Does having more than 2 kids.......

4 Feb 2009

Quote by SlurpySarah
"Does having more than 2 kids contribute to the decline of the planet environmentally?"
All humans contribute to the decline of the planet, no matter how environmentally concious they may be. What concerns me, is the cost to the country and the lack of social responsibility shown by or required of "habitual breeders". This article is taken from the Guardian in 2004.

Basically, it says that the cost of raising a child to the age of 21 in the UK has risen to £153,620.
£153 620!!!
And that was 5 years ago! How many people have suffered through lack of money to buy dialysis machines, cancer treatments, CTI scanners etc etc etc etc etc. But those who continually pump out multiple children don't care - someone else will pay for your kids, won't they? You won't have to worry about the financial costs, because someone else will. You don't have to worry about how many suffer through the lack of funds to the NHS, education etc. because someone else will, won't they?
In my opinion, 2 children should be the maximum and 1 child the optimum.

so what would happen in a case like mine I had one child and went for another, ended up naturally falling for twins, would you suggest terminating one at early pregnacy or both and start again?
Are twins common in your family group?
No I am the first known of.
If so, I think you were irresponsible in trying for more after your first child.
I tried for another for a mulitude of reason, I don't take having children as an irresponsible act, I have lost three children I know how precious life is. We pay our taxes to maintain the welfare system and give to such charities. Try telling the mums at great ormond street thats tough you have had your chances.
If not, well then mistakes happen - that's why pencils have erasers.
None of my children were mistakes I don't need a rubber to erase them.
Your extra children are causing suffering and death because of the money they cost. That's something you'll just have to live with. Bear it in mind next time you hear of any children suffering because of the lack of funds for essential services. Watch the Great Ormond Street Hospital charity advert and ask yourself the question - "why do we need a charity to look after our children?" .
Sorry you can not and will not make me feel guilty, as I have suffered great pain and sorrow over death of a child, I know from expierance what that feels like, and I have not hidden the fact on these forums if you read back you would have known.
You are intitled to you opinions but frankly I do not agree with you views.

4 Feb 2009

Quote by SlurpySarah
"Does having more than 2 kids contribute to the decline of the planet environmentally?"
All humans contribute to the decline of the planet, no matter how environmentally concious they may be. What concerns me, is the cost to the country and the lack of social responsibility shown by or required of "habitual breeders". This article is taken from the Guardian in 2004.

Basically, it says that the cost of raising a child to the age of 21 in the UK has risen to £153,620.
£153 620!!!
And that was 5 years ago! How many people have suffered through lack of money to buy dialysis machines, cancer treatments, CTI scanners etc etc etc etc etc. But those who continually pump out multiple children don't care - someone else will pay for your kids, won't they? You won't have to worry about the financial costs, because someone else will. You don't have to worry about how many suffer through the lack of funds to the NHS, education etc. because someone else will, won't they?
In my opinion, 2 children should be the maximum and 1 child the optimum.

so what would happen in a case like mine I had one child and went for another, ended up naturally falling for twins, would you suggest terminating one at early pregnacy or both and start again?
Are twins common in your family group? If so, I think you were irresponsible in trying for more after your first child. If not, well then mistakes happen - that's why pencils have erasers. Your extra children are causing suffering and death because of the money they cost. That's something you'll just have to live with. Bear it in mind next time you hear of any children suffering because of the lack of funds for essential services. Watch the Great Ormond Street Hospital charity advert and ask yourself the question - "why do we need a charity to look after our children?".
Sarah.....is this reply a joke?
It does not read very well!

4 Feb 2009

Quote by Lucyandmike7
"Does having more than 2 kids contribute to the decline of the planet environmentally?"
All humans contribute to the decline of the planet, no matter how environmentally concious they may be. What concerns me, is the cost to the country and the lack of social responsibility shown by or required of "habitual breeders". This article is taken from the Guardian in 2004.

Basically, it says that the cost of raising a child to the age of 21 in the UK has risen to £153,620.
£153 620!!!
And that was 5 years ago! How many people have suffered through lack of money to buy dialysis machines, cancer treatments, CTI scanners etc etc etc etc etc. But those who continually pump out multiple children don't care - someone else will pay for your kids, won't they? You won't have to worry about the financial costs, because someone else will. You don't have to worry about how many suffer through the lack of funds to the NHS, education etc. because someone else will, won't they?
In my opinion, 2 children should be the maximum and 1 child the optimum.

so what would happen in a case like mine I had one child and went for another, ended up naturally falling for twins, would you suggest terminating one at early pregnacy or both and start again?
Are twins common in your family group? If so, I think you were irresponsible in trying for more after your first child. If not, well then mistakes happen - that's why pencils have erasers. Your extra children are causing suffering and death because of the money they cost. That's something you'll just have to live with. Bear it in mind next time you hear of any children suffering because of the lack of funds for essential services. Watch the Great Ormond Street Hospital charity advert and ask yourself the question - "why do we need a charity to look after our children?".
Sarah.....is this reply a joke?
It does not read very well!
Lucy I would say some sick joke if is was, as not one part of it did I fine funny.
I am sure the parents at Great Ormond Street would not deny the happiness of others, I never never did when I lost mine.

4 Feb 2009

Quote by SlurpySarah
"Does having more than 2 kids contribute to the decline of the planet environmentally?"
All humans contribute to the decline of the planet, no matter how environmentally concious they may be. What concerns me, is the cost to the country and the lack of social responsibility shown by or required of "habitual breeders". This article is taken from the Guardian in 2004.

Basically, it says that the cost of raising a child to the age of 21 in the UK has risen to £153,620.
£153 620!!!
And that was 5 years ago! How many people have suffered through lack of money to buy dialysis machines, cancer treatments, CTI scanners etc etc etc etc etc. But those who continually pump out multiple children don't care - someone else will pay for your kids, won't they? You won't have to worry about the financial costs, because someone else will. You don't have to worry about how many suffer through the lack of funds to the NHS, education etc. because someone else will, won't they?
In my opinion, 2 children should be the maximum and 1 child the optimum.

so what would happen in a case like mine I had one child and went for another, ended up naturally falling for twins, would you suggest terminating one at early pregnacy or both and start again?
Are twins common in your family group? If so, I think you were irresponsible in trying for more after your first child. If not, well then mistakes happen - that's why pencils have erasers. Your extra children are causing suffering and death because of the money they cost. That's something you'll just have to live with. Bear it in mind next time you hear of any children suffering because of the lack of funds for essential services. Watch the Great Ormond Street Hospital charity advert and ask yourself the question - "why do we need a charity to look after our children?".
:shock: :shock:dear lord in heaven.....i am rarely shocked into commenting on someone elses opinion, as I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion....but in this instance I have been.
Our countries children are suffering from lack of funding because the Government spends a gazillion ponds on things like space travel, or paying £50 million to keep a raddled old peace of art in a stately mansion in this country, or commisioning research on how to make the perfect cup of tea, or how likely a piece of bread is to fall butter side down.
To blame it on anyone....much less actively look as though you are singling out someone, and accusing them having their children for causing death and suffering, is insensitive at the least and vitriloic in the extreme.

4 Feb 2009

Quote by SlurpySarah
"Does having more than 2 kids contribute to the decline of the planet environmentally?"
All humans contribute to the decline of the planet, no matter how environmentally concious they may be. What concerns me, is the cost to the country and the lack of social responsibility shown by or required of "habitual breeders". This article is taken from the Guardian in 2004.

Basically, it says that the cost of raising a child to the age of 21 in the UK has risen to £153,620.
£153 620!!!
And that was 5 years ago! How many people have suffered through lack of money to buy dialysis machines, cancer treatments, CTI scanners etc etc etc etc etc. But those who continually pump out multiple children don't care - someone else will pay for your kids, won't they? You won't have to worry about the financial costs, because someone else will. You don't have to worry about how many suffer through the lack of funds to the NHS, education etc. because someone else will, won't they?
In my opinion, 2 children should be the maximum and 1 child the optimum.

Firstly, the article you've linked is demonstrating how much parents spend on raising their children. I don't know about you, but if I didn't have children, I doubt my spare money would be spent on dialysis machines or CT scanners. Is yours?

Quote by SlurpySarah
Are twins common in your family group? If so, I think you were irresponsible in trying for more after your first child.

:shock: :shock: How's the weather up there in your ivory tower? Because it's bloody cold down here in the real world.

If not, well then mistakes happen - that's why pencils have erasers.

Again - :shock: :shock:

Your extra children are causing suffering and death because of the money they cost. That's something you'll just have to live with.

Seriously? This is your actual, real life view? Shame on you!!! I'm horrified that anyone would think like this, let alone come on to a public forum and say it to a mother. Disgusting! evil

Bear it in mind next time you hear of any children suffering because of the lack of funds for essential services. Watch the Great Ormond Street Hospital charity advert and ask yourself the question - "why do we need a charity to look after our children?".

I don't know what your situation is with regards to children Sarah, I've no idea whether you have them or not, but to try and blame the need for charities on parents of more than one child is absolutely disgraceful. I'm shocked that anyone truly feels the way you do, but more so by the fact that you've come in here and spouted this bile.

4 Feb 2009

Well I have read the contributions and I remain convinced that population control is key to ensuring a sustainable future for our children and theirs.
Feelings run high and I think Pottitt deserves praise for making sure the issue is discussed.
The media scare mongering is typical and once the report is published we will be able to see how it compares with the twaddle in the papers.

4 Feb 2009

goodness me, my word. Gosh !!!
wow... 'pencils have erasers'. Enlightened and sensitive. I LOVE posts like that.
I shall quickly go and send my surplus cash to Gt Ormond street right away, as I am sure those with less then two children do.

4 Feb 2009

Ahhh! Now I understand! It boils down to money!
Raising a child costs around £150,000 until they are 21. I would quote the exact figure again, but I read your post once and that was enough.
Currently we are facing a pensions shortfall of around £160bn. This is obviously due to too many children being born nowadays (despite the birth rate falling) and not due to people living longer and requiring more care and thus more money.
This is just pension money. This is not money for extra care, food, heating etc etc. So you can at least treble that figure for starter.
However you wish to cut the birth rate, thus depriving society of people who can contribute both in terms of financially (through taxes) and abilities (through education) to deal with this change in population? What abject rot.
I also find your comments about Minx utterly tasteless, insensitive, crass and not worthy of debate. I have yet to find the law that put you in charge of deciding what size family people should and should not have thus enabling you to make judgements as you did. However other posters on here have eruditely dissected those comments so I shall say no more.
You may feel having more than one child is irresponsible, I find such elitist nonsense as spouted in this thread at times equally objectionable, however I will not resort to personal insults and making rash judgements to try and justify any vapid, limp claims I seek to make.
Incidentally Ben, I think you are right. I think the population needs to be controlled. However it is the ways and means of doing this that were suggested in the original post that I took initial issue with. It is am emotive issue, however I feel it is unfair to label members of the site with any epithet because they don't fit in with your beliefs. To do so is offensive, hurtful, judgemental and hypocrisy of the highest order and totally ruins what was an interesting debate.
Back to the tits for me I'm afraid... It seems some people can only cope with one opinion on any given matter before insults start flying.

4 Feb 2009

Porritt is employed by the Government to advise on "green" issues.
Although I dont like the idea and I have no suggestions as to how it can be implemented: I do believe that population control is an important part of any sound strategy for dealing with the environmental challenges faced by human beings.
This seems to me to be case of somebody voicing some very unpopular opinions in spite of the inevitible criticism. Thats a brave thing to do and needs to be done.
Im sure the published report will be far less contentious than the current media speculation would have us believe.

4 Feb 2009

Some of the replies on this thread have been..........interesting...to say the least.
But, especially to Resonance, I asked in an earlier post, for people who disagree that there should be a limit on population increase.
What is your figure for the maximum population for this country?
John

4 Feb 2009

Quote by SlurpySarah
Are twins common in your family group? If so, I think you were irresponsible in trying for more after your first child. If not, well then mistakes happen - that's why pencils have erasers. Your extra children are causing suffering and death because of the money they cost. That's something you'll just have to live with. Bear it in mind next time you hear of any children suffering because of the lack of funds for essential services. Watch the Great Ormond Street Hospital charity advert and ask yourself the question - "why do we need a charity to look after our children?".

Perhaps you could provide us with factual reports or statistics that back this up?
Why do we need a charity to look after our children? Perhaps taking a look at the greed of medical manufacturing companies, pharmaceutical companies that charge extortionate amounts for their drugs ... (of course the cost reflects the amount of research and manufacturing needed to provide drugs that aren't needed by the masses).
It would be interesting to see the comparison between childless couples and those with two children. My assumptions would be that childless couples probably have more disposable income, both work so would need two cars, possibly have more holidays so actually pollute more in that sense, their pollution, is probably what causes more childhood diseases so maybe I should be blaming childless couples for our daughter having battled cancer for the most part her life!!!
Preposterous assumption to make in reality!
It's not the size of the family that is the problem tbh, it's greed. We all, whether we're child free or not to have simple, convenient lifestyles. Cars, big houses, more than one holiday (an mainly abroad), we want to fill our bins and not worry where it's being dumped, we change our carpets and furniture when we're bored now and not when it's no longer fit for purpose.
We want foods from foreign countries and can't be bothered to grow our own, imported goods that are cheaper and more throwaway. Increased packaging, transportation costs etc.
Disposable nappies, designed as an occasional product now seen to be the norm, cloth nappy users are in a minority and seen as "odd".
But of course, it's so easy as always to target part of society, instead of addressing the problem as a whole.

4 Feb 2009

Which of my 15 kids shall I sell then?? and to who??
Sorry I couldn't keep my legs shut but we had no TV please understand that.
said tongue firmly in cheek bolt

4 Feb 2009

Its very well saying population control is the answer to the worlds ills but it papers over the cracks of the real problem. And that is one of western consumption and the exporting of our environmental issues to the third world. By allowing the large companies to set up there and taking advantage of lax local environmental laws, we are adopting a "we are alright jack" stance and doubly so by suggesting population limits to third world countries. After all in Europe the population is falling so who else would this policy be aimed at??

Quote by benrums0n
Porritt is employed by the Government to advise on "green" issues.
Although I dont like the idea and I have no suggestions as to how it can be implemented: I do believe that population control is an important part of any sound strategy for dealing with the environmental challenges faced by human beings.
This seems to me to be case of somebody voicing some very unpopular opinions in spite of the inevitible criticism. Thats a brave thing to do and needs to be done.
Im sure the published report will be far less contentious than the current media speculation would have us believe.

4 Feb 2009

I've no idea John to be honest. I'm not being flippant here either, I genuinely don't know what is the right level of population for the UK. If I was to guess a number I would say probably around what we have now in an ideal world, but we are not in an ideal world. The population is going to grow and not because of more children.
Incidentally, I never said that population does not need to be controlled, I just disagree with this method of doing it.
You could argue some areas are overpopulated now, others are as empty as my head most days. I am thinking the likes of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, as opposed to the likes of Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Norfolk etc etc. Based on the latest UN figures we are 50th on a list of 238 countries for population density. Way behind the likes of Japan for example, which has a population double the size of the UK and still manages to feed its population and keep it in a lifestyle that the UN recognise as being better than here. And they have an ageing population too with life expectancy rates among the highest in the world and they are having to deal with the huge problems that this entails.

I think this backs up my claim that population growth is not being caused by more children though, it is by people living much longer. As despite a fall off in birth rates, the population of Japan has expanded and is continuing to do so. Almost a model for what Mr Porritt proposes for this countries future. So in effect, we can see that this has not worked at controlling the population. What it has done is make it older, more expensive, and less able to cope with the specific needs of the changing face of its people.
Something needs to be done, I will not argue with that, I am just arguing with this method.
I know it's a bit of a wishy washy answer, I wish there were an easier one I could give you, but I don't really deal in absolutes in situations such as this.
Thanks for the query

4 Feb 2009

I wish this thread had remained on topic.

4 Feb 2009

Quote by SlurpySarah
"Does having more than 2 kids contribute to the decline of the planet environmentally?"
All humans contribute to the decline of the planet, no matter how environmentally concious they may be. What concerns me, is the cost to the country and the lack of social responsibility shown by or required of "habitual breeders". This article is taken from the Guardian in 2004.

Basically, it says that the cost of raising a child to the age of 21 in the UK has risen to £153,620.
£153 620!!!
And that was 5 years ago! How many people have suffered through lack of money to buy dialysis machines, cancer treatments, CTI scanners etc etc etc etc etc. But those who continually pump out multiple children don't care - someone else will pay for your kids, won't they? You won't have to worry about the financial costs, because someone else will. You don't have to worry about how many suffer through the lack of funds to the NHS, education etc. because someone else will, won't they?
In my opinion, 2 children should be the maximum and 1 child the optimum.

so what would happen in a case like mine I had one child and went for another, ended up naturally falling for twins, would you suggest terminating one at early pregnacy or both and start again?
Are twins common in your family group? If so, I think you were irresponsible in trying for more after your first child. If not, well then mistakes happen - that's why pencils have erasers. Your extra children are causing suffering and death because of the money they cost. That's something you'll just have to live with. Bear it in mind next time you hear of any children suffering because of the lack of funds for essential services. Watch the Great Ormond Street Hospital charity advert and ask yourself the question- "why do we need a charity to look after our children?".
:shock: :gagged:
I think your comments are unjust, and unless you you have some evidence to back up your claims then you are talking utter bollox.
And as for "thats why pencils have erasers" WTF wow. You really are an endearing person.... rolleyes

4 Feb 2009

The following is gleaned from the web site of the organisation referred to in the original post. Doesnt seem particularly extremist to me.
Global population policy
# AIM To reduce projected population growth of 2.4 billion by 2050 by at least 1.4 billion - to reach no more than 7.8 billion by 2050 instead of 9.2 billion.
# Every country should have a population policy that is environmentally sustainable for its own citizens and for citizens of the world as whole.
# An international protocol should be agreed which commits all nations to achieving environmentally sustainable population levels by peaceful and democratic means.
# Every country should act urgently to make family planning services easily accessible to all men and women.
# Every country should act urgently to improve women's rights and education, including removing barriers to women's control over their own fertility.
# Every country should encourage parents to voluntarily "stop at two" children.
# Every country should ensure that its own population has full access to employment, and that older people are enabled to extend their working lives.
# Every country should put its population policy into action alongside environmental policies to curb emissions and reduce consumption and resource depletion, to ensure global environmental survival.

4 Feb 2009

Quote by benrums0n
I wish this thread had remained on topic.

Ben........do they ever?????
Not if slightly contraversial!!!