. Certainly, a mother and father need to be involved and interactive with their children, but siblings play a big part in a large family dynamic. In fact, there are times when our own children do not want us around and would rather be with their sisters and brothers. The majority of children in large families are provided with loving homes, their basic needs, and parents who make every effort to spend time with them, even if it's not as much as a child in a small family would get. Children in large families learn that everything has value, including time, and they get a sense of how truly special it is when their parents take that time to spend with them.


Do you really think it's wrong that I limit my family size so I can give my children nice things?

There is nothing wrong with giving your children nice things. Though, it has been documented that overindulging your children could have negative affects on them. That said, I'm assuming you're a conscientious parent and don't do that. So, from a purely straightforward standpoint, no, you have the right to limit your family for whatever reason you feel fit. The problem is when people criticize large families because they do not feel material things are as important. There is the misguided belief that a child who has more stuff is happier and more well-adjusted. That is just not true. If you feel its best that your children have the best of everything, while I may not agree with that, I accept that as your decision.


I understand not overindulging your kids, but isn't it wrong to deprive them of some fun and things that normal children should have?

I am continually amazed by how much most large families are able to provide their children with. Video games, toys, nice clothing, outings, vacations, and more. The difference is, most large families view these luxuries as extras. Giving your children toys to play with is something all parents feel is important, but does a child truly need a whole room full? Do they honestly need so many clothes that they grow out of some before wearing them? Isn't it true that in many ways, camping can be just as exciting as spending a week in a nice hotel?

One of the points of contention between large and small families is what constitutes an adequate lifestyle. For one person, having their own room filled with video games, electronic equipment, and toys is a child's right. Others feel that providing food, shelter, comfort, emotional support, and an abundance of love is all that a child truly needs, with the rest being optional.

It is a proven fact that children who are given everything they want, without limitations, have a very difficult time in life. It is not wrong to want to give your children nice things, but many large families understand that not everything that is beneficial costs money. Having siblings to play with and form relationships with is a very important thing. Teaching a child that things cost money and need to be earned helps build their character and integrity. I do not think most large families feel their kids should do without fun stuff. They are simply more aware that when child has to do without a luxury, they learn to appreciate what they have a bit more.


So, you think it's okay that people have a lot of kids when they can't afford or don't have the time to take care of them?

Again, this is an issue that is directed at and made to look like a large family issue when it's more of a general question. It is not our place to judge who is fit or unfit to have a family. However, having children is definitely an important thing and one that should not be taken lightly. It is certainly adviseable that if a family truly cannot care for more children that they consider holding off on becoming pregnant. On the other hand, financial situations, such as most things in life, are subject to change. It is wrong to say a family should never have more children just because they can't afford it now. Just as it is equally wrong to judge someone as irresponsible for having a large family when in the past they did have adequate means, but perhaps suffered a job loss or other tragedy that put them in an adverse position.

All families, irregardless of size, should be mindful of their limitations when adding a family member. But, again, not being able to afford a child is subjective. Feeding, clothing, educating, and providing adequate love for a child is really all that is necessary. Many people would be amazed how affordable raising a large family can be if they looked at it from what is needed, as opposed to the wants and luxuries which can be costly but are not required to raise children.