I just read this article on the "Quiverfull" movement where the idea is to have as many kids as possible and that "God is the only one who can open or close the womb". Some of these idiots have 12, 18 and 20 kids.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I'll just assume that everyone on this forum is intelligent enough to know the reasons why this is a really bad idea, such as our severely dwindling environmental resources, for one.

On a more mundane level, every time someone complains about a new development going up behind their house, or long lines at the supermarket, or horrible traffic, I feel like screaming "that's because people are having too many *bleeping* kids!

It makes me so mad that people are so dumb.

Not to mention the way having that many kids can affect your health. I don't want one, let alone 20.

weird religious people scare me

Up with the Childless Heathens!!

Maybe we should start a club?

:]

*childless heathen*

(for now)

I know it's a cliche, but I truly will never understand why anyone can have a child, but you need a license to drive a car. Hell, you need a license to catch a fish.

One of my grandmothers had a baby every two years for twenty years.

Sue

Mother of a childless heathen.

I hate it when you get asked all the time about when you will be having kids. And then when you tell people that you don't want them, they get all, "But EVERYONE should have kids! They're great!" and they give you weird looks. To be honest, I don't think I will ever have kids. I simply don't like them. I like babies, but I also love handing them back to their parents. I'll leave the kid duty to my brother, who actually seems to like them. I literally don't know what to do with them once they start walking and talking. I'd rather not be around them at that point.

*childless heathen*

(for now)

I know it's a cliche, but I truly will never understand why anyone can have a child, but you need a license to drive a car. Hell, you need a license to catch a fish.

Because catching fish and driving are privileges. The courts of the United States has pretty much decided that procreation is an inalienable right and protected constitutionally. Remember that the constitution says that not all of the rights people have are enumerated.

In all honesty I doubt the world will ever be able to reach zero or negative population growth. We may have a global meltdown and probably some horrible resource wars that will end civilization as we know it. On the other hand the other way to solve the problem is to get more space for people to breed by getting into space. There are pretty much unlimited resources to be had by all once you can actually get people to them.

As long as they are responsible for them - feed them, clothing them, providing medical care, etc - I don't see how it is anyone else's business. It is no less eco-friendly than driving huge SUVs and putting your sprinkler system on "auto", so that it comes on even when it's raining outside. Remember that in the days when it was common to have 10 children, there was about 1000 times less pollution. That's because there was no plastic to sit in landfills for 500 years before it decomposed, no Pampers, no Zip Lock bags - no disposable anything. It isn't the number of people on the planet who are destroying it, it's our lifestyle.

How many babies your neighbors are having CAN impact your finances and your children's education. We observed a new community that attracted young families with an average of four kids. Thing was, the tax structure was set up for families with two kids. If, in a development of 1000 new homes, you have 100 homes with two kids who are NOT factored into the property tax-school financing equation, you end up with 200 "extra" kids at your local school.

That can mean crowded classrooms, or supplemental taxes to provide more desks more books more teachers and even construction to build more rooms. Of course, a good number of these folks are off the radar screen in terms of religious beliefs, so they'll be heavy into home schooling and maybe their kids won't ever set foot on a public school site.

In another town where we used to live, there was a huge influx of immigrant families from Asia. They built bigger houses and had several generations in each home. The city began having sewer problems, that everybody paid to fix, because homes that previously had four people suddenly had seven...and they all flushed. (These were multi-generational flushes, not due to large numbers of kids...but the concept is the same.)

In another town where we used to live, there was a huge influx of immigrant families from Asia. They built bigger houses and had several generations in each home. The city began having sewer problems, that everybody paid to fix, because homes that previously had four people suddenly had seven...and they all flushed. (These were multi-generational flushes, not due to large numbers of kids...but the concept is the same.)

So....would you outlaw multi-generational living as well as large families? In my household there are four people. The oldest was born in 1920 - the youngest in 1992. Seems pretty harsh to put an 86 year old woman and a 14 year old out on the street because they flush more than the neighbors.

Yes....anything that skews the average can impact a lot of people, but this is AMERICA, where we deal with it. We don't legislate people into the norm. It's just not right. Same thing with eminent domain used to grab land to build shopping centers and athletic stadiums. It sucks!

I wouldn't OUTLAW any of it. I'm just challenging the "as long as they support their own" notion. This IS America, and we all share the burden, one way or another.

My only feeling is on wellfare. I think that people should only get money for up to 3 kids, after that they do not get a check for any more.

My only feeling is on wellfare. I think that people should only get money for up to 3 kids, after that they do not get a check for any more.

I don't know that we can "deprive" kids because they have irresponsible parents. Although, in the real world, many kids from larger families DO have fewer "THINGS" than kids from smaller families. And hand-me-downs used to be the norm.

But you know, everything is welfare, in one way or another. Imagine two small companies with 50 employees each. Let's assume that everything at the two firms is identical and the employees are essentially identical, except that at one firm there are a lot of Quiverfull people with six or eight kids each and that another firm there are none, so they have an average of two kids each. Guess which firm was able to negotiate a better deal with for group insurance.

Rates from year-to-year depend on previous years' coverage and claims. People with eight healthy kids STILL have four times as many office visits for camp physicals and immunizations as people with two healthy kids. And the potential liability for the insurance company increases with each additional family member.

I'm just saying, even with working parents, we ALL pay in some way for families that are larger.

My only feeling is on wellfare. I think that people should only get money for up to 3 kids, after that they do not get a check for any more.

The "welfare check" is pretty much a thing of the past.

From the Dept of Health and Human Services web site...

What is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (TANF)?

TANF is a block grant program to help move recipients into work and turn welfare into a program of temporary assistance. Under the welfare reform legislation of 1996, TANF replaced the old welfare programs known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program. The law ended federal entitlement to assistance and instead created TANF as a block grant that provides States and tribes federal funds each year. These funds cover benefits, administrative expenses, and services targeted to needy families.

Hey, Carlene...I'm not moving my mom in here even though she may be on some kind of welfare I'm not even aware of!!! (LOL) I mean BEYOND the obvious Social Security and Medicare stuff. (But not because of too many flushes...because she's, you know, my role model for "cranky.")

Her assisted living place was originally a joint venture between the company and the city and a community college (it was built on college land.) A certain number of the units in the buiding have sliding scale rent, based on income. Mom has been paying full freight becaue there were no low-income slots available when we felt she needed to move in, but someone is moving out so she is going to experience a rent reduction of between $500 and $1050 per month. Thing is, I don't know who is picking up the tab for the difference.

So, I'm going easy on welfare people this week! ;-D